Friday, October 03, 2003
Yeah, we'll see. This wouldn't be the first time things have looked up only to go downhill once again.
Also, can someone explain the following quote:
"Good news is when we get gains of 100,000 or 200,000 -- [September's] number could very easily be revised to negative 57,000."
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN!?!?!. How in the hell does a positive increase of 57,000 become a decrease of 57,000? I do not understand their math, mainly because it isn't math - it's just bullshit. Either 57,000 jobs were added or they weren't - how the fuck can that fact be "revised" so heavily? I take it that the 57K is not an absolute number, and is somehow relative. Otherwise, 57,000 could not become -57,000 based on what happens in other months. Or do they commonly go back and check their work, realizing they forgot to propagate a negative sign? I submit that these numbers, and any other numbers we get from analysts and economists, are total fucking nonsense. They don't even deserve partial credit for this crap.
Also, can someone explain the following quote:
"Good news is when we get gains of 100,000 or 200,000 -- [September's] number could very easily be revised to negative 57,000."
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN!?!?!. How in the hell does a positive increase of 57,000 become a decrease of 57,000? I do not understand their math, mainly because it isn't math - it's just bullshit. Either 57,000 jobs were added or they weren't - how the fuck can that fact be "revised" so heavily? I take it that the 57K is not an absolute number, and is somehow relative. Otherwise, 57,000 could not become -57,000 based on what happens in other months. Or do they commonly go back and check their work, realizing they forgot to propagate a negative sign? I submit that these numbers, and any other numbers we get from analysts and economists, are total fucking nonsense. They don't even deserve partial credit for this crap.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment