See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #401
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 am, WarEagle82 said:

   Oh, and I’d love to hear what “people” said about you in November 2006. I take it “Corkie” is as well known as Mr. Roubini. Or does he come to you for advice?

   I am sure you are world famous in your own mind but clearly that is an extremely small and cramped space.

   My prediction for 2010 is that when asked about “Corkie” people all over the world will respond with, “Who?”

   On February 3rd, 2010 at 9:24 am, corkie said:

   On February 3rd, 2010 at 9:08 am, WarEagle82 said:

   You are too stupid to know how stupid your prognostications are.

   People said that about me in November 2006, too. But then it was for the opposite reason.

   What’s your prediction?

2. #402
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 2:21 pm, corkie said:

   Yawn.

   Why would I have to be well know for people to say things to me? And I’m sure nobody outside this website will know who Corkie is. Why would they?

   Now, what’s your prediction? Put up or shut up.

3. #403
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Corkster,

   I predict that your prognostications will be wrong unless you predict that your prognostications will be in error, in which case, you would be correct by correctly predicting your failure to predict accurately. That would make you a “Type A” lunatic rather than a “Type B” lunatic…

   But I have you down for 8% unemployment by November 2010 with 4% real GDP throughout the calendar year. Should I put you down for a cool nickel or just a plugged nickel?

4. #404
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 5:21 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   This just in on unemployment numbers. Surprise, surprise! The government model for “predicting” unemployment is evidently terribly flawed! Hold on to your hats but Government statistics may not be as accurate as you thought!

   Take a look here: http://www.bloomberg.com/insight/birth-death-model.html and here: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/824000-will-disappear-on-february-5-bls.html

   The unemployment numbers have been understated by 824,000 jobs between April 2008 and March 2009!

   Oh, yeah, the government told us they know about the flaw in the model but they aren’t going to bother to fix it…

   This should be them money quote but don’t count on the MSM to pick this up…

   The labor department says there are flaws in its model but defends the process and says “no changes to the current modeling technique are scheduled at this time.” Please note that the birth death model has added 990,000 jobs since April. Those jobs are not reflected in the upcoming 824,000 revision.

   In other words, the current BLS numbers may be under-reporting unemployment by 1,830,000 jobs! If you thought unemployment was ~10% you were wrong. Because the BLS can’t do its job. Is that BLS or just BS???

5. #405
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 5:25 pm, corkie said:

   4% real GDP throughout the calendar year.

   You really are retarded.

   4% growth prior to the election. 5.3% for the calendar year. Why can’t you get that straight?

   Don’t bother giving me a forecast. I know you’re not smart enough to provide one.

6. #406
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Corkie,

   Can you be less pathetic? (That’s a rhetorical question. You don’t have to answer it.) If you have 4% reported through the each quarter of the calendar year then you have an annual growth of 5.3%. (I haven’t run the numbers but I’ll just say “what the heck” and take your word for it). That would be 4% through the calendar year. Can’t you get that straight.

   And oh, yes, the BLS just admitted the unemployment numbers will increase by 840,000 based on errors the BLS “discovered” in their model. And the BLS has not even announced plans to correct for 990,000 over-counted jobs they admit they have introduced since April 2009. It looks like they won’t correct that error until Feb 2011.

   Still think unemployment is going to be 8% by November? Seriously…

   This is one reason you can’t give a meaningful prognostication. You don’t know how many people are currently unemployed! But you are too stupid to know it! But we all know it…

7. #407
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 7:02 pm, corkie said:

   On February 3rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   If you have 4% reported through the each quarter of the calendar year then you have an annual growth of 5.3%. That would be 4% through the calendar year.

   You really are retarded.

   There’s 9 months between now and the election.

   Still think unemployment is going to be 8% by November

   Yes, correcting for any gapped uptick in the data.

   Keep in mind, the bar chart looks as though the majority of any error which might be included in the data occurred during Bush’s term. That might not count against the democrats.

8. #408
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 7:53 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   Holy, Cow! So on Friday, the BLS is going to report a correction to unemployment and tell us it is somewhere well north of 10%. Maybe as high as 10.5%.

   But you still believe it is going to fall back to 8% by November with a 4% quarterly real growth in GDP during the 9 months between now and the election date? Never mind a quarterly GDP increase of 4% CAN’T reduce unemployment by 2% in a year, much less 9 months! You just don’t get it. You don’t know the economic principle involved. The math won’t work with your numbers and you just can’t figure that out.

   And never mind the BLS’s own numbers still contain 990,000 more “fake jobs” which is yet another 1/2% of unemployment hidden from the numbers. Of course, that won’t come out until after any elections.

   And let’s not even discuss where you pull this mythical 4% real GDP growth figure from! You are must making stuff up and it is incredibly obvious to anyone looking at your posts! Did you even review the latest GDP numbers for December 2009? We will be lucky to see 2% real GDP growth! In fact, real GDP is very likely to decline in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the year.

   Pulling numbers out of think air doesn’t make you an economist. It makes you a DEMOCRAT! You are delusional!

9. #409
   On February 3rd, 2010 at 8:16 pm, WarEagle82 said:

   The CBO is projecting a real GDP growth of 1.5% in calendar year 2010. ConcensusEconomics.com says it will be 2%. The Obama’s OMB appears to predict ~1% real GDP growth for 2010. Corkie says the annual rate will be 5.3%.

   Anybody still buying what “Der Corksmeister” is selling?

10. #410
    On February 3rd, 2010 at 8:28 pm, corkie said:

    In fact, real GDP is very likely to decline in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the year.

    Thanks for finally providing your forecast!!!!!!

    See, that wasn’t so difficult.

    What are you basing your forecast on?

    The CBO is projecting a real GDP growth of 1.5% in calendar year 2010.

    Ha ha ha ha ha. The CBO???? Are you seriously using that as any type of credible number?

    Never mind a quarterly GDP increase of 4% CAN’T reduce unemployment by 2% in a year, much less 9 months!

    I guess I can finally clue you in some more. Don’t forget about the number of people that will dropped from being counted as unemployed.

    you still believe it is going to fall back to 8% by November

    Yes, adjusted for any gap corrections in past data.

11. #411
    On February 4th, 2010 at 12:32 am, WarEagle82 said:

    Corkster,

    You just aren’t reading the news. The BLS stated that corrections in unemployment data are coming. BUT THE CORRECTIONS WILL INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THE FORMULA USED BY BLS IS FLAWED AND HAS UNDER-COUNTED UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS! BY STAGGERING NUMBERS. Watch what happens on Friday! You obviously aren’t paying attention to the news!

    So your “surprise” is that the BLS is hoping for people to drop off the rolls? Good plan Corkie, but they do keep track of employed, unemployed and “not in the labor force.” If that last number spikes by 3 million at least a few folks will notice.

    And if more people aren’t put back to work, who is going to produce that real growth in GDP each quarter? Is all 4% real GDP growth going to come from productivity gains from the 90% of the civilian labor force that is employed? You are utterly confused about how this works!

    Since you obviously can’t do the math, and have never heard of the theory I was referring to let’s look at this problem using very simple arithmetic. I’ll type very slowly so you can keep up.

    Every 1% of unemployment equals about 1,500,000 people since the civilian labor force is about 153,000,000 people. (Yes, I am rounding just a bit but it won’t matter in this really simply exercise.) For unemployment to drop by 2% between February and October (that’s the months between now and the election) or nine (9) months, about 3,000,000 people would have to move off the unemployed rolls during that time. With me so far? Try to keep up.

    Now, 3,000,000 divided by 9 equals 333,333. This means 333,333 people need to find jobs, or give up looking for employment, every month for the next 9 months to reach your mythical 8% unemployment figure.

    Corkie, are 333,333 people going to find jobs in February? How about March? April? Your “recovery” is starting to run out of time.

    Frankly, February probably won’t be much better than January but let’s join your fantasy world. But let’s say 100,000 people find work in February. And in March 125,000 find jobs. And in April 150,000 find jobs. And in May yet another 195,000 find jobs. And June is even better with 245,000 new jobs. Does that sound good or what?

    Well, that is about 815,000 new jobs or just over 1/2 of 1 percent of the labor force. But you have used up five (5) of your months. That means to get to your mythical 3,000,000 new jobs by November your mythical economy is going to have to create 2,185,000 jobs in July, August, September and October! That works out to 545,000 jobs every month for those last 4 months of the year. Are you starting to see a problem yet?

    I have provided forecasts from about a half dozen, widely varied sources. And you claim all those sources are wrong. Yet you have provided not a single sources other than “Der CorkMeister” and claim you are virtually omniscient in your prognosticative (yeah, it’s a word) abilities.

    Theoretically, you could be some unknown economic genius though you certainly haven’t demonstrated that here up to this point. And it is theoretically possible that dragons will sweep out of the heavens and consume mankind in some Wagnerian Gotterdammerung. But I wouldn’t bet on that either. Occam’s Razor would indicate that you are wrong.

    The lack of understanding of economic principles and the relationship between GDP and unemployment you have shown is complete and staggering.

    It’s been instructive but I grow weary of your philistine pig ignorance. Learn something about economics, grow up and then let me know when you have matured to the level of a 10 year old.

12. #412
    On February 4th, 2010 at 9:32 am, corkie said:

    you claim all those sources are wrong

    Yes, they are.

    you could be some unknown economic genius

    You’re starting to understand now.

    Ya know, for someone that doesn’t believe me you sure are freaking out about me being right.

    If you’re so confident, then sit back and watch what happens.

    Here is the only forecast you made:

    real GDP is very likely to decline in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the year.

    We’ll see how that works out for you, but again, it’s nothing to stress about.

    We will see.

13. #413
    On February 4th, 2010 at 10:38 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    delusional

    de⋅lu⋅sion
      /dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-loo-zhuhn]
    –noun
    1. an act or instance of deluding.
    2. the state of being deluded.
    3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
    4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

    Origin:
    1375–1425; late ME < L dēlūsiōn- (s. of dēlūsiō), equiv. to dēlūs(us) (ptp. of dēlūdere; see delude ) + -iōn- -ion

14. #414
    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:01 am, corkie said:

    There’s nothing false about my grandeur.

    Thanks for putting your complete disagreement with my prediction in writing.

15. #415
    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am, chapoutier said:

    Hey, unemployment rate dropped .3% in just a month.

    I think this is the subtelty WarEagle missed that you were trying to clue him in on.

    The drop in the unemployment rate came as 430,000 fewer Americans described themselves as unemployed. The ratio of people with jobs to the population edged up, to 58.4 percent, from 58.2 percent. That is good news, though many economists expect the jobless rate to creep higher in the months ahead as workers who had given up looking for a job out of frustration return to the labor force.

    Jobless rate not the same as unemployed, right?

16. #416
    On February 5th, 2010 at 11:44 am, WarEagle82 said:

    The numbers were released this morning and I suspect people will be discussing these numbers until the day before the next set of numbers is released.

    Unemployment Data: A Closer Look at the Discrepancies
    February 05, 2010
    By Bryan McCormick

    As the markets grapple with today’s Employment Situation Report data, one item to note is a discrepancy involving the so-called headline unemployment rate.

    On a seasonally adjusted basis, there was a large drop in the rate to to 9.7 percent. However, on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, it rose to 10.6 percent.

    It may take a while for others to fully digest the very wide divergence between the data sets. How that gets traded is not so easy to decipher, but it is worth knowing.

    In the official breakdown released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the line to look at is U3, January 2010, to compare apples to apples. That is the number reported as the “headline” unemployment rate.

    Link here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/186953-unemployment-data-a-closer-look-at-the-discrepancies

    U-3 in the link from the article is the official, seasonally adjusted number that BLS reported today. U-6 is the “real unemployed” number that is often mentioned on talk radio.

    Another interesting link here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Payrolls-fall-in-January-rb-514835788.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

    More analysis here: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/weekly-unemployment-claims-jump-obamas.html

17. #417
    On February 5th, 2010 at 3:30 pm, corkie said:

    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:57 am, chapoutier said:

    I think this is the subtelty WarEagle missed that you were trying to clue him in on.

    Yup.

18. #418
    On February 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Yeah, subtle, right. Never mind it makes no sense and that I said so.

    So your “surprise” is that the BLS is hoping for people to drop off the rolls? Good plan Corkie, but they do keep track of employed, unemployed and “not in the labor force.” If that last number spikes by 3 million at least a few folks will notice.

    And never mind that if this “accounting trick” is what Obama and Corkie are counting to lower the unemployment rate to 8% that it makes Corkie’s nonsensical prediction of sustained 4% real gdp growth on a quarterly basis even more improbable. Large growth in real GDP only results from people going back to work. If the unemployed are simply dropped off the unemployment rolls rather than finding employment that tends to decrease GDP.

    And “Der Corkmeister,” if you want to quote me, why don’t you actually quote what I said instead of what you want to pretend I said.

    On February 3rd, 2010 at 7:53 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    We will be lucky to see 2% real GDP growth! In fact, real GDP is very likely to decline in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the year.

    But time will tell….

19. #419
    On February 5th, 2010 at 5:59 pm, corkie said:

    On February 5th, 2010 at 4:09 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Yeah, subtle, right. Never mind it makes no sense and that I said so.

    OK, WarEagle82. Whatever you say.

    If the unemployed are simply dropped off the unemployment rolls rather than finding employment that tends to decrease GDP.

    Check the data of your sources regarding what tends to happen. Do you see any outliers.

20. #420
    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:39 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Actually, “Der Corkster,” I am done quoting sources. You pull stuff out of thin air and call it “genius” but that really is about as sophomoric as it comes…

    “Corkie-nomics” seems to be some silly combination of “conspiracy theory” and a”dog and pony show” at this point. Show me the sources and data, Corkster.

    I’ll be waiting for you to point out some “outliers” since all the various and diverse sources I have referenced are “unacceptable” to you even though you have offered no sources of your own. I suspect that is because you have none…

21. #421
    On February 6th, 2010 at 2:58 pm, corkie said:

    I am done quoting sources.

    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:39 pm, WarEagle82

    I didn’t ask you to quote sources. I told you to check your sources.

    On February 5th, 2010 at 5:59 pm, corkie said:

    Check the data of your sources regarding what tends to happen. Do you see any outliers.

    I’ll be waiting for you to point out some “outliers”

    Don’t be an idiot. I don’t need to point out outliers.

    The relationships between unemployment and GDP that you are so in love with are freaking AVERAGE results of regressions of past history. Extreme conditions cause outliers.

    In case you haven’t noticed, we’re in the midst of some extreme conditions. Outlying data should be expected. It’s stupid to assume we’re in an average situation which is likely to produce average results.

22. #422
    On February 7th, 2010 at 11:53 am, corkie said:

    On February 5th, 2010 at 9:39 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    You pull stuff out of thin air and call it “genius” but that really is about as sophomoric as it comes…

    Everything I say is genius.