no time for chickens

[solarbird]

No time for posts right now, but I just have to say this is the fakest fucking rally I've ever seen. Except for timing (it's totally overdue) this doesn't even make sense as a snapback/relief rally. It's all AM pump on low volume even as bonds also rise and decay ever since. Combined with all the interesting fake futures orders overnight, I'd guess someone big is trying to jumpstart a snapback rally, but that's a guess.

By the way, market manipulation is illegal. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Comments

Econ, but half not this post

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

You probably have posted on this before, but what did you think of Krugman's "stock market head and shoulders = historical sign of depression" and other recent "we are fucked and fucking ourselves worse every chance we get" column(s)?

And I think I knew it at one point, but I've forgotten. When we lose jobs but the unemployment rate goes down whilst the population is increasing, is this because . . .

(1) Supposedly vast hordes of people quit looking for work (forgetting the stupidity of that method of counting, since nearly all of them still want work and would have a job if they knew where to find it)

or

(2) They quit counting people who have been unemployed so long they can't keep getting benefits (which is a really, really really stupid measure, if so)

or

(3) Both

Re: Econ, but half not this post

[solarbird]

In terms of the headline (U-3) number, it's both. If seasonal adjustment is involved, that can also be a factor because of the number of people who genuinely do only work seasonally. In the case of case 1, the reason they aren't counted is that there is a presumption that if they couldn't have support from somewhere, no amount of discouragement would stop them from looking. In the case of case 2, the rationale is that a) normally this doesn't happen and b) the U-3 is a higher-confidence number than the U-4/U-6 because UI recipients are actually and specifically counted, as opposed to those no longer actually and specifically counted. The birth/death model makes a mockery of this, but.

Re: Econ, but half not this post

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Got it. Thanks.

(and I'm assuming there's no need to go into the various reasons why I think those rationales are wrongheaded? I started to and then figured there was a 100% certainty you'd already thought of all this)