Is Jack Welch A Lunatic?

hgc said:
What facts and figures did he cite to back up this:
Click to expand...

There was that time when he was asked for the facts in an interview. He must have presented all the hard facts to shut everyone up then, right?


Right?
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack Welch is no incompetent, but a super successful businessman who can smell a fraud and cites facts and figures to back it up:

"The economy would need to be growing at breakneck speed for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% in the course of two months..."

"...Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July."

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery."

"These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%."

Rush Limbaugh predicted this would happen a year ago, based on the fact that no President had ever been re-elected with an 8 % unemployment rate. Thus the was Liar-in-Chief's solution to simply cook the BLS stats?

Utterly predictable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8046260406091012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I didn't realize this section was actually Conspiracy Theories and not USA Politics. Someone get those 9/11 conspiracy threads moved here pronto!
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack Welch is no incompetent, but a super successful businessman who can smell a fraud and cites facts and figures to back it up
Click to expand...
The "fraud" is his image looking back at him in the teevee monitors. "Sharp businessmen" do not go on Twitter and spout wild-eyed conspiracy theories about the President. This is not about disagreement with the numbers. It is about rooting for bad news so his guy can win, and going berserk when it is good news instead.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/baker-welch-unemployment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

The other problem with Welch's charge is that he obviously has no knowledge of the unemployment series itself. In fact, it is common for the numbers to jump around. He found it incredible that the unemployment rate fell by 0.5 percentage points over two months when the economy appears to be growing slowly.

How about when it fell by 0.7 percentage points from November 2010 to January 2011, when growth was also very weak? Was this political manipulation of the data? On the other side, the unemployment rate jumped by 0.2 percentage points in the summer of 1996, when the economy was growing at a 7.1% annual rate.
Click to expand...
I gotta go with "Jack don't know jack" on this one. They've been pointing out that this number, along with various others, are not perfect indicators of the economy for years. It's one measurement among many.

The whole "magical thinking" going along with 8% somehow being a mystical number of importance is laughable, and the post ergo reasoning absurd.
 
Robert Prey said:
Jack Welch is no incompetent, but a super successful businessman who can smell a fraud and cites facts and figures to back it up:
Click to expand...
No he doesn't. In fact, he stated that he had "no evidence" that the numbers were cooked. He, himself, said that. I wonder why you would contradict the very guy you are quoting. Doing so kinda makes you look silly (again).
 
SezMe said:
No he doesn't. In fact, he stated that he had "no evidence" that the numbers were cooked. He, himself, said that. I wonder why you would contradict the very guy you are quoting. Doing so kinda makes you look silly (again).
Click to expand...

Can you distinguish between the words and the numbers in his quote????

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%."

Besides all that, it now appears a good part of the reason for the cooked statistics is the fact that California -- the 8th largest economy in the world, simply may not have reported their unemployment numbers according to Henry Blodget of Business Insider who claims sources within the BLS.
 
Prey tell, is it a truth or falsehood that the "Chicago guys...change(d) the numbers"? This is the accusation that he stands by, and admits there's no evidence. I guess there's a cover-up then? Paranoid delusional nutcase.
 
Robert Prey said:
Besides all that, it now appears a good part of the reason for the cooked statistics is the fact that California -- the 8th largest economy in the world, simply may not have reported their unemployment numbers according to Henry Blodget of Business Insider who claims sources within the BLS.
Click to expand...


I see you still seem to think this is the Conspiracy Theories section.


Robert Prey said:
There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%."
Click to expand...


Yes, because economists' predictions are never wrong. Perhaps that is why we record actual data, to see if the predictions measure up or are found wanting. (I can find numerous articles with Canadian economists being surprised—either positively or negatively—by various economic numbers in Canada.)
 
Last edited:
Does it Pass the Statistical Anomaly Smell Test?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/septembers_unemployment_number_still_suspicious.html

October 12, 2012
September's Unemployment Number Still Suspicious
By Randall Hoven

"In short, something that had not happened at all since 1956 happened three times in Obama's presidency. In more than a half-century preceding Obama, the only times the unemployment rate dropped 0.5% in two months were when real GDP was growing at annual rates of 7.1% to 10.5%.
Those rates were breakneck rates of growth. We haven't seen such rates since 1999. As Jack Welch said, no one "believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed." Not even Obama's economists would claim anything near 7%. It's been 2% or less for the last six months....


Prior to Obama, the chance that the unemployment rate would drop 0.5% or more over two months with a real GDP growth rate under 2.5% was two out of 33. The chance of that same thing happening three times in a row then, as it did under Obama, is 0.0223%. Or let's look at it this way: what had happened only twice in the 62 years from 1948 through 2009, happened three times in the last three years under Obama.
A straightforward statistical test, again, says that should not happen by random chance. That is, we reject the "statistical anomaly" hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis that those Obama data points were genuinely different from the rest somehow.
Statistics cannot tell us "how" those points were different, just that they don't pass the "statistical anomaly" smell test...."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom