Investing General Discussion

Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,642
99,981
Jesus it was a joke about someone complaining about posting exact trades or you ban them calm down you nancys
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Lejina

Lejina

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
<Bronze Donator>
4,493
11,506
Sanrith Descartes said:
$190b in NVDA market cap today...

nuclear explosion bomb GIF
Click to expand...
What's going on there?
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,646
32,008
Feels odd. I'm totally divested in non public companies now. I'm basically retired and have/am shifting to more of limited growth and more asset protection with just matching inflation - if I really knew what the real number is.

I do have a small amount in some growth etf's, but not much.
 
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,381
115,610
My favorite part is the "it can be explained by seasonal adjustment making them all the same."

So...how is that any different than just fake numbers exactly?

"Well the actual data behind it does fluctuate." So why would they publish the bullshit numbers?

It'd be great if people weren't so fucking dumb.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1Tiresome
Reactions: 5 users
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,414
22,202
The point is that it's an aggregate of state data, and the state data is available if you want to look at it.

Unless you think every state, which are controlled by totally different political forces, is publishing bullshit numbers.
 
  • 1Picard
  • 1Potato
Reactions: 1 users
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,381
115,610
You're basically just admitting that the federal numbers (the only ones anyone actually sees) are bullshit. Like I said, the "data behind it" is sound. So why do they keep putting out the same bullshit numbers?
 
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
Gravel said:
You're basically just admitting that the federal numbers (the only ones anyone actually sees) are bullshit. Like I said, the "data behind it" is sound. So why do they keep putting out the same bullshit numbers?
Click to expand...

This stuff is auditable for anyone with the requisite patience. Here are the federal numbers. It's trivial to see the pre-seasonal adjustment data. The adjustment process is a whole can of worms I'm not going to read, but (I think) it's documented at the link at the end of this post.

1713644879357.png


The linked underlying reports have data by state.

Initial Claims | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Graph and download economic data for Initial Claims from 1967-01-07 to 2024-04-13 about initial claims, headline figure, and USA.
fred.stlouisfed.org

It looks like the seasonal adjustments are made according to the X-12-ARIMA standard, which you can read up on at your leisure.

 
Last edited:
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,381
115,610
So we're just going to keep dancing around the same talking point over and over again I see.

I don't give a shit that the data behind it is good. The issue is them publishing bad numbers.
 
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
Gravel said:
The issue is them publishing bad numbers.
Click to expand...

Are they? I definitely acknowledge the flatness is odd, but whether that's a legitimate outcome of the process or not none of us knows without auditing the calculations. My point is the information is available to see how those numbers were arrived at, which is necessary to know if they're bad or not.

Just eyeballing the charts it seems like a plausible smoothing of claims. We're in a similar pattern for March-May as the last few years.
1713646495645.png
 
Last edited:
Sanrith Descartes

Sanrith Descartes

Veteran of a thousand threadban wars
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,495
107,551
Gravel said:
The issue is them publishing bad numbers.
Click to expand...
Haven't we discussed this regularly for years? We all know the govt issues fake numbers and revises them a quarter or two later. Is this somehow not settled at this point?

Edit: apparently not.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,774
8,067
Sanrith Descartes said:
Edit: apparently not.
Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, I agree no numbers should be taken at face value. I have an economics background and do optimization and forecasting for a living. Numbers can be made to say anything. I'm just saying that the nice thing about government numbers is they have to publish their data and methods so rather than shutting off your brain at "Same number; fake!" you can actually understand what they're doing and whether this time is different or not for a reason you care about.
 
Sanrith Descartes

Sanrith Descartes

Veteran of a thousand threadban wars
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,495
107,551
Captain Suave said:
Oh, believe me, I agree no numbers should be taken at face value. I have an economics background and do optimization and forecasting for a living. Numbers can be made to say anything. I'm just saying that the nice thing about government numbers is they have to publish their data and methods so rather than shutting off your brain at "Same number; fake!" you can actually understand what they're doing and whether this time is different or not for a reason you care about.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is how we decided years ago they were faking shit. They are always revised and always revised the same direction. The opposite of what's good for the administration.
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,414
22,202
You're arguing about totally different sets of numbers. "Initial jobless claims" and "jobs added" aren't in any way directly linked.
 
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
24,646
32,008
Do they still not count people as unemployed if they have quit searching and applying for a job because they either gave up or decided they could live from other means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.