Reviewing the initial unemployment claims, this time at 427,000 for last week, is becoming something of a checklist:
- Higher than expected – Check (Bloomberg’s economists predicted 419,000, Reuters’ economists predicted 415,000)
- Unexpectedly higher than expected – Check (both Reuters and Bloomberg put it in the headline and the lede)
- Prior week’s number revised upward – Check (Tom Blumer notes the prior week’s increase from 422,000 to 426,000 is the 14th week in a row this has happened)
Can you say, “Double-Dip DEMpression”?
[…] want you to blame him. He’s hip and cool, so it can’t possibly be his fault.Update: See Steve Egg’s pithy post summing things up.google_ad_client = "pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ […]
“Unexpectedly higher than expected” that is a phrase we should be able to make political hash out of. I think we need to use “unexpectedly” as a theme in the 2012 campaign. That phrase has potential.