fraud

Such transparency from the most transparent and open administration in history !

Also goin' with fraud.

Just a common mistake. Happens every day. Isn't it funny though that it always appears to happen in the direction the mistake makers want, with no mention or little fanfare of an adjustment later. Do we really think they would be this quiet about it if the numbers had been reversed? [Sarcasm intended]

Fraud +1

I haven't even read the ticker yet and I'm going with fraud.

Now I'll go read it.

Edit: Yep, looks like another crooked shame job to me.

Fred,

Here we go again(again)...

More proof that the crooks are inside the government operating against the people. America is a failed state.

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/10....

more proof we are a Banana Republic

Well they do have the release date for December 2009 listed as January 28th at 8:30 and the November report does say "Not available at this time" - somehow I think it will become available. Of course, whenever there is an "error" it is very suspicious. I bet they will show a December "increase" or "less bad than November" that will somehow offset the November decrease.

Let's hope that they provide the November data before or when the December data is released and that the data isn't being manipulated by our government. I'd like to know more about how the error occurred.

All done in the name of national security, I'm sure.

from their announcements: some fat fingering...

The Census Bureau identified a processing error that occurred when revising historic seasonally adjusted data for the November (data month) releases. The data have been corrected. As of January 15, 2010, revised data from January 2001 through October 2009 are available in the Historical Timeseries - NAICS tables, under the Historical Data tab.

James Kunstler sums it up well - the Goldman Saks crowd is running Obama's administration like a radio-controlled toy truck. Up and down the line they have their guys in place to make damn sure the numbers match their latest rev of the programmed trades. Need ro revise the numbers later? No problem mon, just let us change a few variables in our PREM models first.

Meanwhile, in-duh-vidual investors place their bets based on the latest "news", in this oh-so free and efficient market.

Note here on the far right it is still listed @ +0.2% for Nov:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/briefroom/....

But on the Xcel data tables and PDF version, (to the left, same level) the Nov report is missing, and it is also missing from the archives.

edit: if they wanted to play this straight they would have kept the Nov data in place as originally released, and issued a press release before the next release, and then released revised numbers for historical (incl Nov) at that time. The fact that they did not do that (the "normal" way to fudge numbers) is very suspicious.

Of course. No press release, no updated data available - even though they know what the error was and have allegedly "fixed" it.

Snowman, except there is no Nov data in the areas they say it is supposed to be...it only goes to Oct.

The math never lies....but government math does.

Fraud. Combine this with the propaganda that is released on a regular and obvious basis (Ellie Light being the latest), and it's nothing but fraud orchestrated straight from the White House.

I looked at the actuals (adjusted) historicals instead of percentages. What strikes me is that monthly durable goods have the same monthly value as mid 2002. That is 8 years of "growth" re-set.

I'm not going with fraud. Fraud would be never changing it. How about deception?

Oh those are pretty similar aren't they?

Fraud thinly disguised as incompetence.

But really, regardless of the figures, who is liable for any of this information, opinion, commentating, etc? Who will pay the price, a horribly high price, for being wrong? No one.

Ergo, you will get ****. No one is legally liable in case of incorrect information. That is why these *******s keep spewing garbage, because they can and it costs them nothing.

I would like to emphasize that this is an example very different from the ordinary gov statistics. There are tried and true (and rigid) mechanisms in place for how they measure stuff, when it is released, and how it is revised. We know all that and that is why mostly I snicker at conspiracy theories regarding fudging data to fit political goals.

This is completely different. This is an unannounced, highly irregular, stealth revision outside of the above parameters. You have to wonder who approved this now and why, and how it got done like this when an ordinary revision on the date of next release would have accomplished the same thing.

Fraud

Quote:

You have to wonder who approved this now and why, and how it got done like this when an ordinary revision on the date of next release would have accomplished the same thing.

Throwing fuel on the "confirm BB or the market tanks" threat?

It's beyond fraud. It's outright bull****.