Post

NEWSMAX: What we saw last year was big numbers that looked really good & were revised down. This was a big number that looked really good & was revised down. Why is it political? NAVARRO: Well, ah, I mean look, if we had gotten the right numbers a couple months ago, we would've got a nice rate cut

135 reposts746 likes

Except last year the big numbers that looked good were revised up to reveal an even stronger economy than predicted. And Trump’s initial number was quite moderate to start with, not “good” and it was revised to reveal an even worse economy than expected.

If Powell is fired, expect rates to drop to zero, with inflation to roar at 30-50%. At that point you're looking at economic calamity which will make the 1929 crash look like a picnic. Fun times we live in. Fascists and morons everywhere!

I think a question that would have been worth asking is why are we putting out these preliminary numbers when they are so consistently wrong? Shouldn't we not put out numbers until they have a chance of being accurate? Moot point as all numbers will now come directly out of Trump's ass.

Wel… this has always been the case. The end of month numbers are estimates based on indicators but the actual data isn’t fully tabulated and validated for another 1-2 months. It’s trying to estimate when the actual data isn’t due for a few weeks after your estimate was due.

Right but we are seeing these huge adjustments since the pandemic. I just question the value of these numbers ESPECIALLY since the revisions get ZERO coverage. The big news today was the revisions as bad as the headline number was.

This is the guy who lied about the source of his economic claims for the benefit of tariffs by making up a source who’s name was just an anagram of his own. Why do people keep asking him about economics?

This kind of thinking reminds me of Trump’s first term when when there was a question about the number of Covid cases. Trump said that testing was the problem. If you don’t test then you don’t have as many cases (or at least you can say you don’t have as many cases).

Part of me thinks they cooked the data to keep the market up, then realized they needed worse numbers to get a rate cut. So they released the real numbers and Trump hated how bad they were so he fired her for that, like “I wanted rate cut bad-but not reality bad.

Never stop remembering why Peter Navarro is on TV. Because Jared Kushner found his book that agreed with his FIL’s ridiculous opinion on tariffs. The book that quotes an expert that Peter Navarro MADE UP. Never forget to remember why it is that Peter Navarro in on TV talking economics. #fraud

Good numbers don’t require rate cuts. Rate cuts are used when the economy is on the rocks. Trump and his minions don’t understand anything. 🙄

Hey, Navarro. Ever heard of bad luck? Sheesh. Baby crying. You guys are playing a dangerous game. You’re gonna get more bad results. And firing people whose names aren’t Trump won’t help.

Navarro: "I am making hand gestures and using my 'Fool the rubes' voice. I really have no idea what I'm doing. If anything, I am making everything much much worse." In 2024, he was sentenced to 4 months in jail, the first former White House official imprisoned on a contempt-of-Congress conviction.

So the revising down of job figures in America seems pretty routine. So why are the original figures seen as reliable? Or is it the revised down figures that are reliable? In which case why are the original numbers published if they are, in fact, unreliable?

Navarro obviously doesn’t understand how this works. Reporting comes in and is revised as new data is received. It happens all the time. This isn’t rocket science though it appears to be so for this “administration” of fools.