Expecting the Unexpected

By
Rush Limbaugh has been tracking the Orwellian "unexpected economic news" phenomena since Obama was elected. It has become laughable every time you see a headline with "unexpected" in it. But when you see the compilation put together it appears exactly as it is; a crude propaganda ploy.

And it is simply not the overuse of the word "unexpected" but the total and almost absolute use of the "unexpected" terminology in regards to reporting Obama economic numbers. The "experts" want the reader to assume that Obama's economic policies are sound, and that the reader too, should join the crowd expecting better results. And just who are these professional expectation speculators anyway? Can I go to Harvard or Yale to study Economic Expectations 101? Where is the Committee Headquarters for Economic Expectations? Where do we go to complain about how lousy these professional expectation experts are?

In today's Drudge Report there is a story about back to back holes-in-one. The odds of two separate players making a hole-in-one on the same hole back to back are 17 million to one. Winning the lottery is about as easy as this feat. What the reader of economic news is expected to assume in these headlines is that there is some secret society group of thinkers, academics, or economic soothsayers who sit around like Las Vegas bookies and bet on these matters prior to the release of the actual numbers. Now think about the golf scenario. For this mythical group of mystic prognosticators to be wrong every single time, and time after time, is statistically impossible. No one could possibly be that stupid, or shall we say, unexpectedly unlucky.

Remember, in all these "unexpectedly" claims, that the issue is generally a coin flip. Either the news is good or bad. So we are to believe that the professional expectation speculation gurus are wrong 100% of the time on a matter of a coin flip? Where the hell do these Expector Generals write down their predictions anyway? How are we to know for sure that they had better than expected expectations anyway? I would like to see the "expectations" report on Tuesday, and then see if the "expectation" report was right or wrong on Friday.

With these expectations wrong 100% of the time, I suspect I could make some solid investments in the expectations futures market speculating on the professional expectation crowd being expectedly wrong, (unexpectedly, of course.) Knowing in advance, that the expectation crowd can be expected to be wrong with almost absolute certainty; would my winnings then be described as unexpected? If others started betting with me, and against the professional expectation crowd, could we, would we expect Obama's economy to be any better or worse?

According to Shakespeare; "Expectation is the root of all heartache." Only bad Obamanomic news is to be heralded as "unexpected." But what else would you expect from experts who studied economics at Harvard and Yale?


Rush Limbaugh has been tracking the Orwellian "unexpected economic news" phenomena since Obama was elected. It has become laughable every time you see a headline with "unexpected" in it. But when you see the compilation put together it appears exactly as it is; a crude propaganda ploy.

And it is simply not the overuse of the word "unexpected" but the total and almost absolute use of the "unexpected" terminology in regards to reporting Obama economic numbers. The "experts" want the reader to assume that Obama's economic policies are sound, and that the reader too, should join the crowd expecting better results. And just who are these professional expectation speculators anyway? Can I go to Harvard or Yale to study Economic Expectations 101? Where is the Committee Headquarters for Economic Expectations? Where do we go to complain about how lousy these professional expectation experts are?

In today's Drudge Report there is a story about back to back holes-in-one. The odds of two separate players making a hole-in-one on the same hole back to back are 17 million to one. Winning the lottery is about as easy as this feat. What the reader of economic news is expected to assume in these headlines is that there is some secret society group of thinkers, academics, or economic soothsayers who sit around like Las Vegas bookies and bet on these matters prior to the release of the actual numbers. Now think about the golf scenario. For this mythical group of mystic prognosticators to be wrong every single time, and time after time, is statistically impossible. No one could possibly be that stupid, or shall we say, unexpectedly unlucky.

Remember, in all these "unexpectedly" claims, that the issue is generally a coin flip. Either the news is good or bad. So we are to believe that the professional expectation speculation gurus are wrong 100% of the time on a matter of a coin flip? Where the hell do these Expector Generals write down their predictions anyway? How are we to know for sure that they had better than expected expectations anyway? I would like to see the "expectations" report on Tuesday, and then see if the "expectation" report was right or wrong on Friday.

With these expectations wrong 100% of the time, I suspect I could make some solid investments in the expectations futures market speculating on the professional expectation crowd being expectedly wrong, (unexpectedly, of course.) Knowing in advance, that the expectation crowd can be expected to be wrong with almost absolute certainty; would my winnings then be described as unexpected? If others started betting with me, and against the professional expectation crowd, could we, would we expect Obama's economy to be any better or worse?

According to Shakespeare; "Expectation is the root of all heartache." Only bad Obamanomic news is to be heralded as "unexpected." But what else would you expect from experts who studied economics at Harvard and Yale?


RECENT VIDEOS