PDA

View Full Version : Economics Some employment/economic numbers from the last month/quarter/year.


Direckshun
02-01-2013, 10:25 AM
As the recovery continues. There's a bunch of stuff on this but they don't all warrant their own threads so here's a compendium of economic information.

The economy last year experienced a net-improvement (http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/01/16806702-presidents-and-jobs-a-tale-of-the-tape?lite) of 2.17 million jobs (private sector gained 2.24), which is better than every single year of the Bush Presidency except one (2005).

The jobs report of the fourth quarter of 2012 has been revised upward (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/02/01/economists-react-full-fiscal-cliff-not-avoided/), now saying we added 600,000+ jobs from October through December.

The GDP actually contracted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/yikes-economy-shrinks-in-fourth-quarter-for-first-time-since-09/) 0.1% in that quarter, however. The first contraction in 13 quarters -- though revisions will probably change that to a slight expansion -- largely because of Hurricane Sandy and vast layoffs in the defense sector.

The initial estimate (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) is that we added 157,000 jobs in January. The unemployment rate actually jumped (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578277621175297276.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories), however, from 7.8% to 7.9%. As the economy gets better, more people are entering the job market.

The government continues to be the main holder-backer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/government-is-hurting-the-economy-by-spending-too-little/)of a faster recovery, as reduced government payrolls have weighed down employment figures.

The Institute for Supply Management said its index of Manufacturing activity grew to 53.1, according to (http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=22ceb560-c275-42cf-97a2-9686de5a3c65) the Institute for Supply Management, which is a big jump up.

The Dow jumped above 1,500 earlier this month. After today's jobs report, it launched (http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=22ceb560-c275-42cf-97a2-9686de5a3c65) above 1,400.

What's driving the jump up in employment? Mostly, construction, buoyed by about 30,000 new hires, which indicates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/job-growth-was-steady-to-start-the-year-and-2012-was-better-than-we-thought/) more homes are being built.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/02/jan_unemploymentpayrolls.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/02/jan_industry.png

You're welcome.

Prison Bitch
02-01-2013, 06:18 PM
I notice you didn't mention anything about the 8.5million folks who've dropped out of the labor force under the new king.

RNR
02-01-2013, 06:22 PM
On the heels of the GDP dip LMAO

Bewbies
02-01-2013, 07:33 PM
Obama cuts the deficit by trillions, millions of people are eliminated from the jobless, Economy contracts, unemployment goes up, we are chugging full speed ahead to a generational economic boom!!

mlyonsd
02-01-2013, 08:02 PM
This thread could have easily been titled 'Economy shrinks as unemployment rises, but the Obama recovery is still officially working because our heads are in the sand'.

cosmo20002
02-01-2013, 09:37 PM
I notice you didn't mention anything about the 8.5million folks who've dropped out of the labor force under the new king.

Thanks to the huge gains in the stock market, seniors were able to retire. I say good for them. What's your problem with it?

Prison Bitch
02-01-2013, 10:53 PM
Thanks to the huge gains in the stock market, seniors were able to retire. I say good for them. What's your problem with it?

GOP congress doing a helluva job since Jan 2011. Jobs and stock market way up. No?

Direckshun
02-02-2013, 05:42 AM
I notice you didn't mention anything about the 8.5million folks who've dropped out of the labor force under the new king.

Thanks to the huge gains in the stock market, seniors were able to retire. I say good for them. What's your problem with it?

I was wondering -- how many of those 8.5 million are seniors?

We are experiencing the retiring of the baby boomers. We'll be experiencing record numbers of retirements for a generation.

Direckshun
02-02-2013, 05:45 AM
This thread could have easily been titled 'Economy shrinks as unemployment rises, but the Obama recovery is still officially working because our heads are in the sand'.

The economy shrank only temporarily -- even economists aren't concerned, and the stock market remains high. The shrinking in the economy, as the OP stated, was due to Sandy hitting the Northeast and a huge slashing in defense.

HonestChieffan
02-02-2013, 05:47 AM
Ill do a happy dance later today. The recovery rocks on. Forward!!!

mlyonsd
02-02-2013, 06:00 AM
The economy shrank only temporarily -- even economists aren't concerned, and the stock market remains high. The shrinking in the economy, as the OP stated, was due to Sandy hitting the Northeast and a huge slashing in defense.Which is a symptom and just more proof this is the worst 'recovery' on record.

Any gains in jobs is just as more likely to be from the comeback of the McRibb than anything Obama can take credit for.

Direckshun
02-02-2013, 06:13 AM
Which is a symptom and just more proof this is the worst 'recovery' on record.

Fair enough.

That's going to happen, however, when you hit the second-worst economic downturn in American history.

During the Great Depression, we had a gigantic influx of federal spending to supplement demand and history's largest land war to stimulate the economy.

The only serious federal spending we've committed to following this recession was four years ago, too tepid, and it was immediately followed by three times that amount in deficit reduction.

Gee, I wonder why the recovery's so slow.

blaise
02-02-2013, 06:37 AM
Good news Obama
Bad news Bush

Comrade Crapski
02-02-2013, 10:34 AM
Thanks to the huge gains in the stock market, seniors were able to retire. I say good for them. What's your problem with it?

yeah so riddle me this, why the 18-21 demographic is 24% unemployment.

You stupid mouthfoaming drone.

Prison Bitch
02-02-2013, 11:00 AM
I was wondering -- how many of those 8.5 million are seniors?

We are experiencing the retiring of the baby boomers. We'll be experiencing record numbers of retirements for a generation.

For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.


http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

Comrade Crapski
02-02-2013, 11:56 AM
For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.


http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

I can smell the wires burning in his moonbat brain.

Direckshun
02-02-2013, 12:59 PM
For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.

http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

That's a sales website. I was hoping we could gather information from something a little more substantial.

Prison Bitch
02-02-2013, 05:06 PM
That's a sales website. I was hoping we could gather information from something a little more substantial.


Why don't you just type "Uncle!". It would save bandwidth.

Comrade Crapski
02-02-2013, 06:57 PM
Jobs and GDP are old hat. This is the 21st Century, c'mon get with the program! Gay marriage and gun confiscation!

http://www.iaza.com/work/130203C/iaza19550488705800.jpg

patteeu
02-02-2013, 08:13 PM
Fair enough.

That's going to happen, however, when you hit the second-worst economic downturn in American history.

During the Great Depression, we had a gigantic influx of federal spending to supplement demand and history's largest land war to stimulate the economy.

The only serious federal spending we've committed to following this recession was four years ago, too tepid, and it was immediately followed by three times that amount in deficit reduction.

Gee, I wonder why the recovery's so slow.

It didn't happen the last time we had the "second-worst economic downturn in American history" (if that's even true). It certainly didn't happen the last time we had the second-worst economic downturn since WWI.

When are the excuses for Obama's dismal record going to end?

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 06:29 AM
Why don't you just type "Uncle!". It would save bandwidth.

Because he doesn't back up any information he comes across.

No links, and he ends the article you linked to by trying to sell something.

That's not exactly what you call a remotely reliable source.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 06:30 AM
It didn't happen the last time we had the "second-worst economic downturn in American history" (if that's even true). It certainly didn't happen the last time we had the second-worst economic downturn since WWI.

When are the excuses for Obama's dismal record going to end?

I don't even understand how this is a rebuttal. What are you saying?

patteeu
02-03-2013, 07:08 AM
I don't even understand how this is a rebuttal. What are you saying?

What part don't you understand? How long are you going to keep making excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable?

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 07:21 AM
What part don't you understand? How long are you going to keep making excuses for Obama instead of holding him accountable?

That's off topic. You want to start a new thread about Direckshun's apologia, I'll meet you there. I'll be the first one to post in it.

Until then, I'm unaware how relevant I am to the country's economic data.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 07:27 AM
That's off topic. You want to start a new thread about Direckshun's apologia, I'll meet you there. I'll be the first one to post in it.

Until then, I'm unaware how relevant I am to the country's economic data.

If it's off topic, why were you making excuses in the first place?

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 07:29 AM
If it's off topic, why were you making excuses in the first place?

*scratches head*

The OP outlines several economic trends. Mylonsd criticized them as a terribly slow recovery. I provided some context outlining why I believe the recovery is slow.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 07:38 AM
*scratches head*

The OP outlines several economic trends. Mylonsd criticized them as a terribly slow recovery. I provided some context outlining why I believe the recovery is slow.

And I pointed out why your excuse was lame. Kind of like the Obama's "recovery", if we can really call it that.

Comrade Crapski
02-03-2013, 09:29 AM
And I pointed out why your excuse was lame. Kind of like the Obama's "recovery", if we can really call it that.

After all the O-Bot stooges like KC Naive and Drek told us the recession ended in 2009, when we have another 3 quarters of negative GDP, they'll be telling us that "Bush's recession continues", and they'll cut and paste links from american progress to confirm it.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 10:30 AM
And I pointed out why your excuse was lame.

And I did not understand your rebuttal. Could you please clarify your point.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 11:05 AM
And I did not understand your rebuttal. Could you please clarify your point.

You said that the recovery is slow as you'd expect it to be given that we had the 2nd worst economic downturn in US history. I don't know if it was the 2nd worst downturn or not, but for the sake of argument we'll say that it was. My rebuttal was that we didn't have a recovery this bad the last time we had the 2nd worst downturn in US history, so I don't see any reason why we should expect it this time on that basis alone.

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 11:43 AM
My rebuttal was that we didn't have a recovery this bad the last time we had the 2nd worst downturn in US history, so I don't see any reason why we should expect it this time on that basis alone.

I don't know what downturn you're referring to? What downturn are you referring to?

My post compared the Great Recession to the only real precedent America has seen, which was the Great Depression.

But in reaction to the Great Depression, we had a gigantic influx of federal spending to supplement demand and, as fortune would have it, history's largest land war to stimulate the economy.

The only serious federal spending we've committed to following the Great Recession was four years ago, too tepid, and it was immediately followed by three times that amount in deficit reduction.

Prison Bitch
02-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Because he doesn't back up any information he comes across.

No links, and he ends the article you linked to by trying to sell something.

That's not exactly what you call a remotely reliable source.



I realize the facts bothered you, and you were paralyzed to rebut them. So you took the track you took, deciding to tap out. I understand your motives and why you bailed.

ThatRaceCardGuy
02-03-2013, 11:46 AM
I realize the facts bothered you, and you were paralyzed to rebut them. So you took the track you took, deciding to tap out. I understand your motives and why you bailed.

Bitch please

Direckshun
02-03-2013, 11:46 AM
I realize the facts bothered you, and you were paralyzed to rebut them. So you took the track you took, deciding to tap out. I understand your motives and why you bailed.

I really have no interest in your insane citation.

If there's any reasonably sensible links you have to back up your bullshit, my ears and eyes are open.

patteeu
02-03-2013, 02:19 PM
I don't know what downturn you're referring to? What downturn are you referring to?

My post compared the Great Recession to the only real precedent America has seen, which was the Great Depression.

But in reaction to the Great Depression, we had a gigantic influx of federal spending to supplement demand and, as fortune would have it, history's largest land war to stimulate the economy.

The only serious federal spending we've committed to following the Great Recession was four years ago, too tepid, and it was immediately followed by three times that amount in deficit reduction.

I'm referring to whatever downturn is now #3.

Direckshun
02-04-2013, 09:45 AM
Some decent news (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/02/schedule-for-week-of-feb-3rd.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29&utm_content=Google+Reader):

8:30 AM: Trade Balance report for December from the Census Bureau.

Both exports and imports increased in November. US trade has slowed recently.

The consensus is for the U.S. trade deficit to decrease to $46.0 billion in December from $48.7 billion in November.

Direckshun
02-09-2013, 03:35 PM
More stuff on the trade deficit:

Trade gap shrinks, hinting at stronger economic growth
Reuters
1 day ago

The U.S. trade deficit shrank in December to its narrowest in nearly three years, suggesting the economy did much better in the fourth quarter than initially estimated.

The country's trade gap narrowed to $38.5 billion during the month, the Commerce Department said on Friday. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a deficit of $46 billion.

That suggests the U.S. government will revise upward its advance reading for fourth-quarter gross domestic product, which showed the economy contracted at a 0.1 percent annual rate in part because of a decline in inflation-adjusted exports.

The government had released its estimate for fourth-quarter GDP before the December trade data was available. That GDP report suggested the government was projecting a wider trade deficit in December.

Friday's data showed U.S. exports surged by $8.6 billion during the month, boosted by sales of industrial supplies, including a $1.2 billion increase of non-monetary gold. In a reflection of a boom in oil output driven by hydraulic fracturing technologies, petroleum exports rose by nearly $1 billion during the month to a record high level.

A fall in petroleum imports led overall purchases from abroad to decline $4.6 billion in December. For the entire year, the country's imports of crude oil fell to their lowest levels since 1997 in terms of volume.

For all of 2012, the U.S. trade gap fell by 3.5 percent to $540.4 billion. Running trade deficits means the country bleeds dollars, so trade is still a drag on the U.S. economy. But rising exports are helping it to be less of a drag than in prior years.

Exports last year rose 4.4 percent.

While the overall trade deficit shrank, it grew with China during the year. That will be sure to raise hackles from American manufacturers who want the United States to pressure the Asian giant more to strengthen its currency.

But even the figures on China had a silver lining. While U.S. imports last year from China increased to a record high, so did America's exports to the country. America's December trade deficit with China for goods, which was not seasonally adjusted, narrowed by $4.5 billion on a drop in imports.

The U.S. trade deficit increased with the European Union last year but America's surplus with Brazil rose.

CoMoChief
02-09-2013, 04:43 PM
ROFL

Didn't spend one second reading any of this garbage.

Aries Walker
02-09-2013, 05:24 PM
1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

6. There is no number six. That's about it.

Direckshun
02-09-2013, 05:39 PM
1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

I cited MaddowBlog, Wall Street Journal, WaPo's WonkBlog, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and MSN Money.

I'd say that's a fair variety of a first-hand source (BLS), a second-hand source (MSN Money), and a right-leaning (WSJ), left-leaning (WonkBlog), and a leftwing outlet (MaddowBlog). Later in the thread I've cited Calculated Risk and Reuters.

I know you aren't disagreeing with me in any way, I just figured that deserves a little expounding.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 17.8% and 17.9%?

The unemployment rate (i.e. the U3 measurement) is now 7.9%, up from 7.8%.

The U6 measurement of unemployment, the one that rightwingers love now because it's always higher, includes the unemployed, those who've dropped out of the workforce, and the underemployed, and is just a hair above 14% and falling (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp). And that's the highest unemployment measurement we have.

The U-3 rate inching up to 7.9% is almost certainly due to people entering the workforce, because as the OP stated, our economy gained 157,000 jobs in January.

Psyko Tek
02-09-2013, 05:56 PM
GOP congress doing a helluva job since Jan 2011. Jobs and stock market way up. No?

that is what they are paid for

Prison Bitch
02-09-2013, 06:57 PM
1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

6. There is no number six. That's about it.



I didn't read all of this, but from what little I gagged down, I want my 10 seconds back. Pure garbage.

Direckshun
02-09-2013, 07:50 PM
I didn't read all of this, but from what little I gagged down, I want my 10 seconds back. Pure garbage.

LMAO

CoMoChief
02-09-2013, 07:51 PM
The real unemployment rate is around 19-20%

KC native
02-09-2013, 08:39 PM
For the small percentage of people who are aware that the purported decline in unemployment rates is primarily based on the mysterious rapid decline in "labor force participation rates" rather than the number of new jobs, the government has a ready and sensible-sounding explanation: the Boomers are beginning to retire in large numbers, and with an aging population, the percentage of adults who are in the workforce should logically be declining.

Based on in-depth analysis of the government's own numbers, we will present herein the true picture: 74% of the jobless who have been removed from unemployment calculations are in the 16-54 age bracket, with only 26% in the 55 and above bracket. Yes, the population is aging - but the heart of the workforce participation deception isn't about the old.


http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html


Just read his argument and it's garbage. There is no mysterious decline in the labor force participation rate. We know it is going to trend down for the foreseeable future due to boomers leaving the workforce.

This guy has zero understanding (or is intentially leaving it out) of how and why the BLS adjusts certain things.

And he's an inflationista/gold bug.

KC native
02-09-2013, 08:45 PM
You said that the recovery is slow as you'd expect it to be given that we had the 2nd worst economic downturn in US history. I don't know if it was the 2nd worst downturn or not, but for the sake of argument we'll say that it was. My rebuttal was that we didn't have a recovery this bad the last time we had the 2nd worst downturn in US history, so I don't see any reason why we should expect it this time on that basis alone.

ROFL

This is our second credit crisis driven recession (the other one was the Great Depression).

If you were actually interested in the truth, you would have taken time to read Reinhardt's and Rogoff's work on this. Instead, you insist on gop talking points. You are quite the one trick pony.

KC native
02-09-2013, 08:50 PM
1. Direckshun is correct; PrisonBitch's source was flawed. Direckshun used reputable journalistic sources in his OP (albeit mostly ones with a liberal bent).

2. The Great Depression is not the only reference we have to look back on. The energy crises of the late '70s, the post-Civil War problems, and the Panic of 1837 come to mind.

3. That said, I think this has a pretty good case to be the "Second Worst", given if nothing else its longevity.

4. I don't buy the concept that the uptick from 17.8% unemployment to 17.9% unemployment is due to the fact that more people have entered the job force. Math tells us that in order for that to result in an increase in unemployment, some of those people (more than 17.8% of them, in fact) had to have entered the job force while being unemployed - which logically means they hadn't really entered the job force. I think it's just a garden variety upturn - and hopefully an isolated one.

5. I admit I haven't kept up on the "people leaving the work force" argument, but as it's almost exclusively championed by the super-far Obama-hatin' right, I suspect that it's them trying to find numbers to make it look like (or more like) Obama's recovery is a flop. This is hunch rather than deduction, but it smells a lot like that Unskewed Polls baloney they tried to convince everyone of a few months ago. If I'm wrong, please school me.

6. There is no number six. That's about it.

The Great Depression is the only real comparable situation to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The energy crisis and associated recession were not driven by credit. 1837 and post Civil War period are both prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve so you're not comparing apples to apples because the financial landscape was vastly different.

On the labor force participation rates and associated unemployment number crap. That's just nonsense from people who don't understand the methodologies or statistics. The BLS is very open about all of this stuff and there is a lot of ink spilled on this topic. Prison bitch's source is disgraceful for someone that carries the CFA title. There is no analysis. It is blatantly biased low rate amateur work.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2013, 08:50 PM
82 million millenials
77 million boomers


Math wont support the stupid point made by KC Nitwit

Try again fuckwad

KC native
02-09-2013, 08:59 PM
82 million millenials
77 million boomers


Math wont support the stupid point made by KC Nitwit

Try again fuckwad

Ah that's rich. disHonest thinks he made a point.

First off, what dates are you counting for millenials? What dates for boomers? How about a link or source for your claims? I know that's not going to happen because you are full of shit, but I can ask.

Did I say that was the only reason for the decline? No, I didn't.

We know that labor force participation rates are going to decline due to demographics alone. We also know they are going to decline due to increasing automation of industrial processes and manufacturing.

Blaming it on the recession alone is not sufficient. Blaming it on Barack Obama is fucking delusional.

Prison Bitch
02-09-2013, 09:38 PM
Labor participation plummeted just about the time the economy tanked. Saying its driven by retirees is spectacularly stupid for anyone to actually argue. But that's what we've come to expect from the Obamabots

KC native
02-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Labor participation plummeted just about the time the economy tanked. Saying its driven by retirees is spectacularly stupid for anyone to actually argue. But that's what we've come to expect from the Obamabots

You are fucking dipshit. It has gone done for several reasons. Multivariate analysis is always required when it comes to complex things like the economy and it's measurement metrics.

Direckshun
02-09-2013, 09:56 PM
Welp, good news.

As I said in the OP, it was going to be likely that the GDP actually grew in 2012's fourth quarter, rather than the 0.1% shrinkage originally reported.

Turns out, it's actually grown. At least 0.2% according to one source. 0.5% according to another.

So that's something.

The downside is that it's projected the trade deficit will actually grow in 2013, since America's recovery is projected to be stronger than just about all of its allies.

Aries Walker
02-10-2013, 07:16 AM
I'm not sure where you're getting the 17.8% and 17.9%?

The unemployment rate (i.e. the U3 measurement) is now 7.9%, up from 7.8%.
That was a goof. I added the extra digit in there by mistake. I, of course, meant 7.8 and 7.9.

The U6 measurement of unemployment, the one that rightwingers love now because it's always higher, includes the unemployed, those who've dropped out of the workforce, and the underemployed, and is just a hair above 14% and falling (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp). And that's the highest unemployment measurement we have.

The U-3 rate inching up to 7.9% is almost certainly due to people entering the workforce, because as the OP stated, our economy gained 157,000 jobs in January.
Fair enough. Good description. Thanks!

I didn't read all of this, but from what little I gagged down, I want my 10 seconds back. Pure garbage.
Your disapproval means I must have done something right. Thanks to you, too!

stonedstooge
02-10-2013, 08:15 AM
Nancy Pelosi on Fox News Sunday Morning. Has anyone suggested this lady be checked for Alzheimers?

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 09:13 AM
Nancy Pelosi on Fox News Sunday Morning. Has anyone suggested this lady be checked for Alzheimers?
Good God that was painful.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 10:12 AM
You are ****ing dipshit. It has gone done for several reasons. Multivariate analysis is always required when it comes to complex things like the economy and it's measurement metrics.


LOL. You really hate when somebody dares speak ill of your High Priest.

KC native
02-10-2013, 12:36 PM
LOL. You really hate when somebody dares speak ill of your High Priest.

JFC you are one dense motherfucker.

Presidents are mostly irrelevant to the economy.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 01:08 PM
JFC you are one dense mother****er.

Presidents are mostly irrelevant to the economy.


Well sweet Jeezus hallelujah! This would be vital information for you to pass along to Obama. Who's blamed the last President for 5 full years now. A vast majority of Democrats in the 2012 exit polls blamed George W. for our economic woes, too.


Why don't you spend more time educating fellow Democrats rather than me?

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 01:41 PM
Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.

RNR
02-10-2013, 02:13 PM
Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.

Well at least you admit Barry has been blaming Bush for everything~

patteeu
02-10-2013, 03:18 PM
Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.

It's actually been more than five, but I assume Prison is starting from around the time the 2008 campaign season heated up.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Can anyone explain the massive spike in mining/logging jobs in that chart?

Could some of the boom be attributed to the massive reserves in natural gas, or is that considered a totally different sector?

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 04:38 PM
Four full years, actually.

As if that needed to be said.


Now back to the point: he said Presidents don't impact the economy. But nearly every democrat says Bush ruined the economy. Please tell me which statement is correct.

KC native
02-10-2013, 04:42 PM
Now back to the point: he said Presidents don't impact the economy. But nearly every democrat says Bush ruined the economy. Please tell me which statement is correct.

No nearly every Deomcrat does not say that. I see you've gone to the frazzled school of debate. Just make up your opponent's positions and argue against that.

FTR, I am not a member of either political party. The two party system is a big part of the problem.

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 04:47 PM
No nearly every Deomcrat does not say that. I see you've gone to the frazzled school of debate. Just make up your opponent's positions and argue against that.

FTR, I am not a member of either political party. The two party system is a big part of the problem.Wow.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 05:02 PM
Amazing.

JohnnyV13
02-10-2013, 06:47 PM
Can anyone explain the massive spike in mining/logging jobs in that chart?

Could some of the boom be attributed to the massive reserves in natural gas, or is that considered a totally different sector?

Mining is way up due to spikes in commodity prices. Changes in the profit margins for precious metals and industrial commodities make some mining projects profitable which were unworkable before.

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 07:12 PM
Since things are going so good can we get an update on how debt reduction is going?

Any projections where it will actually recede?

5 years?
10 years?
20 years?
My lifetime? (I'm hoping for another 30)

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 07:21 PM
We've been through that before on this forum.

You're seriously criticizing Obama for failing to cut a trillion dollars into the annual deficit in four years. That's assinine.

Deficit reduction retards growth. Not even you deny that.

We are still a ways from reaching pre-recession levels, and we've already enacted 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction.

Deficit reduction, right now, is not our primary concern. Our primary concern is unemployment.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2013, 07:34 PM
Wow.


The list of democrat supporters of GWB is legendary.

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 07:38 PM
We've been through that before on this forum.

You're seriously criticizing Obama for failing to cut a trillion dollars into the annual deficit in four years. That's assinine.

Deficit reduction retards growth. Not even you deny that.

We are still a ways from reaching pre-recession levels, and we've already enacted 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction.

Deficit reduction, right now, is not our primary concern. Our primary concern is unemployment.
So what you're saying is we aren't doing so well. And Obama isn't doing so well on his campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half by year 4 of his presidency.

Got it. I'll check back later to ask again.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 07:45 PM
So what you're saying is we aren't doing so well. And Obama isn't doing so well on his campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half by year 4 of his presidency.

Waaaaaaaaaay too simple a way to explain it. Really.

We are recovering from the recession, recovering at a slow pace because our government doesn't seem to want to spend any money to stimulate it anymore, but does want to dig into the deficit trillions of dollars at a time.

Nonetheless, the CBO projects that despite all of this, the Obama presidency will conclude in 2016 in the low 6%.

I don't know what standards you're using to say "we aren't doing so well," but that's not a bad job considering he's dealing with a Congress that refuses to stimulate the economy. Immigration reform is really our only hope at this point unless the GOP embraces a vast infrastructure project.

As for the deficit, because we've been so ass backwards in our priorities, we're going to have like a $400B deficit in 2014 according to the latest CBO projections.

So cutting the deficit in half in four years didn't happen. But cutting it by two-thirds could happen in six. I'm guessing you'd take that deal.

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 07:52 PM
Waaaaaaaaaay too simple a way to explain it. Really.

We are recovering from the recession, recovering at a slow pace because our government doesn't seem to want to spend any money to stimulate it anymore, but does want to dig into the deficit trillions of dollars at a time.

Nonetheless, the CBO projects that despite all of this, the Obama presidency will conclude in 2016 in the low 6%.

I don't know what standards you're using to say "we aren't doing so well," but that's not a bad job considering he's dealing with a Congress that refuses to stimulate the economy. Immigration reform is really our only hope at this point unless the GOP embraces a vast infrastructure project.

As for the deficit, because we've been so ass backwards in our priorities, we're going to have like a $400B deficit in 2014 according to the latest CBO projections.

So cutting the deficit in half in four years didn't happen. But cutting it by two-thirds could happen in six. I'm guessing you'd take that deal.Stimulate the economy how? Just where would you spend the money expecting to get a payback that would reduce the debt?

What does the CBO project for a deficit in 2020? That isn't really that far off.

And no, I wouldn't take that deal. I'm on record saying all Obama tax cuts should expire and we take our medicine now.

You and your party want to kick the can down the road only for political gain no matter what collateral damage you cause. Just admit it.

KC native
02-10-2013, 07:56 PM
Stimulate the economy how? Just where would you spend the money expecting to get a payback that would reduce the debt?

What does the CBO project for a deficit in 2020? That isn't really that far off.

And no, I wouldn't take that deal. I'm on record saying all Obama tax cuts should expire and we take our medicine now.

You and your party want to kick the can down the road only for political gain no matter what collateral damage you cause. Just admit it.

Why are you only fixated on our level of debt?

mlyonsd
02-10-2013, 08:00 PM
Why are you only fixated on our level of debt?
When it gets to a certain point you become Greece.

There is nothing in our future that indicates we can tolerate trillion dollar a year interest payments and keep our standard of living.

Nothing.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 08:07 PM
So now we hear in Liberal say dems don't all blame W for the recession, then another say we need more immigration to solve the debt. This is awesome

KC native
02-10-2013, 08:07 PM
When it gets to a certain point you become Greece.

There is nothing in our future that indicates we can tolerate trillion dollar a year interest payments and keep our standard of living.

Nothing.

Ok, what point do you think that is? When do you think we get there? Do you even know what our current GDP is? Are you aware that we are no where close to having a trillion dollar a year interest payment?

Most importantly, what is the major difference between the US and Greece in terms of financial landscape?

KC native
02-10-2013, 08:08 PM
So now we hear in Liberal say dems don't all blame W for the recession, then another say we need more immigration to solve the debt. This is awesome

You are dumb. Just shut up please. You have a child's understanding of the world and written language.

Prison Bitch
02-10-2013, 08:31 PM
You are dumb. Just shut up please. You have a child's understanding of the world and written language.

At least I-unlike you-know how to read polling data.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 08:31 PM
We've been through that before on this forum.

You're seriously criticizing Obama for failing to cut a trillion dollars into the annual deficit in four years. That's assinine.

Deficit reduction retards growth. Not even you deny that.

We are still a ways from reaching pre-recession levels, and we've already enacted 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction.

Deficit reduction, right now, is not our primary concern. Our primary concern is unemployment.

Our primary concern should be in fostering activities that create growth. Not in artificially stimulating the economy. For example, by printing money.

That's why I can't side with either left or right, but tend to side with the right. We have to stop centering our economy around the government handing out jobs as opposed to fostering an environment where corporations hire more people, and more and more people are qualified for good work.

KC native
02-10-2013, 08:34 PM
At least I-unlike you-know how to read polling data.

ROFL In what way is that response even relevant to what's been talked about in this thread?

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 10:27 PM
Stimulate the economy how? Just where would you spend the money expecting to get a payback that would reduce the debt?

What does the CBO project for a deficit in 2020? That isn't really that far off.

And no, I wouldn't take that deal. I'm on record saying all Obama tax cuts should expire and we take our medicine now.

You and your party want to kick the can down the road only for political gain no matter what collateral damage you cause. Just admit it.

All your arguments are based on one factor: reducing the deficit is more important than fighting unemployment in the near-term.

That's simply misguided.

The pain we're suffering from in the unemployment realm is real and affects millions of the working poor and middle class -- and it affects them now.

The pain we're suffering from on fiscal irresponsibility is far off in the distance. People are begging to buy American bonds so hard right now because they continue to be the most reliable on the planet. People are essentially paying us to take out debt. The idea that America could become Greece at current spending levels is laughable, our debt is sizeable but it is not a problem we must wrestle with now at the expense of the economy.

Direckshun
02-10-2013, 10:33 PM
Our primary concern should be in fostering activities that create growth. Not in artificially stimulating the economy. For example, by printing money.

That's why I can't side with either left or right, but tend to side with the right. We have to stop centering our economy around the government handing out jobs as opposed to fostering an environment where corporations hire more people, and more and more people are qualified for good work.

You want to talk about centering the economy, we can center it.

But first, right now we need to fight unemployment back down to its pre-recession levels. And the economy needs more demand to do that.

Let's do a nationwide infrastructure project. Make our transportation the envy of the world. Every means of travel will be streamlined, updated, and in tip top condition.

Put millions of people to work on it. Get them jobs with paychecks, for at least a few years. Boost the shit out of the economy and when our transportation system is among the world's leaders, our GDP is rising at a solid clip and unemployment is at a 21st century low, we can wind down our government projects, embrace a Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction package, turn a budget surplus and start paying down the debt for a generation.

chiefzilla1501
02-10-2013, 10:55 PM
You want to talk about centering the economy, we can center it.

But first, right now we need to fight unemployment back down to its pre-recession levels. And the economy needs more demand to do that.

Let's do a nationwide infrastructure project. Make our transportation the envy of the world. Every means of travel will be streamlined, updated, and in tip top condition.

Put millions of people to work on it. Get them jobs with paychecks, for at least a few years. Boost the shit out of the economy and when our transportation system is among the world's leaders, our GDP is rising at a solid clip and unemployment is at a 21st century low, we can wind down our government projects, embrace a Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction package, turn a budget surplus and start paying down the debt for a generation.

i can't stand infrastructure projects. I get that we have to fix deteriorating infrastructure, but you spend a shitload of resources and man-hours on construction projects that really don't add a lot of value. Sorry, but widening a road really isn't going to do a whole lot to create jobs 10 years from now, considering the massive cost you're putting into doing that. That's what's happened to America. We used to control industries, and now we are falling second-fiddle to Asia on a lot of our products.

There are much better ways to spend our money. I would rather raise sustainable revenue sources. Start with small businesses, not infrastructure. On the small business / corporate side, stop punishing risk-takers and stop squeezing them with added regulation that increases the time and cost of doing business. 10 years ago, Japan was cleaning us out in the cell phone market. Today, we control the market, and it is bringing foreign dollars into the US. I would much, much rather find the next Facebook and Apple and Yahoo then spend money on road projects.

Rather than create artificial jobs through often worthless infrastructure jobs, why not instead use that money to re-train workers to work jobs that are... oh I don't know, actually in demand? There are tons of trade jobs out there that are hiring like crazy and they can't find candidates to fill. You fill that job, and that person has a job for 20 years. You fill a construction job and, sorry, but the government has to keep making up projects to get that filled.

blaise
02-11-2013, 05:14 AM
Direckshun's main desire is to make the unemployment numbers look good under Obama so he can say what an awesome job Obama's doing, so he can finally post his, "Obama Is A Top 5 President in History" thread.

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 08:18 AM
And yet, a new Quinnipac poll says Americans care the most (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail/?ReleaseID=1850) about the deficit.

:facepalm: God.

blaise
02-11-2013, 08:30 AM
So, when polls show that Americans support gun control Direckshun thinks it means Americans are on the Democrats side. But when they care about the deficit it means they're dumb.

patteeu
02-11-2013, 09:29 AM
Direckshun's main desire is to make the unemployment numbers look good under Obama so he can say what an awesome job Obama's doing, so he can finally post his, "Obama Is A Top 5 President in History" thread.

Obama won't even be a top 5 President this Millenium for too much longer.

Direckshun
02-11-2013, 01:49 PM
Further evidence that there has been ample austerity already enacted.

http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/fiscal-austerity-is-happening-now.html

Fiscal Austerity is Happening Now
David Beckworth
Sunday, February 10, 2013

Ryan Avent notes (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/02/fiscal-policy-0) that fiscal austerity is happening now:

[T]he record shows that total federal government (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/) outlays (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf) were 25.2% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% of GDP in 2011, and 22.8% in 2012...Both outlays and receipts are, as a share of GDP, below pre-crisis level... the "austerity" of 2011-2012 wasn't "austerity" but austerity. Federal government spending fell by a meaningful share of GDP over that period. So did federal government employment, which dropped by 31,000 jobs in 2011 and 45,000 jobs in 2012. What's more, we have good reason to believe that these cuts entailed positive multipliers above those we'd observe in normal times. You don't have to take the IMF's word (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40200.0) for it; even stimulus sceptics like Valerie Ramey find (http://papers.nber.org/tmp/65555-w18769.pdf) that multipliers may sometimes be above normal, and above one, during periods of economic slack.

This is exactly the case that I have been making (http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-train-has-already-left-station-paul.html). And apparently so has (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/05/government_spending_tumbling_goldman_s_alec_phillips_on_the_federal_spending.html) Goldman Sachs. The only additional point I have stressed is that despite this austerity happening at a time of high unemployment and a large output gap, a slowdown in aggregate demand growth has failed to materialize. This does not mean fiscal policy multipliers are small--they may be large--but only that the Fed has been offsetting the drag created by the fiscal austerity. And to boot, it has done so in an environment where the short-term interest rate is up against the zero-lower bound (ZLB). Monetary policy, therefore, is not out of ammunition at the ZLB, as I noted in my last post (http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-train-has-already-left-station-paul.html) on this issue.

Just to be thorough, below are some figures that demonstrate the fiscal austerity observed by Ryan Avent. First, here is total federal government expenditures in current dollars. It has stalled and gradually started to fall:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ml83LQSC5Iw/URgDnWGz8iI/AAAAAAAAC6o/H_kZafW6ALQ/s400/totalexpenditures.jpg

As a percent of NGDP, total federal government expenditures is steeply falling. Not exactly a Keynesian prescription for stable aggregate demand when the economy is far from full employment:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fHH4Mz3qq7k/URgEBkCiNII/AAAAAAAAC7A/T4jkl_emE2I/s400/expend_gdp.jpg

If we look at the federal government deficit, whether in dollars (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=fri) or as a percent of GDP, it too indicates increasing fiscal austerity given the ongoing slack in the economy. Recall that running a deficit is how the government takes "idle" private-sector savings and puts it to "productive" work. Less and less of this transformation is being done:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cqbynUBmDBs/URgFTOqUtLI/AAAAAAAAC7Q/CxPS2uzeFSg/s400/govbalance.jpg

Finally, if we look at those components that make up the "G" in GDP (i.e. Y=C+I+G+NX) in inflation-adjusted terms we see that G has been unequivocally falling:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LDOlAcseA-o/URgHUauOz3I/AAAAAAAAC7Y/ZuyQEkljkCk/s400/realG.jpg

Now this fiscal austerity is mild compared to what is proposed to happen going forward. But it is still fiscal consolidation and given large fiscal multipliers--which are more plausible in periods of significant economic slack like today--we should at least see aggregate demand faltering over the past few years while this unfolded. But in fact, we see relatively stable aggregate demand growth, as measured by NGDP:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7MsCLbbU8uU/URgJTmBfpfI/AAAAAAAAC7o/cteHcITSPIc/s400/ngdp.jpg

This remarkably stable NGDP growth path since 2009 has occurred despite the fiscal austerity (and a host of other negative economic shocks like the Eurozone crisis, China slowing, debt ceiling talks, and fiscal cliff) and only makes sense if the Fed has been offsetting the fiscal drag. And again, it has been doing so in a ZLB environment. While the Fed's success here should be recognized, it is also apparent that the Fed has failed to restore NGDP to its pre-crisis trend. This failure to provide "catch-up" nominal spending growth is big black eye for the Fed and is why a NGDP level target is way overdue for the Fed.

P.S. Ramesh Ponnuru and I made a similar argument (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-cliff-hangs-on-the-fed-why-ben-bernanke-controls-the-economys-fate/266161/) during the fiscal cliff debacle.

Comrade Crapski
02-11-2013, 01:59 PM
I always new Chicago moonbats were crazy, this just confirms it...

A Democratic Party-backed judge who won re-election in November while facing battery charges was found not guilty Monday–by reason of insanity.

The insanity verdict could aid the judge's effort to return to the bench.

Not long after Judge Cynthia Brim was charged in March with misdemeanor battery for shoving a deputy outside the Daley Center, a panel of supervising judges effectively suspended her, banning Brim from the county's courthouses without a police escort.

Bar associations have recommended since 2000 that Brim be tossed from her $182,000-a-year job, but voters have kept returning her to the bench. Experts have said Brim's case highlights the difficulty of unseating a judge up for retention in Cook County.

On Monday, less than a year after the judge embarked on what attorneys described as a delusional journey across the city that ended with her in handcuffs, Brim sat at a wooden table marked "Defendant" on the 13th floor of the Daley Center for a highly unusual bench trial.

Testimony revealed that Brim has been hospitalized five times after suffering mental breakdowns in the 18 years since she was first elected. In 2004, Brim was carried off the bench at a suburban courthouse after she froze while addressing her courtroom before starting the day, standing mute until someone called paramedics, her attorney said.

Brim, 54, was diagnosed years ago with a bipolar type of schizoaffective disorder, which means she experiences delusions and hallucinations, psychiatrist Mathew Markos testified. The symptoms can be kept in check with medication, he testified.

Prosecutors argued that Brim was "criminally responsible" for her actions last spring as she had chosen once again to stop taking her medications. Her attorney said a psychiatrist had advised her to only take the drugs when she needed to.

"She made the choice, despite numerous hospitalizations, to go off her medications," Assistant State's Attorney Maria Burnett said.

DuPage County Judge Liam Brennan -- who was brought in to hear the case -- said his verdict is separate from the larger question of Brim's fitness to be a judge. The state's Judicial Inquiry Board is investigating Brim for multiple alleged violations of the code of professional responsibility, an inquiry that could ultimately end with her removal from the bench, her attorney James Montgomery said.

"This is not about the wisdom of allowing this defendant to serve as a judge," Brennan said.

Legal expert Warren Wolfson, who spent 15 years as a trial judge, said the board will want to be sure that Brim is capable of performing her duties on the bench. The board would consider other incidents as well, including the disruption in her own courtroom.

"The issue is whether she has the ability to perform her duties," Wolfson said.

Brim's November re-election campaign was backed by the Cook County Democratic Party as well as the Committee for Retention of Judges in Cook County, a campaign committee funded by judges. Judges need 60 percent of the vote to be retained; failing to meet that mark is rare.

On March 8, Brim was asked to leave the Markham courthouse after going on a tirade while presiding over traffic court, sources told the Tribune last year. The next day, she read a newspaper story about a Cook County judge who was using lots of sick leave and decided to complain to the judicial board, which disciplines judges, about what she viewed as an unfair story.

But she took the wrong bus and ended up on 47th Street, so she decided to make a "march for justice" up to the board's Loop offices, Markos said. After walking more than 5 miles, she at some point went to her attorney's building, but got off at the wrong floor and refused to leave a different attorney's offices, Montgomery said.

That attorney later filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Board, he said.

Brim also went to the Daley Center. After standing in the lobby for about 15 minutes, she asked deputies if any keys had been left at the security station that day, officers testified.

She then left with a set of keys and returned a few minutes later, throwing her own keys on the floor as a protest against the unjust judicial system, Montgomery said. Deputy Nicholas Leone testified that he noticed Brim's set included special security keys for opening courtrooms and judge's chambers in the building.

"I wanted to know why a civilian had those keys," Leone said.

Brim was walking east on Randolph Street and ignored requests from Deputy Herbert Edwards to stop, he testified.

Edwards said he finally stepped in front of her and stood his ground before she reached Dearborn Street, and that's when she shoved him, he testified. The judge was then taken to the lockup in the Daley Center's basement.

Sheriff's police began calling other judges to come help after Brim, who was identified as a judge, would not answer questions, Montgomery said.

Eventually Judge Pamela Hill-Veal, who is Brim's cousin, came to the lockup and answered questions for Brim, telling police Brim had no history of mental illness, Deputy Deborah Salzman testified. Hill-Veal even helped Brim sign her name on a medical questionnaire, Salzman said.

A message left for Hill-Veal after Monday's verdict was not returned.

Brim, who declined to comment, looked displeased after Brennan's verdict.

"Obviously she's not happy with the fact that she still has to undergo further evaluation to determine if she is in need of further mental treatment," said Montgomery, who noted Brim is already undergoing treatment.

For Sheila Murphy, the former presiding judge at the Markham courthouse, the issue is clear: Brim needs help.

Murphy has worked with the Lawyers' Assistance Program, which helps attorneys and judges with mental health and substance abuse issues, for more than three decades. Although Murphy said she knew of no other judge to have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, she said other judges have mental health issues for which they take medication.

"Judges are human beings. We get physically sick and have mental health issues like anybody else," said Murphy, who also is an adjunct professor at John Marshall Law School.

"The biggest issue is whether a judge can be responsive to the issues that come before him or her and can hear testimony and give it thought," she said. "But you have to have the mental state to do that. If you don't, you're going to have problems."

"Why shouldn't she be able to recover like anybody else with good doctors and valid assessments?" Murphy said.

Brim is scheduled to return to court March 15 for a hearing on her mental health treatment.

Tribune reporter Steve Mills contributed.

sschmadeke@tribune.com ___


(c)2013 the Chicago Tribune

Visit the Chicago Tribune at www.chicagotribune.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cynth...#ixzz2KRF9Ehga
Edit/Delete Message