User Panel
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/350291/E152EE6B-E3A3-4B83-81CD-B84B3E5D31AD_jpe-1247355.JPG... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it's in my best interest not to be sent to a gulaug. Quoted:
Freedom and individual rights are worth more than paychecks and government handouts. |
|
|
Trick question.
There is no option for the working class to vote for their own interest. |
|
Quoted: Not sure I follow. Are you talking about corporate subsidies? If so, that's both parties. For example (from 2018). https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29/leaked-trump-infrastructure-plan-is-a-plan-for-corporate-subsidies/ As for "More equality comes when there is less government involvement in the markets.", that's not necessarily true. If you take away all the downward redistribution on the part of government you'd have less government and far more inequality. This is because you'd be left with only the mechanisms that promote upward redistribution (patents, copyrights, property rights, etc.). View Quote |
|
So, right now we have a government that is selling out the middle class for the benefit of the elites so the solution is to give the government even greater control of the economy in hopes that the politicians won't sell out the middle class for the benefit of the elites? That's some kind of logic.
|
|
Quoted:
Because we don’t see gov’t as our own personal money dispenser. Because we understand that what’s best for the country might not give us the greatest immediate benefit but almost always will benefit everyone in the long term. View Quote Path of least resistance almost always wins. |
|
Quoted: Not sure I follow. Are you talking about corporate subsidies? If so, that's both parties. For example (from 2018). https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29/leaked-trump-infrastructure-plan-is-a-plan-for-corporate-subsidies/ As for "More equality comes when there is less government involvement in the markets.", that's not necessarily true. If you take away all the downward redistribution on the part of government you'd have less government and far more inequality. This is because you'd be left with only the mechanisms that promote upward redistribution (patents, copyrights, property rights, etc.). View Quote I did notice you didn’t answer any of the other questions posed to you but I have to ask for more info as to your thoughts on “property rights” , and how they only benefit the rich |
|
|
|
Quoted:
So, right now we have a government that is selling out the middle class for the benefit of the elites so the solution is to give the government even greater control of the economy in hopes that the politicians won't sell out the middle class for the benefit of the elites? That's some kind of logic. View Quote |
|
|
View Quote I know you know the answer. I also know what your reply is gonna be. Go ahead and say it. Let it out. I know you have it in you. Say the word. |
|
Quoted: And yet, during the period where wealth inequality increased, violent crime plummeted. How come you didn't show that graph? Here, look at that correlation! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQXMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/VPAgCBDfhoAe29EHr9j-qQF2lIwUdb3XtUVPIHsQO_RSXh88gvctemE28cXSnvrpqBCTLk80werGlt2npFQk3fsThTaa9-uqES7LqqryX9yDGnbbh03--BiF_AYyNWjfttq8xajg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: And yet, during the period where wealth inequality increased, violent crime plummeted. How come you didn't show that graph? Here, look at that correlation! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQXMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/VPAgCBDfhoAe29EHr9j-qQF2lIwUdb3XtUVPIHsQO_RSXh88gvctemE28cXSnvrpqBCTLk80werGlt2npFQk3fsThTaa9-uqES7LqqryX9yDGnbbh03--BiF_AYyNWjfttq8xajg https://concealednation.org/2018/07/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/ Abstract:
The Gini Coefficient is the single greatest known predictor of violent crime. Understanding the Gini Coefficient can help us understand murder rates better than analyzing gun ownership rates, gun laws, or any other commonly debated variable. Background: If you are a gun owner and you occasionally peruse social media, you have no doubt encountered the dreaded “gun debate”. That is, when someone attempts to diagnose why evil people do evil things, and it ultimately comes down to a claim that the gun itself is responsible, or that a law change could have avoided a recent tragedy. When the gun debate occurs on social media something truly magical happens. All participants immediately become lawyers, philosophers, psychologists, economists and historians. This phenomenon is illustrated well below. Of course, debate is a good thing. It helps us formulate our own belief systems and test our beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. Informed debate is better than uninformed debate, however, and it is with that end in mind that all gun owners should be familiar with the Gini Coefficient.
Simply put, the Gini Coefficient provides the single greatest explanation for why murder occurs. It is not the only factor to consider, but it is by far the largest factor. If the gun debate were an African savanna, the Gini Coefficient would be a lumbering elephant while the rest of the factors (gun ownership rates, gun laws, etc.) would be gazelle. First developed by Italian sociologist Corrado Gini in 1912, its basic pronouncement is that the greater the income inequality in a given area (city, state, country) the higher the murder rate will be. A Gini Coefficient is a number that represents how much inequality of income distribution exists in a given area. You can calculate a Gini Coefficient for a street, a city, a state or a country. The Guardian notes how well the Gini Coefficient can be used to predict murder rates as follows: The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately. Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University. A study conducted by Harvard came to an even more pronounced conclusion, noting “[i]ncome inequality alone explained 74% of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults.” It is important to note that the Gini Coefficient does not say that poverty causes crime. It says that significant (visible) differences between the economic status of neighbors causes crime. In other words, the relative poverty is what matters, not the poverty itself. |
|
Quoted: Nothing intelligent to say on the matter? Lemme guess, you assume I vote democrat because you're a simp? View Quote Your whole entire being is centered around punishment of anyone that has one nickel more than you do , or one more nickel than you think they should have . Government is force. You wan to use force to confiscate my money and give it to those you deem worthy . That in and of itself makes you an enemy of this nation , it’s founding and every single thing it stands for . Liberty ? Lol , to people of your stripe that’s a meaningless word for the simps . Self determination ? Words too high fallutin for the slaves am I right ? They don’t know what they should be doing for the good of The State . And any thoughts of liberty and self determination should be punishable by death, or at least a workers re-education camp . The State is the end all be all with you over educated , low intelligence , common ole communists . |
|
Don’t forget comrade, I want to know how property rights are bad for me
|
|
Quoted: Government holds enough wealth to make Midas blush. If you weighed their assets it would be staggering. Where’s their downward distribution? View Quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States |
|
|
Quoted: Nice, you’re posting the money shot already? I did notice you didn’t answer any of the other questions posed to you but I have to ask for more info as to your thoughts on “property rights” , and how they only benefit the rich View Quote Which other questions do you need answers to? |
|
|
Quoted: Lol. Now compare this to a by county map of any violent crime stat you want (other than probably burglary and GTAs) and then compare it to the census data maps I posted. Which one matches better? I know you know the answer. I also know what your reply is gonna be. Go ahead and say it. Let it out. I know you have it in you. Say the word. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Don’t know about the other guy, but I assume you vote straight communist , Dems aren’t violent enough for you, Your whole entire being is centered around punishment of anyone that has one nickel more than you do , or one more nickel than you think they should have . Government is force. You wan to use force to confiscate my money and give it to those you deem worthy . That in and of itself makes you an enemy of this nation , it’s founding and every single thing it stands for . Liberty ? Lol , to people of your stripe that’s a meaningless word for the simps . Self determination ? Words too high fallutin for the slaves am I right ? They don’t know what they should be doing for the good of The State . And any thoughts of liberty and self determination should be punishable by death, or at least a workers re-education camp . The State is the end all be all with you over educated , low intelligence , common ole communists . View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: If your interests (as a working class person) is to promote massive wealth disparity, then you're doing great. If you're "not so dumb" then you also realize that government allows for wealth accumulation. And that there is no "free market". So you'll happily allow what's basically an upward redistribution of wealth through legislation, but then balk at downward redistribution. https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/wealth-inequality.jpg http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States.jpg By the way, do you know what stat best predicts violence in society? It isn't poverty. It's the gini coefficient (which measures wealth disparity). https://globalinequalityandhealth.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screen-shot-2015-04-11-at-11-48-13-pm.png View Quote its cute when you try to play at economist LOL |
|
Quoted:
Something being the best indicator doesn't mean there's a perfect correlation. Educate yourself, my dude. https://concealednation.org/2018/07/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: And yet, during the period where wealth inequality increased, violent crime plummeted. How come you didn't show that graph? Here, look at that correlation! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQXMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/VPAgCBDfhoAe29EHr9j-qQF2lIwUdb3XtUVPIHsQO_RSXh88gvctemE28cXSnvrpqBCTLk80werGlt2npFQk3fsThTaa9-uqES7LqqryX9yDGnbbh03--BiF_AYyNWjfttq8xajg https://concealednation.org/2018/07/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/ Abstract:
The Gini Coefficient is the single greatest known predictor of violent crime. Understanding the Gini Coefficient can help us understand murder rates better than analyzing gun ownership rates, gun laws, or any other commonly debated variable. Background: If you are a gun owner and you occasionally peruse social media, you have no doubt encountered the dreaded “gun debate”. That is, when someone attempts to diagnose why evil people do evil things, and it ultimately comes down to a claim that the gun itself is responsible, or that a law change could have avoided a recent tragedy. When the gun debate occurs on social media something truly magical happens. All participants immediately become lawyers, philosophers, psychologists, economists and historians. This phenomenon is illustrated well below. Of course, debate is a good thing. It helps us formulate our own belief systems and test our beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. Informed debate is better than uninformed debate, however, and it is with that end in mind that all gun owners should be familiar with the Gini Coefficient.
Simply put, the Gini Coefficient provides the single greatest explanation for why murder occurs. It is not the only factor to consider, but it is by far the largest factor. If the gun debate were an African savanna, the Gini Coefficient would be a lumbering elephant while the rest of the factors (gun ownership rates, gun laws, etc.) would be gazelle. First developed by Italian sociologist Corrado Gini in 1912, its basic pronouncement is that the greater the income inequality in a given area (city, state, country) the higher the murder rate will be. A Gini Coefficient is a number that represents how much inequality of income distribution exists in a given area. You can calculate a Gini Coefficient for a street, a city, a state or a country. The Guardian notes how well the Gini Coefficient can be used to predict murder rates as follows: The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately. Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University. A study conducted by Harvard came to an even more pronounced conclusion, noting “[i]ncome inequality alone explained 74% of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults.” It is important to note that the Gini Coefficient does not say that poverty causes crime. It says that significant (visible) differences between the economic status of neighbors causes crime. In other words, the relative poverty is what matters, not the poverty itself. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. |
|
Quoted:
Property rights provide a general benefit, not just for the rich. Which other questions do you need answers to? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Nice, you’re posting the money shot already? I did notice you didn’t answer any of the other questions posed to you but I have to ask for more info as to your thoughts on “property rights” , and how they only benefit the rich Which other questions do you need answers to? “As for "More equality comes when there is less government involvement in the markets.", that's not necessarily true. If you take away all the downward redistribution on the part of government you'd have less government and far more inequality. This is because you'd be left with only the mechanisms that promote upward redistribution (patents, copyrights, property rights, etc.).” That specifically says property rights are promoting UPWARD redistribution . So which is it ? Are you pissed right now? , you done fucked up on page 1 . I’ll ask again. How are property rights bad for those not rich ? |
|
Quoted:
Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: And yet, during the period where wealth inequality increased, violent crime plummeted. How come you didn't show that graph? Here, look at that correlation! https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U0YlrTTCYi550Z4py1MNVenNt-E1oi5vqbMX2nSIAvMVfGW-XDI9VOPjUOa9wKI7fnxsoWyv7kLrHKfJg7iMGIpDNvNC99uBoQXMbuTEqsqTzvYVcBkSKamYcIRn7E0bTHAFop3w https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/VPAgCBDfhoAe29EHr9j-qQF2lIwUdb3XtUVPIHsQO_RSXh88gvctemE28cXSnvrpqBCTLk80werGlt2npFQk3fsThTaa9-uqES7LqqryX9yDGnbbh03--BiF_AYyNWjfttq8xajg https://concealednation.org/2018/07/why-every-gun-owner-should-understand-the-gini-coefficient/ Abstract:
The Gini Coefficient is the single greatest known predictor of violent crime. Understanding the Gini Coefficient can help us understand murder rates better than analyzing gun ownership rates, gun laws, or any other commonly debated variable. Background: If you are a gun owner and you occasionally peruse social media, you have no doubt encountered the dreaded “gun debate”. That is, when someone attempts to diagnose why evil people do evil things, and it ultimately comes down to a claim that the gun itself is responsible, or that a law change could have avoided a recent tragedy. When the gun debate occurs on social media something truly magical happens. All participants immediately become lawyers, philosophers, psychologists, economists and historians. This phenomenon is illustrated well below. Of course, debate is a good thing. It helps us formulate our own belief systems and test our beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. Informed debate is better than uninformed debate, however, and it is with that end in mind that all gun owners should be familiar with the Gini Coefficient.
Simply put, the Gini Coefficient provides the single greatest explanation for why murder occurs. It is not the only factor to consider, but it is by far the largest factor. If the gun debate were an African savanna, the Gini Coefficient would be a lumbering elephant while the rest of the factors (gun ownership rates, gun laws, etc.) would be gazelle. First developed by Italian sociologist Corrado Gini in 1912, its basic pronouncement is that the greater the income inequality in a given area (city, state, country) the higher the murder rate will be. A Gini Coefficient is a number that represents how much inequality of income distribution exists in a given area. You can calculate a Gini Coefficient for a street, a city, a state or a country. The Guardian notes how well the Gini Coefficient can be used to predict murder rates as follows: The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately. Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University. A study conducted by Harvard came to an even more pronounced conclusion, noting “[i]ncome inequality alone explained 74% of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults.” It is important to note that the Gini Coefficient does not say that poverty causes crime. It says that significant (visible) differences between the economic status of neighbors causes crime. In other words, the relative poverty is what matters, not the poverty itself. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. |
|
Idiots don't realize wealth inequality is a bipartisan effort.
Both sides want you (the middle class) and your upward mobility gone. An educated, aware, voting, upwardly mobile class of people is every politicians worst nightmare. It is why both sides LOVE them some illegal immigrants, H1Bs, outsourcing, special tax carveouts for the wealthy etc. In addition, each party has their own boutique revenue generators. Global warming for the left, defense/military contractors for the right. They (and the people who enrich them) both work in concert to make all of this happen. To an extent, I don't blame the wealthy, they are just playing the game by the "rules" as they are laid out. Who I blame is the whores in DC for being for sale in the first place. DC is the only place on earth where one can become a multi, multi millionaire on a $139,000/yr salary. I don't have an issue per se with wealthy people, wealthy people are the ones who put food on my plate and a roof over my head. I started a business catering directly to them, doing my own point to point "wealth redistribution" where I provide goods and services that they pay handsomely for. Other then my check, I don't want "their wealth", I want to create my own. |
|
Because everybody that works and votes Democrat is stupid enough to buy all the BS the left is selling.
|
|
|
Quoted: Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. View Quote |
|
Quoted: That is not what you said . Here’s youre quote..... “As for "More equality comes when there is less government involvement in the markets.", that's not necessarily true. If you take away all the downward redistribution on the part of government you'd have less government and far more inequality. This is because you'd be left with only the mechanisms that promote upward redistribution (patents, copyrights, property rights, etc.).” That specifically says property rights are promoting UPWARD redistribution . So which is it ? Are you pissed right now? , you done fucked up on page 1 . I’ll ask again. How are property rights bad for those not rich ? View Quote |
|
Everyone in America wants some kind of handout these days so as long as a politician is willing to deliver the entitlement there will be voters for them
|
|
Quoted: "Leftism". Yes. "Leftism." We can call it "leftism". Just call'em leftists. I actually have no idea how you got "leftists" from maps of census data that are clearly labeled and This kind of makes me think you aren't qualified to condescend to anyone about "muh akshual research", but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you were thinking of this map: http://www.informationliberation.com/files/election-results-by-race-and-gender.jpg If so, that's some 102 stuff. Let's just try to work through 101. I'm trying to implement a no boomer left behind policy in muh programs. View Quote |
|
Quoted: If your interests (as a working class person) is to promote massive wealth disparity, then you're doing great. If you're "not so dumb" then you also realize that government allows for wealth accumulation. And that there is no "free market". So you'll happily allow what's basically an upward redistribution of wealth through legislation, but then balk at downward redistribution. https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/wealth-inequality.jpg http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States.jpg By the way, do you know what stat best predicts violence in society? It isn't poverty. It's the gini coefficient (which measures wealth disparity). https://globalinequalityandhealth.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screen-shot-2015-04-11-at-11-48-13-pm.png View Quote Guess what else correlates with violence in society? Population density and leftist urban leadership. Violence doesn't even enter my conception of "voting in my best interests" because I don't live in a communist enclave. |
|
|
Quoted: If your interests (as a working class person) is to promote massive wealth disparity, then you're doing great. If you're "not so dumb" then you also realize that government allows for wealth accumulation. And that there is no "free market". So you'll happily allow what's basically an upward redistribution of wealth through legislation, but then balk at downward redistribution. https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/wealth-inequality.jpg http://realkm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States.jpg By the way, do you know what stat best predicts violence in society? It isn't poverty. It's the gini coefficient (which measures wealth disparity). https://globalinequalityandhealth.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screen-shot-2015-04-11-at-11-48-13-pm.png View Quote So if we divide that roughly 55.5 trillion up and give it to the bottom 90%, how big a check does everyone get? About $188k each. But what's going to happen after this? What percentage of them are going to invest it wisely and grow it, and what percentage is going to blow it? If the history of lottery winners self imploding is any indication, it's pretty clear it's going to be just a bump in the road of life for most. But let's say you realize most people are too foolish to handle $188k dropped in their lap and you're going to spread it out say over 40 years. That's about 4.7k per year. A 7% pay increase on the us median income. Nice, but again, how many are going to invest it wisely and how many are going to blow it? Even after this experiment, you're going to find that wise people will save and invest, and foolish people will blow their cash, and you'll be back to wealth inequality in the future to the extent you have raised a foolish people who don't work and save for tomorrow. Exactly the class of people you're trying to foster by encouraging them to act in a way quite contrary to their interest vis-a-vis becoming dependent on handouts. Wealth government redistribution is counter productive and destructive of the character and incentives of those who benefit from it. ETA: By the way while we're at it, with 22 trillion in national debt, all those people you want to give money ought to pony up about $75K for their share of the debt taken out in their names, leaving them only about a $113k windfall. And we all know the national debt won't disappear with this either, it will just go right back to growing a trillion a year. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks. Finally a post that might actually contribute to the discussion. I'll peruse your links. In the meantime, you should probably source your definition of socialism and quote where I've advocated that as a system. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. I'm still waiting on you to explain the statistics that allow the "biggest driver" of violent crime to exhibit a 20 year negative correlation with violent crime. I'd like to see the math, please. |
|
Quoted:
Lol the Gini coefficient. The product of some sjw doctoral thesis to pretend correlation equals causation. Guess what else correlates with violence in society? Population density and leftist urban leadership. Violence doesn't even enter my conception of "voting in my best interests" because I don't live in a communist enclave. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. Hell, even conceding being wrong about it's ranking, your links agree that it's something we should be concerned about. Presuming we give a shit about violent crime rates. From the paper's conclusion. The main conclusion of this paper is that income inequality, measured by
the Gini index, has a significant and positive effect on the incidence of crime. This result is robust to changes in the crime rate when it is used as the dependent variable (whether homicide or robbery), the sample of countries and periods, alternative measures of income inequality, the set of additional variables explaining crime rates (control variables), and the method of econometric estimation. In particular, this result persists when using instrumental variable methods that take advantage of the dynamic properties of our crosscountry and time-series data to control for both measurement error in crime data and the joint endogeneity of the explanatory variables. The main objective of this paper has been to characterize the relationship
between inequality and crime from an empirical perspective. We have attempted to provide a set of stylized facts on this relationship. Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants. |
|
It's a false premise.
People vote for one of two major parties, both of those parties are against the interests of the working class, and those of free people in general. Voting for a 3rd party that comes closer to representing them is essentially a protest vote. They vote against their interests because those are the only real choices they have. |
|
Quoted:
Idiots don't realize wealth inequality is a bipartisan effort. Both sides want you (the middle class) and your upward mobility gone. An educated, aware, voting, upwardly mobile class of people is every politicians worst nightmare. It is why both sides LOVE them some illegal immigrants, H1Bs, outsourcing, special tax carveouts for the wealthy etc. In addition, each party has their own boutique revenue generators. Global warming for the left, defense/military contractors for the right. They (and the people who enrich them) both work in concert to make all of this happen. To an extent, I don't blame the wealthy, they are just playing the game by the "rules" as they are laid out. Who I blame is the whores in DC for being for sale in the first place. DC is the only place on earth where one can become a multi, multi millionaire on a $139,000/yr salary. I don't have an issue per se with wealthy people, wealthy people are the ones who put food on my plate and a roof over my head. I started a business catering directly to them, doing my own point to point "wealth redistribution" where I provide goods and services that they pay handsomely for. Other then my check, I don't want "their wealth", I want to create my own. View Quote It's why I support Trump for the sole reason that he hasn't had to sell his soul for those millions in order to attain that power. It's also why he's been attacked for his entire term. He's too big of a threat to the status quo. More about the corruption in DC has come out during Trump's term than has come out during my entire lifetime, combined. And it's been the corrupt that have outed themselves by defending their corruption that has convinced me of this. The more they defend themselves by attacking Trump, the more sure of this I have become. The fact that so many are willing to put their heads in the sand over this really just speaks to how many have sold their souls to socialism, than anything else. Fuck socialism. Fuck the left. Fuck the corruption. Fuck the Mitt Romneys. I want my fucking nation back. I want to stop paying entitlements to governments that hate us. I want to stop paying fuckers not to do war upon us. I want to stop paying the welfare class to not get uppity. I'll take those risks. Just give me the ability to defend myself without huge legal consequences and I'll happily accept the danger. Fuck it. Let's actually do this thing instead of being quislings about it. |
|
Quoted:
First off, I haven't had a stats class in a long fuckin' time. Second, I'm at work so I only skimmed the lengthy paper. Third, both of these support wealth disparity being a key driver of violent crime. I never said gini was the only factor. Just that it offers the best correlation of any one stat. Can you quote the part in that second link that shows these higher correlations? Hell, even conceding being wrong about it's ranking, your links agree that it's something we should be concerned about. Presuming we give a shit about violent crime rates. From the paper's conclusion. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Educate myself? Uh, my dude, I have used Herfindahl indexes in my published research. I'm quite familiar with the Gini Coefficient. Have you done more than just read that blog post? Because I've looked at the actual published articles underlying what they are saying. Here's the world bank article: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf Guess what, in that article, GDP growth looks more statistically relevant. You did check the actual stats, didn't you? Did you look at the control variables to make sure nothing important got omitted? How about that Harvard study? Was inequality the biggest factor? Uh, oddly, "percentage single mothers" had a higher correlation (lack of fathers sound like a similar thing, don't it?). So did high school education. And self assessment of mistrust. They then do a principal components analysis and find an underlying factor that most of those things load on... PCA is kind of witchcraft, so if you're not familiar with it, I would be careful. Also, did you note all the things they didn't look at? Here, see for yourself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953698004006 But you never thought about confounding factors, or omitted variable bias, or the limitations of the populations studied, did you? You just read something you liked, and went with it. You're aiming for socialism. And your science is off. Hell, even conceding being wrong about it's ranking, your links agree that it's something we should be concerned about. Presuming we give a shit about violent crime rates. From the paper's conclusion. The main conclusion of this paper is that income inequality, measured by
the Gini index, has a significant and positive effect on the incidence of crime. This result is robust to changes in the crime rate when it is used as the dependent variable (whether homicide or robbery), the sample of countries and periods, alternative measures of income inequality, the set of additional variables explaining crime rates (control variables), and the method of econometric estimation. In particular, this result persists when using instrumental variable methods that take advantage of the dynamic properties of our crosscountry and time-series data to control for both measurement error in crime data and the joint endogeneity of the explanatory variables. The main objective of this paper has been to characterize the relationship
between inequality and crime from an empirical perspective. We have attempted to provide a set of stylized facts on this relationship. Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants. These papers support the conclusion about the thing they studied. They are not exhaustive studies. And even within themselves, they show other factors that are more significant. Look at what you quoted: "The main objective of this paper has been to characterize the relationship between inequality and crime from an empirical perspective." Inequality is a main driver *out of the things they looked at*. This is called omitted variable bias. Because inequality was really all they cared about. |
|
In my experience, many people pay very little attention to politics and unfortunately some will vote on who they think looks better, better speaker or just appears to be the nicer of two choices. They complain about taxes being too high, healthcare and prescriptions being too high, crime, etc., but are blissfully unaware of why these things are the way they are. One demographic I’m quite familiar with votes based solely on color.
|
|
Redistribution hasn't solved anything since the beginning of recorded history, it's embarrassing that it even is discussed with reverence in modern times. Every bit of historical data, even on the smallest of scales, shows that downward distribution simply changes who is at the top.
|
|
Quoted: No it isn't. I'm saying there's a point where there's too much inequality and it should be reduced. That's not the same as saying we should all have the same amount of shit. Again, gini isn't the only factor. In society there's multiple forces at work. Even the dude who claims to be published on the matter has provided links affirming wealth disparity is a causal factor. For all you know those rates would be dropping much faster if middle class incomes were benefiting more from economic growth. Last I read the middle class has been fairly stagnant since the '70's. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mDTrxtwAv7g/T95hr8W4aAI/AAAAAAAAFeg/V1pbDNYD8Xw/s1600/c-us-gdp-per-capita-1951-2010.png View Quote The discussions should be centered about "how do we stop preventing barriers to market entry" that allow what you pontificate about. Regulations, governmental involvement, governmental barriers to market entry combined with those who have the wealth to by off powerful politicians to reinforce those barriers to market entry....those things allow this sort of wealth disparity to exist. If you really get into all the reasons why the ultra-rich stay rich....it really boils down to who they own, why they own those politicians, and how much they can pay to maintain their market position. Take that away, strip away the artificial protections, and allow the free market to decide......and any "wealth disparity" only reflects the inability of "normies" to better society as a whole. Combine that with multi-national corruption/kickbacks and pedophilia-mutual assured destruction blackmail rings, and you have what we have today. The problem isn't the free market. The problem is government trying to fuck with the free market, corruption, and money buying market protections from competition. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.