Link?

Lol , WTF.

Trick question.

There is no option for the working class to vote for their own interest.

Government holds enough wealth to make Midas blush. If you weighed their assets it would be staggering. Where’s their downward distribution?

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.

Sure.  Cali sucks balls.  But the disparity is growing all over.

Yep.
Path of least resistance almost always wins.

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

Nothing intelligent to say on the matter?  Lemme guess, you assume I vote democrat because you're a simp?

The fuck are you talking about?

Government hopes to decimate the middle class because they want a top tier system of feudal boyars to finance them and a bottom tier of vote slave dependents to keep them in power. Neo-aristocracy.

What's your point here?

Crime is demographics. I’d say it’s more cultural.

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.

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/

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 .

Don’t forget comrade, I want to know how property rights are bad for me

I'll certainly agree the federal government is bloated.  Thought most wealth remains in private hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States

Think about the relationship between the two. Your distinction isn't important for any practical purpose other than trying to promise you aren't the dreaded r-word.

Property rights provide a general benefit, not just for the rich.

Which other questions do you need answers to?

What you say means precious little compared to actual research.

You moving the goalposts?  Wasn't your point that disparity was the result of leftism?  Most post illustrates it's happening all over.  You have a comment on that or no?

Maybe you should quit assuming things about me and you wouldn't sound like such a dipshit.  Your post does a great job of mixing ad hominem with strawaman.  Not that that's something to be proud of.

Correct answer.

LOL

its cute when you try to play at economist

LOL

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.

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 ?

"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:



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.

Attached File

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.

Like I'm the only dude in this thread voicing an opinion on the matter?  Sounds like you don't know shit about the subject and it makes you feel better to paint everyone else as equally ignorant.

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.

Maybe the problem is how each of us is understanding your original quote that I responded to.  You said "equality".  It's possible for all to benefit from something but in a disproportionate manner.  We agree on that, right?

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

If you can sum up your point that'd be great.  Between people making stupid assumptions and me not keeping proper track of the various sources of arguments here, I apologize for not grasping whatever it is you're trying to say.

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.

This guy gets it.

So lets assume 327 million US citizens, and a total US wealth of 98 trillion.  Let's assume the top 1% own 60 percent of the wealth, which is an average of about 18 million each.  Let's just assume they got all that money by evil means and let's take some of that wealth, but recognizing some of it is in their house, savings for retirement, etc and we shouldn't leave them in poverty, so lets say we leave them 1 million which is still pretty nice.  How angry can they be about it, they still have a million right?

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.

Why would I waste time pointing out the obvious? Outcome equality is literally the central thesis of your posts in this thread.

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.

That's actually not true at all.

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.

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.

Completely agree.

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.

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.

It's in the statistics tables.

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.

The discussion should NOT BE what this is.

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.