patrick.net

I think the world would be much much better if we restrict gun usage to hunting vermin on hooves (can anyone tell that I really hate deer?).

It's not money, it's social inequality. South Africa is relatively rich, but there's a lot of racial and economic tension plus lots of transients. Homogenous and relatively economically equal countries tend to do better.

I have argued that minimum wage creates poverty.

Someone with similar views has excellent arguments and data here:

http://www.epionline.org/

South Africa is relatively rich, but there’s a lot of racial and economic tension plus lots of transients.

It is a result of ending apartheid too abruptly. One cannot implement political changes without FIRST having economic reforms in place.

Apartheid is evil. But the transition from it must be done right.

Russia also moved too quickly. Fortunately, Putin seems to be making sure that things go well.

When I say restrict, I don't mean by law. I mean just don't use.

Frickin Fortress South Bay

The new housing tracker now has 12 months of history. The median asking is down by 6.6% YOY.

SP already posted the link to SJMN article where problem about median was clearly mentioned. It's still buried deep in the content, but median myth might be exposed on the headline soon.

The tide has definitely turned. It's a matter of time before popular opinion and numbers reflect the knowledge.

–Some countries have per capita private gun ownership rates similar to U.S. (Switzerland, Finland, Canada), yet MUCH lower gun & non-gun homicide rates.

–Some countries that either ban or severely restrict private gun ownership have far higher gun-homicide rates (South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc.)

exactly, that just proves nutso societies shouldn't have high gun ownership rates for their own good...

The other countries listed comparable to the US rates can not even be considered 1st world countries, so that's telling you something straight away. The social settlements of Switzerland, Canada and Finland are more cohesive and equitable, but there could be still more points of cultural difference -- there are certain excitable cultural types in eastern Europe and elsewhere which I wouldn't want combined with high access to guns...

just thinking of the reality of South Africa, it's had a longstanding 'white siege' society ruled by a white European minority, where people are increasingly leaving as apartheid and white political domination closes down -- with high rates of gun ownership, and the complete inability to enforce the law in shanty towns as well. To compare simple statistics between countries is really not apples with apples, every country and region needs to be examined uniquely...

Peter P Says:

I have argued that minimum wage creates poverty.

Sure, it's possible. Which means that you need to provide other welfare assistance to low income earners through the tax system so they can survive and participate in otherwise affluent societies. If you keep wages low by de-regulating, you will need to supplement earnings through other redistributive methods such as healthcare benefits, free schooling, family benefits, supported housing, and so on. Analysts always do pre-transfer and post-transfer analyses of people's real conditions in poverty studies...

DS,

But my point is, private gun ownership in itself does not make a society "crazy" (dangerous & unstable). As you said, very unequal distribution of wealth/power, the existence of large permanently impoverished/disenfranchised underclass, endemic political corruption, illiteracy, and as Peter P pointed out, ratio of natural resources to population has a lot more to do with homicide rates.

Yes. Except the 'natural resources' point is barely valid at all. Britain relies on its strengths as a financial centre for a lot of its income, for instance -- unless you count human capital, engineering, technology and innovation as 'natural resources', of course.

For whatever reason a country is relatively affluent, try comparing per capita GDPs as I did earlier -- and your own cited article describes 'upper middle income' and 'high income' countries, of which the US is one of the highest. Peter P's constant arguments that the North American continent of which the US takes up a large part is 'resource poor' are not valid, not even considering the other value-adding that takes place to push average GDP even higher.

whew, glad you agree, bap, we're seeing eye to eye at last.

but think about the desperation factor of the 'addicts and illegals' and how that can turn into a cycle of crime. (US also has a very high incarceration rate compared with just about all Western countries.) I don't think there's any more people who want 'something for nothing' than here, however you have much higher wage inequality or 'multiples' than anywhere in the West also.

sorry to hate your freedoms...

Peter P’s constant arguments that the North American continent of which the US takes up a large part is ‘resource poor’ are not valid, not even considering the other value-adding that takes place to push average GDP even higher.

America is not resource poor. Far from it. But it has a lot of people to feed. In fact, 300 million of them.

compare the land area of UK with the US and divide them into the respective populations...

UK: 85M / 94,000 = 904 persons per sq mile
US: 300M / 3,619,000 = 83 persons per sq mile

hmmm...

Oh DS, my oh my. I can't believe you're actually trying to pin something like happened today on folks like me who dare to -- hold your breath -- *create* jobs in the economy. I suppose that is the government's sole domain in your vision? You've been here long enough to know that I am not afraid to deeply criticize problems I see within American society and government. I did so fairly fiercely above. But blaming all the worst problems on guys and gals like me who rather prefer the basic idea that people should have strong incentives to innovate, work hard, and progress?

As to the postmumbleism, let me ask you this: regardless of the symbol(s) used, we'll say the symbol in this case is '|', what is the difference in how the speed of light is perceived, measured, and understood? Or is just refusing to believe that "light has a speed" enough to invalidate objectivism?

hey, the speed of light changes in different media ;) not to mention the duality theory of particle-wave behaviour which we still don't understand...

anyway, the notion of "speed" is just an ‘exchanger’ discourse (or discursive practice) that that links the analytic-programmatic levels of the “sciences” and the rigidities, inertia and opacity which the real displays in its concrete functioning... :P

from nytimes

Jay Kim, owner of Sushi by Jay leaves flagship sushi bar at Brothers Market in Dobbs Ferry, NY, and moves to nearby Stop & Shop supermarket; Kim now has 31 fresh sushi bars in Stop & Shops across Northeast

from OO

Korean, to be exact. American Korean from the Bay Area, the rumor says, Jay Kim.

something that's bothering me
people saying that the college should have locked down the campus after finding 2 people, girl and guy, shot in what appeared to be an ex-lover bf white guy exacting some karma
alleged korean student rampaging 1/2 mile away 2 hours later and it is connected ?
did the jilted white guy morph into a korean ??

in explaining my views to my 16 yr old daughter I said its like a nyc subway shooting shutting down wall street
or an la gang shooting closing disney

tell me what am I missing ?

Randy H Says:
Oh DS, my oh my. I can’t believe you’re actually trying to pin something like happened today on folks like me who dare to — hold your breath — *create* jobs in the economy.

I accept what you're saying, Randy, more or less, but you were just talking about destroying jobs. The reality is that you use others as instrumentalities in order to achieve a business purpose. There is a huge level of debate and discourse over what is acceptable practice in workers rights and conditions and safety nets, as per the earlier reference to Marris' writing on exactly this topic, if you Amazon it. The argument is that risk is being increasingly heaped upon, passed down to and internalised by the weakest and poorest, by corporations and business. There is something being implemented here right now by a neoliberal Federal govt called 'Work Choices' which takes away all worker choice by regulation -- it is scary enough to most that they will probably lose the next election over it.

e.g.
Prof Ron McCallum on Workplace Relations - The Fantasy of Choice

or e.g.
"A critical audience like this one is conscious of the shadow side of globalisation, which includes:

- Subversion of national development strategies – often products of democratically arrived-at choices about what sort of socio-economic development we find desirable;
- Contraction and destruction of social programs for the alleviation of poverty, morbidity, relative social deprivation, social insecurity, and so on;
- Undermining of labour rights – directly through ‘deregulation’ – such as the Howard govt’s destruction of a great deal of our labour rights recently – and indirectly through moving manufacturing to labour-repressive, low-wage areas such as China.
- Accelerated socio-economic polarisation, within countries and internationally: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer much faster under globalisation.

So let’s unpack some of the rhetoric of globalisation. For starters, where did it come from? Far from dropping from out of space, it was and remains a political project driven by powerful nation-states (USA and UK above all) and their client states (such as Australia) in which neo-liberals have dominated political life. To a large extent, globalisation means Americanisation, especially when we look at how it is institutionalised, and the main international organs pushing it, such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO.

The political program of economic liberalism was first put into effect in Britain in the 1830s and 1840s. It came in a series of aggressive legislative interventions (palaver about ‘small government’ and ‘laissez-faire’ notwithstanding), much like those of the Howard government today. The economic liberals set out to destroy poor-relief systems and all forms of social provision and security, in order to bolster capital’s power to force labour into the new factories of the industrial revolution and suppress unionism, so that the owners had complete control over wages and conditions. In its recent interventions into welfare provision and industrial relations, the Howard government has followed the same agenda 160 years later. In both cases the goal of policy has been the creation of radical social insecurity.

The ideology churned out in support of this program consisted in a theology about the market as the beneficent guarantor of economic efficiency and equitable distribution of income and life chances. If you insert the word ‘global’ in front of ‘market’, we can see that the same idolatry of market mechanisms, as the mystical guarantors of efficiency of social equity, confronts us today.

In spite of its rhetoric, economic liberalism – past and present – has never had anything to do with small government, or with the governing class abandoning the will to govern. During the greater part of the 19th century most of Britain was under permanent (para)military occupation to enforce the simple ‘freedoms’ of the rich under economic liberalism against popular resistance. But the labour market itself (that artefact of liberal politics) has proved the greatest mechanism of domination and subordination: now, as then, the propertyless every day face the ultimatum: buckle under, or starve.

Once again, we must note that – rhetoric notwithstanding – neo-liberalism had nothing whatever to do with small government and abandoning the will to rule. Thatcher’s and Reagan’s regimes, its prototypes, were spectacularly authoritarian and interventionist, especially towards organised labour, and internationally aggressive."

SP Says:
In other words, 21st century Communist Aristocrats seem to have the same attitude as 18th century French Aristocrats.

This is post-communist market China where narcissists drive BMWs, SP. Besides, China has never really been Communist , it's been a totalitarian command-capitalist state. And the corruption of party officials is legion. But this story was about the rise of rich factory owners and their self-entitled kin. The long-standing business activity in Shanghai, HK, and so on is certainly not Communist in inspiration.

Narcissism and self-entitlement is a constant everywhere, unfortunately.

CB Says:

> Usually I don’t like to debate gun control but I
> went to Virginia Tech and I am really saddened
> by what happened.

It’s a sad day, but it’s even sadder to think that we will see more stupid laws when more gun laws will do as little to stop gun violence as drug laws have done to stop drug use.

> Pro-gun supporters always trot out the “guns don’t
> kill people, people do argument”.

Most Pro-gun people want tough punishment for people doing bad things with guns, but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns (e.g. come on he had to deal with poverty les give him probation since it was only his second drive by shooting)…

Different Sean Says:

> There is a huge level of debate and discourse over
> what is acceptable practice in workers rights and
> conditions and safety nets, as per the earlier reference
> to Marris’ writing on exactly this topic, if you Amazon it.

I believe in “equal” rights.

If a worker commits to say for 5 years no matter what an employer should commit to pay them for 5 years no matter what.

If a worker can leave with two weeks notice an employer should be able to let them go with two weeks notice…

Most Pro-gun people want tough punishment for people doing bad things with guns, but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns

Yes, my support for board application of efficient death penalty has been attacked many times.

If a worker can leave with two weeks notice an employer should be able to let them go with two weeks notice…

In fact, the "two week" notice is merely a courtesy. As a result, employers do not have to give notice at all.

If you remove the guns as completely as possible, as has happened in UK and Oz, then drive-by shootings would diminish markedly... There is an iterative process of confiscation under the law. Admittedly, it's harder to keep black market guns out of circulation in UK with a relatively easy supply from East Europe etc, but it is contained within a smaller and smaller section of the population, as Tony Blair just got into trouble over saying... As HARM's cited article points out, tho, homicide rates in UK, including from firearms, were already very low historically.

I don't have any experience to back me up, but I assume if a company has more than one or two rounds of sudden layoffs or if an employee has more than one or two sudden departures, people will start to notice.

last e.g. : Revealed: how AWAs strip work rights

Bap33,

That's why you gotta be a moderate. Then you can be FOR killing babies AND criminals. Like me!

in explaining my views to my 16 yr old daughter I said its like a nyc subway shooting shutting down wall street
or an la gang shooting closing disney

The difference is that this is Virginia.

And not the Northern Virginia/DC part.

Around those parts, crime doesn't happen other than the usual alcohol related ones. They live in a very special place.

(Well, not nearly as special as the Bay Area, but you get what I mean.)

but most Anti-gun people just want to ban guns but will not support tough crimes for people who do bad things with guns

I think you meant to say "tough punishments".

But in any case, therein lies the rub. Politicians always campaign on the platform of being tough on crime - it gets the police vote, it gets the senior vote... heck, it gets every vote.

But look at our success story, or lack thereof. How is it that we have more people in prison per capita than... well... any country?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. What we're doing is insane.

And, as usual, I only offer problems - no solutions. :) :) :)

apropos of nothing in the later stages of this thread but strangely relevant if 'twere nigh the start:

"Double, Double, Toil and Trouble"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double,_Double,_Toil_and_Trouble

I am pro gun control and I am all for putting people on death rows. I think it is a huge waste of tax payers' money to support life imprisonment of serial criminals who have proven themselves to be harmful to the society.

Btw, I am pro prison labor as well, they might as well do something productive for our tax dollars.

Btw, I am pro prison labor as well, they might as well do something productive for our tax dollars.

I am anti-prison. There should be four kinds of punishments:

1. Community service
2. Canning
3. Execution
4. Combination of (3) and (4)

the left seems to not mind killin kids in the womb, but hates killin murderers or using deadly protection to save life and property. Why is that?

They call it pro-choice.

I am not against abortion when situation warrants (like rape, genetic disorder, etc)

But calling it a "choice" cheapens human lives. Abortion should not be banned but it should be strongly discouraged (parental/spousal notification, etc).

2. Canning

I think you meant "Caning". "Canning" would imply a punishment far more sinister.

LOL. Canning is also a "punishment" for perfect fine TV shows like Firefly.

SP Says:
You can rationalize it that way if it suits you, but the attitude of Communist Aristocrats even before it became ‘post-communist’ is the same as that of the French Aristocrats.

I have lived for some time in a communist country, so I know a little about what it is really like - although I concede you certainly may have read more books about how it should be.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I don't think the attempted point really holds under inspection. You don't seem to have considered what implementations of Communism are supposed to be about, and the whole history of where they may have gone off the rails. Further, China still has a 'peasant'-based economy, and, in fact, the social class or type of 'peasant' is still the most common mode of living in the world. Therefore, you might find something similar occurring in a number of places which are not nominally 'Communist', such as Iraq, central Asia and eastern Europe, South America, Africa, and so on. I think we just established that homicide rates are very high in many of those countries. I absolutely concede I hear very little good out of North Korea or China in parts, because many countries which nominally became 'Communist' often came from underdeveloped status backgrounds with little regard for individual rights as we understand them in the industrialised West -- and the message of Marxism is a very powerful one for people in those societies, being the selfsame peasants. However, Marxist theory, such as it is, proposes that Communism should be a post-high capitalism phase where capitalism basically self-destructs without prompting due to mass movements of protest, and that it would not be suited to pre-industrial societies. We haven't quite seen that yet anywhere either. So I wouldn't blame the event of the BMW on 'Communism', I think that's quite a biased long bow to draw, somehow. Apparently no-one gets necklaced etc in South Africa because it's a good capitalist country that supplies you with diamonds for engagement rings...

As I pointed out, the woman represents the new social class of rich factory owners in China, who are also the ones purchasing more and more 'status goods' from the West with their new wealth. The family may or may not have Party connections. There was a case recently of a Party member who basically put a guy out of business and jailed him because he didn't give the local Party members their perceived share of the loot from his business. This was to the tune of millions. However, equally well, there is tons of corruption in Western politics and business, so I don't really see that Communism is the ultimate evil in that, greed is the universal factor. Just as the French ex-aristocracy quietly worked their way into govt and diplomacy positions post-Rev'n, Chinese citizens saw the Party as the place where all the money was -- and scratch the surface of Chinese 'Communism' and they are still pretty fiercely individualistic and market-oriented...

3. Execution
4. Combination of (3) and (4)

that's recursive as well...

Peter P,

Russia also moved too quickly. Fortunately, Putin seems to be making sure that things go well.

I sometimes wonder whether some of your comments are deliberately designed to ignite debate. This is one of them.

Define 'going well', because to me Russia is returning to the 1950's. Rule of law ignored when inconvenient to the Kremlin (E.g. Forced nationalisation directed against Shell and BP, not to mention Yukos). State-sponsored assassination of an expatriate critic in the UK.

And now the administrative actions being taken against any real opposition parties, with the 'law and order' excuse being trotted out to support riot police crackdowns on any resulting peaceful demonstrations.

Russian life expectancy is falling, the population is falling, and the education level is falling. This is all shielded for the moment by windfall profits from energy exports, much as the 'Thatcher Revolution' in the UK was supported by the oil discoveries in the North Sea.

Vicente,

Very true. We humans miscalculate risk.

I'm very offended that some people equate me to a fertilized egg, or even a 7 month fetus. What makes me truly human is not a combination of my father and my mother's genes, what makes me human is that not only do I have a brain, I've packed it with 20+ years of knowledge, trivia, experience, etc.

ahj to Peter P,

"I sometimes wonder whether some of your comments are deliberately designed to ignite debate. This is one of them."

Only "some"?