Freakonomics

[xxuxu]

You mean, it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that there was more economic growth in poor, urban areas during the Clinton Administration? You know, since the most driving force behind criminal behavior tends to be survival, the fact that people in poorer areas in the 90s had more immediate and affordable access to necessities didn't make any difference whatsoever?

I don't know anything about this book, nor did I read all these long posts, but economic factors should have been accounted for, if this is a serious study. When you take Intro to Sociological Research (as a non SOC major, I did, heh), you pretty much learn on day 2 or 3 the basic controls (economic variables, age, sex, etc.) that are fundamental to this kind of research.

 

[blooeyz]

I've read these books and find them quite interesting and provacative. analyzing data is about telling a story and the authors are excellent at that. Being an analyst myself I know that correlations can sometimes tell you what you want to hear. A regression would show causality. I'm not disputing any findings, but I'm know enough to not believe everything I read

I'm not sure if I buy we are the cause of global warming. I know the glaciers are melting and it is concerning, I get it. but in reality we have about 100 credible data points (100 years of avg daily tempeture). That's not much to demonstrate statistical difference. Also our perspective is quite short. The fossil record is clear that there have been climactic shifts in the past. Just because we're observing, doesn't mean this one is any different than the previous events.

 

[1kmb1]

In simple terms, kids that are born into high risk homes are more likely to commit crime. If those kids don't exist due to abortions, the crime doesn't occur.

Ipso facto.

if we nuked nyc we would reduce crime in nyc by 100%

 

[Qua]

A correlation proves nothing. Simply that a correlation exists. It cannot offend. It cannot be used to say WHY something happened. It may have an agenda bubbling underneath, but that is simply a ploy, for those who latch on to it are just as fallacious as those who condemn a correlation.

As for the supposed attack on abortion rights...to me any agenda seems to speak in their favor, if anything.

Searching for the details of a more nuanced relationship is all well and good, but attacking a correlation is the opposite of that. You use it when moving forward, and acknowledge its incompleteness, rather than getting mad at it for not being complete.

It's not that you were searching to fill in gaps Vinyl. That is the right thing to do, obviously. It's that you seemed to come out swinging at something that hadn't thrown a punch, but was a good starting point for the search. I don't think anyone fallaciously attributed a causation relationship.

It's not that trying to find causation is bad, not at all. But attacking a more or less (<--concession) proven correlation which doesn't say much at all unless distorted (concession 2 haha) is pointless.

 

[B_starinvestor]

if we nuked nyc we would reduce crime in nyc by 100%

Not really because people would come in from Jersey and start looting.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

Then we should use a really dirty nuke that makes life impossible in the area for a few thousand years.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

I liked the section talking about the economics of ghetto drug dealers. I think it is fascinating that an illegal drug runing operation was set up very similarly to the hierarchy of a large corporation.

 

[1kmb1]

Not really because people would come in from Jersey and start looting.

loot what? all the nothing that survives?:tongue:

 

[Qua]

I liked the section talking about the economics of ghetto drug dealers. I think it is fascinating that an illegal drug runing operation was set up very similarly to the hierarchy of a large corporation.

Yeah I actually did a paper on the illegal drug trade, particularly Colombian cocaine, as an example of a totally free market only regulated from above by its need to avoid law enforcement. If one wants to see a bastard child of free market economics at work they need only look at the drug trade.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Yeah I actually did a paper on the illegal drug trade, particularly Colombian cocaine, as an example of a totally free market only regulated from above by its need to avoid law enforcement. If one wants to see a bastard child of free market economics at work they need only look at the drug trade.

yes but no sick leave/vacation/worker's comp, etc. Medical benefits suck too.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Pablo Escobar was famous for giving back to the community. He would load up trucks with appliances, furniture, food, liquor and cash and send his crew out to spread goodwill amongst the people. Its part of the reason he stayed in power for so long. You don't get dental, but a pile of cash and all the coke you can snort was thought to be fair recompense.

 

[tripod]

yes but no sick leave/vacation/worker's comp, etc. Medical benefits suck too.

Aren't those the hallmarks of socialist unions? I wonder who fought soooo hard for those worker's rights in the late 19th century? I wonder how many lost their lives or were severely beat by union busting gangs? If it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 days a week, have no vacation or sick leave, no worker's compensation and absolutely no medical or health benefits.

Conservatives have been forcibly and violently opposing worker's rights from this day all the way back to the medieval age. Doesn't anyone remember reading about the peasants' revolts in England?

 

[B_starinvestor]

Aren't those the hallmarks of socialist unions? I wonder who fought soooo hard for those worker's rights in the late 19th century? I wonder how many lost their lives or were severely beat by union busting gangs? If it wasn't for unions, we would all be working 7 days a week, have no vacation or sick leave, no worker's compensation and absolutely no medical or health benefits.

Conservatives have been forcibly and violently opposing worker's rights from this day all the way back to the medieval age. Doesn't anyone remember reading about the peasants' revolts in England?

which is why the crack dealers need to organize and unionize. Same with prostitutes

 

[B_VinylBoy]

which is why the crack dealers need to organize and unionize. Same with prostitutes

They don't have to as long as it's still illegal. :wink:

 

[Qua]

yes but no sick leave/vacation/worker's comp, etc. Medical benefits suck too.

Yeah those are definitely products of government regulation and upwards labor pressure eventually leading to downward pressure from the goverment to prevent those violent strikes in the 19th and early 20th century from repeating themselves.

In this case the employers are free to kill and use violence to prevent and suppress any such uprising. I suppose that goes a step beyond a free market and into anarchy based on that definition, since a state is the sole legitimate holder and regulator of violent force, no matter the economic ideals.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Yeah those are definitely products of government regulation and upwards labor pressure eventually leading to downward pressure from the goverment to prevent those violent strikes in the 19th and early 20th century from repeating themselves.

In this case the employers are free to kill and use violence to prevent and suppress any such uprising. I suppose that goes a step beyond a free market and into anarchy based on that definition, since a state is the sole legitimate holder and regulator of violent force, no matter the economic ideals.

IMO, the drug kingpins should carve out some type of 'neighborhood tax' on their profits; in which they can put a little money into the neighborhoods where they are moving their product. It would improve lifestyle/living conditions in those extremely low-income areas and could erect a little pride for the inhabitants.

The fuckers don't pay any income taxes, so they should look at this kind of thing.

Assholes.

I note that a lot of people are very quick to defend the actions of those in the ghetto. My question is - why don't they even help their own?

As one poster commented earlier, the format of a crack dealer is very similar to that of a McDonalds - set up as a franchise, etc. The main thing missing is that they don't pay any taxes and therefore provide no benefit to the community in which they make a living. There is no collateral benefit to anyone.

I would think that this would really bother the liberal community. However, never a word.

 

[D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead]

Well, actually, people who end up as runners, etc., in organizations like the above are usually neighborhood people, especially kids and others who can't/won't get regular jobs.

From an economic standpoint, where it doesn't matter about right vs wrong, many drug organizations and even neighborhood gangs (often the same thing) have a similar structure to many legitimate corporate set-ups.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

IMO, the drug kingpins should carve out some type of 'neighborhood tax' on their profits; in which they can put a little money into the neighborhoods where they are moving their product. It would improve lifestyle/living conditions in those extremely low-income areas and could erect a little pride for the inhabitants.

The fuckers don't pay any income taxes, so they should look at this kind of thing.

Assholes.

I note that a lot of people are very quick to defend the actions of those in the ghetto. My question is - why don't they even help their own?

As one poster commented earlier, the format of a crack dealer is very similar to that of a McDonalds - set up as a franchise, etc. The main thing missing is that they don't pay any taxes and therefore provide no benefit to the community in which they make a living. There is no collateral benefit to anyone.

I would think that this would really bother the liberal community. However, never a word.

Why, oh WHY do you have to destroy your posts like that?
Why are you here complaining about an illegal business not paying taxes? Wouldn't common sense tell you that would be par for the course for being an "illegal business" in the first place? And why would you even consider the silence of "liberals" on such an obvious fact as some kind of laissez-faire approach towards the situation?

"Liberal communities", as you put it, would never be so silly as to request drug dealers to pay taxes on the stuff they illegally sell. You only know the answer going into it, and it makes no sense to make unnecessary noise about it just to win ethical points. The most effective way to adjust this is to legalize some drugs (preferably marijuana since it's the most popular). Just like prohibition, it would take away a major source for the bootleggers to make their money "under the table". At that point, the mass majority of people who would sell it would be those who would want to make a real career out of it AND it can be taxed. It's not as if there's a shortage of weed smokers out there. Legalizing it would not make that number lower anytime soon, so the demand would still remain. Or, you can try becoming more diligent to shut down the current drug businesses out there. But we all know the "drug war" doesn't work as effectively as it sounds ideally.

Learn when to take your shots, star... this was absolutely abysmal, even for you. And don't worry about what's going on in the "ghetto". It's not like you ever lived in one.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Why are you here complaining about an illegal business not paying taxes? Wouldn't common sense tell you that would be par for the course for being an "illegal business" in the first place? And why would you even consider the silence of "liberals" on such an obvious fact as some kind of laissez-faire approach towards the situation?

I am just saying they are assholes because they don't pay taxes. What makes them immune or above paying taxes? They have declared themselves too important to pay?

The most effective way to adjust this is to legalize some drugs (preferably marijuana since it's the most popular). Just like prohibition, it would take away a major source for the bootleggers to make their money "under the table". At that point, the mass majority of people who would sell it would be those who would want to make a real career out of it AND it can be taxed. It's not as if there's a shortage of weed smokers out there. Legalizing it would not make that number lower anytime soon, so the demand would still remain. Or, you can try becoming more diligent to shut down the current drug businesses out there. But we all know the "drug war" doesn't work as effectively as it sounds ideally.

I would be fine with legalizing pot. I don't like it, but I don't care if others use it; it would generate a lot of tax revenue. Hell, it would probably fix California.

Learn when to take your shots, star... this was absolutely abysmal, even for you. And don't worry about what's going on in the "ghetto". It's not like you ever lived in one.

Well, liberals are so concerned that gov't should be taking money from my wallet and giving it to those in need; I'm just surprised that there is no outrage when the wealthy drug dealers don't help out the poverty-stricken people in the very neighborhoods in which they make a living.

It can be inferred that drug dealers - aside from selling harmful products and avoiding taxes - are also among the most selfish of any business and or human alive.

• Sell harmful products
• Kill
• Maim
• Don't pay taxes
• Don't help the poverty-stricken in any way; but do sell their harmful products to them
• No benefits (retirement, health, vacation) for any of their employees
• According to Freakonomics - the low level employees/soldiers earn less than minimum wage
• No employee handbook to resolve disputes/conflicts. They simply murder

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Sorry Star, but saying drug dealers are selfish is kind of like saying cats are aloof. Vinyl, drug dealers do sometimes get in trouble because of tax issues. Look at Frank Lucas or Al Capone. Taking a portion of the profits to give back to the community is, in theory, what corporate taxes are. In point of fact, they have declared themselves too important to pay.