Author Topic: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?  (Read 30489 times)

Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2013, 08:59:25 AM »
What study?  It's called living in the world, and observing what goes on around uus

In fact, I'll give you a little exercise for the reader.  Find a graph of spending on social programs over say the last 50 years or so.  Then find a graph of crime rates for the same period.  You'll find that as spending on social programs went up, so did the crime rate.  In the last decade or two, there have been attempts to rein in welfare spending, and the crime rate leveled off.  (This is for the US, you're welcome to substitute others countries, or individual states, etc.)

Simply wrong. Per capita crime rates in the US have been generally falling since the 1970s...

Here are the last 20 years' crime data from the FBI. The trend is clear enough that no graph is needed. The violent crime rate in 2011 was half at it was in 1992.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1#disablemobile. Edit forgot link.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 09:05:12 AM by Hamster »

Self-employed-swami

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Canada
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2013, 09:02:37 AM »

This is kinda what I mean when I tell Americans that Canadians are starting to perceive America the way Americans perceive Mexico.

I'll put my two cents in, as a Canadian... In some regards, I agree.  It really depends on the location though.  Maui, not concerned, Las Vegas, slightly more concerned. 

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28290
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2013, 09:19:54 AM »

This is kinda what I mean when I tell Americans that Canadians are starting to perceive America the way Americans perceive Mexico.

I'll put my two cents in, as a Canadian... In some regards, I agree.  It really depends on the location though.  Maui, not concerned, Las Vegas, slightly more concerned.

Maybe because you don't know anything about those places beyond vague stereotypes or brief tourist vists?

YMMV, obviously.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2013, 09:26:12 AM »

This is kinda what I mean when I tell Americans that Canadians are starting to perceive America the way Americans perceive Mexico.

I'll put my two cents in, as a Canadian... In some regards, I agree.  It really depends on the location though.  Maui, not concerned, Las Vegas, slightly more concerned.

Really, so much of it is how the media reports it.  As an American I used to feel that Canada and Mexico are similar due to all the horror crime stories we hear from up North.  It's always nice to pick and choose the stories from abroad to make one's own country look the best.

When you look into the numbers, there you see that yep, Mexico is still a disaster, most of Canada is fine (it's just reports from a couple crime-ridden big cities and a little other random other stuff) and that America is very similar, with a few random things and our big cities (although, we've got certainly got *more* crime-ridden big cities due to some horribly flawed local governments (Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC lead the way in epic fail at governing)).

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #54 on: April 14, 2013, 11:57:40 AM »
Simply wrong. Per capita crime rates in the US have been generally falling since the 1970s...

Here are the last 20 years' crime data from the FBI. The trend is clear enough that no graph is needed. The violent crime rate in 2011 was half at it was in 1992.

Hate to tell you this, but it's 2013.  20 years does not take us back to the 1970s.  Do the same graph of crime rates vs spending on social programs going back to say the 1960s (when Johnson's "Great Society" really got rolling) and you'll see a different picture.

And in fact 1992 was just about when the Reagan/Bush 1 tightening of welfare rules started to kick in.  Fewer social programs, declining crime rates...  Isn't that just what I suggested?

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4386
  • Location: CT
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #55 on: April 14, 2013, 01:57:17 PM »
Simply wrong. Per capita crime rates in the US have been generally falling since the 1970s...

Here are the last 20 years' crime data from the FBI. The trend is clear enough that no graph is needed. The violent crime rate in 2011 was half at it was in 1992.

Hate to tell you this, but it's 2013.  20 years does not take us back to the 1970s.  Do the same graph of crime rates vs spending on social programs going back to say the 1960s (when Johnson's "Great Society" really got rolling) and you'll see a different picture.

And in fact 1992 was just about when the Reagan/Bush 1 tightening of welfare rules started to kick in.  Fewer social programs, declining crime rates...  Isn't that just what I suggested?

Right but they're providing proof. You haven't yet.

Jill the Pill

  • Guest
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #56 on: April 14, 2013, 03:54:51 PM »
Quote
And in fact 1992 was just about when the Reagan/Bush 1 tightening of welfare rules started to kick in.  Fewer social programs, declining crime rates...

Here are the actual public (federal) expenditures on social welfare (in $million).  There is no notable decrease in 1992. 

(edit) source: http://hsus.cambridge.org.ezproxy.lib.uconn.edu/HSUSWeb/toc/showTable.do?id=Bf188-270
  Historical Statistics of the United States
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 03:59:25 PM by Jill the Pill »

Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2013, 12:08:13 AM »
Simply wrong. Per capita crime rates in the US have been generally falling since the 1970s...

Here are the last 20 years' crime data from the FBI. The trend is clear enough that no graph is needed. The violent crime rate in 2011 was half at it was in 1992.

Hate to tell you this, but it's 2013.  20 years does not take us back to the 1970s.  Do the same graph of crime rates vs spending on social programs going back to say the 1960s (when Johnson's "Great Society" really got rolling) and you'll see a different picture.

And in fact 1992 was just about when the Reagan/Bush 1 tightening of welfare rules started to kick in.  Fewer social programs, declining crime rates...  Isn't that just what I suggested?
OK... What you say is contrary to the data I can find on violent crime rates relative to the rate of social program or welfare spending (what do you mean by welfare BTW). But, if you have something to show this relationship, then please share. If you put forth an argument that seems counter to what most would believe, then you should furnish the proof, not expect others to counter it. 

That said social program spending has been increasing almost incessantly for >50 years. In contrast, violent crime (I can only find consistent crime data to 1970s), is actually lower than it has been since the 60s. Historians will tell you violent crime in the US was at it's worst over 200 years ago (when there was no social spending/welfare...). And if you consider the much higher violent crime rates in the US than in the social welfare states of Western Europe, I think your theory is hard to support, so please share your data.

Welfare spending (per heritage foundation) What do you mean by social programs? AFDC/TANF? That actually had been decreasing in real terms, per recipient since 1978 (while crime rates didn't really start falling dramatically for another 14 years), and that spending was replaced by other things - including a massive increase in SSI/disability, foodstamps, etc. Medicaid spending (social welfare at it's best - healthcare for the poor) also increased dramatically while crime rates fell.
Violent crime rates since 1973-Scroll to the third graph Other stats show an increase during the 60s-70s, peak in the 80s- early 90s, decline in the 90s-present. At any rate, social spending has been increasing almost constantly while crime rates rose, and while they plateaued and while they fell. Unless you have some other data, you may need a new theory.
Edit: Forgive my problems uploading images...
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 12:10:42 AM by Hamster »

Self-employed-swami

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Canada
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2013, 07:02:32 AM »
I'll put my two cents in, as a Canadian... In some regards, I agree.  It really depends on the location though.  Maui, not concerned, Las Vegas, slightly more concerned.

Maybe because you don't know anything about those places beyond vague stereotypes or brief tourist vists?

YMMV, obviously.

Yep, pretty much.
The last time we were in Vegas, we stayed at a hostel on Fremont street. It was hard to find a shuttle driver at the airport to take us there. We were also approached by a few scary characters, when walking the 8 blocks to and fom the strip.

In Maui, we rented a condo, and our experience was much different.

My cousin used to live in Vegas, and her experience was much different than ours, because she didn't live anywhere ner the strip.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, but when visiting Vegas, we weren't there to check out the suburbs, but the 'center' of it all.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 09:08:50 AM by Self-employed-swami »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2013, 07:33:32 AM »
At any rate, social spending has been increasing almost constantly while crime rates rose, and while they plateaued and while they fell. Unless you have some other data, you may need a new theory.

Wholeheartedly agree. Jamesqf's SOCIAL PROGRAMS == CRIME theory is pure speculative rubbish that can't even pass corollary inspection and simply doesn't hold water. His insistence on focusing on violent crime levels in the 1970's for proof can likely be better explained through the presence of lead poisoning through pollution.

Here's an excellent layman's write-up of Rick Nevin's (and others) research into the topic. It's still corollary, but there's enough hard science in it compared to every other specious hypothesis designed around advancing biased agendas on the cause of crime rates in the 20th century that I'm apt to put far more stock in lead pollution actually being directly tied to the problem than any sort of Randian fantasy about some "nasty and evil" government managed socially altruistic programs feeding crime rates.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935199940458
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935107000503
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566

(edited to add a couple more research papers)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 07:44:58 AM by I.P. Daley »

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #60 on: April 15, 2013, 08:56:01 AM »
legalized abortion may very well have something to do with dropping crime rates, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2013, 01:20:38 PM »
Wholeheartedly agree. Jamesqf's SOCIAL PROGRAMS == CRIME theory is pure speculative rubbish that can't even pass corollary inspection and simply doesn't hold water. His insistence on focusing on violent crime levels in the 1970's for proof can likely be better explained through the presence of lead poisoning through pollution.

Sorry, but no.  First, you are taking my statements much further than I intended them.  Yes, it IS specualtion that higher social spending correlates with increased crime: I said so myself.  What I did say, and maintain, is that there is no evidence that social spending reduces crime.  Can you present any?  (And no, I do not consider articles from Mother Jones to be evidence.)

Even if you want to maintain that there is a correlation between the current decrease in crime and social spending, you must first figure out how to filter out the effects of other changes in the same time period, such as concealed carry & stand your ground laws.

As for other countries, you'd need to show some sort of before & after.  There's also the matter of selective statistics.  For instance, in Britain, where petty theft seems to be the national sport, most people apparently don't even bother reporting anything but the largest thefts.

mcjuggerton21

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2013, 01:27:05 PM »
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

"That tip took Nevin in a different direction. The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn't paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.

Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90 percent of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century.
Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years."


Alan2

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #63 on: April 15, 2013, 02:06:43 PM »
You'll find that as spending on social programs went up, so did the crime rate. 

Even if this is true, correletion does not (necessarily) equal causation.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2013, 02:07:23 PM »
Sorry, but no.  First, you are taking my statements much further than I intended them.

Sorry, chum, but I only took it as far as you asserted them.

And the way Danes perceive Canada. :-P
Seriously, in Copenhagen you can let your 13 year old wander anywhere in the city at 2 in the morning or leave your baby parked in a stroller outside a cafe while you have a coffee inside without worrying anything bad will happen.

Plenty of places in the US where you could do that - or at least it'd be a coyote or mountain lion that takes the baby, not a human.

Quote
Investing in social safety net programs is literally buying yourself a low crime rate...

Wrong.  Increases in social programs/safety nets have correlated with increasing crime.  Consider for instance Britain, where property crime rates are far higher than in many places in the US.  Most people don't steal (or vandalize property, etc) because they're poor, they steal because a) they can; and b) it lets them feel that they're putting one over on the rest of the world.

Just because Reepekg isn't right doesn't make you magically right either. Two sides of the wrong argument still leaves you wholly wrong. Also, political bias doesn't excuse hard science.

You made the hard ascertation first. Your duty to bring the science when you're repeatedly disproved.

Keep trolling...

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2013, 10:51:13 PM »
OK, let's see if this forum will handle attaching images...

It's pretty easy to find US crime statistics here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm  Now if you graph violent and property crime rates per capita for the 1960-2010 period for which that site has data, you'll see that rates began (or continued) rising in the 1960s, which is coincidentally the start of increased social welfare spending under Johnson's "Great Society".  (So there's a nice correlation between increased social program spending and increased crime, no?) Violent crimes rise fairly slowly until the early '90s. then decline equally slowly.

Property crimes are a different story.  They rise steeply until about 1981 - the start of the Reagan administration, fall for a few years, rise again nearly to the previous peak by about 1992, then begin a fairly steady decline.

Now I will hypothesize here that violent crime is probably less affected by poverty and/or social welfare spending than property crime, since it's often motivated by non-economic factors such as jealousy.

I can't find any source for social program spending by year that covers the same period.  Absent that (and anyone who can find the data is welcome to supply it), I have to go with my memories & perceptions of having lived through most of the period (actually all of it, but I don't recall much of the first decade or so), which is that "welfare" grew considerably pre-Reagan, held fairly steady until Bush II (say 2000 or so), then declined.  So it does seem that, by this very rough analysis, my hypothesis is supported.  It certainly seems to contradict claims that increased spending on social programs actually decreases crime.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 10:55:04 PM by Jamesqf »

Reepekg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Age: 36
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 07:18:14 AM by Reepekg »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2013, 09:17:43 AM »
I can't find any source for social program spending by year that covers the same period.

That's all you have to say. You of all people should know this: CORRELATION =/= CAUSATION

By your logic and single cherry picked broad graph, we could blame crime rates on skirt length or even more plausibly, the population explosion of the post-war Baby Boom. All you've proven is that when you remove enough context, you can make statistics say whatever you want.

If your hypothesis had any credibility at all, then it should be reproducible across segments of society and at multiple points in time, not just in a single broad stroke... say for instance during the New Deal era or within other industrialized countries throughout the world. As it has been repeatedly pointed out by others, that's impossible to do even within the United States. The fact of the matter is, both sides to this argument can be "proven" with sufficient statistical slight of hand... which means that whatever eggheads you're banking on to prove your point is demonstrating a hard bias in floating a theory that at best, only holds true to tiny pockets of people, not society on a whole.

As an aside, James? It's a real shame you decided to throw away over 20 years of scientific research on the whole lead poisoning thing because I linked a single article from Mother Jones that honestly had one of the best write-ups on the studies without much of any bias. Come out of your ivory tower, you might learn something new.

As for Reepekg's linked study (thank you for actually trying to bring some academic study to the discussion instead of broad speculation, by the way), I think the study suffers a bias itself in that it takes a corollary event to prove a pre-supposed conclusion: the rise of social program spending in our society that happened to coincide in a reactionary manner with the increase of crime and decrease in cognitive functionality within the population as a result of tetraethyl lead usage within the population, and spins it into a defense of increased spending on social programs as an effective means to reduce crime. Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that social spending can help lower overall crime rates... after all, if a beggar doesn't have to steal his food, he won't. However, to say that social program spending has anything more than a tertiary impact on overall violence and crime rates within society is missing the entire point of violent crime and its resulting tolerance within society, and to the exclusion of that end and logic, we could just as easily claim that heavily medicating half the population with SSRIs these past couple decades is equally responsible towards decreasing that violence in society. The reality is, both are just bandages dancing around the real problem of our society's culture and the devaluation of our fellow man. It's just as absurd as blaming or defending gun use in society for these same statistics... they're just another tool that can be used for good or evil.

Jill the Pill

  • Guest
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2013, 09:36:15 AM »
Quote
I can't find any source for social program spending by year that covers the same period.  Absent that (and anyone who can find the data is welcome to supply it)

I attached that data for the 70s - 90s a few posts ago.  Here are the numbers for the 50s - 70s.  There is no year (except 1937) that showed a decrease, or even a leveling-off in social spending.  Now, the numbers are not per capita (they are totals, in $million), and the allocation may have changed, but you might want to consider that Reagan and all were just talking tough, cutting rates-of-increase for example, instead of actual dollars spent. 

source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Bf188-195 - Public expenditures on social welfare: 18901995

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2013, 12:11:06 PM »
Quote
I can't find any source for social program spending by year that covers the same period.  Absent that (and anyone who can find the data is welcome to supply it)

I attached that data for the 70s - 90s a few posts ago.  Here are the numbers for the 50s - 70s.

I'm sorry, but linked images aren't of any use for analysis.   I don't have OCR software, and am not willing to spend the amount of effort it would take to either find such, or re-type numbers by hand.  (The same applies to anything embedded in a graph or pdf.)

Quote
There is no year (except 1937) that showed a decrease, or even a leveling-off in social spending.  Now, the numbers are not per capita...

But the numbers would need to be per capita, and adjusted for inflation, to draw any sort of conclusions from them.

There's also the question of just what should be considered as social spending.  Would Social Security benefits be included, or Medicare?  I wouldn't think so, but would consider arguments on why they should be.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2013, 12:37:04 PM »
You of all people should know this: CORRELATION =/= CAUSATION

Yes, as I have said all along.  And to get ahead of ourselves, that applies just as well to that leaded gasoline theory.  One could even, I think, find a reasonable correlation between US crime rates and the distance between the Earth and Pluto.

Quote
All you've proven is that when you remove enough context, you can make statistics say whatever you want.

But again, that's not at all what I'm trying to say here.  I'm not claiming that there is a strong causal link between social programs and increased crime rates (though there does indeed seem to be a correlation), I'm saying that there is no support for the opposite claim that increased spending on social programs reduces crime. 

Quote
As an aside, James? It's a real shame you decided to throw away over 20 years of scientific research on the whole lead poisoning thing because I linked a single article from Mother Jones that honestly had one of the best write-ups on the studies without much of any bias. Come out of your ivory tower, you might learn something new.

That's not the reason I throw away this research - if disagreeing with a theory due to the lack of any reasonable causal mechanism is throwing it away.  I just point out that most actual research is published in academic journals, not in magazines with decided ideological biases.  I would (and did, in my own searching) ignore e.g. Heritage Foundation & Cato Institute articles claiming links between crime rates and single-parent households because of their ideological biases.  I'll also note WRT the Mother Jones article, that it's pretty darned hard to consider points of an article that I can't read unless I pay them money.

Quote
...after all, if a beggar doesn't have to steal his food, he won't.

Except that not all crime is theft, and not all theft is for survival.  Consider acts of vandalism, which don't provide the perpetrator with any material benefit at all.

Quote
...we could just as easily claim that heavily medicating half the population with SSRIs these past couple decades is equally responsible towards decreasing that violence in society.

But per that graph I posted, violent crime rates haven't changed all that much.  Property crimes have, and one would think that those would be the crimes most affected by social programs.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2013, 01:25:04 PM »
That's not the reason I throw away this research - if disagreeing with a theory due to the lack of any reasonable causal mechanism is throwing it away.
...
I'll also note WRT the Mother Jones article, that it's pretty darned hard to consider points of an article that I can't read unless I pay them money.

The article's free to read, chum. Stop making excuses.

As to your assertion that there's no hard scientific backing to that article, please note:

Here's an excellent layman's write-up of Rick Nevin's (and others) research into the topic. It's still corollary, but there's enough hard science in it compared to every other specious hypothesis designed around advancing biased agendas on the cause of crime rates in the 20th century that I'm apt to put far more stock in lead pollution actually being directly tied to the problem than any sort of Randian fantasy about some "nasty and evil" government managed socially altruistic programs feeding crime rates.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935199940458
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935107000503
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566


The actual level of research, data, and papers published on the topic paint a far more accurate and telling picture than EVERYTHING you've tried posting as an explanation of the primary link between rising and fading violent crime numbers, or anyone else's for that matter. The information is there, and it 'aint gonna read itself.

You didn't even mention that correlation isn't causation until you were called on using it, yet you still try and prove your own points using that very technique. It's amazing how you keep shifting your supposed desired "proven" point every time you're cornered on how sloppy your arguments are, or completely change the criteria for your arguments, or when you are provided hard data that contradicts your statements.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2013, 03:00:02 PM »
I'll also note WRT the Mother Jones article, that it's pretty darned hard to consider points of an article that I can't read unless I pay them money.

The article's free to read, chum. Stop making excuses.

Bull.  I go to that site, I see the text of the article for a few seconds, then it takes me to an index screen, sometimes giving me a "pay money" popup on the way.

Quote
As to your assertion that there's no hard scientific backing to that article, please note:

There is a very dubious link in the causal chain.  The change in environmental lead is solid, the link between that and lowered IQ seems fairly sound, but the link between IQ and crime?  Completely bogus, IMHO, and virtually impossible to establish in any case.  The problem is that we have no idea who commits many crimes, because the perpetrators aren't caught.  The ones who are caught are disproportionately those of low IQ, because smart people can figure out how not to get caught.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2013, 07:58:39 PM »
The article's free to read, chum. Stop making excuses.

Bull.  I go to that site, I see the text of the article for a few seconds, then it takes me to an index screen, sometimes giving me a "pay money" popup on the way.

Perhaps it was because I linked the print page, though it's only redirecting to the two page formatted document on my end. I suspect you either have something suspicious going on with your internet connection or someone's being dishonest.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Others here have linked to, read, and quoted for free without any trouble. Keep trying.

The change in environmental lead is solid, the link between that and lowered IQ seems fairly sound, but the link between IQ and crime?  Completely bogus, IMHO, and virtually impossible to establish in any case.  The problem is that we have no idea who commits many crimes, because the perpetrators aren't caught.  The ones who are caught are disproportionately those of low IQ, because smart people can figure out how not to get caught.

Yes, because violent crime totally requires high intelligence and rationality to commit, and people never get away with it due to incompetence, corruption, indifference, underfunding, understaffing, or crippling case loads in law enforcement.

Sometimes I think visiting your fantasy world would be fun just to see what color your sky really is.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2013, 11:29:46 AM »
Yes, because violent crime totally requires high intelligence and rationality to commit, and people never get away with it due to incompetence, corruption, indifference, underfunding, understaffing, or crippling case loads in law enforcement.

When did the discussion become limited to violent crime?  If you'll look back at my graph of crime rates (or the link to the original source data), you'll see that property crime rates run about 10X violent rates, and also vary considerably more over the period.

As for the rest, I suggest this: http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-untwist-knickers.png

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2013, 05:13:14 PM »
legalized abortion may very well have something to do with dropping crime rates, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Except the crime rates ignore the 50+ million murders that have taken place legally in the past 40 years ...

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #76 on: April 18, 2013, 05:27:06 AM »
legalized abortion may very well have something to do with dropping crime rates, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Except the crime rates ignore the 50+ million murders that have taken place legally in the past 40 years ...

Your opinion. Not the law.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7695
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #77 on: April 18, 2013, 05:47:37 AM »
Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that social spending can help lower overall crime rates... after all, if a beggar doesn't have to steal his food, he won't.

That logic doesn't appear to hold true for 6 figure salaried bankers and brokers on Wall Street.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #78 on: April 18, 2013, 07:47:10 AM »
Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that social spending can help lower overall crime rates... after all, if a beggar doesn't have to steal his food, he won't. However, to say that social program spending has anything more than a tertiary impact on overall violence and crime rates within society is missing the entire point of violent crime and its resulting tolerance within society, and to the exclusion of that end and logic, we could just as easily claim that heavily medicating half the population with SSRIs these past couple decades is equally responsible towards decreasing that violence in society.

That logic doesn't appear to hold true for 6 figure salaried bankers and brokers on Wall Street.

Context, SwordGuy, context.

I wouldn't call a white collar criminal a beggar, some folks are just extra greedy, power corrupts, and I never gave stock to the idea that social programs do anything more than a tiny dent in crime rates to begin with... they may have the capacity for positive social impact, but my entire point has been that social programs have very little positive (or negative) statistical impact on crime rates.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 07:51:09 AM by I.P. Daley »

Self-employed-swami

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Canada
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #79 on: April 18, 2013, 09:02:44 AM »
This thread now has almost all of the contentious topics.  All we need now, is someone with some made-up statistic about gay marriage and religion...

:|

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28290
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #80 on: April 18, 2013, 09:08:18 AM »
This thread now has almost all of the contentious topics.  All we need now, is someone with some made-up statistic about gay marriage and religion...

:|

Good point.  We don't want to be lacking here.

TEH GA MARRIEAGES AER RUINEING TAE RELIGIONS!!11


...better?  :)
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #81 on: April 18, 2013, 09:18:31 AM »
...better?  :)

Naah... you still need a couple strawmen and some snide macro usage to better defend that argument. ;)

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28290
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #82 on: April 18, 2013, 09:28:36 AM »

Naah... you still need a couple strawmen and some snide macro usage to better defend that argument. ;)

Oh, right!

Here are said arguments, as requested.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

Self-employed-swami

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Canada
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2013, 04:17:33 PM »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2013, 09:01:17 PM »
Thanks, but all I can see, is the paywall :(



(DISCLAIMER: this post may only be funny because I'm running a fever.)

sdp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2013, 09:15:32 AM »
I live in Flagstaff, AZ down the street from GoreTex.  Outdoor gear is such a small component of what they do.  The amount of overhead involved in warrantees of outdoor gear doesn't even show up on their bottom line.  It is akin to the guy at a restaurant that takes five toothpicks instead of just one as he walks out the door.  who cares!  The antimustachian who bought the new jacket for six hundred bucks is the guy who payed for the warranteed jacket anyway, not GoreTex or Patagonia or whoever made the jacket.  Would you feel bad about getting a used honda civic for 2 grand even though the original owner payed 19K for it?  The lifetime warrantee is factored into the MSRP and more than pays for itself.

Freda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2013, 09:26:49 AM »
The food stamp issue is probably the most contentious, but is there an undertone here of judgment that the guy is not contributing to society in any way?

Do we all have an obligation to contribute to society?


Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Frugality and freedom the wrong way?
« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2013, 11:08:29 PM »
The food stamp issue is probably the most contentious, but is there an undertone here of judgment that the guy is not contributing to society in any way?

Do we all have an obligation to contribute to society?
I don't really care that much if he isn't contributing to society at this point as he's still young.

That said, I would argue we all have an obligation to try to contribute more than we receive as long as we are capable. How one defines contributing and receiving are very subjective.