• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

The one truism about economics is you get 100 economists in a room, and 100 different opinions!

The Economist article doesn't really prove anything......lets not forget Levitt isn't some amateur, he's a Economics professor!

The point remains nobody can be proven 100% right, the alternative theories are just that....theories.

IMO the case Levitt and Dubner put forward is quite compelling!

It's an interesting area - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect
 
jts1882 said:
Well if you were a secret Muslim, wouldn't you seek out a controversial pastor, foster a long relationship, and defend him as a person after accusations of anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. Perfect cover.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!

The funny thing is the same people trying to slag Obama defend the fact that Bush was best buddies with the Bin Laden family!!
 
southstand1882 said:
Mitt Romney's tax proposals include lowering marginal tax rates substantially...


I bet that you can't guess who would benefit the most from Mr. Romney's plan?


The authors' calculations show that taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent with an average tax cut of about $175,000.

Taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 would see their incomes increase by a paltry 2.4 percent with an average tax cut of only $1,800.

Taxpayers earning less than $30,000 annually, would actually see their incomes decrease by 0.9 percent or $130 as a result of the expiration of temporary tax cuts.
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest which section of those above contributes most to US coffers through taxation? I'm not asking out of political bias just interest. If those that stand to gain most are actually the biggest tax payers is it better to reward them rather than the bottom group who don't contribute quite so much? I suppose it just boils down to whichever group has the largest number of voters likely to vote for you.
 
Of course people who earn the most pay the most tax....it's the same in this country!

They have the most wealth as well and given that the overall tax burden in teh US is far smaller than the UK I find it morally abhorrent that they are actually advocating cutting taxes for those earning $250k!!!

Especially whilst spending $700 billion a year on defence.
 
jts1882 said:
The correlation isn't that striking, or even visible, without various normalisations. From my reading in the past, this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The end of the crack epidemic seems a much better explanation.
Click to expand...

Surely the crime rate would have happened either all at once or randomly if it were linked to the crack epidemic though? The drop in crime across states was in sync with the introduction (or lack) of abortion.

It's also worth noting that the authors of the paper don't directly link bad upbringing to crime, they link it to social factors that may cause crime (such as crack addiction).
 
Leeds Spur said:
The Economist article doesn't really prove anything......lets not forget Levitt isn't some amateur, he's a Economics professor!
Click to expand...

The article is a summary with some sources worth following. Levitt may be an Economics professor but this is not really an economics topic.

If the data was so compelling then why the need for a complex model? We've seen how good economists are at models over the last few years. If you need a complex model to reveal the correlation then at least get the model right. The people mentioned in the Economist article found an error in the Levitt study and Levitt has acknowledged the error, although claims it doesn't matter.

If removing unwanted pregnancies is such an important factor, why did the discovery of the pill a decade or so earlier not cause a reduction in crime (instead of correlating with a large increase)? Its hard to believe the effect of abortions on unwanted pregnacies is stronger than that of the effect of the pill.
 
jts1882 said:
If removing unwanted pregnancies is such an important factor, why did the discovery of the pill a decade or so earlier not cause a reduction in crime (instead of correlating with a large increase)? Its hard to believe the effect of abortions on unwanted pregnacies is stronger than that of the effect of the pill.
Click to expand...

The two are very different kinds of unwanted pregnancy.

No matter what your religious stance, an abortion is a major thing to go through.

My wife and I haven't wanted kids so she's been on the pill. Had that not worked, we would have had a decision to make - it certainly wouldn't have been definite either way. Had we had a child it would have been unwanted in your terms (I would say an accident) but not subject to many of the social issues relevant to a person desperate enough to be seeking an abortion.
 
Because the pill and abortion are very differnet things?

At the end of the day all i'm saying is you cannot prove the theory either way......that the thing about economics!

Look at the current situation with our economy for a prime example.
 
As an aside, I think abortion is murder and don't condone it under any circumstances.

And i'll say that again...it's a living life......albeit a very small one in the early stages.

My wife and I could never have an abortion, especially now we have a kid. I would give the children away for adoption if the kid wasn't wanted....abortion is a selfish act IMO and panders to the lack of responsibility for ones actions so rife in modern society.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Of course people who earn the most pay the most tax....it's the same in this country!

They have the most wealth as well and given that the overall tax burden in teh US is far smaller than the UK I find it morally abhorrent that they are actually advocating cutting taxes for those earning $250k!!!

Especially whilst spending $700 billion a year on defence.
Click to expand...

What the tax cutters never point out is that those with the wealth benefit most from the national infrastructure. Companies benefit from secure property rights and a legal framework protecting their contracts, the transport infrastructure to bring in raw materials and intermediate goods and take out products, access to an educated and healthy workforce, etc. If they had to have private police forces protecting their property, build their own transport routes and train their workers from scratch there would be a lot more costs than just the taxes on profits. Likewise people living in wealthy neighbourhoods don't have to pay for their own security.

Poor people in inner cities by contrast get little for their taxes (they still pay sales taxes). If we removed government and went for a free for all the rich would be the losers and the underclass the most likely gainers. Tax expenditure benefits the rich more than the poor.

Besides what they don't point out is that Federal income tax is at its lowest since 1950 (or was around 2010) at about 15%. There has been a huge shift in the tax burden with the ratio of personal and corporate income tax changing from about even in the 50s to a ratio of 4-1 personal to corporate now. Individuals pay a much larger share. Since the bottom 50% of US households pay no federal tax and since the rich like Romney shift their taxes to the corporate sector, that means the burden is heavily on the middle class. That's why the US taxpayer is tinkled off. The Republicans want to continue these trends.
 
scaramanga said:
The two are very different kinds of unwanted pregnancy.

No matter what your religious stance, an abortion is a major thing to go through.

My wife and I haven't wanted kids so she's been on the pill. Had that not worked, we would have had a decision to make - it certainly wouldn't have been definite either way. Had we had a child it would have been unwanted in your terms (I would say an accident) but not subject to many of the social issues relevant to a person desperate enough to be seeking an abortion.
Click to expand...

Leeds Spur said:
Because the pill and abortion are very differnet things?

At the end of the day all i'm saying is you cannot prove the theory either way......that the thing about economics!

Look at the current situation with our economy for a prime example.
Click to expand...

Its not an economic problem. Its an economist applying a mathematical model to a field outside his expertise. Why is it that economists are always doing this, e.g. in climate science? You'd think they should prove themselves capable of solving economic problems before branching out.

The point I was making is that the pill should have had the same effect as abortion on culling future criminals. It doesn't matter if different social classes use the two differently, its only the effect on these "unborn criminals" that is important for crime rates. It doesn't matter if the pill has broader use, and eliminates lots of non-criminals as well. If unwanted pregnancies of potential criminals was the cause of crime, then removing these pregnancies by whatever means should have the same effect. If allowing abortion reduced crime by ending some of these pregnancies, then preventing such pregnancies with the pill should have the same effect. It didn't. The idea that abortion had the effect while the cheap widely available pill didn't is hard to explain.
 
Skinhead in a Suit said:
Good article I just read on CNN.com re: the Republicans upcoming stance on abortion...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinion/granderson-gop-rape-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Man, these people scare me.
Click to expand...

Republican position on individual rights:

The rights of the pre-embryo, embryo and foetus are absolute, the parent has no rights.

After birth, the rights of the parent are absolute, the child has no rights and must depend on the parent for food, education, health care, etc.

The only exception is prosecuting children for crimes.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Not sure about that mate - he's been attending the same Chicago church for 20 years!
Click to expand...

True, but he's been a politician for at least that long. Just saying, this is all part of politicking. I'm not saying he's Muslim, just guessing that he might be atheist in his own mind.
 
It's certainly possible....and how sad that any career politician in the US must claim to be religious to even have a seat at the table now.
 
Irontoe said:
As a matter of interest which section of those above contributes most to US coffers through taxation? I'm not asking out of political bias just interest. If those that stand to gain most are actually the biggest tax payers is it better to reward them rather than the bottom group who don't contribute quite so much? I suppose it just boils down to whichever group has the largest number of voters likely to vote for you.
Click to expand...

That was the Bush argument for his tax cuts. Trickle-down economics is flimflam as has been PROVEN over and over again the past decade. Where do you think a lot of this wealth came from? ONE person's hard work? No, it's always off the backs of other Americans that these wealthy individuals can achieve their dreams. Oh, and that's if those jobs aren't outsourced to Asia or elsewhere.

Mitt Romney will go on about 'job creators', and my response to that is always "Job creators where?" It's always small businesses and start-ups that are creating jobs, not huge corporations, especially not firms like Bain which buys companies, trims them out (through lay-offs) and resells them for a profit.

Meanwhile, wages for working-class citizens have stayed relatively stagnant compared to CEOs and upper-management. So of course this demographic does not have much to contribute, nor can they afford to (only around 50% of Americans pay taxes). Simply put, Republican policies are geared towards the present, with faux deficit hawks like Paul Ryan appealing to the conservative ideals of small government, when in actuality he panders to large corporations. Democrats are also guilty of catering to lobbyists of powerful business groups and financials, but not to the extent Republican policy does.
 
Also as for individuals achieving their dreams off the work of hard working americans, welcome to capitalism. Nobody is doing anything altruistically, those workers got paid accordingly for the job they did, and everyone has benefitted.

And how exactly do corporations not create jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back