Gun Control Anyone?

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

When they lose less, they're getting a bigger piece of the total pie, which is the same as getting richer.

Quite correct on an absolute scale. However, quite incorrect on the human scale.

Humans gauge their performance by how they do vs. other humans, hence my comment on the 10%. Even the poorest person today is immeasurably better off than the richest person in 1860, but nobody cares about that.

I'd also note that we have directly relevant historical examples: the Founding Fathers were in no way poor people. They were all very prosperous by any one's definition, yet they chose revolution over a miniscule increase in their taxes.

For example - in 1765 the average taxpayer paid 26 shillings a year in taxes in England, but in the colonies it was 1/10th to 1/20th that amount. The Stamp Act didn't affect poor people whatsoever, but it did affect those wealthier because wealthier people were far more likely to be involved in transactions which fell under the Stamp Act. In fact, the most affected by the Stamp Act were lawyers...so it is that surprising that there were so many lawyers among the Founding Fathers?

[bart]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Quite correct on an absolute scale. However, quite incorrect on the human scale.

It doesn't matter one whit

Humans gauge their performance by how they do vs. other humans, hence my comment on the 10%. Even the poorest person today is immeasurably better off than the richest person in 1860, but nobody cares about that.

Only partially true. Humans know when their standard of living is going down and they're getting screwed. The standard of living of the 10%, the 1% and the .1% are all going up.

Of course few care about 1860 and few care about what is was like in 1960 either, but most do care about 2000 or 2007 or 2010 since their share of the pie is a lot smaller.
So far, mostly what we still have is... riots in apathy.

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Quite correct on an absolute scale. However, quite incorrect on the human scale.

It doesn't matter one whit

That's your view, one which I clearly do not share.

The standard of living of the 10%, the 1% and the .1% are all going up.

No doubt you have some data behind this assertion?

[bart]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

No doubt you have some data behind this assertion?

Yes, but no thanks. Not interested in playing that game, it's lose-lose.

*unsubscribe*

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

unsubscribe

What a shame.

I was curious because the data that I see doesn't jibe well with your assertion about the 10%, hence my curiosity:

Year			Percentage of Total Household Income
Bottom	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth	Top	5%	Top-5%
1968	4.2	11.1	17.6	24.5	42.6	16.3	26.3
1980	4.2	10.2	16.8	24.7	44.1	16.5	27.6
1990	3.8	9.6	15.9	24	46.6	18.5	28.1
2000	3.6	8.9	14.8	23	49.8	22.1	27.7
2001	3.5	8.7	14.6	23	50.1	22.4	27.7
2002	3.5	8.8	14.8	23.3	49.7	21.7	28
2003	3.4	8.7	14.8	23.4	49.8	21.4	28.4
2004	3.4	8.7	14.7	23.2	50.1	21.8	28.3
2005	3.4	8.6	14.6	23	50.4	22.2	28.2
2006	3.4	8.6	14.5	22.9	50.5	22.3	28.2
2007	3.4	8.7	14.8	23.4	49.7	21.2	28.5
2008	3.4	8.6	14.7	23.3	50	21.5	28.5
2009	3.4	8.6	14.6	23.2	50.3	21.7	28.6
2010	3.3	8.5	14.6	23.4	50.3	21.3	29
2011	3.2	8.4	14.3	23	51.1	22.3	28.8
%change	-23.81%	-24.32%	-18.75%	-6.12%	19.95%	36.81%	9.51%

Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42400.pdf

As you can see from this example, the top 20% - minus the top 5%, has only been holding steady in terms of share of household income. This is better than the lower 4 quintiles - who all lost - but then again we do not know what the top 11% to 15% did.

It does seem to me that it is more likely the 91% to 95% were more likely to have gained 'market share', so to speak, than the 81% to 90%, but of course no way to know from here. The trend, however, is quite clear: the lower quintile, the more you fell behind the top.

We do know, however, that costs have gone up. By anyone's measure, cost of living has increased. Of course this data is income share of total income, not absolute income.

Thus I guess the assertions will remain unsubstantiated.

[reggie]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Yes, but no thanks. Not interested in playing that game, it's lose-lose.

*unsubscribe*

Yup, I can prove anything with data... anything. It's the typical reductionists neo-positivist's line of attack... it's permeates the "educated" class now that they've been convinced that machines and rationality is the savior of mankind.

Here's Heinz von Foerster, founder of the U of Illinios Biological Computer Laboratory, on the matter..

All hail to the human brain, it's not a machine and will thankfully accept all variety the neo-positivists throw at it.

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Yup, I can prove anything with data... anything. It's the typical reductionists neo-positivist's line of attack... it's permeates the "educated" class now that the've been convinced that machines and rationality is the savior of mankind.

All hail to the human brain, it's not a machine and will thankfully accept all variety the neo-positivists throw at it.

Highly amusing how you can take bart's viewpoint on this subject - which I believe is data driven although bart has chosen not to show the data, and in turn try to make some completely irrelevant point.

In point of fact, both of our viewpoints are driven by data. My data is from talking to lots of people, augmenting a somewhat fuzzy data view.

Bart, on the other hand, generally has very sharp and directly relevant data - which is why I asked for his source.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show any data, ironically continuously putting for views based on neo-negativists.

[reggie]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

Highly amusing how you can take bart's viewpoint on this subject - which I believe is data driven although bart has chosen not to show the data, and in turn try to make some completely irrelevant point.

In point of fact, both of our viewpoints are driven by data. My data is from talking to lots of people, augmenting a somewhat fuzzy data view.

Bart, on the other hand, generally has very sharp and directly relevant data - which is why I asked for his source.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show any data, ironically continuously putting for views based on neo-negativists.

You're such a perfect outcome of the work done at the Macy Conferences. I'm not sure what fascinates me more, the perfection of the vision or the fact that you don't seem to know about the conferences or the work done at them.

Funny how you're world leads to man as software and permanently enslaved by a machine class. But of course, your reductionism is so finely tuned that you've never done the logic to understand where your point of view takes us, just following the buzz of the times.

[c1ue]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

You're such a perfect outcome of the work done at the Macy Conferences. I'm not sure what fascinates me more, the perfection of the vision or the fact that you don't seem to know about the conferences or the work done at them.

Funny how you're world leads to man as software and permanently enslaved by a machine class. But of course, your reductionism is so finely tuned that you've never done the logic to understand where your point of view takes us, just following the buzz of the times.

I'm thoroughly amused by your characterization of me.

It is as accurate as your apparent understanding of the various hardware/software technologies you ominously spout off on, which is to say, not in the least.

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Crime-Violence

[lektrode]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S.

beee-U-tee-ful!

wonder who underwrote the cost of that - 1st class jet/meals/accomodations, to boot, no doubt.

when all they really had to do to check this out is goto the Big City of the current occupants 'home state' (that would be IL)
where they have some of the 'toughest gun control' in The US???

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

That's because they don't have stop and frisk like New York City. If you enforce laws and prosecute you then make headway against the gangs. We've neutered the mafia; now we need to neuter gangs across the U.S. By the way gangs come in all races including the Aryan nation and a few white motorcycle gangs.

Get rid of gangs, you get rid of a lot of crime.

Now if we can just ban those damn college fraternities

http://www4.aacrao.org/semsource/sem...a=view&id=2317

[reggie]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

beee-U-tee-ful!

wonder who underwrote the cost of that - 1st class jet/meals/accomodations, to boot, no doubt.

when all they really had to do to check this out is goto the Big City of the current occupants 'home state' (that would be IL)
where they have some of the 'toughest gun control' in The US???

I just am so very amused when I watch how the propaganda machine shifts and flows, with all of it academic and thinktank machinery filling its purpose in almonst perfect harmony and order. Of course guns are an essential ingredient as the social moves toward a chaotic complex system, so why would Harvard argue any differently? Producing the necessary studies is elementary.

This Sean Connery B-movie spells-out way more than it was supposed to...

Guns, absolute poverty, a complex propaganda system that devalues human life and ponerizes humanity, and weak institutional infrastructures are a great recipe for chaos and population control. Welcome to Social 2.0 as conceived by Pentagon funded scientists over the last 100 years. Thank you John von Neumann, John Nash and so many others.

[Forrest]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I just am so very amused when I watch how the propaganda machine shifts and flows, with all of it academic and thinktank machinery filling its purpose in almonst perfect harmony and order. Of course guns are an essential ingredient as the social moves toward a chaotic complex system, so why would Harvard argue any differently? Producing the necessary studies is elementary.

Guns, absolute poverty, a complex propaganda system that devalues human life and ponerizes humanity, and weak institutional infrastructures are a great recipe for chaos and population control. Welcome to Social 2.0 as conceived by Pentagon funded scientists over the last 100 years. Thank you John von Neumann, John Nash and so many others.

I am surprised to see Sen Connery in such a bad film, and such a horrible script...that's downright depressing.

So is the gun control stuff.

[reggie]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I am surprised to see Sen Connery in such a bad film, and such a horrible script...that's downright depressing.

So is the gun control stuff.

If I recall, Sean needed the money back then. I think it was before his 007 gig.

But notwithstanding the "B" status of the movie, it is most certainly worth the watch. It provides great societal insights if you're willing to struggle with the metaphorical symbolism presented.