This is your brain on politics
ABC News jumped on the recent Colorado tragedy and immediately blamed the Tea Party:
ABC News has suggested that James Holmes — the suspect in today’s shooting in Aurora, Colorado — may have a connection to the Tea Party.
Later they had to apologize:
“An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect,” ABC News said in a statement. “ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.”
Certainly an easy mistake to make. After all, you wouldn’t expect there to be two people in America with such an uncommon name as James Holmes. And wouldn’t you expect an anti-big government group full of older middle class people to try to popularize its cause by shooting up a private sector movie theatre in a conservative part of America. Makes sense to me!
Reminds me of when Paul Krugman jumped on the earlier Tucson shooting, implying the conservatives were somehow encouraging a climate of violence.
I think there’s a deeper problem here. Progressives see their ideology as being somehow more rational. Perhaps in some ways it is (although I’d argue not in all ways.) Then they assume those on the other side must somehow reflect dark irrational forces. Again, there are people like that on the right. But here’s what can happen when you start thinking that way. Tyler Cowen is probably the most reasonable, moderate, open-minded, thoughtful thinker on the right. The sort of voice that open-minded people on the left should welcome. He writes a column in the NYT that has a very balanced view of the issue of health care, coming out for a mixed public/private system. Saying there are no easy answers, etc. Then Aaron Carroll responds with a ridiculous post that accuses Cowen of making all sorts of claims that he never made. Pure fabrication. Perhaps Carroll assumed the worst because Tyler is on the “other team.” Anyone who read Tyler’s column and the Carroll post, would immediately see that it was completely inaccurate, not even close. That is anyone who doesn’t view the world through politically-tinted glasses. Thus Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong both linked approvingly to the Carroll post. This is really really sad to see. Especially because these two individuals are so brilliant, so talented at blogging. Krugman’s recently had great posts on everything from the Fed to the euro to noise in restaurants. But when it comes to politics he becomes completely unhinged.
Off topic: Here’s something the American left and right should be able to agree on:
Impoverished North Korea is gearing up to experiment with agricultural and economic reforms after young leader Kim Jong-un and his powerful uncle purged the country’s top general for opposing change, a source with ties to both Pyongyang and Beijing said.
Not just good news, but a story that could well end up being far more important that the US election campaign. Let’s hope it’s true.
Tags:
20. July 2012 at 10:41
At some point you have to admit they are not so talented at blogging.
20. July 2012 at 10:47
Do you have similar thoughts about conservative websites doing the same? Or how every liberal who has mentioned this has condemned Ross as being an absolute idiot?
http://wonkette.com/478865/abc-news-should-fire-brian-ross-and-other-notes-on-being-terrible
20. July 2012 at 10:51
I loved reading Paul Krugman and Steve Landsburg when they took alternating weeks at Slate.com poking holes in the popular economic fallacies and misconceptions. Krugman was, however, “radicalized,” as he puts it, during the Bush years.
He’s just an attack dog for the left, not a public intellectual. It’s a damn shame.
20. July 2012 at 10:51
Didn’t North Korea experiment with various special economic zones and other “reforms”, mostly near South Korean and/or Chinese and/or Russian border, for the last 20 years, and nothing ever came out of it?
20. July 2012 at 11:10
I don’t really understand what the “deeper point” of this post is. Is it just that motivated cognition is common in politics? That doesn’t really seem to be all that deep of a point; everybody knows it. And it’s also true of economics, history, philosophy, physics, journalism, and whatever else people care about. The Cowen/Carroll case is not even a particularly compelling example, as it appears they were sort of talking about different things (e.g. Cowen on policy, Carroll on presuppositions informing policy proposal).
20. July 2012 at 11:13
The NBC producers’, writers’ and journalists’ initial response against those outside the establishment is typical.
Has anyone ever seriously looked into how this “politics on the brain” affects business activity that we would consider as “economic data”? Or are we supposed to believe that “the market” abstracted away from individual cases like these, which seem to be quite numerous, consists only of homo economicus?
20. July 2012 at 11:14
You should have at least linked to Aaron Carroll’s follow up: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/tyler-cowen-on-me-on-medicaid-wars/
20. July 2012 at 11:21
Conservatives were encouraging a climate of violence. Not all or most of them, but influential and prominent ones with large followings were.
When Tea part candidates and talking heads talk about “Second Amendment Solutions” to stop Obama from “destroying” Americana what else can you call it ?
20. July 2012 at 11:27
And then there is always this kind of gross reaction form the right…You can count on it…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html
20. July 2012 at 11:40
Wouldn’t you agree that anyone who subscribes to any ideological position does so because they think it’s more rational? I think, in the world, the only people who knowingly and irrationally hold any allegiance are Cubs fans (But we are on a hot streak lately! Only 13.5 games back!). 🙂
20. July 2012 at 11:42
Re: the ‘your brain on politics’ meme and the question on the rationality of progressives —
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/ideology-clouds-how-we-perceive-the-temperatures/
20. July 2012 at 11:53
“Never ascribe to malice what you can instead ascribe to stupidity (or partisanship)”
20. July 2012 at 11:58
The slanders against the Tea Party are old news. Jacob Weisberg wrote this in Slate after the Jared Loughner / Gabby Gifford shootings.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/01/the_tea_party_and_the_tucson_tragedy.html
20. July 2012 at 12:18
Fred… Slander?
Just because you don’t believe that tea party rhetoric contributed to any particular act of violence does not mean that they were not guilty of encouraging violence as a political tool.
Tea party leaders were calling for “Second Amendment Solutions”. It can not be denied.
I don’t imagine If occupy leaders called for “Second Amendment Solutions” in response to a Romney administration you would fail to point out the call to violence.
20. July 2012 at 12:25
Yesterday I got into an argument over whether the “that” in Obama’s “you didn’t build that” statement refers to businesses or to government funded roads and bridges. When I listen to the speech, it’s clear Obama meant the later, but lots of conservatives insisted that this was wrong, and that Obama clearly meant to say that businessmen didn’t build their own businesses.
Today I was involved in a dispute over whether Ann Romney used the racially insensitive phrase “you people” when talking to a black reporter. I listened to the interview and it was clear to me that Ann Romney had said “all people” (which is also the phrasing that makes more sense in context). The woman I was arguing with, however, said that when she listened to the interview, she distinctly heard “you people.”
We appear to have gotten to the point where conservatives and liberals literally do not hear the same words when they listen to a soundbite. This does not bode well.
20. July 2012 at 12:27
One of the most interesting findings of brain science, IMHO, is that political partisans get an endorphin rush — a kick, as from drugs — from partisan thoughts and attacks.
That may not be so surprising per se, but what is interesting is that they get the rush not from attacking the other side and exposing its lies, as one might expect, but from believing its own side’s lies.
It’s easy to see how this behavior could be adaptive and arise via natural selection. When the enemy is coming over the hill to kill you, those who decided to spend time and effort debating whether their leaders had been honest in the course of recent developments, and examining the veracity of the leadership’s current proposals, would be eliminated from the gene pool. Those who were highly motivated to fight by whatever tale their leaders spun to them had a much better chance of surviving, winning the resources under dispute, and carrying such behavior forward to another day.
The result for us…
Political partisans not only “see no evil” about their own party and candidates, they actually get an endorphin high from *suppressing* compromising thoughts about their own party and candidates. (Perhaps this gives some clue to where wars come from?)
I’ve mentioned this a few times at dinners and such here in Moscow on the Hudson, where an independent such as myself is considered an extreme right-winger.
A typical reaction is: “Yes! Republicans are exactly like that! Ahhhhhh….”
20. July 2012 at 12:46
Jim Glass:
That is very interesting.
20. July 2012 at 12:49
Let it not be assumed however that there cannot be overlap between thoughts connected to endorphin centers of the brain, and thoughts connected to correctness.
One can get a high by making correct claims and attacking incorrect claims.
20. July 2012 at 12:53
Josiah:
We appear to have gotten to the point where conservatives and liberals literally do not hear the same words when they listen to a soundbite. This does not bode well.
This bodes well? How can you say that? Typical [your side].
20. July 2012 at 13:06
@MF!
HAH! That was good!
Happy Friday 🙂
20. July 2012 at 13:12
Wow, Bill Ellis, are you serious? Let’s break this down:
“Just because you don’t believe that tea party rhetoric contributed to any particular act of violence”
WHAT? What do you mean “you don’t believe?” You act like reasonable people could POSSIBLY disagree that the Tea Party influenced the Giffords shooter. There is zero evidence, yes, zero, that he had any exposure to or was influenced by political voices of any stripe. So don’t act like it’s just a matter of “beliefs” — it isn’t. The Tea Party, objectively, did not cause the Giffords shooting, but that didn’t stop Krugman and other leftist hucksters from slandering them.
“does not mean that they were not guilty of encouraging violence as a political tool. Tea party leaders were calling for ‘Second Amendment Solutions’. It can not be denied.”
Oh that’s cute. One person, ONE FREAKING PERSON, floated second amendment remedies as a theoretical concept and immediately walked it back. And now Bill Ellis will team up with Paul Krugman to lecture America about civility. The Tea Party was overwhelmingly peaceful; they got their permits in order, and heard speeches; they cleaned up after themselves; they never got in fights with cops; they didn’t ruin parks and harass normal people.
“I don’t imagine If occupy leaders called for “Second Amendment Solutions” in response to a Romney administration you would fail to point out the call to violence.”
Uh-huh. Except we don’t need to criticize any rhetorical violence for Occupy Wall Street, because we’re too busy criticizing the ACTUAL crimes they committed. You know, the Occupy Cleveland guys planning to bomb a bridge. The fine folks in Seattle and Oakland and San Francisco smashing up businesses. The bomb threat in Florida. Threatening children and defecating on cop cars in NYC. The rapes and attempted rapes in multiple cities. Here is an extremely short list — there’s a lot more. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282993/occupy-wall-street-blotter-nathaniel-botwinick
Look, wackos on both sides are never going to stop their violent actions and rhetoric. It’s way worse on the left than the right, but let’s ignore that for a minute. Ed Shultz and Mark Levin types are always going to peddle rage; public intellectuals, however, are supposed to have level heads. They are supposed to evaluate things from an academic viewpoint. Krugman may be the worst public intellectual of all time because he purposefully lies and obfuscates in support of his political agenda even though he knows better. I can’t think of any public intellectual with a worse track record.
20. July 2012 at 13:27
@Bill Ellis
Well done. You quickly proved Sumner’s point. A senseless shooting and you go to “those Tea Partiers certainly created a climate of violence!”
20. July 2012 at 14:13
Cedric…
Ummm no. Not one person. Do an image search for second amendment remedy. And I suppose you deny the how Glenn Beck made stoking paranoia his trade? And how he continually warned his viewers to be ready for Obama to unleash his repressive forces ? Not just Beck…it is Right wing boiler plate…
Remember Obamacare was going to give Obama the IRS as his private Army ?
Cediric, I condemn the calls for violence on the Occupy side…as does the Occupy movement. The difference here is that The calls for violence form the occupy folk came from a fringe…while the calls for violence form the tea folk came from leadership.
But, You are simultaneously saying that it is wrong to call out the right for their calls to violence, defending them against such accusations….while admitting that both sides do it.
20. July 2012 at 14:18
In a recent Washington Post poll talking about the decline of Tea party support, it said 41% of Americans support it. I’m sure they’re all secretly violent racists, right?
20. July 2012 at 14:19
Coldstream,
No…Nothing I have said indicates that I think the Tea party has anything to do with the awful event.
Scott’s post mocked the notion that liberals had any reason to point out that conservatives were contributing to a climate of violence. It is that that I am taking issue with.
20. July 2012 at 14:23
Jim…sure, Just like all Occupy folks are ignorant hippies who want to blow up bridges.
WE would not want to hurt anyone’s feelings by pointing it out if Occupy’s leadership started calling for it would we.
20. July 2012 at 14:24
Hi Scott,
Regarding the North Korea news, there’s been similarly hopeful noises coming out of Cuba: http://nyti.ms/SF7Nia
The NYT says that privatization initiatives have been slowing, but I didn’t realize how sweeping and ambitious the plans were in the first place:
“After the Cuban government began allowing people to open businesses in late 2010, nearly a quarter of a million of them have opted to work for themselves over the past 20 months, opening restaurants, snack bars and makeshift shops, driving taxis and fixing cellphones..[A]bout 387,000 Cubans, out of a population of about 11 million, are now self-employed…
[Note: That is a doubling of private sector employment in roughly two years.]
The government aims to trim state payrolls by 170,000 this year and add 240,000 private-sector jobs, a tough goal given that just 24,000 Cubans took out licenses for self-employment in the first five months of the year.
Esteban Lazo Hernández, a vice president of the Council of State, said in April that private-sector output would grow to between 40 percent and 45 percent of the gross national product in five years, from about 5 percent now.”
20. July 2012 at 14:50
Hey Bill Ellis, thanks for the completely non-responsive post where you appear to have abandoned any efforts to defend yourself. You don’t contest the fact that you were full of it to suggest that the Tea Party had anything to do with Giffords. You don’t contest the point of Scott’s post, and of my comment, that Krugman has become an unhinged lunatic over the years. You don’t contest that the real crimes of Occupy Wall Street far outpace any theoretical violence from the Tea Party.
So you’ve abandoned the debate, and now you want to start a new one where you attack a straw-man who loves Glenn Beck. I’ll humor you. Let’s go to the line-by-line:
“Ummm no. Not one person. Do an image search for second amendment remedy.”
I did, and I got a bunch of liberals denouncing Sharron Angle. Way to prove your point.
“And I suppose you deny the how”
You don’t proofread . . . do you?
“Glenn Beck made stoking paranoia his trade?”
Nope, sure don’t. He’s a maniac. I already conceded that there are wackos on both sides, and we can probably agree that it’s our job as smart guys to marginalize the crazies. But this is besides the point: Beck isn’t a public intellectual; Krugman is. I think Beck really believes his paranoid ramblings, but Krugman should know better.
“Cediric,”
Cedric. Nice try though.
“I condemn the calls for violence on the Occupy side”
How brave of you.
“as does the Occupy movement.”
REALLY. Seems to me that OWS was a criminal enterprise from day one; the movement was built on breaking laws and provoking confrontations with police.
“But, You”
*you.
“are simultaneously saying that it is wrong to call out the right for their calls to violence, defending them against such accusations….while admitting that both sides do it.”
Ummm . . . nope. Not at all. My problem was with the way the left, most-prominently one Paul Krugman, falsely blamed the right for the Giffords shooting. When you combine the false accusations of violence against the right with a blind eye towards the real violence on the left, you can’t call yourself an academic.
“And lastly public intellectuals SHOULD be pointing out anytime people are calling for a violent solution to political problems”
But Krugman does not call out people “anytime” they advocate violence — if he did, I would have a lot of respect for him. Rather, he lies about violence on the right and ignores violence on the left.
“We all should.”
Agreed, Bill Ellis.
20. July 2012 at 15:27
Interrupting on an a lighter if unrelated but informative note, an under-appreciated fact about the Phillips Curve in Japan.
http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1083.pdf
I, at least, did not know this.
20. July 2012 at 15:33
Speaking of communist countries, which presidential candidate would be most willing to open up free trade with Cuba? That seems like an important issue to me. Much more important than tax returns or someone’s pastor.
20. July 2012 at 16:32
Cedric…
V
I can’t help it if you read more into what I said than what I said. Be angry with yourself for that. I was not trying make any connection to any specific act and the calls for violence from the right. You created that debate in your head.
I was protesting the rights knee jerk defense of the right wing leadership that calls for violence. A knee jerk response that you choose to minimize. I was quite specific.
And yes, OWS has been bent on breaking the law…in the tradition of civil disobedience…Anything more is rejected by the movement. They are not about using violence to over throw the government. There is no comparison between the two tactics. NO one the left is defending the terrorist plans of people who called themselves OWS…altho plenty of people on the right are denying that the right is even calling for violence. You are drawing a false equivalency.
But as far as the Krugman column It DO think it was a good one and he had a point.
No one can say for sure if the rhetoric had any effect on the shooter or NOT…Krugman didn’t say that it did…he said…It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
It is perfectly rational to connect the shooting with the ratcheting up of paranoia and violent rhetoric by the right.
If I was public figure who encouraged drunk driving wouldn’t it be fair to point it out how stupid and irresponsible I was when dunk divers kill… even if they were not directly following my orders ?
There was an increase in violent rhetoric…that was UNDENIABLY coming primarily form the right….
…Coming not from some fringe , but from a Vice presidential candidate a congresswoman and a Senate candidate…as well as the right wing media.
…you are drawing a false equivalency between the actions of fringe elements that are rejected by OWS as even being OWS …and the calls of leadership.
The failed actions of a fringe element that is universally and instantly condemned does not necessarily call for a column in the NYT…But repeated calls for political violence from leadership, public figures and the media do… especially when that violence becomes manifest. (Weather because of the calls or not )
P.S…sure Krugman is partisan…so what ? So are is the WSJ editorial page. So is Scott to some degree..so is almost every other blogger that I find interesting.
So what ?
Why does the right single out PK as some sorta demon ? Like he is doing something he should not ?
Because he is soooo good at it ?
20. July 2012 at 17:06
Shorter Bill Ellis: “Hey, how dare you accuse me of slandering a whole group of Americans just because of the actions of one individual who had nothing to do with that group and who’s actions were not motivated by anything that group said! Now, let me reiterate that a whole group of Americans are responsible for the actions of one individual who had nothing to do with that group and who’s actions were not motivated by anything that group said.”
I was going to leave it at that, but I just can’t let this little gem pass:
“It is perfectly rational to connect the shooting with the ratcheting up of paranoia and violent rhetoric by the right.”
Are you freaking kidding me?
We’re done here.
20. July 2012 at 17:19
Carroll did not claim Tyler held those “annoying” ideas.
20. July 2012 at 19:25
I hope North Korea opens up. I guess it cannot get worse.
But after part of a lifetime in Asia, I have come to conclude that the East is different from the West.
The idea of transparency in government, and limited corruption, still needs to be adopted.
There is a lot of deference to position and authority.
China and N Korea may evolve, or may not, or may evolve in ways we don’t understand or like.
20. July 2012 at 21:45
I don’t really see how NK can evolve. “Opening up” would be suicide for their regime. You have to remember that NK is one of two governments battling for legitimacy to rule the peninsula.
20. July 2012 at 22:27
What I read in WSJ this morning was significantly more equivocal about the upheaval in the leadership. Including 1) the suggestion that the young Kim had been maneuvered into sacking one of his own allies and 2) the story is following the outline of past theatrics intended to bait the West into believing some liberalization was afoot.
Your call. I’m staying skeptical for the moment.
21. July 2012 at 02:45
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida, instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.” –then-Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Oct. 2010
21. July 2012 at 03:46
Bill Ellis = human joke without any self awareness
All rights come from violence. Govt. is born out of competent men hiring big dumb guys with guns to stand around and protect their property, making it private property.
Govt. is not the big dumb guys organizing.
Govt. is the competent guys organizing to figure out how to reduce what they have to pay the big dumb guys.
ALL FUNCTIONS OF GOVT. would be achieved in a private market solution by the very same competent men that organize the govt. IF they didn’t do it by creating govt.
As such, govt. only exists where it is a useful fiction to the very same competent men that created it.
A useful fiction = that stuff which gets the bottom 2/3 to follow along out of fear or sheer mental acceptance.
If you specifically look at the the very recent fall of the USSR on DAY ONE, this is exactly what happens.
——
The Colo gun violence is a DIRECT RESULT of the Freedom of Speech enjoyed by Hollywood.
A 24 year old Phd drop out dressed up as The Joker and went to a batman movie and did EXACTLY what The Joker does in batman comics.
If more people were armed in the theater, he would have killed less people.
He wore a bullet proof vest because HE EXPECTED to be fired on and wanted to sanely continue killing people for as long as possible.
I’m not calling on Hollywood to have less freedom of speech, but those people who HATE the competent men – the A POWER – the Tea Party – the top 1/3 of America…
They want to get rid of guns.
Why?
Because more guns = weaker govt.
Less guns = better chance for the Big Dumb guys to organize and have more power against the competent men that are the hegemony.
The vast bulk of the 200M guns are owned by the top 1/3, by the Tea Party.
None of them walked into that theater.
They also didn’t shoot the Congresswoman.
But they are ALL comfortable with reminding people that govt. exists FOR AND BY THEM, and that is what it means when they talk about armed rebellion or 2nd Amendment solutions.
DEEP DOWN everybody, including Bill Ellis gets this.
The issue is Bill Ellis doesn’t like the facts as they are. He wants everyone to view it as repugnant.
Which is fine.
But childish.
The top 1/3 run the show. If you want to formulate policy of any kind, it is best to figure out how to serve the interests of the top 1/3.
If you think that pretending you can organize the bottom 2/3 into action by calling the facts as they are repugnant, you are SANE but DELUSIONAL.
Just like the 24 year old shooter.
Bill Ellis = the 24 year old shooter
21. July 2012 at 03:50
Benny, the question is which President is more likely to simply declare that Cuba is a US Territory, invade it, and let Cuban Americans own / buy the entire country?
21. July 2012 at 04:20
Jim, Nope.
Procyclicality, Yep.
Cedric, I think he’s both.
Tomasz, My hunch is that this is different. It’s a purge at the very top of the government.
Steve, No deep point, just more examples of how politics warps the minds of even very smart people. They were talking about different things, but that’s not the problem. Aaron said Tyler said X, Y, and Z, and he didn’t say X, Y or Z. It was all made up. That’s a big problem.
Aidan, I was very disappointed by that. It did not show any of Tyler’s “facts” were wrong, more importantly it didn’t apologize for fabricating statements that Tyler never made.
Bill Ellis, If you believe prominent conservatives are advocating violence then you are just as deluded as Krugman.
Josiah and Jim Glass, Good points. Because I’m neither a Dem. or a Rep, it’s easy for me to see how deluded they get.
Thanks Chacokevy.
Evan, Good point. Our trade embargo on Cuba, which never made any sense, has become totally absurd.
Benny, Probably Obama.
ThaomasH, No, or course not! (Rolls eyes.)
Benjamin, The following is a very important point:
Right now life in China is far more like life in the US than it is like life in North Korea. Think about it.
ChargerCarl, China opened up without the government losing power.
Jon, We’ll see.
Paul, But don’t you understand that people like Bill Ellis say those threats of violence only count when made by the GOP. If made by Dems they are just figures of speech.
21. July 2012 at 06:57
Oh come on Morgan. See, you are really on the rag lately. I mean Bill Ellis= a 24 year mass muderder? How about Morgan Warstler= more like Major Freedom every day. I mean the breadth of such ad hominem attacks is breathless.
Let’s look at reality as you claim that’s your stock in trade. You’re not winning. You couldn’t even get the most conservative SC since the 20s to vote down Obamacare. Meanwhile Americans just want Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155897/Majority-Americans-Romney-Release-Tax-Returns.aspx
54-37, a landslide in an election. 17 points, Reagan won by 18.
Meanwhile Romney’s plan to run against the “Obama Recession” isn’t working out so well. He’s getting no traction from it. Zero.
I give you it’s clever to act as if the real dividing line is the top 1/3 vs. the bottom 2/3, but even your A power isn’t happy to know a fat cat like Romney pays virtually no taxes and may have paid none for all we know.
I think you’re losing, you know it, and your lashing out. Calling Ellis a mass murderer won’t help your prospects
21. July 2012 at 07:07
Overall, ok so ABC got it wrong. Reading into them nefarious motives is no different than what you think they did in assuming it was the Tea Party.
Networks make mistakes all the time. Check out Fox which had reported Obamacare was unconstitutional then had egg on it’s face.
What happened mostly is that ABC wanted to be first as all networks do. They aren’t the only one to ever do this and I doubt it had a political motive. You could much easier say Fox had a motive as the original report was what you know they wanted to it was wishful thinking on their part.
21. July 2012 at 07:29
The idea that more guns means less crime is baloney. Here’s some actual sense being spoke:
“this model of multiple equilibria applies to guns. There are societies with few guns and strict regs on them. Think Japan. Most of their gun deaths are socially approved suicides derived from the Samurai code of honor and Seppuku. But, in general, the rate of gun ownership and gun violence in Japan is extremely low. Many other nations on this planet resemble Japan in this generally, although varying in details on many important aspects. These societies are in the “good” equilibrium, where general social disapproval of guns combined with strict laws regulating them has led to few around, while organized crime and selected others can get them, but the rate of gun deaths is low by global standards, and certainly compared to the rate in the US.”
“OTOH, the US is clearly stuck in the “bad” equilibrium, derived from a long individualistic frontier history of widespread gun ownership, reinforced by the Second Amendment with its two parts, one emphasizing the right to own guns, recently raised above the other part by the US Supreme Court against long established precedents, with the other emphasizing the need for state level militias to be supported by a gun-owning citizenry in a society without a federal national defense (uh huh, compare 1787 national military [basically zero] to current DOD, duh). The control variable is the number of guns out there per capita, and the long US history favoring guns has meant that the barn door was torn off long ago and guns are everywhere, with no chance to go to the low gun “good” equilibrium anytime in the near future. Local efforts to control guns are hopeless as they pour in from other parts of the country, such as Virginia supplying the gangs of New York, with newly revived relaxations against the pleas of law enforecement officials to the northeast, but, hey, here in Virginia, the NRA really has the legislature in its grip to kill kill kill.”
“However, this most recent shocking event makes clear that even if the US has no hope of ever getting to that “good” equilibrium, maybe we are going too far into the bad equilibrium zone, and that more and more guns do not lead to less crime at all. What can we do?”
“Well, there is one obvious move. Reinstate the previously existing ban on assault weapons. The evidence is clear that when that ban was in place, there were fewer deaths from such weapons. The main weapon that James Holmes used in his invokation of the Joker was an assault rifle banned under the previous ban on assault weapons, left to expire. This ban must be reinstated”
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-guns-more-equilibria.html
Uh, yeah! Look I’m not against gun ownership though it does not reduce crime, that’s baloney. How is it that so many countries have few guns and little crime like Japan? Yet in Japan and Swistzerland and lots of other countries “only the criminals have guns”-that they have to import from out of the country-and yet they have lower crime rates than we’d know what to do with?
By no means do I believe we should take people’s guns. However we should take their assault rifles tomorrow. This Joker guy was stocked to the gills. He had explosives all around his house.
He had the most domestic casualties in US history with 70. Yeah, I know he would have still been “an evil guy” or certainly plain Loco without his heavy artillery. But no way would so many be dead and wounded.
21. July 2012 at 07:30
The above should read “assault weapons” not “assult rifles” though no doubt some rifles are also assault weapons.
21. July 2012 at 07:40
One more example-George Zimmerman. If background checks allowed him to have a gun we see they aren’t adequate.
21. July 2012 at 07:41
I can’t understand why all the reviews have been ripping on Dark Knight Rises. I may not be the the aesthete Scott is when it comes to film, but I went and saw it today and it was quite alright. I liked the plot, despite the very neat ending; masterful use of Chekhov’s gun (a whole freaking arsenal of them). Cinematography good as always. Locations, action scenes and cool factor get a thumbs up from me, epic effect duly delivered. Christian Bale still an excellent actor. Same goes for Caine, Freeman, Oldman, Cotillard, et al. And Anne Hathaway – honestly I laughed at first when I found out they cast her as Catwoman. But I think she really put herself into that performance (Hathaway roundhouse kicking thugs in the head is a sight) and it was actually quite decent. Plus she doesn’t look bad at all in that suit…
21. July 2012 at 07:50
But honestly, how poor was the security in that Aurora theatre? A guy walks in with a shotgun, a semi-automatic and freaking tactical grenades, dressed as the f***ing Joker – and theatre security were like, “yep, we’re going to let this heavily armed supervillain into the theatre, no problem?”
I have to say this: WTF IS WRONG WITH YOUR COUNTRY?
OK I understand he had the weapons in his car and brought them in through the emergency exit. But still why are you selling semi-automatics to civilians? I honestly don’t get that.
Reports say he mined his apartment with “sophisticated explosives”. I suppose Americans have a God-given right to those as well, do they?
21. July 2012 at 07:52
Reminds me of how easily Bane breaks into the Gotham Stock Exchange, and how he mysteriously manages to plant cement mixed with explosives all over Gotham and on all the bridges into the city – but I don’t want to ruin it for those still waiting to see.
21. July 2012 at 07:57
Yes Saturos-how did this guy get his hands on all the explosives? I mean you don’t have to be anti gun to think there’s something wrong with that. If they cops hadn’t gotten there it would have blown up half the block
21. July 2012 at 08:02
Sax,
You always go for the 6th finger, I put it there for you, you know.
The bulk, the meat, the weight, you pass it right by and focus on… Bill Ellis.
The POINT is that as Bill Ellis tried to lay problem at the feet of the Tea Party, I simply put it back on him.
Guns = Rights
There is no doubt that the US has a stronger sense of individual over society because of the 2nd Amendment.
It comes right after you can say whatever the hell you want about anybody, pray to whatever god you want, you can arm up and protect yourself without having to RELY on the state for your protection.
Who cares about crime?
I’mm concerned with liberty and capitalism, backed be self proetection. Why would you waste your time, responding about crime stats?
See I ASSUME there will be 200M guns, my point is SINCE THERE WILL BE 200M GUNS, it would be better to have more armed people in the movie theater.
You could argue that if MORE of the top 1/3, the gun and property owners, the Tea Party were carrying weapons, that there would be more gun violence, but that wasn’t your argument.
Romney – get it through your head, I have a BET with Scott, if I lose, I change my deeply long held position and adopt Scott’s. If I win, Scott dedicates his book to me.
I told you what I think, I have a BIG BET on it – so, no I don’t think Tax Returns matter, I don’t think people RESPECT Obama, I think the LIKE HIM.
Let me put it this way, with a little license, I think they FEAR Romney, as in he’ll do the painful stuff that they think DAD ought to do to make the country shape up.
And they don’t LOVE the Mommy figure Obama enough of think this country needs more Mommying right now.
But whatever, I’m prepared to be wrong, because this isn’t about Romney or even Obama for me…
To me this is about long term political game strategy, from 1913-1980, and from 1980 until today.
I think that the arc of US History is still headed anti-government, and I think it’ll keep going that way, until the government is run like a highly efficient Internet business.
21. July 2012 at 08:02
“Reminds me of how easily Bane breaks into the Gotham Stock Exchange, and how he mysteriously manages to plant cement mixed with explosives all over Gotham and on all the bridges into the city – but I don’t want to ruin it for those still waiting to see.”
You know now I think I get why Rush thinks the movie was an anti-Romney conspiracy-“Bane breaks into the Gotham Stock Exchange”
Sounds too much like Bain…
21. July 2012 at 08:21
Mike, actually I agree with Craig Ferguson, who says that Nolan’s Batman is one of the most Republican superheroes we’ve seen. We’re hearing about how Bruce Wayne is the one percent with a conscience; but I read this movie as quite explicitly anti-OWS.
And don’t get me into the whole debate about how if Bruce Wayne were a utilitarian, he wouldn’t be Batman. We know he’s not that rational; there’s a great scene at the end where *SPOILER* Catwoman saves his life with the guns mounted on the Batcycle, commenting that she’s not so sure she buys into his whole “no guns” thing. Then again, everyone thinks they’re Batman (point in the previous film), and if you legalize guns so that Batman can have them (and not use them, NOTE!) then you also legalize hordes of shifty Brits coming in and buying Uzis as in the film.
Come to think of it, if there was ever a city needed gun control, it’s certainly Gotham, dontcha think?
21. July 2012 at 08:22
You don’t think Romney’s tax returns matter fine. I say they do-and the polls agree with me. Look, I give you that at least you’ve made a falsifiable claim. If Obama wins you admit you were wrong about the drift of the country.
Look, if you were a politician that Bill Ellis quote would be what all the networks led with-Right winger is so desparate to deflect criticism of the gun nuts that he claims some random guy named Ellis is on the same level as a mass murderer. And you’d either walk it back or be out.
I get the meat I just think you’re wrong. Again, though, you at least are admitting you lose your bet come November.
21. July 2012 at 08:24
Saturos though you’ve done some spoilers it does sound pretty good. Maybe I should check it out.
21. July 2012 at 08:26
Of course, you wonder if the movie is going to see a drop in ticket sales this weekend after Colorado…
21. July 2012 at 08:35
It is understandable that politicians mindlessly repeat the party line but not when supposedly rational economists do likewise. Rachel Madow can stand before the Hoover Dam and Chris Mathews and Lawrence O”Donnell can rhapsodize euphorically about the Veterans College program as evidence of government accomplishments, one would hope that Government has had successful programs. On the other hand they could stand together with the President in an inner city and point out that what is around them is evidence of decades of Government failure.
The question is not that some programs work but what and how much should the Government do. The President’s father theorized that if a country’s government does any good it is entitled to 100% of that country’s income.
The Enlightenment thinkers who laid the intellectual foundation for economics realized that production was difficult but consumption was easy and insatiable. Keynesian economics and the GDP accounts has contributed to raising consumption to be viewed as the driving force of the economy. As a result we have created a large and growing under class that is totally dependent on Government hand outs. This had led to a collapse of the family, rising illegitimacy, crime and substance abuse and falling academic achievements and labor participation rates.
Ironically, the belief that consumption is responsible for 70% of GDP is based on a combination of an arithmetic error and a conceptual error, it is only about 45% of GDP. See blog: Michael Mandel, Innovation and Growth, May 1, 2010, “Giving credit where credit is due”
21. July 2012 at 09:12
Turns out Metacritic actually gave it 78/100. That’ll teach me to get my news from Twitter.
21. July 2012 at 11:27
The Aaron Carroll follow up is even sillier than the original;
‘I read in Cowen’s piece the idea that single payer systems lead to longer lines. I dispute this. Doctor shortages and an underfunded systems lead to wait times. We always point to Canada, but their wait times (overblown) are because they keep the budget down.’
And that man is a doctor!
21. July 2012 at 11:36
‘One more example-George Zimmerman. If background checks allowed him to have a gun we see they aren’t adequate.’
ALL the evidence that has come out shows Zimmerman to have been assaulted–broken nose, gashes on the back of his head–by a kid who’d been smoking marijuana. His claim of self-defense, to this point, is unassailable.
Now about Tea Partiers. They carry their own garbage bags to their marches, while the Occupiers;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018697584_apwaseattlebankvandalism.html
‘Vandals broke windows at two Wells Fargo bank branches early Monday in Seattle.
‘….KING-TV reports anarchy graffiti was left on the door of one bank.
‘Wells Fargo branches in Seattle have been a target of vandals this year. The Madison Park branch and a downtown branch were vandalized in January. Three other banks were damaged by masked vandals in February in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.’
Probably just some devious Tea Partiers spraying ‘Occupy’ slogans on the banks to cover up their true nature.
21. July 2012 at 11:44
http://baselinescenario.com/2012/07/12/the-market-has-spoken-and-it-is-rigged/#comment-122972
—————-quote—————
Who in their right mind indeed? And this this is the cutting point. These monsters are NOT in their right mind. They only care about personal gain and immense otherworldly wealth regardless of the criminal activity involved in obscounding – I mean gleaning – I mean earning it . How are these shatains and fiends any different from drug cartels and operators. They both control and manipulate markets. They both use the otherworldly profits of their criminal enterprises to bribe – I mean purchase politicians, regulators, and respective enforcement agencies . They both are equally ruthless. What’s the difference? The suits? The yaughts, jets, mansions, – what?
Unless and until the fiends, shatains, and den of vipers and thieves in the finance sector (who are responsible for, and cause far greater harm and injury globally) to the exact same government reprisals and fierce punishments as their kindred spirits in the drug trade or weapons or slave trades – there will NEVER be an end to their criminal activity, and the manifold horrors (slave labor, poverty, lack of access to basic commodities, {affordable housing, healthcare, education, et al} and ruthless oppression will continue unabated and matasticize until the entire globe ignites in fury and destruction.
Criminals must be held accountable for crimes, – or in practical reality there are no laws. In a world where there are no laws – there are no laws for anyone predatorclass biiiiiaaatches !!!
There will be a reckoning and a balancing, and there will be blood!!!
——————endquote—————-
What do you think, is the author of the above more likely to belong to the Tea Party or Occupy? And, it is written in the comments section of an MIT economist.
21. July 2012 at 11:51
Patrick if “all the evidence points” to Zimmerman’s being the victim why are they even in court?
What we do know even from his comments on Hannity the other night-that interview may end up doing him a lot more harm than good-is that Trayvon ran away and he chased him.
So he was the instigator. The cops told him not to pursue. He was in his car and Trayvon was running. He got out of his car and chased him.
That’s already shows he was the aggressor in the confrontation. Now as to his borken nose, “we” don’t know anything for sure. ONe thing that might have happened is that Trayvon was trying to defend himself. After all he has a crazy racist chasing him in the dark.
Zimmerman is mentally ill. If anything maybe that’s where his defense finally ends up. We have his own cousin saying he sexually molested her as a child.
I don’t know why anyone’s an advocate for him.I can come up with two reasons-race and guns. If Trayvon was white a lot of people would feel a lot less sympathetic to Zimmerman-especially as he’s of “doubious whiteness” himself. That Sean Hannity is his number one advocate tells you all you need to know about him.
21. July 2012 at 11:54
As to Rigth wing violence, we have plenty of hisotry in thie regard. Terry Nichols-a prolife fanaatic. Timothy McVay, the Oklahoma Bomber.
How about David Koresh. What really makes me suspicous of Right wingers is when they defend people like this.
21. July 2012 at 12:17
Mike Sax is the best poster boy imaginable. Keep it up Mike. No one could say it more effectively than you.
Of course, we’ll leave it up to the reader to think what cause Mike is the poster boy for. It is certainly not the cause that Mike thinks it is. 😉
21. July 2012 at 12:36
Mike Sax’s opposition to reading nefarious motives into people’s actions has a curiously uneven quality to it.
21. July 2012 at 12:46
Isn’t it convenient how you never mention the constant bullshit Greg Mankiw spews.
You’re such a freaking hypocrite.
21. July 2012 at 13:44
Thanks to Paul, I don’t feel any need to respond again to Mike Sax.
21. July 2012 at 13:52
I have no idea what you’re talking about Paul. I don’;t think anything I’m saying is so curious. Not nearly as curious as the way Hannity and company defend George Zimmerman.
21. July 2012 at 15:03
Interesting to think that the political realm is where we are ‘supposed’ to go to solve our problems, and yet it is the one place where seemingly nothing can be solved.
21. July 2012 at 15:39
“China opened up without the government losing power.”
But China wasn’t vying for legitimacy against another more powerful state to rule the chinese people. NK is, and they’ve already lost the economic battle. They’re only link to legitimacy is to accuse SK of being “Yankee puppets” and maintain that they are protecting korea’s “racial purity.”
21. July 2012 at 17:52
Boy, and I thought that this site was about monetarism.
21. July 2012 at 17:57
Jim Glass, Yes, I’ve seen that map. Very interesting.
Saturos, We have about 15 times as many people as Australia, and about 15 times as many mass murderers. In per capita terms? About the same. An American is more likely to be hit by lightening that killed by a mass murderer. (Except in 2001, obviously)
Patrick, I thought that was weird too. You mean we might have lines if the American taxpayers don’t want to pay 18% of GDP on health care? Which is about the current level of ALL FEDERAL TAXES.
ChargerCarl, That assumes the South wants to rule over the North, which is not at all clear to me. But you might be right.
But think about this. Why wouldn’t that argument hold in Burma, which now appears to be opening up? Aren’t they likely to lose power?
21. July 2012 at 19:43
Patrick if “all the evidence points” to Zimmerman’s being the victim why are they even in court?
Ah, the great cost-saving simplification of the legal process, arrest = proof of guilt. Why even go to court?
Well, my fellows in the legal lobby collect too much income from that costly, delay-of-justice step to let you efficiency buffs eliminate it.
BTW, those endorphins feeling good?
21. July 2012 at 19:49
‘I don’;t think anything I’m saying is so curious.’
Pretty obviously Mr. Zrimsek is aware of that. The give away is your saying things like;
‘Trayvon was trying to defend himself. After all he has a crazy racist chasing him in the dark.’
How would Trayvon know that he was ‘a crazy racist’…because Zimmerman was driving a pick-up?
21. July 2012 at 19:51
Maybe I’m feeding the troll here or missing the sarcasm but this quote got to me:
“Isn’t it convenient how you never mention the constant bullshit Greg Mankiw spews.
You’re such a freaking hypocrite.”
Far be it for me to defend one of the most preeminent economists of our time but Mankiw is nothing but classy and respectful to everyone he disagrees with.
22. July 2012 at 01:47
Oops, turns out it was actually the NYSE. That scene was even cooler than I thought.
Scott, what about violent crime in general?
Patrick, apparently the Incidental Economist doesn’t know much economics. He’s right about there being a shortage of doctors, but isn’t familiar with the most basic analysis of monopsony as keeping prices to suppliers down.
Becky, it might be because politics is a competition for the means of coercion, whereas much maligned-markets are a competition to serve others.
22. July 2012 at 02:59
“How would Trayvon know that he was ‘a crazy racist’…because Zimmerman was driving a pick-up?”
Ok, Patrick that’s the best you can do. There I admit I made an inferrence. I mean if someone is stalking me out in a dark place my inference is he’s crazy and dangerous. I think in Trayvon’s case it’s a reasonable inference he’s a raicst. Why else would he be so fixated?
I don’t think if he’s white, Zimmerman is chasing him around in the dark. Look, Ziimemrman once called the police to report a “7 year old black male with a skinny build”, and his own cousin says that Zimmermna’s whole side of the family are racists.
But if you want to quibble take out the “racist” part of my phrase “crazy racist chasing him in the dark” and my point doesn’t change.
Again, it’s quite reasonable to make inferences and in our daily life we make it every day. It’s part of self preservation. Trayvon knew this guy meant him no good. And he knows as a young black male there are people who think all black males are supsects. You, I presume aren’t black so you dont know that it’s like to be a suspect for no reason except who you are.
22. July 2012 at 03:05
Scott, you should read this: http://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/27556035844/dr-smith-and-the-asset-bubble
22. July 2012 at 04:48
This is absolutely incredible: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/seven-years-on-things-still-look-the-same/
22. July 2012 at 05:48
Had the shooter been Muslim the talk would have been about the problem with Islamic culture. Had the shooter had been black the talk would have been about the problem with black culture. Since the shooter is upper middle class white clearly he was insane and to suggest anything else is playing politics. That apparently is how it works.
Scott wrote I think there’s a deeper problem here. Progressives see their ideology as being somehow more rational.
Really? A gunman massacres a bunch of people in a theater and you digress into a rant about progressives?
Or are you just providing an example of This is your brain on politics?
22. July 2012 at 06:08
Russ,
The progressives were the ones freaking out, we’re just not letting get their assertive goo on us.
So I say again, the shooter = Bill Ellis
He’s not an upstanding Tea Party member who owns a business, has kids, goes to church, and reliably votes anti-government, low tax, low regulations, states rights…
He’s a disaffected loser, not part of the “real” American experience, smart enough to feel entitled, a Phd dropout, unemployed, living on dole, and not willing to HARD WORK of life to go forth and succeed.
The shooter = Bill Ellis.
The next closest person on this board to the shooter is Saxie. 🙂
There are plenty of freaks born of the left that do this kind of stuff.
He is one.
It is not to say that the right doesn’t have some freaks, but it is not guns that did this…
It is HOLLYWOOD, free speech, and nihilistic OWS thinking.
You think things are so bad for your team that some chaos will shake things up?
Welcome to the young American left.
22. July 2012 at 06:58
I guess I upset some people. Too funny.
Just goes to show…People see what they want to see. Take that however you like.
But since this is an economics blog, I want to point out that those who base their beliefs on people being perfectly rational…Are nuts.
22. July 2012 at 07:17
Saturos,
Re your mention of monopsony: when a handful of dictionaries proved useless, I took an interesting side trip down Wikipedia Lane (they’re calling you for clearer language of monopsony! Will you answer?) and some related areas such as textbooks.
22. July 2012 at 08:01
Political Economy is for the top 1/3 Bill Ellis. Afterall, they OWN everything.
Economics is for everyone.
You’re problem is that you want the non-owners to rise up and topple America.
See The Joker.
22. July 2012 at 08:10
Becky, monopsony is basically just demand-side monopoly. I think Joan Robinson coined the term. So output is still cut vis-a-vis perfect competition, however instead of a steep marginal revenue curve, twice as steep as the demand curve, cutting marginal cost ahead of the efficient quantity (as opposed to perfect competition when MR is flat), you have a steep marginal cost curve, twice as steep as supply, cutting demand/marginal benefits at below efficient output. So once again you get deadweight loss (which is what economists [should] actually care about, not the distribution of gains from trade between buyers and sellers). I’ve always felt that pretty much the only place where unions should be exempt from anti-trust laws (indeed, allowed their usual extra privileges for collective bargaining) is under a monopsonistic environment – say the public sector. But then it’s taxpayers that foot the bill, and even liberals start to complain.
I guess the lack of new posts means that Scott’s book is nearly done??!!
22. July 2012 at 08:24
‘I don’t think if he’s white, Zimmerman is chasing him around in the dark.’
Not that you’re the kinda guy who casts aspersions. Nor is constrained by the rules of logic;
‘Trayvon knew this guy meant him no good.’
I’ve seen some egregious cart putting before horse….
But, if Trayvon ‘knew’ that, wouldn’t ‘self-preservation’ dictate that he simply run home where he’d be safe. Or, call 911 on his cellphone.
22. July 2012 at 08:36
Tip for Scott to save time: Stop answering comments on posts that no longer show up on the front page of the blog. You are at risk of turning into this guy: http://xkcd.com/386/
22. July 2012 at 09:10
Patrick you simply don’t read. He was running and Zimmerman chased after hiim.
Even the cop dispatcher had told him not to that if there’s a problem let the professionals handle it. He didnt listen. He chased after Trayvon.
He was running and Zimmerman wouldn’t let him go. If he did strike him-and we don’t know the deatils yet- it was self defense.
There is only two wasy of handling aggressionj. Fight or flight. Trayvon Martin tried flight and Zimmerman wouldn’t take that as an answer. He chased him. So next maybe he tried fight. However, at this point Zimmerman has already admitted he’s the aggressor.
I don’t see I’m casting any aspersions. You are by saying that we already pretty much know for a fact that Zimmerman shot him in self deffense.
We don’t know that at all. Quiet the opposite.
22. July 2012 at 09:22
“You think things are so bad for your team that some chaos will shake things up?”
Morgan, as I’ve explained to you before, you try to ignore it, is I don’t think things are so bad right now for my team. We just got to major rulings out of the most conservative Supreme Court since the 20s.
Everything seems to point to the fact that Mitt Romney is getting no traction.
I don’t think we’re losing at all. In fact my main point above-my “meat” as it were-is that you seem a little mmore on edge than usual. I thinkn it’s because you know you’re losing-that at least you may be losing and that your bet with Scott may be a loser.
And as for your “profling” hey, as if you knew… I mean there are rich liberals you know. Not everyone rich votes for the GOP nor does everyoone poor vote Dem. But hey, flattery will get you everywhere.
The main thing I will give you is that you make falsifiable claims. There will be no interpretation-either Obama loses or he won’t. You can’t try to pretend that you won the day after if you ddin’t. So that much I give you.
22. July 2012 at 09:50
MikeM, I agree, I ignore idiots like that guy
Saturos, Crime is higher here than Australia. I was responding to your comment about machine guns, bombs, and mass murder.
Russ, I was “ranting” on the way progressives sometimes respond to these things. Is that OK with you?
I strongly agree with your comment about blacks and muslims being scapegoated in many of these cases.
22. July 2012 at 09:55
Saturos, Congratulations to Noah Smith, and yes, I used to show that Japan Phillips curve to my class. Just another reason I don’t trust statistical significance. You could never get that published, even though the correlation is far more powerful than 90% of the junk that does get published.
And it’s too late, I already am that guy.
22. July 2012 at 09:56
Hope for OWS sake this isn’t true…
http://www.westernjournalism.com/colorado-shooter-active-with-occupy-wall-street/
I was just making a theoretical point.
22. July 2012 at 10:04
Morgan like I’ve told you before. If Obama wins, I owe you dinner.
That’s pretty big of me, considering I’m must one of the “dirty hippies” that own nothing and don’t count! Here I am willing to treat you to dinner, a member of the A Voters.
22. July 2012 at 10:04
“Scott wrote I think there’s a deeper problem here. Progressives see their ideology as being somehow more rational.
Really? A gunman massacres a bunch of people in a theater and you digress into a rant about progressives?
Or are you just providing an example of This is your brain on politics?”
Funny, I didn’t read this post as one about a massacre of a bunch of people in a theater. If it had been about that, I would agree a discussion about the “progressive” mindset would have been a digression. Rather, I thought clearly that the column was about ABC’s reaction to that massacre, and more specifically, the progressive leader of ABC’s investigative reporting staff and further, the parallels between that reaction and the premature reaction of other progressives to an earlier tragedy in Tucson. When you clearly set out in your topic paragraph what your column is about, it is pretty silly to argue that when you stick to that, you are “digressing”. It rather strikes me that any digression is from your subjective perspective.
22. July 2012 at 10:42
I can read the transcript of Zimmerman’s call to the police, Mike;
http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed
which in no way supports your claims. For instance, you say;
‘Even the cop dispatcher had told him not to that if there’s a problem let the professionals handle it. He didnt listen.’
In fact, he did listen;
————–quote————-
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
————–endquote————–
And, prior to that Trayvon was menacing Zimmerman who was in his truck;
————-quote—————-
Zimmerman:
Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]
911 dispatcher:
He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK.
Zimmerman:
Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]
….911 dispatcher:
He’s near the clubhouse now?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.
….Zimmerman:
Uh, huh.
Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.
He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]
911 dispatcher:
Let me know if he does anything, OK?
Zimmerman:
OK.
————-endquote————
Doesn’t sound as though you have a very good grasp of the facts, Mike.
22. July 2012 at 13:51
Sounds like you don’t. If you watched the Hannity interview Zimmerman admits that Trayvon ran away-he corrects it with “skipped” as if that somehow justifies him chasing him-and that was when he pursued him.
None of what you put there proves anything or contradicts what I said. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon. He might have said “yeah” to the dispatcher but he still ulitmatley wanted to paly big Stand Your Ground man.
He chased Martin down. If someone “stares at you” this hardly gives you the right to shoot him dead.
22. July 2012 at 14:02
Patrick, you were pretty selective with what you quoted. You don’t mention that part where Zimmerman said:
“These assholes. They always get away it”
What assholes are these? While Zimmerman claimed that Martin was “staring at him” and walking towards him, he never did get to him, Instead he ran:
“It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22”
You make it sould like the dispatcher told him not to follow Marin before he said ‘he’s staring at me he’s following me’ but that was actually way after. Ie, you selectivly quoted him out of order to make it sound like Martin was the aggressor. He wasn’t.
You ought to work for Fox News with Hannity.
22. July 2012 at 14:44
Mike Sax…
Yes, spot on. I have been saying much the same on other sites.
I really try and avoid getting into such things on this blog. I feel kinda of uncomfortable for going to the lengths I did on this thread. There are plenty of places on the web where I don’t mind getting down and dirty. (We are All primates and Primates like to throw shit don’t we ? )
But how many places on the web can you find some one of Scott Sumner’s caliber willing to even acknowledge your existence let along take the time to give you thoughtful replies ? The disrespect directed at him by some really bugs me. And even though I don’t think I was disrespectful, I think I maybe fed the disrespectful atmosphere.
I don’t know…
22. July 2012 at 15:19
Bill, I don’t see that you did anything but that’s just one man’s opinion.
I only got into it as I saw some others were making some pretty extreme claims.
22. July 2012 at 15:34
‘Zimmerman ran after Trayvon.’
Prove it. The dispatcher used the word, ‘following’, not chasing, nor running. In this lengthy video;
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/06/21/us/100000001621066/zimmerman-interview-with-detective.html
Zimmerman, roughly 24 hours after the shooting, explains that he followed the fleeing suspect to be able to show the police, who were on their way, where he’d gone.
‘What assholes are these?’
The burglars that the community had been plagued with. Didn’t you pay any attention to the beginning of Zimmerman’s call;
‘We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]’
Isn’t calling the police the responsible thing to do in the situation. If Trayvon had done that he wouldn’t have been shot.
And, Zimmerman was right about the drugs, according to the autopsy. Do you suppose that might have had anything to do with Trayvon attacking Zimmerman; his judgment was impaired.
“It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22″³
It doesn’t sound at all like that to someone whose brain isn’t working, ‘overtime to feel good, activating reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased reasoning.’
22. July 2012 at 16:28
Mike…
I see a pattern on this thread that I have seen over and over on the web. Many conservatives can’t end a dispute with out declaring victory…based on not the facts of the discussion, but on a negative assessment of their opponent…
…Assuming Victory by making it personal. I never get that. I seems so small.
I have seen plenty of libs do it too…But it is primarily a con reaction.
I think it has something to with how liberals pride themselves on being information based, while Cons pride themselves on “doing the right thing”.
22. July 2012 at 16:44
Speaking of gun control…This Must be a Sign of the apocalypse.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/22/561641/fox-news-commentator-democrats-are-being-foolish-should-propose-gun-control-laws/
22. July 2012 at 17:09
Geez. I actually agree with Billy Kristol
22. July 2012 at 17:15
Scott wrote Russ, I was “ranting” on the way progressives sometimes respond to these things. Is that OK with you?
It’s your blog.
ABC being in too big of a hurry to properly check their facts is certainly embarrassing, but they did quickly correct their mistake and apologize. Seems more sloppy than political, just like all the media outlets that reported the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare. Maybe it’s just the way I respond to these things.
Scott wrote I strongly agree with your comment about blacks and muslims being scapegoated in many of these cases.
Thanks.
I first heard about the shooting on conservative talk radio. When I flipped to that station, the host was trying to calm callers down, which struck me a strange since he usually is trying to inflame. A caller was trying to compare something to Fort Hood, which lead me to think there must be a mass shooting. At the hour break the national news report told of the shooting at a theater. I hate to say it but I was relieved when they named the shooter and he sounded “white”.
The day before on the same station I listened to Michelle Bachmann making unsubstantiated accusations about connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Had the shooter been Muslim it would have poured gasoline on the hysteria.
After the break the talking point was that anyone that suggested anything but that the shooter was insane was playing politics. Then they digressed into their typical complaining about liberals/progressives/etc.
As if on cue, Scott writes about the “deeper problem” of progressives.
I can understand why people that want it legal to buy a AR-15 with 6,000 rounds of ammunition would not want to defend their position after it is used to massacre people in a theater.
I agree with Scott on the need for more Fed easing, he’s one of the few to speak out against the Fed paying interest on excess reserves, and is one of the few to remember Milton Friedman’s actual monetary writings. When it comes to politics I won’t claim he “becomes completely unhinged”, but it’s certainly not up to his economics standards.
22. July 2012 at 18:27
Sax,
Everyone ought to assume the guy in the truck is carrying a gun. If you don’t ASSUME it, if little gangsters don’t assume it, if everyone doesn’t assume it – you get little macho shows.
Think UK Soccer hooligans.
I don’t think you WANT to assume the guy in the truck has a gun.
Meanwhile, I want to assume half the people in the theater are carrying.
There is no 17 year old staring down bullshit, there is no confrontation, not unless you ASSUME you are confronting a guy with a gun.
200M Guns are not gong away Mike.
They are a FACT.
As such, you should be preaching everyone assume everyone is packing.
22. July 2012 at 18:43
Well Morgan I’m not saying they should all go away. but the fact that this James Holmes guy was able to arm himself with enough explosvies and assault weapons for a small warzone is a little off.
No doubt it’s hard with the power of the NRA-it was their conspiracy theories that got us the Contempt vote-makes it hard.
Morgan no one can ever accuse you of not being overconfident enough.
I know the history as well as you. I undertand your premise-1913-1968, 1980 to present.
What you don’t get is the conservative momentum seen in a larger view peaked in 2004 when Bush won and the GOP had both HOuses of Congress. Since then it’s been going away from them.
All this voter id stuff is just desoaration-someway to fight the fact that the country will not be majoirty white for much longer.
Look, I don’t mind. I never talk out my opponents from being overconfident. By all means, think you own all the cards and what worked in 1980 and 1994 or even 2010 will always work.
I think the conservatives in the 70s were poised for a comeback. Back then you had low hanging fruit. Even if I could be dictator for a day I wouldn’t rasise taxes back to 70%-though I’d raise them some on the top rate.
But now that the low hanging fruit has been plucked the GOP has hit a wall. It’s next move-the Ryan budget, the Herman Cain tax plan where the tax burden is moved even more from the rich to the middle class-is a nonstarter.
No way will you ever make Medicare a block grant program. Bush started the “Save Social Security” candard in 2005. He had a GOP Congress in both chambers so the Democrats had no power. It got tabled. There was not the political capital to do it.
Same thing now with Medicare. The conservatives got the easy victories out of the way. The next logical moves for them are all “bridges too far.”
As to guns, they have nothing to do with freedom. I think just like Kristol says you should be able to buy a gun but no assulat weapons and explosives. It’s not the number one concern for me right now so arguing about it is besides the point. For me let’s get Obama re-elected first before you bite off more than you can chew.
If he’s able to find an opening and can get something done now-doubtful-he should do it. But I-unlike some liberals-won’t hold it against him if he doesn’t tray right now because of politics.
22. July 2012 at 19:09
Patrick I don’t know why you have such a hard-on for Zimmerman. But you’re exatly the kind of guy I was talking about. You accuse me of bias, when it’s your own biases that make you so obssessed with defending Zimmerman who really is not defensible.
You understand that “following” vs “chasing” is just semantics? It’s the same action. The dispatcher told him not to do it and he did it. I don’t have to prove it it’s on your own link.
I didn’t “ignore” all Zimmerman’s talk about breakins, etc. None of that justifies chasing Trayvon. Or “following” him. Calling the police is responsible but he didn’t leave it there. He kept pursuing him after he was told not to.
I really don’t care about any of this which is not provable anyway:
“The burglars that the community had been plagued with. Didn’t you pay any attention to the beginning of Zimmerman’s call;
“We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.”
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about”
Oh my Heavens! He was walking around looking about? That will get you 10 years! I mean that’s what’s suspcious for guys like you and Zimmerman if you’re the wrong race I guess.
Martin had actually gone out during halftime of a basketball game. He was coming back.
There is no justifiable excuse for following him as the dispatcher made clear he should stop. He didn’t say don;t follow him unless you wwant to show us something. He didn’t say “follow him so you can tell us exactly what he did and where he went.”
I love how high and mighty you are about this pot thing. That’s how you think your going to beat Obama too right? Talking abotu his admitted drug use in high school.
If I’m “out in the rain just walking about” and someone like you or George Zimmerman starts treating me like some sort of suspect that’s enough to make me fearful pot or no.
What’s clear is that Zimmerman was absolutely obssessed. He was caling the police constantly, 53 times over a short period. He once called about a “7 year old black male with a skinny build”-his words. Another time he called about someone riding a moped.
He was absoultely obssessed and this is where obssession usually gets people.
Try as you might to spin it, checking either your link, or his talk with his number one fan, Sean Hannity, he was in his van. He thought Martin was “looking at him” or approaching his van, but he wasn’t. After Martin got spooked by him and fled-or “skipped”-Zimmerman pursued him. I know “followed” and “skipped” changes everything.
You and Zimmerman must share the same brain while lending it out to Hannity on Sundays.
22. July 2012 at 21:55
I think the fundamental logic of the 2nd amendment is that people have a right to defend themselves against their government. Disarm the populace, and the people are truly at the mercy of their government. So we need to allow arms in public circulation, in case Syria or Libya ever happens to the USA.
Of course, if Syria or Libya ever happens, the government will be trying to disarm the people anyway… I don’t see how much of an advantage you get just from having some weapons lying around (the good ones all in the hands of psychopaths like Holmes). In civil war you would have all kinds of plants converting to munitions factories, in defiance of the government.
23. July 2012 at 01:54
Satuors, you’re problem is that you’re just not an American and are therefore too logical about the situation!
23. July 2012 at 03:17
Several decades ago, I cut my baby lawyer teeth on prosecuting criminal cases and then defending some, too. Although I enjoyed the latter very much, I quit it fairly quickly, partly on the advice of a colleague who remarked “you can’t take your clients to lunch”. It’s also sometimes a bit dicey getting paid.
Nevertheless, the experience taught me that the decision of guilt or innocence is best left to the judges and jurors in our system. That system is certainly not without its flaws, but if mistakes are made, there are several levels of appeal available to those who think they know better; however, I’ve never understood the rather presumptious and asinine preoccupation of the American public (including, but especially the media) in trying to make those factual calls from the nickel seats before the trial has even begun and the detailed factual case is developed. In fact, those detailed facts and live witness testimony will likely never be available to those outside the courtroom.
Mr. Zimmerman will have his day in court. The jurors, if it is a jury trial, will probably take several weeks to review all the evidence, consider both sides of the case, listen to at least a dozen or more witnesses and have the opportunity first hand to judge their demeanor and trustworthiness. Meanwhile, folks in the nickel seats who have not and will never hear any of this, seem to know better than our judges and jurors ever will before that trial has even started. I hope those jurors have the ability and the sense to tune out all this noise.
23. July 2012 at 07:18
What if a Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts guy like Mike Sax gets on the jury Vivian?
23. July 2012 at 08:04
Patrick you are still carping huh? I have the facts. You are the one who’s already made up his mind:
“ALL the evidence that has come out shows Zimmerman to have been assaulted-broken nose, gashes on the back of his head-by a kid who’d been smoking marijuana. His claim of self-defense, to this point, is unassailable.”
It’s not unassailble. the evidence shows that,his interview with Hannity shows that, and the link you provided shows that.
You are the one who doesn’t like facts which is why you quoted out of order to give a different impression.
You haven’t been able to show a single fact I’ve gotten wrong.
Your contempt for juries says it all. Yeah, let’s jsut leave it up to Fox News watchers.
Vivian, for your part I appreciate your post as someone who has actually been on the front lines.
I can understand why you didnt’ want to do teh criminal defense stuff anymore but of course if everyone thought that way defendants couldn’t get the quality defense the Constitution guarantees them.
23. July 2012 at 08:09
Not just higher than Australia…
http://www.kieranhealy.org/files/misc/assault-deaths-oecd-ts-all.png
Scott, I would have expected you to be in favor of gun control!
23. July 2012 at 08:14
Saturos the real irony is that Australia has much lower crime and you guys started the race with a negative head start-a couuntry that started from the British prison population-LOL!
You’ve done pretty good for yourselves and I don’t get our gun nuttery.
Until eight years ago the AK-47 that James Holmes used was illegal.
23. July 2012 at 08:33
Until eight years ago the AK-47 that James Holmes used was illegal.
Not for the state it isn’t.
While James Holmes should be severely punished for what he did, he doesn’t hold a candle to how many children President Obama has assassinated. Obama has assassinated approximately 140 children, mostly with drone strikes.
Yet Obama is revered as a hero to many, while Holmes is labeled an evildoer by those same people.
——————
If a civilian did what these cops did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqzoKY1CyAg
They’d be punished as evildoers. But because they wear badges, they are “our nation’s finest.”
23. July 2012 at 08:36
Woops, make that 160 children.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/
23. July 2012 at 08:38
Until eight years ago the AK-47 that James Holmes used was illegal.
Yeah, even Bill Kristol came out against that.
Just watching Craig Ferguson right now. It’s the episode that aired on Friday in America. He’s replaced his irreverent opening monologue with a sombre note on the Aurora shootings, recorded after the news came in. Classy guy. Wouldn’t catch Letterman coming off that mature.
23. July 2012 at 08:40
I agree that Obama is guilty of manslaughter, but that’s not quite as bad as what Holmes did, MF, and you know that. Unless you count the murders of actual enemy combatants, which we generally don’t, even if we started it (and it was Bush that “started it”).
23. July 2012 at 08:44
A lot of lefties I know would agree with you Major about the drone strikes. It doesn’t delfect from my point though.
The drone attacks aren’t going to end because we allow the James Holmes of the world access to AK-47s, explosvives, and cop killer bullets.
23. July 2012 at 08:50
“What if a Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts guy like Mike Sax gets on the jury Vivian?”
First, there is a procedure that allows the parties to eliminate persons they feel are “Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts Guys or Gals”. Under voir dire, for cause challenges are unlimited and then you’ve got peremptory challenges,too.
Of course, there will always be “Don’t Confuse Me with The Facts Guys and Gals” who slip through. But, statistically seen, my guess would be that there are no more, and quite likely fewer such “Don’t Confuse me with the Facts” persons on the bench and on juries than there are in the general populace. This discussion seems to prove that.
Like I wrote, the system is not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.
23. July 2012 at 08:56
“I can understand why you didnt’ want to do the criminal defense stuff anymore but of course if everyone thought that way defendants couldn’t get the quality defense the Constitution guarantees them.”
Mike, you flatter me by suggesting that my decision to sit out the criminal law business might somehow jeopardize the Constitutional rights of Americans. I’m quite comfortable with my decision, though, based on a rather reasonable assumption that there will always by others who will willingly fill those rather large shoes.
By the way, one of those Constitutional rights you refer to that I try to uphold, even in retirement, is the right to due process, substantive and procedural, not only in law, but also in spirit.
23. July 2012 at 09:07
Vivian, is Vivian Darkbloom your real name? Because that’s a pretty cool name.
23. July 2012 at 09:29
Vivian I hope it was clear I in no way am critical of your choice. I don’t know that it would be my cup of tea either.
I don’t know if you ever saw it but I think one of the most visceral tv programs ever was The Practice-it was about a company of defense attorneys in Chicago.
Again and again the show would end with one of them realizng that the person they defended against murder, rape, etc. was very guilty.
Indeed in at least three differet instances one of the female attorneys would get a guy off for say killing his wife or something and then he would turn his deadly obssession on her.
In one the guy who ran the firm shot one of these guys that his wife got off and was now following her around making cryptic threats.
Of course, he immdediatly was sent to jail and tried for murder. In this show it was as if only innocent people went to jail.
Anyway that show really crystallized the life of a defense attorney.
In some ways it might have even exaggerated this side of it but it was a corrective of years of programs like Matlock.
In Matlock, while Ben was a defense attonry he only took people he knoew were innocent-and he was always right…
At the end of the show there was no ambiguity that he had gotten an innocent rather than a guilty person off. Why? Because in every show at the end he’d at some point compel the real killer to testify and break them down on the witness stand to the point they confessed the whole thing.
Every trial ended that way.
23. July 2012 at 09:34
“Vivian, is Vivian Darkbloom your real name?”
People often ask me that. Frankly, I don’t understand why there would be any doubt.
23. July 2012 at 10:00
In my (demented) mind, Vivian Darkbloom sounds like some kind of bad-ass video game character: http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/109/2/3/please_help_model_perfect_jill_valentine_movie_re2_by_ghostdemonleon-d4wvjhp.jpg
23. July 2012 at 10:04
Saturos:
I agree that Obama is guilty of manslaughter, but that’s not quite as bad as what Holmes did, MF, and you know that.
I agree. What Obama has done is much, much worse. Obama can kill 160 children and call it “collateral damage”. Holmes kills 16 people and he’s a murderer because he doesn’t have a badge.
The double standard is palpable.
23. July 2012 at 10:11
MF, do you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter?
23. July 2012 at 10:27
Saturos,
Your mind is truly demented. I’ve never played a video game, ever. Maybe it’s coincidence, which I do appreciate and believe in, but my appreciation goes something like this:
A certain man once lost a diamond cuff-link in the wide blue sea, and twenty years later, on the exact day, a Friday apparently, he was eating a large fish – but there was no diamond inside. That’s what I like about coincidence.
23. July 2012 at 10:51
Saturos:
MF, do you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter?
Do you understand the difference between intentionally bombing people despite children being in the vicinity, and unintentionally killing children because one did try to avoid bombing people with children in the vicinity?
Collateral damage isn’t manslaughter. It is still murder.
23. July 2012 at 22:43
MF, so we shouldn’t have bombed the Nazis? Not sure what you’re talking about in the second part.
Vivian, I didn’t mean to be rude or anything! But lulz to your analogy.
23. July 2012 at 23:18
Anyway that show really crystallized the life of a defense attorney. In some ways it might have even exaggerated this side of it but it was a corrective of years of programs like Matlock.
See Anatomy of a Murder, the greatest dramatized version of a murder trial ever, according to those who know. (I’m a lawyer and I know those who know). A 100% score at Rotten Tomatoes (100% good, not rotten). And years before its time. Makes any weekly tv show look like just another weekly tv show.
23. July 2012 at 23:39
Vivian, you’re a lawyer too.
Maybe that explains all the similarities in our thinking even when we disagree.
“the experience taught me that the decision of guilt or innocence is best left to the judges and jurors in our system.”
Absolutely. I feel I’ve missed out on a lot of fun by keeping myself from pre-judging cases with all my friends.
In spite of being a lawyer a little while back I was the first person picked from the pool to be on the jury of a criminal trial that went all the way to a verdict. So I did get to sit in judgment. It wasn’t Anatomy of a Murder but it was an experience.
24. July 2012 at 03:08
Vivian, I am afraid I don’t see what you are getting at.
Russ, What makes you think I oppose gun control?
Saturos, What makes you think I oppose gun control?
24. July 2012 at 07:34
Russ, What makes you think I oppose gun control?
Saturos, What makes you think I oppose gun control?
The fact that you called yourself a libertarian.
You might want to consider no longer calling yourself a libertarian because you’re not using the term the way most people understand it. Libertarians are those who adhere to the non-aggression principle. Gun control is a violation of the NAP.
24. July 2012 at 09:45
“Vivian, I am afraid I don’t see what you are getting at.”
I’m sure it’s not the first time or the last. `
The original comment did not have anything to do with your post, but was in response to a number of off-topic comments about what Mr. Zimmerman did or did not do and whether he is innocent or guilty of whatever.
If you have not read all the comments, then I can understand your confusion. It could also be that we agree: the whole thing is pointless, but that was precisely my point.
24. July 2012 at 09:50
MF, you’re an anarcho-capitalist, right? You don’t believe in there being a monopoly on the use of force? Or do you just not believe that said monopolist is ever justified in initiating force, even prophylactically?
24. July 2012 at 10:05
For anyone who wants a chuckle, here is Goldman Sachs from June 29th:
“We recommend being long an equally-weighted basket of benchmark 5-year Spanish, Irish and Italian government bonds, currently yielding 5.9% on average, for a target of 4.5% and tight stop loss on a close at 6.5%.”
This is Goldman-speak for:
“Our prop desk wants to sell these pieces of junk, so we’re trying to sell them to our clients.”
The yield on that basket of go long goodies now? 6.20%
———–
Did any of you know that a portfolio consisting of the exact opposite of Goldman’s publicly announced security “recommendations”, has yielded 454,736,947% so far this year?
24. July 2012 at 10:18
If individuals in the market want to reduce their spending, and they reduce their spending, but then the Fed prints money for those who are willing to spend more, that is inflationary.
The proper gauge of monetary policy is not NGDP, but money supply.
24. July 2012 at 10:59
No Major the biggest chuckle is how much money all those predicting a bubble in Treausrys have lost. Jim Rogers, Bill Gross.
Let me guess your answer is “Where? Where?”
Right now Donald Trump is predicting Armagedon based on some great slide in the dollar he sees in the future.