Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=ca renter]
I’m very much in favor of the Three Strikes law and other “tough on crime” measures, though it could possibly use some modification where offenders are known to be non-violent. We need to get violent criminals off the streets, period. I have no mercy for violent offenders. That would go much further than banning guns if the protection of innocent lives is our first concern (as it is mine — and this is one of the primary reasons I support the right to bear arms).[/quote]
But that’s the easy position to take. Which politician out there is going around saying he or she is soft on criime?
Aren’t you not concerned that laws like three strike essentially have led the US to the world’s leading country in incarcerated people per capital. We lead everyone else in the world at over 700/100k. The next major countries behind us are Cuba at 510/100k and Russia at 490/100k.
Isn’t that the whole definition of a police state you think you can prevent with gun ownership?
If you actually need to use your gun to protect your liberty, it is already too late.[/quote]
Yes, I think we are incarcerating too many people, but I also believe that we have a higher number of criminals. Maybe because so many of us descend from revolutionary types, slaves, and criminals? (kinda kidding, kinda not)
We do need to address the problem of incarcerating white collar and non-violent criminals; but getting violent criminals off the street (in many cases, permanently, IMHO) is the #1 way to reduce the crime rate for homicides and other violent crimes. Banning guns will not do it.
There are a number of politicians who are “soft on crime,” though. A lot of people strongly believe that most violent criminals can be rehabilitated.
edited to add: And this is NOT the kind of police state that concerns me. What concerns me is when soldiers, police forces, and other govt resources are used to spy on innocent civilians and take down anyone who poses any kind of a threat to the existing power structure (including political threats). A good example would be the Occupy Wall Street protests, where innocent, non-violent protesters were abused, arrested, filmed (facial recognition, too), etc. by an incredibly and unjustifiably large police force…not to mention the other govt agencies that were involved in thwarting the OWS movement. Also worrisome is the militarization of local police departments where many of them have military-style vehicles, weapons, and technology. On the top of the list is the ever-widening ability of the government to spy on, and collect data about, regular citizens who are NOT committing any crimes.
ParticipantNo, the mid-late 90s had a bubble. 🙂
The 70s and 80s were an anomaly with respect to the Baby Boomers and having such a huge additional influx of American citizens — who were as prosperous, and ready to work and spend — into the workforce. There was no other period like it.
IMO, these demographic changes were the primary reasons behind the inflation of that time, though some would also point to Nixon’s dropping the gold standard for the dollar, too. It was a volatile mix.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?[/quote]
It has to be lower. Households are always made up of at least 1 person, never less than 1. Average households are more than 1. If 1 person of 4 who live in a household owns a gun, that’s a 100% of households, but only 25% of individuals.[/quote]
You’re right, I brain farted there. Still, where are you getting your numbers from, and how do they account for the people who are not willing to admit to a govt agency or survey taker that they own guns?[/quote]
Thinking about it again and now I understand what I was thinking…if multiple people in a household own a gun, which is very common, then the number of individual owners would be higher than the household number. I was thinking in the opposite way that you were.
Still want to know the source for your numbers, though. 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?[/quote]
It has to be lower. Households are always made up of at least 1 person, never less than 1. Average households are more than 1. If 1 person of 4 who live in a household owns a gun, that’s a 100% of households, but only 25% of individuals.[/quote]
You’re right, I brain farted there. Still, where are you getting your numbers from, and how do they account for the people who are not willing to admit to a govt agency or survey taker that they own guns?
ParticipantThe 70s and 80s were an anomaly because of the Baby Boomers who were entering the workforce and peak buying years, and along with that, women were entering the workforce en masse. IMHO, those two trends alone were largely responsible for the inflation of the 70s and 80s.
I just don’t see any reason for incomes to go up unless the govt modifies our tax and trade policies. With corporate America’s strong grip on our govt, I just don’t see that happening (though I wish it would!).
Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The Chinese family who bought with cash can accept a 3% return, and that might be just fine for as long as all other investments, especially “risk-free” bonds, are yielding practically nothing. But how long would they be willing and able to hang on if 10-year US Treasuries are yielding 6% or 7%, or more? And what if rents go down at the same time, and they’ve had a few bad apples as tenants? What would you do?[/quote]
When’s the last time you see US Treasuries yielding 6-7% while rent went down? If Treasuries yields 6-7%, what kind of appreciation do you expect from housing?[/quote]In the late-90s/early 2000s, 10-year Treasuries were yielding over 6%, and rents were going down in certain areas. In other areas, rents were stable. They really didn’t start climbing dramatically until around 2005. Also, the early-90s, mid-90s, and pretty much everything before that until you get to the 60s, when rates were lower. These low rates are anomaly, historically speaking.
If rates go that high, I expect housing prices to fall, not rise. Unlike the supply-siders, I think that rates can (and will!) rise not only when the economy is strong, but when the economy is weak. Note what happened once the credit bubble started bursting in ~2007. Rates were going up as defaults were mounting, which is why the Fed/govt intervened. Note what happens in Europe when defaults are expected to rise and the economy weakens…interest rates shoot up, not down.
ParticipantCube, just a thought… I, too, hate all the paperwork and getting “pecked to death by ducks” involved with getting your money back, so I just do it once a year, either when we’ve maxed out the benefit, OR I wait until the last minute to file if we’ve not been able to max it out beforehand. Though you might have to spend an hour or two to get it done, it seems like time better spent when you do it all at once, as opposed to doing it every time you get a medical bill. Personally, I think it’s more efficient.
Also, being very organized really helps. I have one file per year for the FSA, and all of the explanation of benefits (EOBs) go in there, first. As I get the medical bills, I match up the EOB and bill when I pay them, and the stapled (or paper clipped, so they’re easier to scan later) bills/EOBs go in the back of the file. It makes it very easy to quickly calculate which bills I need to submit to get the max benefit, and scanning them into the computer (to send via email) is a snap. I often get just one or two decent-sized checks once a year, which makes managing the checks all that much easier.
Just my 2 cents. 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.
As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.[/quote]
Actually I did read that. And looked into the claim of 2.5 million per year. It’s a number that’s been pushed by the NRA. The data is more than 15 years old, and it comes from a number ofk different surveys. Some of them ask if the respondent has ever used a gun in self-defense. Some ask if they’ve used a gun in self-defense in the last 5 years. And from those surveys they came up with 2.5 million per year. It’s bogus.
On an annual basis, I suspect that number is in the low thousands. There doesn’t appear to be any recent surveys asking the question directly. 2.5 million per year would be almost 7,000 a day. Yet we almost never hear about them. How can that be possible?
The drop in crime may be in part related to 3 strikes laws, though all states don’t have them. The larger cause is demographics. Men in their late teens to mid-20’s commit most crimes. There are fewer of them now than there were 3 decades ago.
I think you’re right that the percentage of gun owners is more important than homes with guns. Based on a quick review of 4-6 recent surveys, it appears that number is somewhere between 20 and 25%.[/quote]
You’re still not reading that correctly. I specifically picked the **dailykos/Mother Jones** numbers because they would be on the conservative extreme, and even they admit that “official” numbers where people used guns in self-defense is in the 70,000+ range, annually…only counting those who’ve filed police reports, NOT counting the millions, per the gun lobbyists, who brandish or use a firearm to prevent a crime, but don’t report it.
And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
Yes, you are right, I am naive about this massive conspiracy to strip 60% of America it’s guns… wait, or just 20%…But let’s just assume there is this conspiracy in play, then gun ownership then is equal to patriotism. I should thank you for your patriotic defense of my liberty then. what about the victims of gun violence? Just martyrs who died for our freedom…[/quote]
I’m very much in favor of the Three Strikes law and other “tough on crime” measures, though it could possibly use some modification where offenders are known to be non-violent. We need to get violent criminals off the streets, period. I have no mercy for violent offenders. That would go much further than banning guns if the protection of innocent lives is our first concern (as it is mine — and this is one of the primary reasons I support the right to bear arms).
Participant[quote=joec][quote=CA renter]But this is only true if the people who buy these places never plan to sell or rent to the local people at some point in the future. If they are speculating on rising rents or prices, then it’s a bubble, IMHO. It might take a while to pop, but chances are pretty good that prices cannot stay out of whack forever.[/quote]
Not sure how representative this is, but 2 Asian families close to me are renting out their houses and haven’t sold…Growing up, my dad also nearly always just bought and held renting the properties out.
I think “Asians” in general trust real estate more than stocks/bonds/financial advisers, etc…so they are more likely to buy and hold for their kids, use as a vacation home, possibly use in case they have to leave China/Taiwan, etc…
Some of the other Asian people here can voice their opinion, but I don’t think all the Asians with how they pool their money tend to sell as quick in general…
People who held in areas like the bay area/cupertino/la are sitting pretty well.[/quote]
Right, but are they renting to locals, or to other foreigners who are coming in with money from somewhere else? Someone who bought cash can accept lower rents than a LL who is maxed out on the mortgage because the mortgaged LL could easily be underwater every month on his “investment,” especially if rents go south or some major repairs are required.
The Chinese family who bought with cash can accept a 3% return, and that might be just fine for as long as all other investments, especially “risk-free” bonds, are yielding practically nothing. But how long would they be willing and able to hang on if 10-year US Treasuries are yielding 6% or 7%, or more? And what if rents go down at the same time, and they’ve had a few bad apples as tenants? What would you do?
ParticipantGreat that your son found a job, scaredy! Scary that it was so difficult, though. Like you, I remember the 80s, and had no problem getting jobs then or during the recession in the early 90s. For the sake of all the Piggs’ kids, I hope things get turned around soon.
How crazy is it that he couldn’t get a job at Chipotle? And I’m assuming this is your college kid? Back in our day, you could pretty easily get a fast-food job at 15 if you had a work permit.
Participant[quote=EconProf][quote=FlyerInHi]What about deficit spending and money printing. Will they not cause hyperinflation as some have predicted?[/quote]
So far, no, to the surprise of all of us.[/quote]The only people who are surprised by it are the supply-siders. Those of us who understand the reasons behind our economic malaise aren’t surprised at all.
But to say that inflation hasn’t occurred at all is wrong, IMHO. We’re just seeing it in asset prices and other non-productive “investments,” and it’s much higher than stated CPI would suggest. What would prices be like if the government and central bank hadn’t been intervening all these years? The difference between that and today’s prices is where your inflation lies.
ParticipantBut this is only true if the people who buy these places never plan to sell or rent to the local people at some point in the future. If they are speculating on rising rents or prices, then it’s a bubble, IMHO. It might take a while to pop, but chances are pretty good that prices cannot stay out of whack forever.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=CA renter] Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; [/quote]
You have absolutely no basis for that statement!
There is no way you can possibly know what would have occurred if a criminal who was tracked down via a gun serial number had not been convicted and sent to prison.[/quote]
Okay, you’re right. A person might be tracked *after the fact* and sent to prison. Therefore, the future potential victims of that person might be safe for as long as he’s in jail. But what about when he gets out? And how many murderers are tracked down because the police found them via their legally purchased and registered firearms? (Honest question there, as I don’t have the statistics.) If you register everyone’s gun, which is probably not possible, the market in stolen guns would go through the roof.
-
AuthorPosts
