“In the great liberal age, 1933 through 1980, we saw increases in prosperity that exceeded anything in the history of the world. In the conservative age of 1980 through 2008 we saw stagnation of the economy, economic bubbles, loss of the middle class and ballooning deficits. Its time to bring back the liberal age and restore america to greatness!”
F4flyr on Jan 22, 2013 at 23:11:41
“bobo...there's nothing 'crazy' about you, pilgrim...F&F4U!”
TexasMike on Jan 22, 2013 at 23:04:10
“Well said, Bob...and if you look through America's history, great strides of liberalism matched the great strides in this country's development. The Declaration of Independence itself was unlike anything seen before and it was followed up by the Constitution....a truly living document. Then look at almost the darkest period of the young country's existence...when the south thought slaves were only 3/5th human! Again, an amazing progressive in Lincoln managed to help guide the nation back together. ”
erehwon man on Jan 22, 2013 at 22:58:08
“And the conservatives brought us the worst thing this country has ever done, outside of slavery and massacring Native Americans, namely attacking a country for
no good reason. It's an outrage that must never happen again if we're to live up to
ideals of the founders.”
thelastmanonearth on Jan 22, 2013 at 22:53:16
“I think you missed the 70's there. And ummm the liberals during 33-80 weren't exactly all that liberal by today's standards.”
“You know as well as I do that the city specific bans don't work only because guns can be sold immediately outside the city limits. The fact that no mass killing has been carried out with a nationally banned weapon is proof that gun bans do work.”
“Unhappy with the obvious evidence about guns, randolph shouts "look over here! Drugs!!!"
facts are that NO MASS killing in recent history has been carried out with a banned weapon. We DON"T have a problem with banned weapons, because weapons bans work. Just look at the huge success of the Australian example”
Randolph Duke on Feb 12, 2013 at 12:03:44
“Right -- just like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. have no problems with all of the weapons they've banned...
If what you say is true, there shouldn't be any violence associated with any of the guns that have been prohibited in those cities. But obviously that's not the case. So no, sorry, gun bans DON'T WORK.”
“I'm curious Applehead, how many businesses have you ever run? Because you don't have a clue. i happen to know as a fact that the one installer wasn't making money at the lower prices, because I worked for them, and the owner was totally open about his strategy.”
“Again - it hard and expensive to start a new business. This creates a barrier to entry that allows those already in the business to charge a significant price premium before it is economically feasible for a new player to get into the business. It happens all the time, and its clear you've never actually been in business.”
“Question for Radley or anyone: Are there any statistics relating to repetition of deadly force incidents among police officers. I.e., if a cop is involved in a deadly force incident once, is he more likely than the average to be involved in multiple incidents.”
Azheera on Jan 30, 2013 at 14:31:06
“From my reading of RAdley's blog over the years, I would think the answer to that question is, without any doubt, yes.”
“You don't have the foggiest idea how business works. Minimum pricing laws have no effect on the barrier to entry for a market. The big barrier is creating the infrastructure to get into the market in the first place. Once competitors are pushed out of the market a business can raise prices considerably, so long as the price differential isn't quite high enough to overcome the intial set up cost for another business. And yes, predatory pricing happens all the time. I grew up in a town with two car stereo installers- one halved prices for 6 months until the other went out of business then quadrupled prices. Anyone considering the business knew they couldn't get in because the predatory cycle would just repeat. I've seen the same thing happen in technology businesses large and small.”
apple4ever on Jan 29, 2013 at 23:50:30
“Yeah no, that's not how it works at ALL. A company can sell their product at a loss- but they have NO idea how long that will last. That's a bad business model. Oh and, once they raise prices, HEY LOOK AT THAT, another business can come and undercut them.
Have you considered the fact that your installer actually still made money at half the price? No of course not. Because you'd rather promote the fact that government only protects favored businesses. Say, you wouldn't be the last owner would you?”
“Your point is invalid because there was NOT more regulation. High capacity magazines never stopped being sold (because of a loophole in the ban) and assault weapons never stopped being sold (because of different loopholes). The assault weapons ban was empty and hollow, so its not a surprise that it had no effect on crime.
On the other hand the Australian assault weapons ban WAS effect, and the type of spree killings it was aimed at pretty much disappeared. It does work.”
“These bans worked quite effectively in Australia, and they can work just the same here.
And yes, if you actually read the news, you find we DON"T have a problem with illegal weapons - we have problems with legal weapons, like those used in all 62 spree killings.”
“There is a solid reason for minimum pricing laws based on real experience: deep pocketed investors use below cost pricing to drive competitors out of business, then they are free to raise prices and profit at consumer expense. In case you haven't noticed all businesses do their best to escape the pressure on profits that operating in the free market brings, usually the process of eliminating the competition.
Without minimum pricing laws consumers would face, on average, much higher prices. How do we know this? It was common before for the implementation of such laws.”
Windypundit on Jan 28, 2013 at 19:08:35
“That's the scenario used to justify minimum pricing, but how often does it actually happen? How many examples are there where a company (1) lowers prices below cost (2) in order to drive out competitors and (3) succeeds in driving out competitors and (4) then raises prices (5) without attracting any more competitors back into the market? I mean, Walmart drives higher-priced competitors out of business, but even they can't keep from losing business to dollar stores. Is the dairy industry subject to such high returns to scale that small local competitors can't pop up overnight?
Wait a minute, the story is not about milk producers, it's about milk retailers, i.e. grocery stores. How could you drive grocery stores out of the milk business? Maybe a large chain could low-ball milk prices for a few months until competitors stopped carrying it, but as soon as prices went back up, all the competing stores would simply re-stock it. Grocery stores change their stock mix all the time. It's no big deal.”
apple4ever on Jan 28, 2013 at 11:21:57
“No, sorry, that's completely wrong. It happens very rarely that a company can do that. First, they have to know how long they can lose money to eventually drive all the other companies out of business. Second, even if they get to the point where they then raise prices back up again- that just creates another profit opportunity for a company to come in and undercut the original company. So that doesn't happen in a true free market.
And your last line makes no sense- if it can be made cheaper than what the minimum price is set at, it wouldn't be higher. And you can't compare then to now, because technology has made things cheaper overall.
The only reason for minimum pricing laws is to raise the barrier of entry into a market, as well as favor a select few businesses. It only protects businesses, not consumers.”
“which is why Iran put so much effort into its intelligence ploy to get the US to knock off its main regional rival, Saddam. It turns out major iraqi dissidents who influenced the bush administration where in the employ of iran at the time.”
ebstewartjr on Jan 27, 2013 at 13:51:38
“Does your statement imply or emphatically declare that the entire Bush/Cheney team were villains, thieves, scoundrels and very very stupid?”
“One of the fictions now ardently repeated by the gun rights nuts is that somehow there was an effective assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, when everyone knows that the law as written didn't prevent the sale of a single assault weapon or high capacity magazine. So anyone who claims that the fact there were assault weapons attacks during the time somehow indicates bans don't work is LYING to you.
Fact is, only completely legal weapons were used in all of the 62 mass shootings, and NO illegal weapons were. Proof positive that gun bans work.”
Randolph Duke on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:57:59
“Oh, I see. So we have absolutely NO problems with "illegal weapons" in this country because they're banned?
Just like we have absolutely NO problems with illegal drugs in this country, right? Because, after all, drug bans work!
Sorry, but matter how much you hate a certain inanimate object, if they are in demand, they will never go away. Bans and prohibitions didn't work for alcohol, they're not working for drugs, and they won't work for guns. If anything, it will only make the problem worse by creating a black market. One of these days, hopefully, Americans will wake up to this.”
ScooterMagooter on Jan 23, 2013 at 16:36:48
“I believe that the argument is that the assault weapon ban was ineffective not effective. The point is that despite more regulation that the attacks didn't stop and since the expiration of the ban the attacks have been about the same. In America, where is there "proof positive" that gun bans work?”
“It's flabbergasting that Ron Bailey would criticize the lead vs. crime story for poor statistics by claiming that the reduction in crime is in part correlated with increased concealed carry. Something for which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.”
C S P Schofield on Jan 7, 2013 at 04:26:46
“An increase in concealed carry (attendant upon the spread of "must issue" laws) has happened during a period when violent crime has dropped, so there is evidence of correlation. Not necessarily evidence of causation, which is another matter.”
“Um, no. First of all, traffic fatalities have declined dramatically because of A) government mandated safety improvements in cars, B) government mandated efforts to construct safer roads and C) efforts to reduce intoxicated driving. Yes, these have all made the roads dramatically safer. The problem with just increasing penalties for bad driving is that increasing the penalties for dangerous practices has little deterrent effect, people will still drive drunk/sleepy/distracted/whatever, because they respond to estimates of risk poorly. So instead of saving lives, you end up (expensively) incarcerating more people while suffering the carnage of their actions. By focusing on the why, you can make much better and cheaper progress at reducing fatalities.”