Assault weapons ban and Trump effects.
Figure 1: Mass shooting fatalities (blue, left scale), and wounded (brown, right scale). Gray shading denotes assault weapons ban; orange denotes Trump administration. Source: Mother Jones accessed 5/2/2022, author’s calculations.
Notice that there seems to be a correlation (inverse) with the assault weapons ban, and correlation (positive) with the Trump administration.
In order to conduct a statistical analysis of these correlations, I construct a “mass shootings casualties” variable, which is the sum of the above two variables.
Figure 1: Mass shooting fatalities (blue var), and wounded (brown bar). Total height is “Mass shooting casualties”. Gray shading denotes assault rifle ban; orange denotes Trump administration. Source: Mother Jones accessed 5/2/2022, author’s calculations.
Estimate over 1990M01-2022M05 (through 5/25 for May) using negative binomial regression, with ban is a dummy variable for assault weapons ban, trump is a dummy variable for the Trump administration, and pop is population in thousands.
casualtiest = –1.72 – 0.71 bant + 1.45 trumpt + 0.00001popt
Adj-R2 = 0.045, SER = 33.4, NOBS = 363. Bold denotes significance at 10% msl, standard errors corrected for overdispersion (GLM option in EViews).
In words, each year under the assault weapons ban, 71 percent less people are injured or killed. In contrast, in each year under the Trump administration, total casualties were 145 percent higher.
Oh, this is gonna be bad…
In economics, “revealed preference” is a thing. Menzie is allowing for a related concept in comments – revealed evil. Who wants to be first?
Macro, and I was told that liberal/Biden’s policies were unknown that could be causing, inflation, crime, war on fossil fuels, illegal immigration, shortages, 1st quarter of a recession, etc.
Even Menzie disclaimed an article how renewables subsidies perturbed investment in traditional electricity suppliers and electricity prices. Wow! Just wow.
Why on earth are you routinely babbling such utter word salad. WTF said Biden’s policies were unknown and what is this assertion that our host said whatever?
Come on CoRev – we get that you have totally lost your marbles but do you have to keep reminding us?
Bierka, why you have questioned which of Biden’s policies have caused inflation, high gas prices , etc. BTW, why did you complete the whole phrase?
It’s questions like this that gave you the name Bierka. Just can not control your reaction.
CoRev
May 26, 2022 at 4:36 pm
Not to repeat myself but the person who wrote this gibberish is seriously insane.
Could you, perhaps, put that comment into English? I think your habit of writing nonsense has gotten worse to the point that I can’t tell what the point of the nonsense is. I see that you are slopping in some “Ooooo, Biden bad!” and “mean old liberals!”, but the notion of nouns and verbs bein combined to convey meaning seems absent.
MD, to which comment do you refer? I know you do not actually read mine, as you have said you already know what I will say, so forgive me for considering your response as just more arrogant liberal nonsense.
He is referring to all of your incredibly bozo comments. Please seek professional help.
Meanwhile, anybody notice ugly new home sales data yesterday?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PPyM
Notable details include hat he biggest drop in sales in percentage terms was in the south, consistent with the biggest drop being in lower-priced homes. Inventories rose, so supply is not an obvious reason for the drop.
Hearing anecdotal reports of earnest money being surrendered because buyers didn’t lock in mortgages when they signed purchase contracts and can’t afford the paymens when time to complete the purchase rolls around. It’s not exclusively a starter home problem, but largely.
Homes under construction very high, partly due to materials shortages:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PPyM
Time to oeep a sharp eye on housig starts.
Rather I should have written, keep an eye on permits.
Distorted by monthly bias. I could care less about new home sales anyway. Overrated and very small part of the economy nowadays. Existing home sales are a bigger sales group which goes back to credit markets. You need to stop the 20th century mindset around residential investment. Due to population growth slowing, it’s a far smaller component than 30 years ago. Credit lines to housing is the key and it’s been neutral or less since the financial crises.
“Due to population growth slowing, [residential investment] is a far smaller component than 30 years ago. ”
Actually, residential investment is more than 26% greater as a share of GDP in 2022 than in 1992:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=neoV
January 15, 2018
Nonresidential and Residential Investment as shares of Gross Domestic Product, 1992-2022
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=z21I
January 15, 2018
Shares of Gross Domestic Product for Private Fixed Nonresidential & Residential Investment Spending, Government Consumption & Gross Investment and Exports of Goods & Services, 2017-2022
(Indexed to 2017)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=AuPM
January 15, 2020
Shares of Gross Domestic Product for Private Fixed Nonresidential & Residential Investment Spending, Government Consumption & Gross Investment and Exports of Goods & Services, 2020-2022
(Indexed to 2020)
[ Since 2017, residential investment has been a prime factor contributing to growth. ]
Oh, poor, poor Bott… You want so badly to join the grown-ups.
I’ve said it before, but I guess I need to say it again: the fact that you care about, that you think something, has nothing to do with whether something is actually important or true.
You keep repeating “credit markets” like you are repeating magic words. Here, you seem to say that credit markets matter for used homes, but not new ones. That’s simply wrong. So either you have no idea what you’re talking about or you have no idea how to say what you mean. Or both.
Yes, the used home market is bigger than the new home market, but used home sales contribute less to overall economic activity. Both new and used home sales are strongly reliant on mortgage borrowing – that’s credit, in case you are confused – so ignoring new home sales ignores an indication of the effect of rising rates. Rising rates is a credit karket thig, in case you missed it.
See what I just did? I made a point clearly. If you really want to join the grown-ups, you need to do the same. Pretending to special knowledge and strikig an “I know stuff” pose just isn’t good enough.
Due precisely to demographics (millennials being the largest single demographic now and right in time for a first home) the housing market has been hot. “Population growth slowing” is not even half the story – it’s changes in composition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/gun-manufacturing-atf.html
May 17, 2022
U.S. Gun Production Triples Since 2000, Fueled by Handgun Purchases
By Glenn Thrush
WASHINGTON — The United States is in the middle of a great gun-buying boom that shows no sign of letting up as the annual number of firearms manufactured has nearly tripled since 2000 and spiked sharply in the past three years, according to the first comprehensive federal tally of gun commerce in two decades.
The report, * released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday — three days after a mass shooting in Buffalo left 10 dead — painted a vivid statistical portrait of a nation arming itself to the teeth. Buyers capitalized on the loosening of gun restrictions by the Supreme Court, Congress and Republican-controlled state legislatures.
The data documented a drastic shift in consumer demand among gun owners that has had profound commercial, cultural and political implications: Starting in 2009, Glock-type semiautomatic handguns, purchased for personal protection, began to outsell rifles, which have been typically used in hunting.
Embedded in the 306-page document was another statistic that law enforcement officials find especially troubling. The police recovered 19,344 privately manufactured firearms, untraceable homemade weapons known as “ghost guns,” in 2021, a tenfold increase since 2016. Law enforcement officials say that has contributed to the surge in gun-related killings, especially in California, where ghost guns make up as many as half of weapons recovered at crime scenes.
The numbers released Tuesday revealed an industry on the rise, with annual domestic gun production increasing from 3.9 million in 2000 to 11.3 million in 2020. A relatively small percentage of guns produced domestically are exported overseas, so those numbers are an accurate reflection of gun-buying habits, according to A.T.F. officials.
Currently, there are around 400 million guns in the United States, according to a 2018 survey conducted by the nonpartisan Small Arms Survey, which monitors gun ownership….
* https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2021-firearms-commerce-report/download
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf
March 17, 2017
Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century
By Anne Case and Angus Deaton
Summary
We build on and extend the findings in Case and Deaton (2015 * ) on increases in mortality and morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in midlife since the turn of the century. Increases in all-cause mortality continued unabated to 2015, with additional increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and alcoholic-related liver mortality, particularly among those with a high-school degree or less. The decline in mortality from heart disease has slowed and, most recently, stopped, and this combined with the three other causes is responsible for the increase in all-cause mortality. Not only are educational differences in mortality among whites increasing, but mortality is rising for those without, and falling for those with, a college degree. This is true for non-Hispanic white men and women in all age groups from 25-29 through 60-64. Mortality rates among blacks and Hispanics continue to fall; in 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 50-54 with only a high-school degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group; by 2015, it was 30 percent higher. There are similar crossovers between white and black mortality in all age groups from 25-29 to 60-64.
Mortality rates in comparable rich countries have continued their pre-millennial fall at the rates that used to characterize the US. In contrast to the US, mortality rates in Europe are falling for those with low levels of educational attainment, and are doing so more rapidly than mortality rates for those with higher levels of education….
* http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/politics/gun-manufacturing-atf.html
May 17, 2022
The statistics, culled by A.T.F.’s research division from industry, academic and government experts, offered few major surprises. Many of the broader contours and conclusions have been widely known through other sources or anecdotally for months, even years.
But the report’s release nonetheless represents a significant victory for advocates of gun control.
While Democrats have failed at their larger agenda of limiting easy access to firearms, especially semiautomatic rifles, they are succeeding in gradually pulling back an informational blackout curtain that has obscured gun commerce data since George W. Bush’s administration….
[ Please notice the words “information blackout.” I was vaguely aware of this, but am still surprised. ]
Gov. Abbott wanted to dodge the lack of any meaningful gun control issue by repeatedly blaming mental health issues. But your regression focuses on the Trump era. Of course, one could say the two stories are one in the same as most MAGA hat wearers appear to be mentally unhinged. And of course giving a military assault weapon to someone with mental health issues is a real problem.
The data above certainly appears shows a peak in 2017 one shooter killed 58 and wounded 546 (or killed 59 and wounded 441 https://www.gov1.com/public-safety/articles/the-37-largest-mass-shootings-in-the-us-2017-bup1a4NYH9R9zw2w/). The problem is that there is no standard definition of “mass shooting”. That enables the Chicago Sun Times to have this headline: Over 1,000 victims, 126 dead, just 2 convictions: 6 years of mass shootings in Chicago. That would be roughly the national total reported by Mother Jones during that period.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/8/2/22559312/mass-shooting-victims-gun-violence-crime-cpd-police-department-clearance-murder-arrest
Perhaps the difference is related to reporting shooters with rifles versus pistols (which account for the preponderance of shootings). Perhaps gang-related shootings are not included. It’s difficult to tell given the lack of standardized reporting.
When one looks at total homicides, the picture is not quite the same as painted above.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murder-homicide-rate
Bruce Hall: I challenge you to get a time series on mass shootings of your own choosing (documenting the source), and apply the negative binomial or heck even poisson. Tell me your results.
You missed the point: without an agreed upon standard for “mass shootings”, no real discussion is possible. What makes “Mother Jones” data correct and Chicago’s data incorrect? And, for example, does one major event constitute a “trend”? When the crazies blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City, was that a statistically significant event indicating the start of a new trend line, or was it a one-off? And was the attack in Oklahoma City the fault of President Clinton?
How do you deal with spurious connections? Does the recent spate of copy-cat shootings indicate Joe Biden has failed to protect the country?
Such nonsense.
What point Bruce? Your disjointed dishonest babble does not constitute a point.
Here is a different source. I don’t have statistical software to do the sort of analysis you demand, so why don’t you assign this to one of your classes? The data can be exported as a CSV file and can be read into your statistical software. The results can be then shown for all events or just the ones that support the particular political statement you wish to make.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting
“I don’t have statistical software to do the sort of analysis you demand”
A lot of the statistical software is freely available. Of course you do not have the intelligence to use it.
Try R and a popular free IDE for R called R Studio. R has a bit of a learning curve but basic regressions aren’t that hard.
All free, as pgl noted.
How about some FBI data? Would that be acceptable? Probably not politically acceptable to the Econbrowser crowd, however.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view
“The FBI has designated 61 shootings in 2021 as active shooter incidents.”
Did you even bother to read this sentence? I trust you do realize looking at one year’s worth of data is not exactly a rigorous statistical analysis. Oh wait – you do not know as you are beyond dumb. Never mind.
Brucie is first. There it is- revealed evil.
Bruce is finally learning statistics – from John Lott.
MD- revealed evil? As a vocal representative of the Party of Baby deaths, the hypocrisy abounds.
Menzie clearly places blame with the presidential administration: “In contrast, in each year under the Trump administration, total casualties were 145 percent higher.” Accordingly, the Uvalde and Buffalo “mass shootings casualties” , Menzie’s term should be placed upon Biden and Democratic policies. Y’ano policies which focus on inanimate items used to create those “mass shootings casualties” versus the sociologically/psychologically malfunctioning individual.
In 2021 there were ~696 mass shootings with 702 deaths and 2,823 wounded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021
Thru April in 2022 we have 202 mass shootings with 221 deaths and 790 wounded.
Under Biden’s administration, not including May 2022, we’ve had 898 mass shootings with 923 deaths and 3613 wounded.
the Party of Baby deaths? My Lord – someone needs to get your professional help NOW. Based on your ranting of late – you have gone BONKERS.
Party of Baby Deaths? When, the first trimester or fourth grade? Please clarify.
Willie, that is the question: “When, the first trimester or fourth grade?”. Apparently, liberals believe the period in between those periods are murder, but it is hard to determine where that break point is. At least NY has redefined murder to be after being born.
Even that definition is nebulous. Is recovery of an infant after an abortion a baby
is a live abortion murder? There are thousands of living people who survived abortions, so are those many 100s of thousands who did not survive abortions murders?
Thinking minds want to know.
Bruce Hall It’s difficult to tell given the lack of standardized reporting.
But it’s not difficult to understand what’s going on with the Mother Jones database. Just click on the link and look at the spreadsheet. It will tell you what kind of weapon was used and the apparent motive of the killer. And note that, quite properly, gangland killings are not included in the Mother Jones data. Gangland shootings are a problem, but a very different kind of problem.
FWIW, when you embark on your own efforts to statistically model the data you will want to first test for overdispersion of zero observations. If there’s no evidence of overdispersion, then a Poisson regression would be fine; otherwise you’ll want to use a negative binomial regression.
And note that, quite properly, gangland killings are not included in the Mother Jones data. Gangland shootings are a problem, but a very different kind of problem. Why? Innocent people are killed in gangland shootings. Are you saying that motive-based mass shootings are not really mass shootings?
Just different kinds of crazies.
I knew you were not going to get 2slug’s point. After all Kelly Anne dictates your every thought.
I do so admire your mastery of cheap debating tricks. Here, for instance, where you attempt to put words in Slugger’s mouth:
“Are you saying that motive-based mass shootings are not really mass shootings?”
“Are you saying” + “something the other guy didn’t say” is straight out of the cheap-debating-tricks textbook. You can’t defend your position, so you try to trick the other guy into defending something he didn’t say. Shift the focus away from your actual weakness to a made-up weakness you shove at the other guy.
Brucey, Brucey, Brucey, you really need to learn some new tricks.
Bruce Hall If you want to include gang killings, then I’m for it. That will only increase the number of deaths due to firearms and further strengthen the case for a ban on assault rifles. But the reason Mother Jones excluded gang killings is because those tend to be targeted, whereas Mother Jones was trying to get at mass shootings that weren’t due to criminal activity…just that nice kid next door that no one ever suspected might go on some kind of killing rampage.
But let’s be frank here. Your preferred policy would be to seize guns belonging to anyone who didn’t look like you. My preferred policy is to seize all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. If you can’t hit your target with a single shot, then you have no business owning a gun. Assault rifles have no valid hunting or sport purpose. Assault rifles and the advertising around them are geared towards a particular kind of male with peculiar sexual proclivities for whom aggressive looking guns prompt a perverse fetish. Are you one of those kinds of males?
“Are you one of those kinds of males?”
It has been obvious for some time that Bruce is hoping to date some dude with a girl’s name – so maybe.
Tsk, tsk, bierka and 2slugs project and MD must think that is an OK debating tactic as he chose not to expound on: “But let’s be frank here. Your preferred policy would be to seize guns belonging to anyone who didn’t look like you. My preferred policy is to seize all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. … Assault rifles and the advertising around them are geared towards a particular kind of male with peculiar sexual proclivities for whom aggressive looking guns prompt a perverse fetish. Are you one of those kinds of males?”
2slugs has shown his ignorance for years: “If you can’t hit your target with a single shot, then you have no business owning a gun. Assault rifles have no valid hunting or sport purpose. ” Perhaps he can define an assault rifle, because past legislative attempts have failed.
The 2nd amendment was not created solely for hunting or sport purposes.
Automatic weapons are banned in the U.S. No company can manufacture automatic weapons except for governmental use No one can import automatic weapons except for governmental use. Those automatic weapons legally owned prior to the ban (May 1968) have not been confiscated, because in the US we have laws against confiscating property which is not contraband. U.S. Const. Fifth. Amend. Rather than confiscating property the government could do a forced buy back. (Ibid) Transfers of the existing legal fully automatic weapons are highly restricted. They can legally be used only in controlled environments. I do not believe that any of the mass shootings in the past many years involved legal fully automitic weapons. (But see, Bump Stock). ATF interpretation of prior law bans bump stocks. (6th Cir. 2021, affirms).
If a shooting involves an automatic weapon, that weapon will be confiscated and destroyed. Use of an automatic weapon is a serious sentencing enhancement in addition to a crime unto itself.
I am not joining the gun control debate. I merely wish to correct a factual error.
CoRev No need to haggle over the definition of an assault weapon. As I said, my preferred policy is to ban the ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. If a manufacturer wants to make a single shot version of an AR-15 style weapon, then fine. The point is that you shouldn’t be able to fire off a second round without having to stop and manually reload the gun.
As to the Second Amendment, I don’t really care why it was created. It was a bad idea and should be abolished. The Founding Fathers gave us lots of bad ideas; e.g., the Electoral College, the Senate, slavery, the Tenth Amendment, etc. But for your edification, the Second Amendment was created in order to provide for a state militia in the absence of a standing army. Strangely, it’s the NRA that tries to promote the Second Amendment as respecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
B.A. Badger I am well aware of the fact that currently it is illegal to own an automatic weapon. But as you probably know, there are indications that some justices on the Supreme Court are looking for an opportunity to change that and further expand the “rights” of gun owners to include lots of military hardware.
2slug,
Yeah, that “right to bear arms” clearly ought to include H-bombs and ICBMs. I mean really, aren’t they “arms” just like hunting rifles?
2slugs claims: “CoRev No need to haggle over the definition of an assault weapon.” Actually the lack of a definition is the core of the problem. Trying to control something ill defined is doomed to failure. That’s because the definition does not fit reality.
Failed definitions and the desire NOT to discuss the ramifications are a common theme with so many of liberal policies, eg. (climate, fossil fuels, (de)funding police, pandemic management, inflation, and a soon to be recession, etc.) Failed definitions also result in failed policies. Gun control is an excellent example where failed policies resulted in more gun killings where the more stringent policies were implemented. Even this article starts by ignoring the deaths in those stringent gun policy areas.
Most these poor definitions and resulting policies are due to ignorance. You for example say: “If you can’t hit your target with a single shot, then you have no business owning a gun. ” Hit, and not humanely kill?????
And then: “The point is that you shouldn’t be able to fire off a second round without having to stop and manually reload the gun.” combined with this: “the Second Amendment was created in order to provide for a state militia in the absence of a standing army. ” just shows your ideological ignorance. Please stop! Stop imposing your ignorance upon society.
US voters are finally seeing the true values and impacts of your poorly defined policies.
CoRev,
Well, bow wow wow wow again.
Wow, I missed so much while on vacation!
A little good news. DOJ is going after RUDY and the other Trump lawyers who tried to overthrow our republic:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyers-are-focus-of-inquiry-into-alternate-electors-scheme/ar-AAXIARR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1b4d69bd37d0479d875cb3edafa1e810
The Justice Department has stepped up its criminal investigation into the creation of alternate slates of pro-Trump electors seeking to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election, with a particular focus on a team of lawyers that worked on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. A federal grand jury in Washington has started issuing subpoenas in recent weeks to people linked to the alternate elector plan, requesting information about several lawyers including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and one of his chief legal advisers, John Eastman, one of the people said.The subpoenas also seek information on other pro-Trump lawyers like Jenna Ellis, who worked with Mr. Giuliani, and Kenneth Chesebro, who wrote memos supporting the elector scheme in the weeks after the election.
LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!
Gov. Abbott and Senator Ted Cruz are still scheduled to appear that the upcoming NRA convention which of course shows how little they care about those 19 kids and 2 teachers who just were murdered. Guess who noted he is scheduled to address the NRA? Yep – Donald John Trump:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-speak-at-nra-event-in-texas-days-after-school-shooting/ar-AAXIMqZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1732caa8855f41ed96f5fb74de1dc8f3
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Pmd6
January 30, 2018
Life Expectancy at Birth for United States and European Union, 2000-2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=OQgq
January 30, 2018
Infant Mortality Rate for United States and European Union, 2000-2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PkXW
January 30, 2018
Life Expectancy at Birth for United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and United Kingdom, 2000-2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=MnBT
January 30, 2018
Infant Mortality Rate for United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and United Kingdom, 2000-2020
Joaquin Castro calls out Gov. Abbott and Sen. Cruz:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-view-texas-congressman-joaquin-castro-shames-ted-cruz-for-being-a-slave-to-the-gun-lobby/ar-AAXHzsK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=d1530f7512b348cbba0b994472f6cfc3
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-25/Chinese-mainland-records-117-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1ajBJ01sXh6/index.html
May 25, 2022
Chinese mainland records 117 new confirmed COVID-19 cases
The Chinese mainland recorded 117 confirmed COVID-19 cases on Tuesday, with 102 linked to local transmissions and 15 from overseas, data from the National Health Commission showed on Wednesday.
A total of 473 asymptomatic cases were also recorded on Tuesday, and 25,948 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation.
Cumulative number of confirmed cases on the Chinese mainland is 223,605, with the death toll from COVID-19 standing at 5,224.
Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-25/Chinese-mainland-records-117-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1ajBJ01sXh6/img/1232d6ecfa65459fbf48e4beae3f2156/1232d6ecfa65459fbf48e4beae3f2156.jpeg
Chinese mainland new imported cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-25/Chinese-mainland-records-117-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1ajBJ01sXh6/img/988414fc2b394e82ab9ab8e3ba32498b/988414fc2b394e82ab9ab8e3ba32498b.jpeg
Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-25/Chinese-mainland-records-117-new-confirmed-COVID-19-cases-1ajBJ01sXh6/img/cf60930021df452f802ec34f50cf996f/cf60930021df452f802ec34f50cf996f.jpeg
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
May 24, 2022
Coronavirus
United States
Cases ( 85,241,016)
Deaths ( 1,029,524)
Deaths per million ( 3,076)
China
Cases ( 223,488)
Deaths ( 5,224)
Deaths per million ( 4)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/health/long-covid-infections.html
May 24, 2022
More than 1 in 5 adult Covid survivors in the U.S. may develop long Covid, a C.D.C. study suggests.
By Pam Belluck
One in five adult Covid survivors under the age of 65 in the United States has experienced at least one health condition that could be considered long Covid, according to a large new study * by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among patients 65 and older, the number is even higher: one in four….
* https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm
you Yanks have a real problem. Why you allow the sale of assault weapons?
If you adopt preferential voting instead of first past the post you just might get pollies reflecting the will of the peeople.
many of us were introduced to them in the armed services. they were/are fun to shoot and take quite a bit of mechanical skill to properly maintain.
there are scores of millions more sane owners than the ‘count on one hand number of’ insane people who use them for mass violence.
usa has a mental health problem and the effects of lock downs do not help.
i would correlate lock down and mental health more than the gun issue.
sandy hook and the effete efforts in ny and cn sold more assault weapons than all the magazine and tv ads ever!
while all the heroes here thrill at sending 54 billion in lethal weapons to ukraine 6000 miles away!
we live in troubled times…………
Anonymous: There are mental health problems around the world. How many other countries have per capita incidence of mass shootings of equivalent number? Please elucidate and document. A link to a spreadsheet documenting would be helpful.
‘There are mental health problems around the world.’
i disagree. i see no data.
you are young and likely do not remember how much usa’ mental health infrastructure has declined since the 1980’s.
reagan gutted the system, and no one has moved to fix it!
a fix much cheaper than a lot of ideas.
“i disagree. i see no data.”
Thanks is because you are a blind stupid bot. The data exists but bots will never figure that out.
You disagree because you see no data? Couple of problems with that.
– You are essentially saying you are sticking to your own bias. An absence of data doesn’t make your bias the right one.
– You could find the data yourself if you think Menzie is wrong.
Oops! Make that three things:
– Your point, as written, is that there are no mental health problems around the world. You need data for that?
You are also claiming to have knowledge Menzie doesn’t have about treatment for mental health, apparently based on Menzie’s age. You got data for that?
Seriously, the U.S. has lots of guns relative to most other countries and lots of gun related deaths relative to other countries, and you’re going with “nothing to see here”?
here is a thoughtful piece with some data.
usa has a socio-pathy issue along with a mental health conundrum.
https://profthinks.substack.com/p/is-strict-gun-control-the-answer?r=jhab3&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
A stupid blog post by ProfThinks is your idea of evidence? WTF? Your little blogger is basically saying these murderers had bad parents. Dude – that blog post was a worthless POS.
“usa has a mental health problem and the effects of lock downs do not help.
i would correlate lock down and mental health more than the gun issue.”
Look, there is Switzerland where militiamen have had military grade automatic weapons at home in until 2007, usually with ammunition.
Why has been in these countries mass shootings no issue? Could it be that Swiss men have a much healthier relationship to weapons than US Americans because a much higher percentage of the population actually serves in military?
The funny thing for me is to observe the behaviour of US colleagues and Swiss colleagues when they are in Austria esp. when walking through a city during nighttime.
u,
usa after vietnam shifted toward an all volunteer (more professional, bc usa uses high tech weapons) military away from a conscription based military. the outcome a concentration of military service among the lower economic strata. an unintended, and unforeseen consequence.
and a lesser part of the population are veterans..
switzerland iirc has a militia conception, where all military age are entered, organized, equipped and train annually until a certain age, when released.
my military time overlapped both usa systems.
the outcomes are not what we hoped!
“…the outcome a concentration of military service among the lower economic strata. an unintended, and unforeseen consequence.”
You’re kidding, right? Unintended? Unforeseen?
Voters, rich people, people wiy influence all faced sending their sons to war. Enough of them opposed doing so that conscription was ended. The intended consequence was that their sons wouldn’t have to go to war. Unless we turn into Costa Rica, that means somebody else’s son will go. Intended. Foreseen.
The Switzerland/U.S. comparison is made endlessly, mostly without noting the baggage to at accompanies gun possession in the two countries. Do the Swiss face a marketing campaign aimed at making them feel that killing a civilian with a gun is likely to be necessary? Are U.S. gun owners told they live in a well-ordered society in which the only reason to keep a gun is to defend their fellow citizens in war?
Nah. Part of U.S. gun culture is a steady drum-beat of “you need to be ready to kill your fellow citizens.” It’s macho marketing.
What once was a niche and now is a sub-culture among Republican primary voters is “you need to defend yourself against your government.” The Swiss own guns to defend their government and their country.
Crazies aren’t necessarily the classically mentally ill. The U.S. instills crazy as a part of ts gun culture. We are told to expect violence. We are encouraged to think of killing humans when training with firearms. It shows.
A,
you miss the point. In Switzerland there were much more people with military training and access to to military grade weapons, however we do not observe many mass shootings in Swizterland, where obviuosly the underlying severe social issues do not exist.
For me a larger part the US population is not mature enough to carry weapons in comparison to Switzerland.
A.,
There are also severe restrictions on handguns in Switzerland. There are also way fewer guns per capita than in the US, but then the US is way Number One in guns per capita, indeed the only nation in the world for which that ratio is greater than one, more guns than people.
The Swiss, where indeed all able males serve some time in their military, are required to keep a rifle locked up in their houses. They indeed are trained in how to use them and do so sparingly. The restrictions on handguns keep gun crime and suicide way down compared to the US.
“sandy hook and the effete efforts in ny and cn sold more assault weapons”
…. What??
There’s insane, and there’s whatever this is.
“Why you allow the sale of assault weapons?”
We banned these weapons from 1994 to 2004 but then George W. Bush decided he had to serve the interests of the NRA.
the ‘war on drugs’ is a prototype for librul’s ‘war on guns’.
posh
‘data’ is abused by mother jones with intent!
from 94 to 04 the black market worked….
criminals and nuts all armed up!
you can find data to refute this?
all the political talking point come out every time liberals decide life matters.
the rest of the time you are cheerleaders for interminable war and unaccounted collateral damage!
“i disagree. i see no data.”
btw: nra is bankrupted… unlike planned parenthood!
A reader raised the question of the persistent price differences recorded for general gasolines and diesel. I have no answer, but I know that Chinese regulators are always concerned about possible price fixing in energy commodity markets, and then there is this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/business/energy-environment/glencore-price-fixing-bribery.html
May 24, 2022
The commodities giant Glencore will pay $1.1 billion to settle bribery and price-fixing charges.
U.S. prosecutors said the settlement followed “a multiyear scheme to manipulate benchmarks used to set prices for oil at two of our country’s busiest ports.”
By Glenn Thrush
WASHINGTON — Glencore, the mining and commodity-trading giant, has agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle charges that two of its units bribed officials in several countries and manipulated oil prices….
Gun fetishism in the U.S. is a mental disorder that is unique in the world. Others look at the U.S. and just shake their heads in wonder.
A speculation from the work of Lerone Bennett and John Hope Franklin would be that firearm reliance was cemented in the years of slavery in the South, especially fear-ridden nature of slavery after the slave revolt in Haiti. Fear in the South is described, by Black historians, as palpable after the Haitian revolt.
Probate inventories from 1774 show that gun ownership skewed toward wealth, slave holding and residence in the South. Gun ownership was far from universal in the colonial period. Only around half of households own guns at the time of the head of household’s death. Given the age skew, it may be that younger (newer) households were unlikely to own guns. Most urban dwellers didn’t own guns. Northern households tended not to own guns.
When colonial urbanites joined Washington’s army, they had to be trained in gun use. When Franklin rhapsodized about the skill of new recruits in shooting ducks, he was referring to country boys, not everyone.
The idea that guns are a big part of our heritage is manufactured by Hollywood and the NRA.
Probate inventories from 1774 show that gun ownership skewed toward wealth, slave holding and residence in the South….
[ Superb reference. I am grateful. ]
Macroduck,
Could you show your source for probate inventories show gun ownership…. I am an avid legal history buff. I hypothesize that if the source is actually probate records, then there is a serious sampling problem, because only those with sufficient wealth went through probate proceedings. Additionally, the only scholarly writings I can find relating to colonial probate records involved only Massachusetts and Maryland records.
Please share your reference.
Macroduck is probably referring to work by Alice Hanson Jones. That’s from a national sample. You can also access direct probate records with all wills registered in London for many decades, but that’s even more selected.
Speaking of legal history, have you read Claire Priest? In her book she spends some time on recordation requirements and how they changed from the centralized system in the UK (recordation happened at Westminster for any legal decision or title of note; this is a vestige of feudalism) to the decentralized recordation system (mostly county-level) happening in the American colonies. If you haven’t taken a look at her book “Credit Nation” I do recommend it to legal history buffs.
Pre-Revolution data is interesting but it doesn’t tell the story. Guns are indeed a part of the heritage of the South and the West – “new” places that saw lots of white settlers and lots of conflict with Native Americans and later with Mexico. Arms sales in the US by frontierspeople were so strong that it stimulated US arms innovation, eventually taking over the UK in terms of quality. Read Lindsay Schakenbach Regele. Domestic gun demand is a key part of US industrial history.
Unique in the parts of the world we want to live in. There are places with gun cultures equally virulent. Somalia, Afghanistan, Mexican drug trafficking regions,…the list is long. We imagine life so dangerous we need guns. We are told our wild west ancestors toted guns and made us who we are, even though many western towns in the period of western expansion prohibited carrying guns in public. We’ve been old a childish notion of cowboy/Rambo/”tactical” culture. We are told rhat brown-skinned neighbors are dangerous and have to be hunted down if they jog through our neighborhoods. It’s crazy to believe it, but it’s what our racist gun culture repeats endlessly. Our crazy isn’t natural. It’s induced.
A reader, a while back, raised the question of the recent severe inflation in Zimbabwe. I do not understand policy in Zimbabwe at the time, but what I only now realized, in light of the brilliant New York Times research and reporting on Haitian social-economic history, is that Zimbabwe on winning independence from colonial Britain was forced into a comparable experience to Haiti; complete with British sanctions levied on Zimbabwe for trying to undo colonial effects.
I will try to explain as I further look to policy in Zimbabwe from about 1980 to the present.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=JjNG
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, 1980-2020
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=JbSa
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia, 1980-2020
(Indexed to 1980)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PRAx
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, 1992-2020
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PRAt
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia, 1992-2020
(Indexed to 1992)
ltr,
I think you are going to have trouble trying to compare Zimbabwe with Haiti. Zimbabwe is more reasonably compared with the neighbors you have just compared it to: Botswana and South Africa. The question is why have they done so much better than Zimbabwe?
I note that in the comparative economics textbook I have coauthored with my wife, Marina. we have a chapter on South Africa, which is a very complicated and fascinating case for many reasons. I think students find it perhaps the most challenging to really understand, although probably India is more complicated. But , near the end of the chapter we have a box that poses Botswana and Zimbabwe as possible alternatives for the future of South Africa, which faces many serious problems. Obviously Botswana provides the much better alternative for South Africa, while Zimbabwe is the example to avoid. So, when you try to explain Zimbabwe, you will realy need to explain why it did not follow the far superior path of Botswana.
Very helpful comment.
Vegas shooting distorted it. There is little real difference.
GREGORY BOTT: I find it amazing that people devoid of true knowledge can write things with such confidence. You are wrong.
Gregory Bott Vegas shooting distorted it.
Irrelevant. Using mass & spree shooting incidents (i.e., ignoring body counts) and “assault rifle ban” as a regressor, you still get a statistically significant effect. I ran a simple, plain vanilla negbi count model using incidents and I came up with results similar to Menzie’s:
incidents = -1.143 -0.857*ban + 0.64*alpha
The const and ban coefficients were highly significant.
Macro, keep a eye on subprime commercial banking and auto lending. They were looking rough late in 2019, but got bailed out by covid era transfers. Might see another bubble there as auto production recovers. Japs are running behind the big 3. Great opportunity for them. Credit lines have replaced investment.
—- are running behind….
[ This is a racial slur; racial slurs should never be used. ]
And you should never falsely accuse others of racism. Which you did towards me ltr. Apologize now for upur bullying tactics. Or you are no better than than bott.
I think this is in very poor taste, but, some people use it as shorthand. To me it’s like the Washington DC Pro Football team. Who in their right mind thought the team name carried negative connotations for fans of the team?!?!?!?! Is “Patriots” (who I assume the stereotype would be late 1700s and and 1800s white guys) “insulting” to New England white guys?? It’s really kind of laughable and speaks more to psychological inferiority complex than any “insult”.
As humorous and laughable as all the team name-changing is, if we make people with an inferiority complex happy while their eating their morning cornflakes that the team is now called “Commanders” and the prior name doesn’t imply represent strong warriors, I can still eat my morning generic brand Fruit Loops cereal quite happily. Now we will just quietly think of “you” as continually dissatisfied “belly-achers” instead of strong warriors and everyone can be happy. You got something to be upset about, and we got to play “white night” for the millionth time. Can’t ask for more than that in 2022, can you??
*Excuse me, white knight. That was a bad one.
True. We should also not compare criticism of the Chinese government to Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda, but that doesn’t stop you.
Mainland Chinese have zero grasp of their own history (certainly post-1945). They think they definitively won the South Korean War, and don’t even open your mouth to tell them otherwise. Meanwhile their middle school to college age children worship South Korean K-Pop idols without even an inkling of comprehension on why South Korea have things North Korea does not. Unless they are looking for someone to look down their nose at, in which case mainland Chinese are so happy that North Korea now lives in a sh*t-hole along with them (excuse my borrowing trumpian language, which as it refers to rural China, so happens to be true) due to their shared “victory” in 1953.
Interesting paper on the impact of mass shootings on gun policies. Turns out that there is a doubling of new gun laws enacted in states in the year after a mass shooting in that state — a doubling of laws that loosen gun restrictions!
The increase in laws loosening gun restrictions occurs only in Republican controlled states. There is no significant change in gun laws, for or against, in Democratically controlled states.
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/16-126_ce055015-fc1c-4a8c-9a8a-8a9361d808bb.pdf
Looks like a reflection of gun-buyer thinking:
– Mass shootings get risk back into the headlines, and risk is confronted with guns.
– Mass shootings get gun control in the headlines, and gun nuts tell each other they have to stock up before “they come for our guns.”
In 2003, a meta-analysis associated the need to reduce threats (which we lay people refer to as cowardice) with conservative political views:
https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.324
Back in 2008, Oxley, et al, published a paper which found that conservatives have a stronger fear response than the general public:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1157627
There was considerable pushback. Turns out, U.S. conservatives aren’t representative of conservatives elsewhere and conservatives are more afraid of terrorism and poverty ( which helps explain the virulence of “replacement theory”). For instance:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2020/02/12/conservatives-might-not-have-a-more-potent-fear-response-than-liberals-after-all/
Still, U.S. conservatives do break into a sweat faster in response to scary images than liberals. And liberals are scary.
If you are not in favor of gun restrictions, then you have no problem with mass killing of children. It is preventable. Bruce and bott and anonymous have already shown they have no problem with killing children. Are rick, econned and the others brave enough to respond? Or are you hiding sheepishly in the corner? Come on men, time to take your stand against tyranny! Let your voices be heard or forever be labeled a coward.
Bruce Hall had no problem with people going to COVID-19 superspreaders sine a mask or a vaccine. He has to be the most uncaring POS of all time as all this troll cares about is bowing down to Donald Trump.
Hello Baffling,
I’ll respond. But please be specific in what it is you would you like me to respond to. However, and before I respond, why are you so concerned with my response on this issue? And does “the others” refer to everyone not specifically named in your comment? Why not just ask every commenter?
Can’t wait to respond!
Coward.
Hi Baffling,
“Coward”? I don’t understand why you are resorting to name-calling, I literally said that I would answer your question.
econned, your silence on the topic of the post is deafening. it is not name calling. it is an apt description of action (or inaction) on the part of some folks on this blog.
baffling
May 27, 2022 at 6:18 am,
Calling someone a “coward” absolutely is name calling. And I’m only “silent” to the extent you were unwilling/unable to ask a tangible question. The “inaction” here is your ignoring my requests. Again, I’ve said I would happily respond. Let’s discuss and not be childish. Looking forward to it.
Do not fall for it. Econned is not interested in a real discussion. He is just setting you up for his cheap little insult tantrums even as he whines that you called this lowlife worthless troll a name. Boo hoo.
Econned, my first comment was clear enough. Your lack of any response to the issue is clear as day. You are not interested, or are afraid. Coward.
First, I have zero obligation to respond in the 1st place. However, I acknowledged your request but simply asked for some clarity. A response asking for clarity isn’t cowardly, it is sensible. It’s so very strange that you insist on not providing the slightest bit of clarity and this despite my stating multiple times that I am interested in responding. One can only conclude that your initial request for responses was disingenuous at best.
If you do change your mind and would like to discuss like an adult, with out name calling, I would be happy to oblige. Until then, I suppose it’s just business-as-usual here on Econbrowser.
Econned, You are more concerned with being described as a coward than protecting the lives of school children. You have had ample opportunity to address the issue of assault rifles killing school children, a topic of this post. But your biggest concern appears to be about me describing you as a coward. As i said econned, your silence is deafening. Coward. It is a description of your inaction, not name calling.
Baffling,
Here’s the very unfortunate reality… my response, on an economics blog, to a comment made by an anonymous commenter, will not make any impact at all in “ protecting the lives of school children”. So there’s a lot of self-aggrandizing and dramatizing on your part here.
By your logic you are also a “coward”, we can both play the game you’ve decided to start. Let me use your very words against you… “ You have had ample opportunity to address the issue” of precisely what question regarding “assault rifles killing school children” you’d like me to answer, a simple and logical request I’ve asked of you repeatedly. “But your biggest concern appears to be” labeling me “as a coward”. “As i said” baffling, pose a specific question. “Coward. It is a description of your inaction, not name calling.”
In any case, my stance hasn’t changed… just ask a specific question and we can discuss like adults. If you don’t have a specific question, we can stop this silly back-and-forth that you initiated by throwing my name out.
Ask a specific question… or are you too much of a “coward” to do so???
“Here’s the very unfortunate reality… my response, on an economics blog, to a comment made by an anonymous commenter, will not make any impact at all in “ protecting the lives of school children”. ”
econned, you could make that statement about anything on this blog. and yet you choose to comment on some items, and not others. and you choose to stay silent rather than address the issue of assault rifles and the killing of school children. the silence is deafening. over 140 comments have appeared on this blog, and you cannot stand up to address this assault on our children. silence. coward.
econned, you don’t need me to ask you a question to do the right thing. you simply need to do the right thing. even school children know to do the right thing without being prompted.
baffling,
I can’t answer a question that hasn’t been formed. Why are you ducking this? You decided to single out specific people yet are unwilling to be clear on what specifically you’d like them to address.
As to “doing what’s right”, my responding to an anonymous commenter’s vague callout in an Econ blog is not related.
As to “being prompted” – it was YOU who called me out.
You haven’t a clue of the tangible actions I do unprompted to do “what’s right” in this world. Stop with your ridiculous internet comments.
I’ve been clear: ask an actual question and I’ll happily respond. Your silence is deafening.
baffling,
As to your not-very-well-thoughout comment: “econned, you could make that statement about anything on this blog. and yet you choose to comment on some items, and not others. and you choose to stay silent rather than address the issue of assault rifles and the killing of school children.”
It’s a very poor attempt at obfuscation. However, I must note 1) I would make that statement about anything on this blog. 2) my comments are not under a pretense that they will make a difference 3) it was YOU who suggested my comment on an Econ blog could result in “protecting the lives of school children” – I just had to knock you down a few pegs and point out how ridiculous such a claim was.
Again, stop obfuscating and ask a clear question – I promise to reply. I cannot promise, despite your stated high expectations of my reply, it will result help in “protecting the lives of school children”.
econned, another comment on your part without addressing the killing of children with assault weapons. I am in no way stopping you from commenting on the topic. and yet you choose not to address the issue. silence. cowardly.
baffling, Another comment on your part without asking a question regarding the killing of children with assault weapons. I am in no way stopping you from asking the question on the topic that you’re seeking I provide an answer to. And yet you choose not to ask the question. Silence. Cowardly.
at least you cannot accuse me of turning my back on school children killed by assault rifles.
baffling,
At least you cannot accuse me of turning my back on school children killed by assault rifles.
Econned, you have done exactly that with your silence. Cowardly.
baffling,
You have done exactly that with your silence. Cowardly.
econned, you mimic like a preschooler. very juvenile. but you have yet to take a stand against the killing of school children by assault rifle. i have done so. therefore, your comment about me is inaccurate. mine is accurate about you.
Baffling,
You calling out someone in a very vague fashion is “like a preschooler”. Your expectation of others to answer a question that you adamantly refuse to ask is “very juvenile”. “You have yet to” ask a tangible question regarding “the killing of school children by assault rifle”. You “have [not] done so”.
Again, ask a tangible question and I will happily answer. Or maybe you’re just so caught up on name calling and you’re afraid my answers may not be what you want to hear. Let’s see – just asking a question will solve all of this. It’s up to you.
” you’re afraid my answers may not be what you want to hear.”
econned, i have no fear of what your answer may be. i would hope you are in favor of protecting our children. but you certainly have not voiced that concern. and if you do so, it appears it will be begrudgingly. it is your choice to continue to remain silent on the topic, and distract with other concerns about “name calling” and mimicry.
baffling,
Im doing nothing “ begrudgingly”. That’s 100% your approach as you’ve yet to pose a tangible question and if you do so it will apparently be “ begrudgingly”. Again, I’m merely waiting on you to change your stance to remain firm on not asking a tangible question. Stop distracting with obfuscation and just walk a direct question question. I’ve been very clear that I’m waiting on you to pose a question and that I will gladly discuss this with you. You’re apparently uninterested and were disingenuous in your initial comment seeking my attention.
Once again, let me know what your question is and I will respond.
Professor Chinn,
I am confused on the number of observations shown as: NOBS =363.
Looking at the Mother Jones spreadsheet from 10/16/91 to 5/24/2022, I must be misguided, but I see:
944 fatalities
1,372 injuries
2,316 total victims
It looks like you spent considerable time entering each episode by month manually into a model, unless there is some easier way to input the data.
AS: You’re right – the sample was truncated. I’ve fixed the sample, rerun the regression, correct results now up.
Professor Chinn,
Not trying to be right, just trying to understand. I have not used the negative binomial model in the past and have not thought about the concept of testing for “overdispersion of zero observations” as suggested by 2Slugbaits.
I stopped watching anything on Faux News over 20 years ago as it was clear that they routinely lie to the viewers. So forgive me if I did not watch their coverage of the Uvalde shooting but someone watched it so we do not have to:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-coverage-uvalde-shooting-150828619.html
Faux News could have care less what happened to those children. Faux News instead decided to put forth one worthless “solution” after another so as ti argue we do no need an assault weapons ban and a restoration of the Brady Bill. Gov. Abbott was doing the same thing even if this disgusting governor lectured Beto O’Rourke not to politicize these deaths.
Excuse me Gov. Abbott but F*** YOU!
The GOP has a plan to stop mass murders:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senators-unveil-plan-for-preventing-more-mass-shootings/ar-AAXIOrs?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f99c0464d4f5463b892ce039e3053c0a
Thoughts and prayers! Seriously – that is all they have!
The U.S. is loading up military cargo planes with lethal weapons and flying them to Europe. They then load up these military cargo planes with baby formula and fly them back to the U.S.
We do live in strange times.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-first-test-after-mass-shootings-senate-gop-blocks-domestic-terror-bill/ar-AAXLhZZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=430c7c65fb0e4d7a829efed4ee8e0ad6
The Domestic Terrorism bill could have been debated in the Senate but all Republicans said nah – we do not want to go there. After all political power is more important to them that protecting their own citizens from mass murders.
https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/nfl/stephen-a-smith-says-donald-trump-called-him-in-2014-and-revealed-plans-to-screw-the-nfl/ar-AAXLlok
Is Stephen A. Smith being honest here? We can blame the Buffalo Bills for inciting Donald Trump to screw all of us by becoming President?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/schumer-calls-abbott-an-absolute-fraud/vi-AAXLoOx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7b943815412b4391b5109eaa4a34bcc4
I may seem very angry at Gov. Abbott and the do nothing MAGA Republicans in light of what they have said after this mass murder. But check out this from Senator Schumer. Well said!
The Supreme Court has undermined one of Bruce Hall’s disinformation campaigns:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-wont-block-biden-rule-societal-cost-greenhouse-gases-rcna30727
Supreme Court won’t block Biden rule on societal cost of greenhouse gases
The executive order requires estimates for the societal costs of increased greenhouse gas emissions when the government takes actions that affect the environment.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block a Biden administration rule for figuring the costs of greenhouse gas pollution when the government makes decisions affecting the environment. Ten red states, led by Louisiana, asked court to put a hold on a January 2021 White House executive order that directs an interagency working group to generate estimates for the societal costs of increased emissions of carbon, methane and nitrous oxide. The estimates are to be used to figure the monetary value of changes in these emissions resulting from government actions. The states filed their emergency application to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles appeals from that region of the country. He referred the case to the full court, which denied the request without comment. The loss for the states gives the Biden administration a boost in the president’s efforts to include an evaluation of the risks of global in the federal government’s decisions.
Let’s be clear – all the rule does is to provide us with information on the true social marginal cost of fossil fuels. Now Bruce Hall proudly believes in telling us lies about these issues. And of course his good buddy CoRev has gone totally bonkers so no telling how this sensible ruling is going to set him off.
Bierka is excited about another Biden policy aimed at enhancing the war on fossil fuels. Will he admit that this war is a partial cause of inflation? Has he checked the price of fossil fuels lately?
Let’s be clear – all the rule does is to provide us with information on the BEST GUESS of social marginal costs of fossil fuels. If and when those BEST GUESS of social marginal costs are defined they will re-challenged. This is just to cover for the big lie that renewable costs for electricity are cheaper than fossil costs.
I’m all for defining the Full Costs for both the fossil and renewable sources. This is the only study I’ve seen to take a peer reviewed scientific approach: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000800 Shouldn’t we be following the science?
Even after full costs for each are defined and agreed to the fact that fossil fuels do not need renewables to generate electricity, but renewables REQUIRE fossil fuel backup assuring adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS add costs. Only the ideologue ignores or tries to refute this simple fact.
I take it that you consider trying to get more reliable estimates of the true social marginal costs of alternative means for providing electricity are Communist plots whereas your disinformation campaigns are simply promoting FREEDOM. At least that is what your usual nonsensical writing suggests. If I have your views wrong – try writing more clearly (assuming you know how).
Bierks, this is what I said just above your ill defined comment: “Even after full costs for each are defined and agreed to the fact that fossil fuels do not need renewables to generate electricity, but renewables REQUIRE fossil fuel backup assuring adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS add costs. Only the ideologue ignores or tries to refute this simple fact.” Earlier I requested you define true social marginal costs, which I interpret as at least one of your externalities. You have yet to provide a list of them for discussion.
I also above discussed liberals inability to define their definitions resulting in poor defined policies. Your commenting is a prime example of this failure.
Please respond to: “Even after full costs for each are defined and agreed to the fact that fossil fuels do not need renewables to generate electricity, but renewables REQUIRE fossil fuel backup assuring adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS add costs. Only the ideologue ignores or tries to refute this simple fact.”
We saw what happened in texas when natural gas failed. I think you need to reconsider your assumption that fossil fuels do not need backup. Again, you begin with incorrect assumptions. The rest of your analysis becomes flawed. Or false.
Baffled, why do you have to lie? ” I think you need to reconsider your assumption that fossil fuels do not need backup. ” No wheere have I said this. find the quote.
However I have said, now many times, 1) that renewables need/REQUIRE fossil fueled backup, but fossil fueled electricity sources do NOT need renewables. That fact leads to: 2) Adding renewables to a grid adds costs/prices.
You have yet to refute these facts, except to call them incorrect. Show us examples instead of deflecting. There must be many.
Like Econned I’ll wait for your actual response to the question.
“1) that renewables need/REQUIRE fossil fueled backup, but fossil fueled electricity sources do NOT need renewables. ”
this is false corev. both sources require a backup. neither source requires that to be a fossil fuel. as I said, your analysis is very flawed from the start.
Baffled – Coward, has yet to show any evidence that: “this is false corev. both sources require a backup. neither source requires that to be a fossil fuel. as I said, your analysis is very flawed from the start.”
You were requested to show examples days ago. All we’ve seen is deflection.
The other example: ” 2) Adding renewables to a grid adds costs/prices. ” Give us examples where is untrue also.
“This is the only study I’ve seen to take a peer reviewed scientific approach”
A report authored by someone who works for the fossil fuel sector. Of course even if our host provides other studies you will accuse that research to be a Commie plot. CoRev – you are not fooling anyone so relax.
Bierka, I guess you mean referring to comments from the CEO of a renewables energy company, Enel, as an example?
In light of that reference it should be easy for you to respond to: “Even after full costs for each are defined and agreed to the fact that fossil fuels do not need renewables to generate electricity, but renewables REQUIRE fossil fuel backup assuring adding renewables to a grid ALWAYS add costs. Only the ideologue ignores or tries to refute this simple fact.”
I’ll wait.
“I guess you mean referring to comments from the CEO of a renewables energy company”
Are you THIS stupid? It was your link and you do not know who the lead author is? Even AFTER I put up in an earlier comment the company he worked for. Not as CEO and not a renewables energy company.
Come on dude – at least TRY to keep up with the conversation. DAMN!
Bierka, following a comment thread must be really difficult for liberals. Let me take by your itty hand and show you how that works. You said this: “A report authored by someone who works for the fossil fuel sector” I followed with this: “Bierka, I guess you mean referring to comments from the CEO of a renewables energy company, Enel, as an example?”, which referred to your several comments from the CEO of Enel, and Italian Renewables Energy Company, which originated from here: ”
pgl
May 24, 2022 at 9:53 am
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/burning-gas-to-produce-electricity-is-stupid-the-ceo-of-power-giant-enel-says/ar-AAXEDf5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5a7fafbe7de8494b90093b124466a991
The CEO of Italian power firm Enel has cast doubt on the continued benefit of using gas to produce electricity, telling CNBC it is “stupid” and that cheaper and better alternatives are now available.
Read the whole thing as this is an interesting discussion from the CEO of an electricity company. Of course the wisdom noted by this CEO is going to set poor little CoRev off on another one of his unhinged comments.”
Obviously, your autonomous responses to comments NOT conforming with liberal/or your personal belief structure is really hard for you to control. Accordingly, I have related you to BIERKA, just one of Pavlov’s dogs. Why? Because you just seem unable to resist angrily responding.
“Saliva is produced and secreted by the salivary glands of the body. These glands are under the control of the autonomic nervous system, comprised of sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve fibres.”
Your control is just like Bierka’s.
.
CoRev,
Well, bow wow wow wow again from you.
A remarkable drop in new home sales from over 1,000,000 to under 600,000
https://www.statista.com/chart/17787/new-single-family-houses-sold-in-the-us/
However, the median sales prices are slightly up. That could be an artifact of lower priced new homes being particularly sensitive to increased interest rates. We would need to know more about the sales drop across different price levels.
Pending home sales data do, in fact, show that sales have slowed most among lower-priced homes. Not only are risng monthly mortgage payments shutting buyers out, but high rents are wlowing the accumulation of eown payments for risrt-time buyers.
Professor Chinn,
In my 1st attempt to run a negative binomial model, I saw according to EViews that if I ran a Poisson model and checked for the over dispersion of zero incidences, that a fixed variance parameter factor of 14.2665 arose to enter into the negative binomial model. I entered each casualty by month. I noticed if I tried to copy and paste the casualties into EViews, the program averaged casualties if more than one entry was shown by month. I also notice now that the number of observations equal the number of months, not the casualties. I am showing 368 months from 1991m10 to 2022m05 per EViews count.
My model shows:
Casualties = 0.13 -0.94 Ban + 1.61 Trump + 4.90 x 10^-06 Pop
The Ban and Trump were significant.
I tried two versions of the model since I wondered if perhaps the pandemic period or the Democrat’s control of the House had an effect on the shootings.
1. I added a dummy variable for the pandemic period, 2002m03 until current. The dummy was not significant.
2. I added a dummy variable for Trump x Democrat’s control of the House during the Trump administration. The dummy was not significant.
China’s enormous blunder with “Covid zero” will be very costly for its economy – and hopefully just theirs.
https://theovershoot.co/p/covid-zero-is-crushing-china?s=r
Bad leader, bad outcome
Menzie,
Could you do same analysis using frequency or occurrence of mass shootings? It seems that would be a truer representation of an administration effect. Also, it seems an analysis that explicitly included other administrations would tell a more complete story. Im sure you’ve thought through this, but those are my thoughts.
Econned: I suggest you go to the Mother Jones database, and tabulate the numbers. I did it once, and I’d have to do it again for the intervening years, to comply. Here is the 2018 post where I did number of mass shootings.
Econned Could you do same analysis using frequency or occurrence of mass shootings?
I did exactly that. See above.
an analysis that explicitly included other administrations would tell a more complete story.
No it would tell an incomplete story. Why? Because it would eat up too many degrees of freedom. You’d also have to worry about lagged effects in a post-Trump world. And of course adding lags eats up even more degrees of freedom. For me the relevant policy issue is the effectiveness of an assault rifle ban, and just about anyway you look at it the econometric models tell us that the assault rifle ban had a statistically significant effect on lowering the number of mass shootings.
I agree with this but it doesn’t address Menzie’s other motive – impact of administration.
I disagree with Menzie that the number of casualties/wounded (albeit a very meaningful metric in and of itself because of precisely what it measures) is the proper metric for this analysis.
2slugs, please define an assault rifle. Wiki uses the US Army definition: “An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44, a development of the earlier Mkb 42.[6][7][8] While immediately after World War II, NATO countries were equipped with battle rifles, the development of the M16 rifle during the Vietnam War prompted the adoption of assault rifles by the rest of NATO. By the end of the 20th century, assault rifles had become the standard weapon in most of the world’s armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles.[8] Some of the most successful assault rifles include the AK-47, M16, IMI Galil and Heckler & Koch G36. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Previous legislative attempts at defining them have been failures. Maybe you can better define assault rifles so that they can be readily identified. So far you have shown nothing but emotional illogical responses. Your ignorance is egregious by misusing the term an assault rifle ban.
An important feature of the above Wiki definition is: “For semi-automatic firearms restricted by some United States laws, see assault weapon.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
“please define an assault rifle.”
Here we go again. CoRev reminds me of a corporate tax attorney. Arguing over well established concepts is what they do routinely which is why even the simplistic issues take hundreds of pages of sheer babble to cover.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
May 25, 2022
Coronavirus
New York
Cases ( 5,559,628)
Deaths ( 69,395)
Deaths per million ( 3,567)
China
Cases ( 223,605)
Deaths ( 5,224)
Deaths per million ( 4)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
May 25, 2022
Coronavirus
Massachusetts
Cases ( 1,855,500)
Deaths ( 20,544)
Deaths per million ( 2,981)
China
Cases ( 223,605)
Deaths ( 5,224)
Deaths per million ( 4)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PvEp
January 30, 2018
Life Expectancy at Birth for United States and China, 2000-2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PvEu
January 30, 2018
Infant Mortality Rate for United States and China, 2000-2020
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PS9k
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and China, 2000-2020
(Percent change)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PS9q
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and China, 2000-2020
(Indexed to 2000)
Texas has shown they cannot protect school children from violence in the classroom. Why does texas continue to have mass shootings in the school, even with a program of school resource officers (ie armed gunmen at the door). Current laws make mass shootings in texas schools a real opportunity. Republican gun laws in texas have failed our schools.
Asking a guard armed with a pistol to take on a thug dressed to go into war is like asking me to defend against Lebron James on the basketball court. I will do my best but I’m be lights on the floor.
An important trend in US gun laws has been the changing attittude of the Supreme Court. Prior to 2008 SCOTUS allowed lots of gun control laws on the basis of interpreting the Second Amendment as linking the “right to bear arms” to the earlier part of it that speaks of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” Indeed, while there is much debate over what the Founding Fathers were thinking about with regard to what those state-level militias were for, putting down slave revolts or protecting against Native INdian attacks oe what, with our current national guard their descendants, and with the FFs clearly not intending for their to be a national level permanent military establishment. courts long saw this right to bear arms as intimately tied to this matter of supposedly needing state militias.
This changed seriously in 2008 with DC versus Heller when Justice Scalia disconnected the two portions of the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to bear arms was a distinct and separate right having nothing to do with the matter of having a well-regulated militia. Of course, he did still allow for some public safety limits on guns, so we have not undone the law against civilians owning machine guns, and are able to prevent felons and lunatics from possessing them, even if the NRA opposes checking to see if people are either of those when they buy guns at gun shows. But the trend at the SCOTUS is to go even further with this stuff, with it being reported they may be about to rule that New York State cannot regulate who can carry guns in public.
On Econospeak I have posted about the role of punctuation in the very bad Heller decision. It looks to me that grammatically the question is whether or not the second part of the Second Amendment is a subordinate clause to the first part or not. If if were not, then they should be separated by a semi-colon. If the second part is subordinate, then they should be separated by a comma, a distinction well understood by the Founding Fathers. As it is, it is a comma that separates them, not a semi-colon. So Scalia was wrong: the second part of the Second Amendment was a subordinate clause in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, making the right to bear arms contingent on the matter of maintaining a well-regulate militia. He and the SCOTUS have promoted a fraud upon the American people that has worsened our gun control situation, and looks to make it even still worse.
“On Econospeak I have posted about the role of punctuation in the very bad Heller decision.”
Woah! Link please!
econospeak.blogspot.com/2022/05/punctuation-and-second-amendment.html
https://www.econospeak.blogspot.com/2022/05/punctuation-and-second-amendment.html
“As it is, the way I see it, the matter comes down to one of punctuation. Is the latter portion of the amendment a subordinate clause to the former part or not? Heller seems to say that it is not, thus making the right to bear arms disconnected from the matter of needing a well-regulated militia. The amendment is in fact a single sentence, so the punctuation used becomes critical. For the latter part not to be a subordinate clause, it would need to be separated from the former part by a semi-colon. But it is not. In fact what one finds in the amendment is four commas. The latter part is subordinate and tied to the former part. It looks that the Founding Fathers did intend the right to bear arms to indeed be tied the matter of maintaining a well-regulated militia and thus not a stand-alone semi-absolute right.”
Ha! I have always read that sentence in the way you’re suggesting. But I wonder if Federalist Society-types ever considered private gun ownership as a subordinate right to the right to form a militia – in other words, you can’t form a militia if the people don’t already have the guns for it.
Are red flag laws the best we can expect from the Senate? Seriously?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bipartisan-senators-meeting-on-guns-see-promise-in-red-flag-laws/ar-AAXLr2Y?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=73e5feafb2f444c99fa516e42383039b
Look – pass this but we need a lot more. As in an assault weapons ban and a restoration of the Brady bill. Both very sensible ideas supported by the majority of the public. Just do it.
We now know that the law enforcement response to this active shooter situation was incredibly confused and inadequate:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-officials-say-officers-should-have-confronted-school-shooter-earlier/ar-AAXO5pD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a5fc49ded50e4bd7a8a5e31b67874174
I guess this could cut two ways. The right might say had law enforcement done its job – the number of deaths MIGHT have been less. Then again they are expecting what is likely too high of a bar for law enforcement in light of the military assault weapons and number of rounds this terrorist had. We must do better but come on – get rid of military assault weapons.
Not meaning to go all Biblical but consider Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Now consider this sick ad from the manufacturer of the gun that killed all those kids in Texas:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1615861/texas-shooting-rifle-ad-child-firearms-manufacturer-ar-15-us-gun-laws
Promoting little kids to use military assault weapons is bad enough. But to quote the Bible as your alleged justification for promoting domestic terrorism is beyond the pale. But hey – the profits of the gun manufacturers must be through the roof.
Members of the NBA and the WNBA have been major supporters of the right to vote, which I guess would tick off Republicans who wish to restrict the right to vote to white Christians. Case in point the laudable efforts of the Miami Heat plus the threats to this franchise from Little Marco Rubio:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/rubios-complaint-nba-message-guns-matters-rcna30857
Of course the Miami Heat was also advocating gun safety regulation – which would make Little Marco really angry as he is totally in bed with the NRA. As one protestor at the NRA convention being held said “the only thing easier to buy than an assault weapon is a Republican politician”.
I am no fan of Trump but the Trump effect is largely capturing the large mass casualty event in Las Vegas. This may be capturing the “efficiency” of assault rifles. I am not sure if it really is capturing a “Trump effect”.
An explanation for the (not statistically significant) higher rate of core inflation in the U.S. vs the G7:
https://voxeu.org/article/understanding-global-rise-inflation
Pesistence in elevated goods (tradables) demand in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world amounted to exporting the demand benefits of expansionary U.S. policy while keeping the inflationary effects at home. The authors focus on monetary expansion, but I suspect the same holds true for fiscal expansion.
That’s a great share. But I find it hard to call it “exporting the demand benefits of expansionary policy.” In a current account sense, sure, but I don’t know why that would be the US government’s short-term priority. Not only did US consumers indeed receive those goods that they wanted, substituting those for meals out and the like. The rescue packages focused (rightly) on unemployment insurance, meaning it represented demand that wouldn’t have existed because many people wouldn’t have even had income. Who cares if it inflated net imports for a few key months?
pce index would be interest topic…..
CoRev
May 27, 2022 at 5:02 am
Another example of how worthless and insane CoRev has become.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1529817124256026624
Is Hershel Walker insane? He starts off a discussion of the gun violence issue by noting Cain killed Abel. OK? And the real problem is that guys check out the Instagrams of attractive young women? Too many hits on the football field has destroyed his brain.
Lying Ted Cruz is on a roll:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/more-children-would-die-if-ar-15-rifles-were-banned-says-us-senator-ted-cruz/ar-AAXPNLE?ocid=uxbndlbing
‘More children would die if AR-15 rifles were banned,’ says US senator Ted Cruz
He told the crowd how Democrat ‘elites’ were trying to ‘disarm Americans’ in their bid to ban AR-15s, the weapon used in most school shootings. He said: ‘Guns are used defensively to stop a crime between 500,000 and 1 million times every single year. ‘That means if the left disarms America, those crimes would no longer be stopped.’ He argued that leaving ‘only criminals with guns’ would lead to ‘many more single mums on subways’ getting assaulted, as they would no longer be able to commute with their 33-inch semi-automatic rifles in their handbags.
This Senator is one sicked demented dude. These lies are so incredibly stupid that anyone who might believe this garbage must have an IQ in the single digits.
In terms of numbers use of guns for suicides is the top killer, certainly way ahead of deaths in mass shootings. It also appears to be far more highly correlated with the availability of guns. While there does appear to be a correlation at the state level between gun availability and homicides, it is sufficiently weak that people like John Lott can argue it is not there by playing with the numbers enough. But the correlation between gun availability and suicides is much stronger, with four of the top five gun owning states also in the top five on suicide rates and four of the five lowest gun owning rate states being among the five lowest in terms of suicide rates.
Overwhelmingly what are used in gun suicides, around 24,000 of them last year in the US, also overwhelmingly the main method of suicide (so easy to complete the effort compared to other methods), are handguns, not the semi-automatics in the headlines with the mass shootings that get the headlines but that involve far lower numbers than the suicides. Thus it is ironic that the 2008 Heller SCOTUS ruling involved a law in DC regulating handguns, Massively reducing handgaus might well lead to a much greater reduction of gun deaths in the US than aimilarly reducing the number of semi-automatic guns, although this is not something that would make headlines, given the widespread and scattered and infividualistic nature of suicides.
Good point about the importance of suicide and gun availability.
But I want to stress that while suicide is terrible and tragic, it isn’t terrorism. Shooting 19 children, or targeting blacks, is terrorism. It has very wide psychological impact as designed. As such it requires a response proportionally bigger than the number of deaths it causes in the aggregate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Very nice share. From the link:
Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?
In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”
I still think the psychological impact of mass shootings is enough to justify specific gun control measures. We shouldn’t underestimate the socially corrosive effect of fear. This also goes for crime in general.