Uncategorized
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.
In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
— Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
— Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
— Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
— Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
— Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
— Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org
Economic policymakers aren’t lacking in intelligence – so why are their ideas so bad…?
The question has haunted savants, wives and bartenders throughout the ages. But at least we have a hypothesis.
A guy gets a PhD in physics. You ask him a simple question. He comes up with one of the dumbest answers you ever heard.
Another guy becomes a world chess champion. The next thing you know he’s promoting a cause you know is moronic.
And what about Warren Buffett? There’s a smart guy. He must be smart; he’s made a lot of money.
The French admire intellectuals. The English admire people who can hold their tongues. The Australians admire people who can hold their liquor. But Americans admire people who make money.
A man who can make money is assumed to have qualities of judgment, brains and energy that set him apart from his fellows. Let drop the news that you have made a few million and the local paper will want to ask your opinion on the Egyptian politics or global warming.
And so someone must have asked Mr. Buffett what he thought about taxes.Bloomberg reports:
‘Billionaire investors Warren Buffett and George Soros are calling on Congress to increase the estate tax as lawmakers near a decision on tax policies that expire Dec. 31.
‘In a joint statement today, Buffett, Soros and more than 20 other wealthy individuals asked Congress to lower the estate tax’s per-person exemption to $2 million from $5.12 million and raise the top rate to more than 45 percent from 35 percent.
‘Obama has used Buffett’s call for higher taxes on capital gains to promote the “Buffett rule”, which would require a minimum tax rate for top earners.
‘Soros, 82, is chairman and founder of Soros Fund Management LLC. He is worth $21.6 billion, placing him at 24th on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He has donated more than $3 million to Democrats and has financed groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
OK. So two rich dudes want to increase taxes. Do they really believe that federal bureaucrats and elected politicians will do a better job of allocating scarce resources than the rightful owners of it?
The story continues:
‘Other signers of the statement include Bill Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft chairman; Richard Rockefeller, chairman of Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc.; and Leo Hindery, managing partner of InterMedia Partners LP.’
Wait, Leo Hindery? The name rings a bell. Oh yes, is this the same Leo Hindery writing in the Financial Times and proving our point. Mr Hindery must be a smart guy. But what has gone wrong with his brain?
In his FT article on Wednesday of last week, Mr Hindery is as sharp as a baseball bat, bluntly pounding through dull ideas and leaving one hell of a mess behind him. He recites the facts as he sees them: unemployment is high; wages are stagnant and so forth.
And then he moves, like Custer to the Little Big Horn, onto the ground where meddlers cause disasters. In his simpleminded way, he imagines a world where results follow intentions, like marriage follows love. He sees no need for a pre-nup.
No need for second guesses or arrières pensées. It will work out. Why? Because he has thought it out thoroughly! He has used his large brain.
What is his solution to high unemployment and low wage growth? Government! No kidding:
‘The creation of a department of business would be a reflection of enlightened political and corporate leadership,’ says he.
What would this new bureaucracy do? It would, yes… you guessed it, be responsible for a new ‘manufacturing and industrial policy…’ Central planning, in other words. He endorses President Obama’s ‘one-stop shop reform of the commerce-side of the executive branch’. And he rejects the ‘discredited libertarian canard that government has no meaningful role to play in the nation’s commerce’.
The man is a deep thinker. Deeeep.
In the itals beneath his article we get his credentials. As might be anticipated, he is ‘chair’ of one worthy group and ‘co-chair’ of another. On the board of numerous trusts, non-profits, and other organizations, he is a smooth operator. The man is a fast-talking zombie, in other words.
He was brought in briefly to run Global Crossing. When he took the job, the stock was $61. A month later, it was $25. Later, after Hindery was removed, the company went bankrupt. Hindery probably had no idea what was going on.
And then…what about the geniuses at the central banks? A report in the Wall Street Journal tells us that a small group of central bankers all went to MIT… all believe they can engineer an economy, almost as if it were a jet engine.
Bernanke, Draghi at the ECB, King at the BoE, Fischer at the Israeli central bank – all are MIT men. Together, they and colleagues, have added $10trn to the world’s monetary footings in the last four years. None has any experience with this sort of thing – it’s never been done before. All admit that they really don’t know what they’re doing.
‘There’s a lot we just don’t know,’ says former Fed man, Donald Kuhn.
And yet, they plunge on…forward…confident that the will figure it out as they go.
Hindery, Buffett, Soros, Bernanke… to say nothing of Nobel Prize winners Krugman and Stiglitz – they’re all such smart guys. What’s wrong with them? Are they so good at getting their names in the paper…or making money… or whatever it is that Mr. Hindery does…that they have no brainpower left for common sense?
Or, are their smarts the real source of the problem. They are capable of remembering, manipulating and connecting ideas…does this give them the confidence to want to manipulate the entire world and create a better one?
A strong man trusts brute force. A wily man thinks he will win by his cunning. A man with a silver tongue expects to seduce and persuade his listeners.
And the smart man? He thinks he can figure things out…and use his brain to create the kind of world he wants.
Why can’t he? Because no matter how smart you are… the world is far more complex and far more nuanced than you will ever understand. Trying to control it always leads to disaster.
Exactly 2 years ago a group of singers assembled at a shopping mall in Southern California to delight everyone present with an incredibly special performance:
Easier money hasn’t led to more growth, so we need still easier money.
Wall Street Journal
Four years ago this month the Federal Reserve began its epic program of monetary easing to rescue an economy in recession. On Wednesday, Chairman Ben Bernanke declared that this has worked so well that the Fed must keep easing money for as long as anyone can predict in order to save a still-sputtering recovery.
That’s the contradiction at the heart of the Fed’s latest foray into “unconventional policy,” which is a euphemism for finding new ways to print money: The economy needs more monetary stimulus because it is still too weak despite four years of previous and historic amounts of monetary stimulus. In the words of the immortal “Saturday Night Live” skit: We need “more cowbell.”
The Fed committed Wednesday to purchase an additional $45 billion in long-term Treasury securities each month well into 2013, in addition to the $40 billion in mortgage assets it is already buying each month. At $85 billion a month, the Fed’s balance sheet will thus keep growing from its current $2.9 trillion, heading toward $4 trillion by the end of the year. Four years ago it was less than $1 trillion.
The Fed’s goal is to push down long-term interest rates even lower than they are, to the extent that’s possible when the 10-year Treasury note is trading at 1.7%. The theory goes that this will in turn reduce already very low mortgage rates, which will help spur a housing recovery, which will lead the economy out of its despond. This has also been the theory for the last four years.
In case there was any doubt about its resolve, the Fed statement also issued a new implicit annual inflation target: 2.5%. The official target is still 2%. But the Open Market Committee stated that it will keep interest rates near zero, and by implication keep buying bonds, as long as the jobless rate stays above 6.5% and inflation stays “no more than a half-percentage point above the Committee’s 2-percent longer-run goal.”
That is a 2.5% inflation target by any other name, and it’s striking to see a central bank in the post-Paul Volcker era say overtly that it wants more inflation. This is a victory for the Fed’s dovish William Dudley-Janet Yellen faction that echoes economists who think we have to inflate our way out of the debt crisis. Inflation remains quiescent, but central banks that ask for more inflation invariably get it.
These new overt economic targets are part of Mr. Bernanke’s campaign for more “transparency” in monetary policy, but they also have the effect of exposing how much the Fed has misjudged the economy. In January 2012, the Board of Governors and regional bank presidents predicted growth this year in the range of 2.2%-2.7%. On Wednesday, they predicted growth of 1.7%-1.8%, which means they are expecting a downbeat fourth quarter.
The Fed’s near-zero interest rate policy will continue to disguise the real cost of government borrowing. One reason the Obama Administration can keep running trillion-dollar deficits is because it can borrow the money at bargain rates. Stanford economist and Journal contributor John Taylor says the Fed has bought more than 70% of new Treasury debt issuance this year.
All of this will create a fiscal cliff of its own when interest rates start to rise. The Congressional Budget Office says that every 100 basis-point increase in interest rates adds about $100 billion a year to government borrowing costs. Pity the President and Congress who have to refinance $15 trillion in debt at 6%. If Mr. Bernanke really wants to drive the President and Congress to reduce future spending, he shouldn’t keep bailing them out with easier money.
The overarching illusion is that ever-easier monetary policy can return the U.S. economy to a durable expansion and broad-based prosperity. The bill for unbridled government spending stimulus is already coming due. Sooner or later the bill for open-ended monetary stimulus will arrive too.
Is it too early to start planning your vacation for next year? Nooooo waaaay!
Take a look at our top ten list for places to visit in 2012. We factor in value, quality, timeliness, and overall excellence. In no particular order, here are our early tips for best vacation destinations in twenty twelve.
European Vacation Tips and Ideas– Keep your eye on the debt crisis. In 2011 there were great deals in Greece. Where’s next? Ireland? Spain? We recommend…
England – All eyes will be focused on England for London’s 2012 Olympic Games. While it may be a pricier choice, it’ll be as exciting as can be. London remains one of the great cities of the world for fashion, culture, finance, and red doubledecker buses. For the sports minded traveler, beware that the 2012-2013 Premier League will be delayed by a week so there will be no overlap between the Olympics and the Premier League. Sorry sporties.

Italy – Scientists no longer argue about whether the water in Venice is rising. Unfortunately there is no consensus as to how fast it is rising. Though this classic destination is sinking, you can still enjoy its incredible cultural, culinary, and architectural delights. Visit Venice in all its glory in 2012, before it becomes a modern Atlantis.
Turkey – No longer an up and coming destination, Turkey has arrived big time. Istanbul is a fascinating world city where, despite the clichés, east truly does meet west here. With getaway offers on the Black, Aegean, and Mediterranean Seas, Turkey has great romantic and family vacation possibilities.
Estonia – Now a fully fledged member of the European Union, Estonia is coming into itts own as a tourist hotspot. Cheaper then Poland and Russia, but with plenty of charm, visit Estonia soon, before the secret is out.
Asian Vacation Tips and Ideas – There are plenty of great deals and destinations for Asia in 2012.

Japan – Nobody is better at making a disaster recovery than Japan. They did it after fires destroyed Tokyo, after WW2 leveled entire cities, and they are bound to do it again. Support the rebound from 2011’s devastating earthquake and tsunami, and enjoy some of their cheapest prices in years.
Vietnam – This Southeast Asian country is developing at breakneck speeds. The government is pouring nearly 2.3 billion USD into dozens of tourist-centic projects. The former capital Hue is the focus for 2012, as the Vietnamese government is running a campaign called, “”Hue ancient capital city, new experiences.” Catchy, isn’t it?
Thailand – Since democracy came undone in Thailand’s 2006 military coup, there have been questions about Thailand’s stability. After the latest in fresh elections, which thus far have been accepted, Thailand has regained its footing in the world of tourism. Also, for a variety of medical tourism treatments, with a speciality in gender reassignment, Thailand is the place to be.
Burma/Myanmar – Visiting this lost SE Asian gem has never been easier. As democracy icon Aung Sung Suu Kye recently changed her stance on tourism, you can now go relatively guilt free. Burma’s highlights? Yangon’s colonial charm, Inle Lake’s authenticity, and Bagan’s magical temples.
Vacation Tips and Ideas for the Americas and Africa – We’re not shutting our minds to trips to Hawaii, the Caribbean, or Brazil. But we think these are the best destinations for the upcoming year.
Mexico – There is a hullabaloo all over the internet regarding the Mayan calander’s predictions for 2012. Will anything dramatic happen on the 21st December 2012? Who knows. Either way, it is timely to visit Chichen Itza and perhaps the Mayans will whisper their secrets to you! Either way, you get to visit one of the great sites of the ancient world.

Tanzania – Have you been to Africa? This might be the year to go. Northern Africa might not be the best choice, as the revolutions of 2011’s Arab Spring have yet to blossom unto properly functioning governments. Also, Mount Kilimanjari – Africa’s highest peek and a major tourist destination – is losing its iconic snow peak, get there before it’s all melted away!
Alaska – So nothing too special is happening in Alaska, but the landscape is changing so dramatically it is best to get here now before it is all over. Development, pipelines, mining, and drilling are changing the landscape dramatically in America’s largest state. With glaciers receding and natural salmon runs getting spoiled, photos from a 2012 trip to Alaska may put your grandchildren in awe.