Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1603.4 | 11.1 | 0.70% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2736.0 | 17.1 | 0.63% |
| Oil (WTI) | 95.21 | 1.2 | 1.30% |
| LIBOR | 0.275 | 0.002 | 0.73% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.43 | 0.204 | 0.25% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.70% | 0.07% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 106 | -0.5 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 104.2 | -0.3 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 193.8 | 0.5 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 3.42 |
Markets are higher this morning after a better-than-expected jobs report. Bonds and MBS got whacked on the number.
Payrolls increased by 165,000 in April and the unemployment rate fell to 7.5%. March was revised upward from 88k to 138k. The labor force participation rate remained at 63.3%, the lowest since the 70s. Retail and business services added jobs, while construction was surprisingly flat. The average workweek fell, while average hourly earnings ticked up by 4 cents.
The CBO has come out with a study saying that principal mods on Fannie and Freddie mortgages could save the taxpayer money by reducing delinquency and foreclosure costs and increasing economic growth. As far as the moral hazard issue – they dismiss the costs of moral hazard as “relatively low,” provided the government requires sufficient evidence of financial hardship. The study basically assumes that the government will thread the needle with drafting rules to prevent strategic defaults. The study reminds me of the old joke where an engineer and an economist are stranded on a desert island with an unopened can of soup. The engineer proposes to use a rock to open the can. The economist says “assume a can opener.”
Lloyd Blankfein sees the current environment as a parallel of 1994. Borrowers had become so used to low interest rates that they weren’t ready when the Fed started hiking rates. Old timers will remember that was when Orange County blew up as mortgage backed securities got clocked.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Under 200k a month sure sounds like the recovery is still sputtering rather than taking off.
LikeLike
“The CBO has come out with a study saying that principal mods on Fannie and Freddie mortgages could save the taxpayer money by reducing delinquency and foreclosure costs and increasing economic growth. As far as the moral hazard issue – they dismiss the costs of moral hazard as “relatively low,” provided the government requires sufficient evidence of financial hardship. The study basically assumes that the government will thread the needle with drafting rules to prevent strategic defaults. “
This is better than bankruptcy cramdown how?
Also, good Politico piece on Watts. Apparently he may be confirmed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obamas-week-of-poke-in-the-eye-picks-90873_Page2.html
Brings this to mind:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst. Are full of passionate intensity.”
LikeLike
“The study basically assumes that the government will thread the needle with drafting rules to prevent strategic defaults. “”
is that even possible?
LikeLike
This is hilarious.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/01/a-word-on-obamabot-ism.html
LikeLike
McWing:
This is hilarious.
Particularly idiotic was his reference to Gitmo. The Dems controlled both the House and the Senate in 2009 and 2010, and it was Obama’s own party – along with reality, of course – which de-railed his promise to close Gitmo down.
May 19, 2010: The House Armed Services Committee, controlled by members of the president’s own Democratic party, absolutely prohibits any opening of a Guantanamo detention replacement facility within these United States. To underline its ban, the powerful committee erupts in an unusual display of bipartisanship: The prohibition vote is unanimous.
But naturally it was the R’s, operating in bad faith, which prevented O from implementing his policy. I’m not at all sure why anyone would take Tomasky seriously.
LikeLike
This is actually pretty funny:
“#ObamaDrink: McConnell Fans Photograph Themselves Drinking With A Ghost
Sahil Kapur May 2, 2013, 6:14 PM ”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/mcconnell-obamadrink-tumblr.php
LikeLike
Well, he is a propagandist and, as usual, the all powerful media neutral story line is that whoever the current Republicans are, they’re the Most Extreme Right-Wing Freaks Ever.
LikeLike
Another good one from Ms. McArdle in regards to the Oregon Medicaid study.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/03/how-the-oregon-study-should-change-our-thinking.html
LikeLike
McWing:
Good link.
It is indicative of both the arrogance and the general awfulness of this president that his plan to “fix” the healthcare system effectively makes illegal precisely the kind of health insurance that is effective, relatively cheap and is actually insurance.
LikeLike
As either NoVa or J wrote, it’s about control, not health, healthcare or even altruism, but about control and the desire to dictate to someone how the will live and ultimately how they will die. The need for that kind of power escapes me, though I know it’s incredibly prevelant.
LikeLike
Hmmmmmm, you mean treat health insurance like, er, insurance?
LikeLike
McWing:
Hmmmmmm, you mean treat health insurance like, er, insurance?
A revolutionary idea, to be sure. One really needs to think outside the box to have come up with this one. Little wonder no one thought of it before the disaster that is ACA was passed. Oh, wait….
LikeLike
I wrote about this anecdotally last year, but the WSJ today confirms what I discovered…most people don’t pay anything close to the advertised sticker price for college tuition.
Private U.S. colleges, worried they could be pricing themselves out of the market after years of relentless tuition increases, are offering record financial assistance to keep classrooms full.
The average “tuition discount rate”—the reduction off list price afforded by grants and scholarships given by these schools—hit an all-time high of 45% last fall for incoming freshmen, according to a survey being released Monday by the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
“It’s a buyer’s market” for all but the most select private colleges and flagship public universities, said Jim Scannell, president of Scannell & Kurz, a consulting firm in Pittsford, N.Y., that works with colleges on pricing and financial-aid strategies.
As I pointed out last year, the vast majority of the discounted amount comes in the form of “needs based” grants and scholarships, which means that, more than any other area of American life, university academia has come closest to actually implementing Marx’s ideal.
LikeLike
I wrote about this anecdotally last year, but the WSJ today confirms what I discovered…most people don’t pay anything close to the advertised sticker price for college tuition.
This is only really true in the private school market. At public schools, unless you qualify for need-based aid, you are going to pay full retail. It is still a good reason to wait until the financial aid offers come in before making a final decision.
LikeLike
yello:
This is only really true in the private school market.
The WSJ article is specific about the stats being for private schools.
At public schools, unless you qualify for need-based aid, you are going to pay full retail.
The same is true for private schools. That was my point….the vast majority of aid money is “needs based”.
And of course “full retail” at public schools is already drastically lower, at least for in-state applicants. For example, at William & Mary (the one public school I’ve become quite familiar with) the in-state tuition is already only 54% of what out-of-state tuition is.
The WSJ article also point out this:
A Berkeley spokeswoman said 40% of undergraduates pay no tuition because of grants and scholarships, while 65% get at least some financial aid.
Berkeley is, of course, a public school.
LikeLike
I don’t understand this from President Obama:
“In Washington – well, this is a joyous occasion, so let me put it charitably: I think it’s fair to say our democracy isn’t working as well as we know it can.”
Is there massive voter fraud going on that is somehow interfering with the legitimacy of elections?
Surely he’s not talking about the outcomes of the democratically held elections. That would mean that his problem is the electorate itself, no?
If the electoral process is working, and assuming he’d point to his own recent electoral success as proof of that, what exactly is not working that could reasonably be defined as “democracy”?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/05/obama-laments-entrenched-power-at-ohio-state-commencement-163262.html
LikeLike
The WSJ article is specific about the stats being for private schools.
It’s behind the paywall so I missed that part in your initial quote. Top Ivies claim to give no non-need-based financial assistance but nearly all mid-tier private schools give pretty easily ‘won’ scholarships. The private liberal arts school my son got accepted to gave him $10k a year for going to an interview. It still didn’t close the cost gap to the out-of-state state school he ended up going to.
A Berkeley spokeswoman said 40% of undergraduates pay no tuition because of grants and scholarships, while 65% get at least some financial aid.
By arithmetic, this means 35% are paying full-boat. Even that number is probably low since most places also count loans as being financial aid when really it’s just a deferred payment plan (with well-above market interest rates).
LikeLike
yello:
By arithmetic, this means 35% are paying full-boat. Even that number is probably low since most places also count loans as being financial aid when really it’s just a deferred payment plan (with well-above market interest rates).
“Full boat” at Berkeley for in-state residents is less than $7,500 per semester. That is dirt cheap.
LikeLike
That is dirt cheap. Really?
It may be a bargain in the market [I think it is, anyway], and it may be easily affordable for most of us here, but it is not by any stretch dirt cheap. Beans and rice are dirt cheap.
Berkeley is not the residence of most CA parents, and it is only in commuting distance of about 5% of the state. So add in room, board, books, and nominal living expenses and I suspect you are easily topping $33K per year. That is beyond what a student can earn. It is almost one half of the median gross family income in CA. It is not dirt cheap.
It would be foolish to leave U/G school with substantial indebtedness, too.
This is a box that did not exist when I was graduated from HS. Yale tuition was $2300/year and I was offered a $400 schollie and a $600 job. I took the full ride at Rice instead.
I have seen the budget at UT and I think what we traditionally think of college education does cost quite a bit to deliver – much more than it did fifty years ago, or forty years ago, or twenty years ago.
What do we do when the cost of what we think is both the education of the individual and the training to the economy at large costs more than the individuals can bear? From the POV of the economy, we let local voices determine local needs and encourage them to build their community college systems. If businesses need more engineers or accountants or finance pros, or geologists or biochemists, they can put up scholarship money. If a state wants to subsidize an influx of talent, it can dangle scholarships and low tuition at its state colleges.
I have to wonder how we got so deep into federal grants and loans for undergraduates. I understand farming out research to existing institutions using cheap grad student grunt lab work, but I cannot figure the federal interest in undergraduates, except at the Service Academies, and in ROTC and public health nursing.
How did that [FAFSA] history come about?
LikeLike
Mark:
So add in room, board, books, and nominal living expenses and I suspect you are easily topping $25K per year.
That is a fair point. The number I highlighted does not include room/board which basically doubles the annual cost. Still, we are talking about half of the sticker price at a comparable private school.
I have to wonder how we got so deep into federal grants and loans for undergraduates.
The rise of progressive politics, which routinely seeks to push decision making (and wealth redistribution) to the highest possible level.
LikeLike
Worth a read:
“This accounting tweak by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will mean $60 billion for the U.S. government
Posted by Steven Pearlstein on May 4, 2013 at 12:39 pm”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/04/this-accounting-tweak-by-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-will-mean-60-billion-for-the-u-s-government/
Also worth a read:
“How the oil and gas boom will change America: An interview with Michael Levi
Posted by Brad Plumer on May 5, 2013 at 9:00 am”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/05/how-the-oil-and-gas-boom-will-change-america-an-interview-with-michael-levi/
LikeLike
Ahhhh,
Sweet, sweet carbon. The miracle atom of the modern age.
LikeLike
My understanding is that colleges are making their scratch from foreign students.
LikeLike
@McWing: From the Obamabot:
“It is a radical oppositionalist faction, way beyond the normal American parameters both in terms of ideology and tactics”
If this were an accurate description of the Republican party, no matter how I or anyone feels about their ideology and tactics, the problem would, by definition, be wrapped up in one election. They would not keep winning elections. The same could be said about the Democrat’s ideology and tactics: no matter how one feels about them, if they were way beyond the normal American parameters in terms of any importance to the American electorate, they would never win.
I think he’s confusing what he thinks ought to be normal parameters with what actually are.
LikeLike
Kevin,
What’s funny is the media’s absolute acceptance of it. That’s effective propaganda.
LikeLike
George and Kevin, I have a thought.
Long after the Ds jumped the shark in ’72 by becoming the pacifist party that wanted to give every American $1000, it remained a congressional party. While Rs had a growing advantage at the Presidential level, Ds controlled the HoR until ’94.
I think the reverse is happening now and Ds will have a presidential advantage while Rs remain in control of the HoR.
In each case, the press thought the presidential advantage represented the mood of the people. In part because presidential nominees talk as if they are being elected to be King [“I” will do this; “I” will do that] the press and the public credit and blame the POTUS for everything of national significance, and the press buys the notion that the Congress is missing the boat.
Now, who is missing the boat is up for grabs, but in my life it was always the Congress controlled in opposition to the POTUS, according to the press.
LikeLike
I read about this one over the weekend and thought it was interesting: Niall Ferguson is apparently in trouble for suggesting that Keynes’ homosexuality may be responsible for his, er, short-term economic focus. Jonah Goldberg points out that Ferguson’s theory is hardly a new one, and certainly not one that has generated the kind of controversy it does now in these particularly sensitive times.
LikeLike
I don’t see the current GOP majority in Congress being anywhere as entrenched as the Democratic one in the 1960’s – 1994.
Also, worth a read:
“‘Act of Congress’: How Barney Frank foiled the banking lobby to form a new financial watchdog.
By Robert G. Kaiser, Published: May 5”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/act-of-congress-how-barney-frank-foiled-the-banking-lobby-to-form-a-new-financial-watchdog/2013/05/05/94d93ed2-b0eb-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?hpid=z3
LikeLike
jnc:
Interesting line from the link:
I think at the end of the day we can work a deal that pretty much gets our banks out from under the CFPA rock, but hangs the megabanks out there. . .
Yet another federal regulation designed with the intent to benefit certain market players at the expense of others.
LikeLike
I don’t see the current GOP majority in Congress being anywhere as entrenched as the Democratic one in the 1960′s – 1994.
Agreed.
That wasn’t the thrust of my observation.
LikeLike
I’m an Open Borders/ Instant Citizenship advocate so I don’t really care, so, is it moral to denude other countries of skilled labor (MD’s, Nurses, Engineers) from other countries, especially 3rd world? I say yes, but what do others think?
LikeLike
I agree that we should be open to talent and skills we need rather than to extended family reunions.
The Brits got all the cheap doctors, I think. Aren’t we getting all the Filipina nurses now?
i’ve seen you write you were for open borders before. If you are serious, WHY?
LikeLike
McWing:
I say yes, but what do others think?
I think it is perfectly fine. In fact I think legislation/policy designed to inhibit or prevent the movement of skilled labor from one country to another, based on the type of skill, is what is immoral.
As an aside, I briefly wrote about precisely this topic many years ago on my old blog after the British Medical Association called on developed nations to stop “poaching” medical workers from African countries.
LikeLike
Mark, immigration has always been a huge economic boon to this country. There has never been a time when it has not been. In fact, part of the Great Depression was a result of, I beleive, the very strict immigration controls put in place in the ’20’s.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ImmigrationAct
Right now, we desperately need the economic boon.
LikeLike
Mark, immigration has always been a huge economic boon to this country.
I agree with that.
But I do not agree with open immigration. Sure, the quota should be higher than it is, and maybe it should even be flexible for recruiting purposes. And yes, people with skill, talent, and drive should be welcome. But open immigration is a concept that I cannot buy, because of the unlimited number of applicants for our limited resources, and because I would want people who could honestly dedicate themselves to constitutional government. So I would want us to filter applicants in a meaningful way.
There is the possibility within NAFTA of having a labor accord. Assuming MX, CA, and the US guaranteed the same labor standards, adjusted for CPI, what would you think of a labor accord that made it pretty easy to move among the three countries for work? I haven’t given it enough thought to have an opinion yet, so I am soliciting your thoughts without preconception. Would all have to agree to MX [or CA] standards or would all have to agree to ours? What about free movement without agreed standards?
LikeLike
Scott, LOVED the 1st comment on your post!
LikeLike
McWing:
Scott, LOVED the 1st comment on your post!
I had some good commenters. But you are suppose to love the post!
LikeLike
Heh.
http://minx.cc/?post=339727
Fair question?
LikeLike
I would have thought Ayers would known better than to spout off comments like this. He’s only alive because he pulled his stunts in the 1960’s and 1970’s and beat the rap due to evidence concerns that would be disregarded today.
Speaking of the 1970’s, here’s Hunter S. Thompson on the Kentucky Derby.
“The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved”
By Hunter S. Thompson
From Scanlan’s, June 1970
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7887639/looking-back-hunter-s-thompson-classic-story-kentucky-derby
The full Ayers write up is worth reading as well:
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/bill-ayers-defends-weather-underground-bombings-1.395109?localLinksEnabled=false
LikeLike
Ayers is using the ends to justify the means. Never a winning argument with me.
Scott,
Nice blog and an interesting perspective.
LikeLike
Yello….Thanks.
LikeLike
I think Ayers actually believes his own bullshit.
LikeLike
I knew Dorhn. Most frightening person I have ever known.
LikeLike
Ayers is a believer in genocide.
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/08/ayers-murderous-intent.html?m=1
Thank God he now devotes his time to Education, where he can’t hurt any one ore spread his murderous ideas.
LikeLike
Joint Committee on Taxation report on possibilities for tax reform
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4517
link will auto-download a PDF
LikeLike
am I missing a link the scotts blog? not seeing it. little help?
LikeLike
nova…try this for the specific post: http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/06/clueless-doctors.html
and this for the generic blog: http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Thanks scott. good stuff there
LikeLike
Thanks, nova.
Hey yello…you may be particularly interested in this blast from the past.
LikeLike
Mark, until the ’20’s there was open borders and pretty quick citizenship. All were competing for limited resources. We didn’t run out because resources expand, they are not a zero sum game, much like we are discovering w/hydrocarbons. Can you cite an example from our history prior to the ’20’s where open, unrestricted immigration was harmful?
LikeLike
Open borders actually stopped by 1880, but the deal then was to basically stop Chinese immigration rather than cap total immigration. I do think that the wait to become a citizen was actually much longer in the early days – 14 years.
So hardly anyone came here until the famines in Ireland and Germany in the mid 19th Century. From 1890 til WW1 we had maybe a million come each year.
Those were the big years.
Then the stupid shut down of immigration in the early 20s came and lasted until after WW2. We stopped excluding Chinese after WW2. But we kept a strict cap, and we set quotas based on the national origins of the 1920 census, until the mid 60s.
I don’t think open immigration has ever been tested, really. But low caps and national quotas have, and I agree those are counter-productive.
LikeLike
Mark:
I wonder why you think we would need equalized labor laws in order to open up immigration between, say, the US and Mexico. I understand the argument for equalized labor laws in order to have a free trade agreement, but I am not sure why we would want to ensure that Mexico has the same labor laws as us in order to allow Mexican labor to work here.
LikeLike
need equalized labor laws
I don’t necessarily think that. I posed it as an analog to what I think the EU did. If it is part of NAFTA, my thought was we and CA would want protections for our folks in MX if they went to work there, which would lead to some blanket rule. If it were just a side deal between the USA and CA it probably would not come up. Dealing with a second world country as if it were a first world country takes creativity.
From the MX POV, no = rules might let every smart and talented person in MX just move north. Giant sucking sound in reverse. So it might be good for US and CA. Is that what you were thinking?
One of my building contractor clients has two green carded construction supervisors. Both are from the Guanajuato area. Both speak good English; one speaks perfectly and has blue eyes and is 6′ tall. But both maintain family farms in the mountains west of MX City, and take extended LOAs. they are middle class nearly wealthy in MX and well paid working class here. They remind me of the Italian immigrants of 1910 – who traveled back and forth, maintaining two domiciles. Except it is just a long drive from Austin to Guanajauato, or a safer short flight.
LikeLike
Mark:
Is that what you were thinking?
Yes, exactly. For the same reason that employers might want to leave, i presume workers will want to come. Which would be a food thing.
LikeLike
Kirsten Powers urges her fellow liberals to come clean on late term abortions:
I’ll put my cards on the table: I think life begins at conception and would love to live in a world where no women ever felt she needed to get an abortion. However, I know enough people who are pro-abortion rights—indeed, I was one of them for most of my life—to know that reasonable and sincere people can disagree about when meaningful life begins. They also can disagree about how to weigh that moral uncertainty against a woman’s right to control her body—and her own life. I have only ever voted for Democrats, so overturning Roe v. Wade is not one of my priorities. I never want to return to the days of gruesome back-alley abortions.
But medical advances since Roe v. Wade have made it clear to me that late-term abortion is not a moral gray area, and we need to stop pretending it is. No six-months-pregnant woman is picking out names for her “fetus.” It’s a baby. Let’s stop playing Orwellian word games. We are talking about human beings here.
How is this OK? Even liberal Europe gets this. In France, Germany, Italy, and Norway, abortion is illegal after 12 weeks. In addition to the life-of-mother exception, they provide narrow health exceptions that require approval from multiple doctors or in some cases going before a board. In the U.S., if you suggest such stringent regulation and oversight of later-term abortions, you are tarred within seconds by the abortion rights movement as a misogynist who doesn’t “trust women.”
Speaking as a liberal who endorses more government regulation of practically everything—banks, water, air, food, oil drilling, animal safety—I am eternally perplexed by the fury the abortion rights contingent displays at the suggestion that the government might have a serious role to play in the issue of abortion, especially later-term abortion. More and more, the abortion rights community has become the NRA of the left: unleashing their armies of supporters and lobbyists in opposition to regulations or restrictions that the majority of Americans support. In the same way the NRA believes background checks will lead to the government busting down your door to confiscate your guns, the abortion rights movement conjures a straight line from parental consent to a complete ban on abortion.
Is Powers waging a War on Women?
BTW, the primary problem with Powers’ comparison between the abortion rights movement and the NRA is that the NRA is acting to protect a right that can actually be found in the constitution.
LikeLike
What’s interesting is the dynamic. I look at any new weapons regulations as another step in the drive to confiscate. I suspect most of those who are resistant to modifying current abortion law feels that doing so is another step in the drive to outlaw all abortion.
LikeLike
What’s interesting is the dynamic.
That is and interesting parallel. While I concur that some gun control advocates want to ban all guns most people would be happy at far less a bar. Assault weapon (whatever that is) ban, better background checks, clip restrictions. Pro-life forces are far more absolutist. There is no such thing as having a little abortion just like you can’t be just a little pregnant. They may maneuver incrementally but the goal is uncompromising.
LikeLike
btw, going to be at a conference the next couple days so no mr until thursday.. you might want to start an open thread or something…
LikeLike
yello:
While I concur that some gun control advocates want to ban all guns most people would be happy at far less a bar.
I really doubt that is true. Popular support for gun control is driven by a desire to reduce gun related crimes and deaths, but regulations short of outright bans will only have small effects at the margins, if at all. This latest failed attempt at more regulation originated in outrage over Newtown, but in fact would have done absolutely nothing to stop it had it been in place. The only way to significantly reduce gun crimes and deaths using gun regulations is to ban all guns and gun manufacturing, and to have a serious go at confiscating the millions of weapons that are already in circulation.
I think there are two kinds of gun control supporters: those who already know this and pretend that they would be happy with less than an outright ban for political, strategic purposes, and those that are fooling themselves in believing that the latest less-than-a-full-ban will have any significant effect whatsoever and will become outright ban supporters once they realize the relative ineffectiveness of anything less.
BTW, with regard to the pro-life movement, I think you are probably correct about the core political constituency that drives the movement being absolutist. But most people in most states do not support an outright ban on all abortions, even as they do support a lot more restrictions than are currently allowed. If Roe is ever overturned, I think a handful of states will ban all abortions, but most will take the opportunity to put in place sensible regulations short of an outright ban.
LikeLike
Yello – While I concur that some gun control advocates want to ban all guns most people would be happy at far less a bar.
Scott – I really doubt that is true.
Me – Scott, you really need to stop assigning beliefs to those who disagree with you. Yello stated that most people would be happy at far less a bar. You really doubt that’s true. Current polling suggests close to 90% of the American public supports an expansion of checks before buying a gun. If I were to take your statement at face value (I don’t, I think you just like to argue), it would suggest that most people want ot ban all guns, including current gun owners.
We can take the other part of Yello’s sentence, regarding gun control advocates wanting to ban all guns. Care to provide a little evidence for this assertion?
ßß
LikeLike
FB:
Scott, you really need to stop assigning beliefs to those who disagree with you.
It was yello, not me who claimed to know what “most people” think. (I guess it is OK for some, but not me, to “assign beliefs” to people.) I simply disagreed with his assessment.
But to be more clear, my impression was that yellow was trying to downplay the threat that guns might ever actually be banned outright by suggesting that “most people” who currently support various gun control measures would not support an outright ban. I think he is wrong because I think supporters of current gun control measures short of a total ban can be broken out into 2 different kinds of people. First, there are those who actually do support a total ban, but don’t say so because they figure incrementalism is a better political strategy. Second, there are those who think, wrongly in my view, that new measures short of a total ban can actually be effective at significantly decreasing gun related crime and deaths. The first group clearly represents a threat to gun ownership, and I think the latter is a potential significant threat once they realize how ineffective measures short of a total ban are at achieving their goals. Hence I think it is a mistake to downplay the threat that the gun control movement represents to the 2nd amendment, and those who care about the 2nd amendment would do well to ignore attempts to reassure them that the gun control movement will not end with a total ban on guns.
LikeLike
Group 3: law enforcement generally and me specifically. Commercial sale registration and background checks, after a generation or so, will make most gun crimes easier to solve. We should have started this in the 60s when the FBI first pushed it.
Obviously some limitations on civilian firepower make sense from the perspective of law enforcement, like banning armor piercing rounds. I would be happy with just commercial sale registration and background checks, but I am sympathetic to law enforcement on the issue.
Personal sales must be exempted as a practical matter. Licensing or registering sales of boats, homes, planes, and cars from private sales is easy. Licensing private sales of personal property that can be concealed on the body? Same BS as trying to control for drugs without violating the 4th A.
George, I agree with Scott that there will be no near term homicide reduction effect noticeable from the gun control I advocate or from M-T. More guns could actually lead to less crime, provided that we had 30 years of background checks behind us, or at least I think so.
LikeLike
What if it turns out that more guns equals less violent crime?
LikeLike
Not being most people, I will speak for myself. I have no desire to ban hunting weapons such as rifles and shotguns. I would like to ban military style weapons, particularly those with large clips. To a lesser degree, I think ownership of handguns should be severely restricted or regulated.
Many gun control advocates cite Australia as the example where a total ban and confiscation worked to the extent that it severely reduced gun related homicides. However, nearly all mention of it in US press is almost always followed by the caveat that it could never happen here.
The very interesting point that Scott has made is that polarization on both abortion and gun control has made advocates take extreme positions to avoid slippery slope fears to the point of queasiness among genuine moderates. Late term abortions are defended even though I think many people (again I am going wishy washily vague here on how many constitute many) view using abortion as a front-line birth control method as irresponsible or immoral.
Support for a woman’s right to choose does play out on an continuum. There are people who would ban late term procedures like so-called partial birth abortions but would defend it for pregnancies occurring from rape or incest.
The same continuum exists on the gun control side. More extensive background checks seem to be very popular (at least in the main stream media accounts of the current news) while banning of certain styles of guns much less so.
Scott also points out, correctly I believe, that in the absence of Roe v. Wade, some states would ban abortion altogether and some would allow it just as currently some states highly restrict guns and others don’t. Indeed the many contingency abortion ban laws and the increasingly restrictive processes being put in place show this range of effort.
What is a more interesting phenomenon is the enthusiasm gap. The anti-gun control forces and the anti-abortion movement (of which there is some but not total overlap) seem to be more concentrated and stronger in opinion that the broader pro-choice or pro-gun restriction advocates.
The troublesome argument I see here is the attempt to equate minor gun control measures as being camel-nose attempts to ban all guns. It requires the belief that a significant portion of control advocates are arguing in bad faith. I’m not sure that can be assumed as Scott is doing. Contrariwise, anti-abortion groups make no bones about what their ultimate goal is and state that incremental ratcheting is one of their tactics towards it. It is an interesting case of projection.
And one real problem is that the views of the other side are almost always presented as a mix of stated goals as well as strawman policies posited by their opponents. There is a lot of demonization of both ‘gun grabbers’ and ‘baby killers’ out there, not all of it accurate or fair.
LikeLike
yello:
The anti-gun control forces and the anti-abortion movement (of which there is some but not total overlap) seem to be more concentrated and stronger in opinion that the broader pro-choice or pro-gun restriction advocates.
Why do you think so? The core pro-abortion constituency…PP, NARAL, even Mich right here at ATiM…seem to me at least as passionate and strong in opinion as is the core anti-abortion constituency.
The troublesome argument I see here is the attempt to equate minor gun control measures as being camel-nose attempts to ban all guns. It requires the belief that a significant portion of control advocates are arguing in bad faith. I’m not sure that can be assumed as Scott is doing.
I’m not at all sure why good faith should be assumed. I think it would be quite naive to believe that these kinds of movements, especially when they involve politicians, do not employ marketing strategies that involve downplaying aspects of their goals that are not politically advantageous. I’m happy to take you at your word when you say you do not want to ban guns. But a politician like, say, Obama? I’m not that stupid.
LikeLike
I agree with Scott that there will be no near term homicide reduction effect noticeable from the gun control I advocate or from M-T.
Not to mention that 60%+/- of gun deaths are suicides where a large magazine is irrelevant and the perpetrator is de facto mentally ill. The short term goal a I see it is to reduce the lethality of Giffords/Sandy Hook events by restricting magazine/clip size and to decrease the likelihood of future events by keeping weapons out of the hands of unstable individuals likely to engage in them.
LikeLike
What if it turns out that more guns equals less violent crime?
I’m not sure a causal link can be discerned there. I tend to relate the general lowering of crime rates over the past decade or two as a link to the aging of the population. Violent crime is a young person’s game.
LikeLike
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/07/two-new-studies-gun-crime-has-dropped-dramatically-over-last-20-years-and-most-americans-have-no-idea/
LikeLike
An arresting story.
http://tinyurl.com/cxvwnp4
LikeLike