Romney

[Coito ergo sum]

I wouldn't deign to tell you about New Zealand based on a perusal of some statistics massaged to my taste coupled with a few visits of admittedly limited scope. It would be nice to see the courtesy returned.

Feel free.
You think I am rough on America?
You wanna see me let go when I get to commenting on the NZ government!

Really? Where are those threads?

Part of the problem is that the bashing of the US is incessant and unrelenting, and often undeserved. It has created a culture of a perceived superiority of places like Europe and Aussie/NZ areas that is also undeserved. We have problems in the US for sure, and nobody denies that, but so does Europe and Aussie/NZ. And, there seems to be a default presumption that the way you folks do things is always better. Not just different and just as good - better - always better.

Statistics show the US has a higher rate of homicides -- they must be rock solid, and correct, right? You're shown statistics that the US is FAR less violent than various countries. The statistics must be non-representative or faulty in some way. Can you at least see how that comes across?

[Coito ergo sum]

I can simplify the economics: Romney will cut taxes, attempt to cut down gubment and add to our debt. Unemployement will stay the same.

I think Romney has a pretty good chance of cutting back on government spending, given his record in Massachusetts. This is an area where his business background would actually be useful, because he'd be better than a politician at identifying areas where money could be used more efficiently.

Getting back on the topic of R-money, I think his business experience would further hurt the U.S. economy where jobs are concerned. Remember, he with his Bain Capital buddies bought businesses, invested other people's money, closed the shops down and put workers out of a job, profited on those investments without losing a dime of his own money, and that's how he made his fortune. Smart yes, but bad for government!

With Bain, the efforts at restructuring corporations ultimately created more jobs than they did away with.

What needs to be remembered is that the tail can't be made to wag the dog. We want there to be near full employment, sure, but that can't come at the expense of economic efficiency. Businesses, to keep operating successfully, have run at least at a break even point. Businesses that lose money simply can't survive without a transfusion of cash from outside. That's like a body that loses blood. If you don't give it new blood, then it will eventually die.

So, we can't run the government with the sole focus on what, in the short term, keeps people doing jobs. We have to have a healthy, vibrant, productive economy, and it is from that kind of economy that long-lasting, high paying jobs come. Forcing companies, or paying companies, to keep workers that they don't need is pointless and self-defeating.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Statistics show the US has a higher rate of homicides -- they must be rock solid, and correct, right? You're shown statistics that the US is FAR less violent than various countries. The statistics must be non-representative or faulty in some way. Can you at least see how that comes across?

dingdingdingding

[rab]

We want there to be near full employment, sure, but that can't come at the expense of economic efficiency. Businesses, to keep operating successfully, have run at least at a break even point. Businesses that lose money simply can't survive without a transfusion of cash from outside. That's like a body that loses blood. If you don't give it new blood, then it will eventually die.

So, we can't run the government with the sole focus on what, in the short term, keeps people doing jobs. We have to have a healthy, vibrant, productive economy, and it is from that kind of economy that long-lasting, high paying jobs come. Forcing companies, or paying companies, to keep workers that they don't need is pointless and self-defeating.

To keep the government running, we need tax revenue, which is the government's "blood." Republicans like Romney want to cut taxes. You mention long-lasting, high paying jobs. Well, tell that to the republicans that want to eliminate the minimum wage and allow companies to pay whatever. This is why having a business minded person in charge in government is a very bad idea. Government is not a capitalist venture.

[Warren Dew]

What needs to be remembered is that the tail can't be made to wag the dog. We want there to be near full employment, sure, but that can't come at the expense of economic efficiency.

Sure we can. Just keep increasing taxes and have the government hire all the unemployed until all private businesses are driven out of business and private employment disappears. Then everyone starves.

North Korea has shown the way. It's a workers' paradise, and don't you forget it, you capitalist running dog!

[Blind groper]

hectoring someone else about their native land isn't really polite, especially when your own knowledge is so sketchy. Sorry to put it so plainly, but it didn't seem to be landing, my point.

Thumpa

I make no apologies.

It has been said that anyone entering politics lays him/herself open to public criticism, by the nature of the job, and by virtue of the fact that they intend to interfere in everyone else's lives. As a result, they should not complain if everyone else criticises them.

On the world stage, the United States is that person. Since World War II, the administration of the US has shamelessly interfered in the national sovereignty of many other countries, even to the extend of military invasion. Like the would-be politician, America has laid itself wide open to international criticism, and should not complain when that criticism arrives. If American hates that, then America should stay out of other countries business.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpa

I make no apologies.

It has been said that anyone entering politics lays him/herself open to public criticism, by the nature of the job, and by virtue of the fact that they intend to interfere in everyone else's lives. As a result, they should not complain if everyone else criticises them.

On the world stage, the United States is that person. Since World War II, the administration of the US has shamelessly interfered in the national sovereignty of many other countries, even to the extend of military invasion. Like the would-be politician, America has laid itself wide open to international criticism, and should not complain when that criticism arrives. If American hates that, then America should stay out of other countries business.

Wait, why are you conflating foreign policy with domestic crime? There's much about our foreign policy I deprecate myself.

I don't see the bearing your dislike of our foreign policy has on this discussion of ours about relative rates of violent crime.

From where I stand, you look like someone afraid to question your own assumptions about a country you have admitted you only know from a few guided visits, and what is clearly selective reading -- to the point of pretending that you have more insight than a native who has lived here 39 years.

Your opinion is weighted accordingly. If you don't like that, that's not my problem.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

Feel free to express your opinion. I do not mind.

Let me put it another way.
If a person tries to attain a position of leadership in society, he or she becomes a target. Subject to criticism.
The United States has set out to be a 'world leader'. Sometimes doing well, and sometimes stuffing things up so badly that the world would be a lot better off without this so-called 'leadership'.

In striving to attain this leadership position, the US becomes subject to criticism. I do not hesitate to supply that. If you, or others in the US, do not enjoy that criticism, then tell your leaders to pull their heads in. Criticism comes to everyone who tries to set themselves up as leaders.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're missing my point. I don't mind criticism of my country; as an informed citizen, I practice it myself.

My point is that criticism ought to be informed by facts, rather than preconceived notions.

Your having an opinion is fine. I just regard it as selectively informed, based on your own admissions coupled with your behavior in this thread. I personally don't care whether or not you like America or any other country; but when you bruit about uninformed opinion disguised as fact in the face of countervailing evidence, you cannot complain when you're pulled up by the short hairs.

Well, you can, but you look silly doing so. Just sayin'.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

I do not mind being told I am wrong.
So tell me. But be specific. Exactly what was incorrect?

[Warren Dew]

So tell me. But be specific. Exactly what was incorrect?

Statistics were presented showing that New Zealand had a higher violent crime rate than the U.S. You claimed this was because of categorization differences, but you had no data to back that up.

I looked up rape, by the way, and New Zealand has a higher rate than the U.S., though not by a factor of two.

[Blind groper]

You claimed this was because of categorization differences, but you had no data to back that up.

.

Nope.
I made no such claim.
I accept the high violent crime rates in NZ. I gave an explanation, related to the ethnic composition of the population. I do not know any way to change that for the better, apart from a long, slow process of education that will probably take generations. Perhaps you know a better way?

However, the US has a massive homicide rate. A very big part of the reason is clear, as is the solution, given political will. You can determine the reason easily by knowing that :
1. More than half those homicides were carried out with easily concealed hand guns.
2. Such hand guns are readily available in the US.

I think the solution to that problem is pretty clear, but it is also clear that neither the US government or more than a few of the US people are prepared to take the necessary action. Which means that 8,000 people each year are murdered in the US , making 8,000 unnecessary deaths.

[Warren Dew]

You claimed this was because of categorization differences, but you had no data to back that up.

.

Nope.
I made no such claim.
I accept the high violent crime rates in NZ. I gave an explanation, related to the ethnic composition of the population. I do not know any way to change that for the better, apart from a long, slow process of education that will probably take generations. Perhaps you know a better way?

However, the US has a massive homicide rate. A very big part of the reason is clear, as is the solution, given political will. You can determine the reason easily by knowing that :
1. More than half those homicides were carried out with easily concealed hand guns.
2. Such hand guns are readily available in the US.

I think the solution to that problem is pretty clear, but it is also clear that neither the US government or more than a few of the US people are prepared to take the necessary action. Which means that 8,000 people each year are murdered in the US , making 8,000 unnecessary deaths.

I think the way you should read that situation is that "the U.S. is willing to accept a few thousand more homicides in order to reduce overall violent crime by a million or more".

You have an easy solution too. Pass a "shall issue" concealed firearm license law, and your violent crime rate will fall.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpa

I do not mind being told I am wrong.
So tell me. But be specific. Exactly what was incorrect?

I've already told you, here, here, here, here, and here. That's obviously an awful lot to retype, and I'm not going to do so.

Asking for a repetition is a good sign of the querent not paying attention. I'll rejoin this discussion when I get confirmation that you have read and understood the points I've made above. Until then, you have a nice evening.

[Blind groper]

I think the way you should read that situation is that "the U.S. is willing to accept a few thousand more homicides in order to reduce overall violent crime by a million or more".

Warren

You have easy access to concealable forearms. The result is an enormous number of crimes committed using those firearms. This includes such things as armed hold ups. And other problems. For example : America has a high rate of husbands killing wives. Guess what is mostly used in such killings? There is an illusion among Americans that the solution to crime is to get a gun. Wrong. The gun is the problem, not the solution.

Every year in the USA, about 100,000 people are killed or wounded by a bullet. This is massive! And it does not decrease violent crime. It simply increases the number of victims.

Gun related statistics in America are dreadful. http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/ ... istics.asp
In NZ, violent crime mostly involves things like fists. In extreme cases - a knife. In the USA, it is guns, which is much, much worse.