# Abortion and Crime.



## hardheadjarhead (May 4, 2005)

In Steven Levitt's best selling "Freakonomics," he addresses a number of controversial social issues and uses economic theory and statistical analysis to look at these problems in a new light.

One of those issues is abortion.  Levitt claims that after using regression analysis, all the factors reputed to have caused the massive drop in crime in the last thirty years don't quite cut the mustard.  According to him the major contributing factor, and one never seriously considered before, is abortion.  Following Roe v. Wade in 1973 there was a significant drop in crime...his reasoning is that the number of children born into broken homes dropped, thereby dropping the numbers of children likely to grow up criminals.

He also cites other factors as contributing, (such as the drop in price of crack in the nineties that led to it being less profitable), but abortion, Levitt claims, is the one key reason.

FWIW, he isn't an apologist for the pro-choice movement.  In fact his stance on the issue isn't clear.  Described as an apolitical person, Levitt apparently looks at this issue objectively (or as nearly as possible).  The drop in crime, says Levitt, was an unexpected outcome of Roe v. Wade.

I read the book, and found it very interesting.  I saw Levitt on "The Daily Show" and was impressed...he's young, and very bright.  I e-mailed him and he was courteous enough to respond to me twice, as did his co-author, Steve Dubner.

Thoughts?

http://www.freakonomics.com/


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 4, 2005)

A review of the book:

Freakonomics: A Review

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.

Thank goodness Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt met. As the preface to the book explains, Levitt first met Dubner, a New York based writer, for an article in the New York Times Magazine. Levitt had just received the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, which the American Economics Association awards every other year to the best economist under 40, for his innovative and unique contributions to the discipline. The article, which appeared in August of 2003, introduced the mainstream to an economist who was doing things that were interesting and new to both economists and laymen. There was clearly an interest in what Levitt had to say, and the book publishers were calling; however, Levitts opportunity cost was quite high. Already the editor of the Journal of Political Economy in addition to his academic research, it just wasnt worth Levitts time to write the book that needed to be written. But luckily, Levitts friendship with Dubner, led to Freakonomics.

I had some high expectations when I first cracked the spine, which is always a bad thing for me. I rarely see movies, because any movie that interests me enough to see it has already raised my expectations so high that I am almost always disappointed. But, Freakonomics exceeded my expectations. This book is more than a dumbed down version of Levitts academic work. Even economists familiar with Levitts work will learn new things and stay interested in the book. And though Levitts unique approach normally involves statistical work, readers can easily grasp the gist of his empirical methods and comprehend the results presented. The writing is good enough for beach reading with a beer. Its simply a good read no matter what your knowledge of economics.

So whats in the book? Well, the reader will find several very frank discussions about crime, corruption, inside information, poverty, parenting, and race. As a new parent, I found the parenting chapters the most interesting. This book is politically incorrect, but not in the sense that its topics and insinuations will offend to modern liberals; its offensive to all facets of the conventional wisdom that get in the way of the truth. If youre a high society type who gets offended when sensitive topics enter public conversations, stay away. This book is not for intellectual snobs, but social scientists in search of truth, no matter how ugly the truth may be. Heres a list of some of the books assertions:

    * Teachers sometimes cheat to promote lagging students in order to save their own hides.
    * Doctors and real estate agents dont necessarily have the best interests of their patients and clients in mind, and possess a power of intimidation similar to the KKK in its heyday.
    * We get to see the business structure of a urban street gang, where we learn street thugs have a lot in common with aspiring athletes and actors, and we get to meet the Johnny Appleseed of crack cocaine.
    * The abortion of unwanted children following Roe. v. Wade explains much of the drop in violent crime in the 1990s.
    * The educational success of a child is largely determined by the education, wealth, and health of parents; while divorce, having a stay-at-home-mom, engaging in enlightened activities, spanking, and watching TV have almost no impact.
    * Poor parents imitate the child names given by rich parents to gain cache, and the rich just as quickly choose other names to avoid the loss of cache. But, luckily names dont seem to impact success in life.

Ive been a Levitt fan for some time due to his taking economic thinking to the extreme (eXtreme-Economics would have been a good alternate title). Levitt seems to have held onto the things in economics that encouraged every PhD economist to go to graduate school, but is only in the back of our minds by the time we leave. Sure, we know enough fun examples to inspire a few young minds to keep our dissertation advisors employed, but our research is typically as bland as toasted white bread. In his Principles of Economics the great neo-classical economists Alfred Marshall wrote:

    The economist needs the three great intellectual faculties, perception, imagination and reason: and most of all he needs imagination, to put him on the track of those causes of visible events which are remote or lie below the surface, and of those effects of visible causes which are remote or lie below the surface.

No economist has taken Marshalls advice so literally. Levitts imagination, the first faculty beaten out of most economics graduate students, has been the key to his becoming the most innovative economist sincewell, maybe ever. The message of Freakonomics is twofold: the economic method is a powerful intellectual tool and economics is fun. This book is a small step towards shedding the economics inappropriate nickname as the dismal science. Economists are rock stars, not Ben Steins Ferris Bueller stereotype.

Though my review is certainly a positive one, no review is complete without some criticisms, which are minor. The snippets from Dubners original article on Levitt that start each chapter are unnecessary. Since Levitt is a coauthor of the book, its distracting to be reminded of how brilliant this guy is. I would have preferred to have the entire article included in the book as an opening chapter. And, where is the discussion of Levitts work on sports? Levitt has written on hit-batters in baseball, penalty kicks in soccer, and referees in hockey; topics that would clearly have fit in this book. Lastly, I think the book is too short, and it just ends when Im ready for more. I guess thats the price we pay for getting a book from Levitt so soon in his career. So, maybe this is less of a criticism and speaks more to the excellent quality of the material presented. Id rather be left wanting more than struggling through to the end. In any event, the purchase of this book will yield sufficient consumer surplus and no buyers remorse.

Found on Sabernomics and posted by General.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (May 4, 2005)

He's talking the abortion / crime angle on his book promo tour because it's the most controversial bit, and the most likely to grab headlines - helping him sell his book. I'm really put off by that approach. He's basically saying "Look at me, I'm going to say outrageous things that will get everyone worked up. I'll say I can back it up with numbers, but you'll have to buy my book to see the numbers. Buy my book! Buy my book!" Blek. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I haven't seen the numbers, because this tactic he is using has made me vow to not buy his book. So I can't say if his theory is convincing or not. But I'd take what he's saying with an entire mountain of salt. Repeat after me: corelation is not causation, corelation is not causation, corelation is not causation.


----------



## michaeledward (May 4, 2005)

The book is on our list of titles for the next excursion to the book store. 

The author clearly stated on today's Diane Rheme show that the abortion / crime rate discussion is 'uncomfortable', even for him. He also states that it would be impossible to actually test the theory. But, laying out the numbers seems to make sense. 

His initial premise on this argument is 'Unwanted children are more likely to tend toward crime'. This assertion may seem axiomatic, but, again, difficult to prove.

But, ecomomics is about looking at the numbers *without* regard for morality. Some (including Diane Rheme on today's show) can't seem to put aside the morality issue of abortion to discuss the author's premise. She didn't seem to have a problem with the similarly difficult to test theories in Crime Organizations and Campaign Finances. Oh, Well. 

raedyn ... try the library, that way you can get more complete information without having to support the author financially.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 4, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> He's talking the abortion / crime angle on his book promo tour because it's the most controversial bit, and the most likely to grab headlines - helping him sell his book. I'm really put off by that approach. He's basically saying "Look at me, I'm going to say outrageous things that will get everyone worked up. I'll say I can back it up with numbers, but you'll have to buy my book to see the numbers. Buy my book! Buy my book!" Blek. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> 
> I haven't seen the numbers, because this tactic he is using has made me vow to not buy his book. So I can't say if his theory is convincing or not. But I'd take what he's saying with an entire mountain of salt. Repeat after me: corelation is not causation, corelation is not causation, corelation is not causation.




The entire premise of his book is that correlation doesn't equal causation...that's the point of it.  Previous notions of causation due to correlation are debunked in the book.

I'd suggest the library, too, Raedyn.  I set down to scan it over the weekend and ended up finishing it.  I'll buy it...probably two copies.  One will be for my son.

It is one thing to judge a book by its cover, but judging it by a television interview...hmmm.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (May 4, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> raedyn ... try the library, that way you can get more complete information without having to support the author financially.


Funny, I was thinking as I was typing my last post that I might have to see if my local library has the book for exactly this reason. Like I said, I haven't seen the numbers, so I won't jump on a band wagon either for or against his theory. I just know that I'm skeptical, and unimpressed with the marketing strategy.


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

Why dont we just kill all the people that are committing the current crime too then...really get a jump on things.:shrug:


----------



## arnisador (May 4, 2005)

I've heard that "Freakonomics" is an interesting read, but haven't read it yet myself.


----------



## heretic888 (May 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Why dont we just kill all the people that are committing the current crime too then...really get a jump on things.:shrug:



Actually, socially-sanctioned violence (including both capital punishment and war) is one of several sources for high violence rates in the United States --- along with inequal economic distribution, easy access to firearms, cultural inequilibrium (the "melting pot"), and violence in the media/entertainment.

Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean any one of these factors is "wrong" in and of themselves (that's a separate discussion altogether), but they do collectively contribute to the widescale violence in our culture.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

So youre talking about civilization, history as a whole and our nation since its inception...


----------



## heretic888 (May 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So youre talking about civilization, history as a whole and our nation since its inception...



Ummm..... no. I'm not. 

There are a number of other Western countries that don't suffer the same level of cultural violence that we do. The Netherlands suddenly spring to mind. 

This is precisely due to them having a more equal economic distribution (albeit not perfectly so), stricter access to firearms, a more "homogeneous" ethnic and cultural makeup, far less violence in their media/entertainment, and less socially-sanctioned violence (no foreign wars and capital punishment, for example).

Now, again, I'm not saying any one of these elements is "wrong" in and of itself. Nor am I saying that the Netherlands are "better" than the United States. All I'm saying is that these elements collectively contribute to our violence, and at least some of them _can_ be avoided --- if we truly want to, anyway.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

Ahhh the Netherlands...as its such an oft repeated example of nirvana its a wonder they arent packed in A to B there....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ahhh the Netherlands...as its such an oft repeated example of nirvana its a wonder they arent packed in A to B there....




The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden...take your pick.  His point was valid, regardless.  We have violence largely because of poverty.  THAT correlation isn't one I'd attempt to dispute.  

An aggressive program providing incentives for birth control among the poor could likely send our crime rate further down...but that is also resisted by moralistic elements in our society who deem it unnatural.  Currently a safe and effective method of male birth control was developed in India...an outpatient surgical procedure that is easily reversable and lasts about ten years if left alone.  But you won't see that here because:

1.  It makes no money for the pharmaceutical companies, who are still trying to make a male birth control pill; 

2.  It would lead to _sex_...and my goodness, we can't have that happening now, can we?  

The reason I brought up the abortion/crime issue wasn't to offer validation for abortion, but for better family planning education and birth control for the poor.  Levitt's book more than anything provides backing for that.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## michaeledward (May 5, 2005)

Gee, usually, Tgace has something to contribute to the converstation. But here we get three flippant posts laced with sarcasm.


Why don't we just elimanate all laws and all law enforcement. That would certainly reduce crime too, wouldn't it?


----------



## Tgace (May 5, 2005)

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html



> *The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today.*




And the "poor" then didnt have cars, televisions, aid programs or running water in many cases...Poor is a relative term in this country, Ive been to other countries where they would kill to be "poor" in the US. Is poverty a problem here? Yes in the most powerful nation on earth we should have a solution for it. But compared to nations with object poverty....



> Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key factor in homicide. Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but is this cause and effect? The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal beatings. Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.
> 
> In telling Americans, especially young ones, that they live in the most violent nation on earth, we are slandering our country. In addition, we may be inadvertently increasing the violence. Studies reveal that children whose teachers believe they will do well actually do better in school. Children may sense their teachers' expectations and live up to them. It seems likely that children raised to believe that they come from the most violent people on earth will act accordingly. The violence-prone minority will be more violent, believing that they must strike before others attack them, while the nonviolent majority will lapse into hopeless passivity. This is not helpful to a free country.
> 
> It really comes down to what we prefer as a basis for our opinions --- facts or myths. Myths may be comforting, but they rarely lead to effective action. Myths tell us that nations with strict anti-gun laws have low rates of suicide and homicide, so the answer is easy --- pass more laws. And if the laws don't work, pass still more. Facts, on the other hand, may be disturbing. They rarely provide easy answers for complex problems.


The Netherlands have many other factors than economics and laws as reasons for their statistics. Its not as easy an explination.....


----------



## Ray (May 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 2. It would lead to _sex_...and my goodness, we can't have that happening now, can we?


What doesn't lead to sex?

I've heard a little about the suggestion re: abortion and crime.  It seems to make some sense.  Then again, more people imprisioned seems to have a hand in explaining it, too.  Could be more than one cause working together that resulted in the lower numbers (even, e.g. the graying of America; I know I'm feeling too old to get up off the couch and committ a crime except for those that require little to no effort).


It is interesting to think the cultural aspects that may lead to increased crime.


----------



## Tgace (May 5, 2005)

And from just a little research, there appears to be a signifigant ammount of crime in the netherlands...

This sounds disturbingly familiar...

http://www.expatica.com/source/site...2&name=Time+to+crackdown+against+ethnic+crime

...
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4891
...



http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html



> This is substantially higher than the 30 reported for the Netherlands, although the 72 rate in Amsterdam comes rather closer. But this is not the whole story. Does lower criminal gun ownership translate to lower crime rates overall? Looking at the FBI data in table 1 on page 64, the violent crime rate in the US was 504.4 per 100,000 inhabitants, while property crime ran at 3656.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics has crime numbers online, but not the crime rate. The table shows 101,143 violent crimes and 919,262 property crimes in 2001. With a population of 16,171,520 (September 2002), this works out as 625.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people and 5684.4 proprety crimes. Or, to put it differently, the violent crime rate in the Netherlands in 24% higher than in the US, and the property crime rate is 55% higher.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 5, 2005)

*Tgace in bold:

And the "poor" then didnt have cars, televisions, aid programs or running water in many cases...Poor is a relative term in this country, Ive been to other countries where they would kill to be "poor" in the US. Is poverty a problem here? Yes in the most powerful nation on earth we should have a solution for it. But compared to nations with object poverty....
*


The ol' "We shouldn't complain 'cause our neighbors have it worse," argument?  I  know alcoholics who do that...constantly pointing to the alchy that drinks more often, or gets drunker.  I find another analogy in the martial artist that is always bolstering himself by comparing himself to the worst student in the class, rather than taking stock of his shortcomings and aspiring to be like those advanced students at the right of the line.

FWIW, the poor I deal with aren't quite as fortunate as those you list.  Most of the kids I work with have no family car.  One wears hand-me-downs that are four sizes too big for him.  One girl has missed four weeks of school this year due to head lice that her three siblings and two parents keep passing back and forth in their one room abode (a motel room).  One kid doesn't eat regularly, so the school staff looks the other way when he loads up in the lunch line.  Some years ago my sister worked Head Start in a town north of here...the family literally lived in a shack with a dirt floor.  Not dirt on the floor...a dirt floor.

Sure, we have obesity among the poor...calories have become a cheap commodity in our culture.  Nourishment, however, is still lacking.  The local schools have special funds for providing (believe it or not) clothes for children and fundamental items  for families like stoves and washing machines.  The mother of one of my wife's students received a stove through that program, and had to be shown how to use it.  She'd never cooked anything before. 

Ah, but if that woman has more kids...think of how they'll bring joy and light into the home.  A few more and surely she'll wake up to her responsibilities and set her nose to the grindstone.  Right?

But we tend to dismiss her and others like her as welfare moms who get pregnant for the express purpose of getting more cash...rather than a woman who simply doesn't know her options in life...and who probably thinks she has few, if at all.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (May 5, 2005)

> The ol' "We shouldn't complain 'cause our neighbors have it worse," argument? I know alcoholics who do that...constantly pointing to the alchy that drinks more often, or gets drunker. I find another analogy in the martial artist that is always bolstering himself by comparing himself to the worst student in the class, rather than taking stock of his shortcomings and aspiring to be like those advanced students at the right of the line.


Not at all (although you seem to like projecting the image on me)....but I do object to the impression that we are some sort or Rawanda here. Ive been to countries where the "poor" lived in cardboard shanty towns. While some may have it worse than others here, a large percentage of people who are so poor that they are living on the street (once again a qualified statement) are suffering from mental illness rather than poverty. I see you ignore the point that I admit that poverty is not an issue we should ignore here though...whatever. Point is that violence in a society is much more complex than economics, laws or guns. As the author of my quoted article stated, you can take people from less violent countries and expose them to all of our "vices" and the statistics remain the same for them.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

Just out of curiosity, what would folks imagine would be Christ's comments on the ethics of a society that allows hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill and the sick to wander around homeless? 

In its way, our treatment of the poor is as violent as any shotgun killing. And yes, bleeding-heart liberal here--I think that decency, not to mention selfish self-interest, demand that we make sure that poor children and those who cannot help themselves be fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

But no. Because we need more toys.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 5, 2005)

_Bowling for Columbine_ explores the reasons behind the high rate of gun violence in the US, as opposed to, let's say, Canada, where there are far more guns in the hands of the average individual.  Some possibilities include fear, paranoia, alienation, and a culture of violence.


----------



## Ray (May 6, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what would folks imagine would be Christ's comments on the ethics of a society that allows hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill and the sick to wander around homeless?


As opposed to what He said about it during his mortality?  Did the mentally ill and sick wander around homeless at that time?  His comments were to you and me: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widow and orphan, etc.

So far as I know, He didn't recommend that the gov't tax people to take care of the poor.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In its way, our treatment of the poor is as violent as any shotgun killing. And yes, bleeding-heart liberal here--I think that decency, not to mention selfish self-interest, demand that we make sure that poor children and those who cannot help themselves be fed, clothed, housed, and educated.
> 
> But no. Because we need more toys.


Yes, we should.


----------



## modarnis (May 6, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what would folks imagine would be Christ's comments on the ethics of a society that allows hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill and the sick to wander around homeless?
> 
> In its way, our treatment of the poor is as violent as any shotgun killing. And yes, bleeding-heart liberal here--I think that decency, not to mention selfish self-interest, demand that we make sure that poor children and those who cannot help themselves be fed, clothed, housed, and educated.
> 
> But no. Because we need more toys.




But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's.  Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities.  Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless


----------



## PeachMonkey (May 6, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's. Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities. Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless


 Spoken like someone who knows very little about state mental institutions and the history of mental treatment.  If you think they were somehow better off in asylums, you've never visited one, studied one, or spent time in one.

 The burst of the mentally ill into homelessness actually came during the Reagan Administration's massive stripping of funding for treatment for the mentally ill.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 6, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's.  Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities.  Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless



In 1968 there were fourteen hospitals in California serving the mentally ill, and four institutions for the developmentally disabled.  The Lanterman Petris Short Act allowed for thousands of those patients to be reintegrated into the community.  Patients were no longer necessarily placed in involuntary confinement.  

The California legislature's intention was for money to follow the patients to the community so they could receive treatement there while going through reintegration.  The intent was "to encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures."

Thanks to a veto by then Governor Ronald Reagan, the money never got to the communities. He crippled the LPA.

The problem is that the chronically severely mentally ill and handicapped don't have the capacity to fend for themselves or make responsible decisions as to their own treatment. If given medication they often don't take it due to their paranoia or because of the medication's side effects.  Lacking institutions for treatment, they live on the streets or in jail, occasionally spending time in psych ward of hospitals before they're turned back out on the streets.

As to the question of whether Jesus endorsed taxes to support the poor, he didn't directly.  However; he admonished his followers to pay their taxes in Matthew, chapter 22.  As for charity in spirit he said this in Matthew, chapter 25:

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"




Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (May 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Thanks to a veto by then Governor Ronald Reagan, the money never got to the communities. He crippled the LPA.


 Indeed he did, right along with driving the surplus that was left in office before he took over right into the ground and putting the state in debt. 



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As to the question of whether Jesus endorsed taxes to support the poor, he didn't directly. However; he admonished his followers to pay their taxes in Matthew, chapter 22. As for charity in spirit he said this in Matthew, chapter 25:
> 
> "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
> 
> The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"


 Fine quote - needs to be quoted more.  How about this one:

 "He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had." - Luke 21:1-4


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 6, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> What doesn't lead to sex?




Gee, Ray...you're obviously not married.

The question for me is WHAT DOES lead to sex.  I once bought Richard Posner's "Sex and Reason" after having dyslexically reading it as "Reasons to Have Sex," and hoping thereby to give it to my wife as justification for a horizontal weekend.  Imagine my embarrassment when I realized the error.

Still a good book...and one that is on topic here.  As a society we have to look at sex and economics.  What is best, economically, for any portion of society when it comes to such matters?  For the devout, it may be abstinence, the pay-off being the pleasure of God, rather than the pleasure of the self.  I don't deny them that.  The rest of us (and clearly I am in this group) might choose something more libertine.

In that (and I submit inevitable) event how can we best meet our responsibilities to ourselves, our family, and our society?  Birth control (not abortion, but contraception) gives us the power to decide when and where the child will be born--if at all.  The poor family thus maintained enjoys greater economic freedom from having been relieved of the burden of an infant (or infants).  Society benefits from this through less taxes, reduced crime, less guilt and the attendant friction between the right and left that always arises from the issues of poverty.

Disadvantages?  Look at a very cold analysis of one social scientist who observed that the poor serve specific purposes.  Without them certain institutions and a  service sector set up for them would suffer...we'd have less cops, fewer psych wards and drug rehab clinics, social service organizations and charitable organizations.  Emergency rooms might have less staffing.  We'd have less "help" for those who require gardening and maid service.  We'd lose a scapegoat for societal ills...always necessary for blame-fixing, witch-hunting, and  posturing from a position of superiority.  For some of us it wouldn't be as fun if there weren't another side to the tracks or a "wrong side of town," to which we could point and mock.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## stephen (May 6, 2005)

Freakonomics was a great read. Brought back memories for me. I was one of Prof. Levitt's students in an undergraduate economics class. Great professor and very interesting material. Much more interesting than econometrics and the like. 

His class covered a few of the studies in the book, such as the crack selling steet gang and the abortion studies in great detail. Then, and it seems now, his main point seemed to be the confusion between causation and correlation. And also, since this was an economics class, how to undertake studies that can tell the difference. Economics suffers from the problem of study design. You can't just go and tell a city to hire 50% more police and see what happens, or give a country 50% less oil reserves and see the effect on the economy. You have to tease studies from available data. Much like he used the pre-election police hiring data. I remember he also talked about using the weather data in the week post-9/11 to examine the effect of jets on the atmosphere.

Cool guy, smart prof.

/steve


----------



## Ray (May 6, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Gee, Ray...you're obviously not married.


Ah, but I am married.  I've been married since 1976 and it only gets better.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> ...As a society we have to look at sex and economics. What is best, economically, for any portion of society when it comes to such matters?...
> 
> In that (and I submit inevitable) event how can we best meet our responsibilities to ourselves, our family, and our society? Birth control (not abortion, but contraception) gives us the power to decide when and where the child will be born--if at all....


I wholeheartedly agree that we have responsibility and I'm glad to see that your definition of 'birth control' parallels mine (prevention of pregnancy, not abortion).

I am concerned that a poor family must choose greater prosperity by deciding to have fewer children (I know it's a poor paraphrase of what you said).   Even though some may say that the world population is too great and quantities of births must be controlled, I know that a small population will not remove class distinctions and barriers.  We will still have the poor and underclass even if fewer people share the resources of the planet.  Because we're not out for each other's good, we're out for ourselves (in general, not to say anyone in particular) so we hoard and we gather and we don't give.

You'd think that if poor people reduced the number of children they gave birth to, then poorness would be bred out of the human race.

So many real problems and so few real solutions.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Tgace (May 6, 2005)

Maybe we should sterilize them all. :shrug:


----------



## Ray (May 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Maybe we should sterilize them all. :shrug:


I hope that's not in response to my post.  I didn't mean that poor people shouldn't have kids, thereby eliminating poor people - I meant that, we would still have poor people even if they did reduce the number of children.


----------



## Tgace (May 6, 2005)

No..not at you at all Ray. Just reinforcing your point.


----------



## Ray (May 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No..not at you at all Ray. Just reinforcing your point.


Good, thanks for clearing that up.  I'd hate it if people thought that of me...


----------



## Tgace (May 6, 2005)

If you believe that an unborn fetus is a human life, this whole topic smells like an "ultimate soultion" to me....


----------

