Thom Hartmann debates economist John Lott
Labels: appearances, Radio
Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
Labels: appearances, Radio
posted by John Lott at 5:56 PM
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-Interview with the Washington Post
-Debate on "Guns Reduce Crime"
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
-US Supreme Court Wire
-Futures for Financial Markets
-judgepedia
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Larry Elder's The Elder Statement
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
Firearmstruth.com -- a media-watchdog website
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Robert Stacy McCain's Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Elizabeth Blackney's blog
Eric Rasmusen
Your "Economics" Portal to the World by Larry Low
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Blog at Newsmax.com
Pieces I have written at BigGovernment.com
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
1 Comments:
It’s a bit depressing to listen to this discussion. First off, this new federal endeavor is totally unconstitutional. It should be left to the states. It’s none of the federal government business under our constitution. If one likes so much government health care, move to Massachusetts or Oregon (good luck finding a job), but don’t try to expend something that hasn’t worked successfully in any state to all states. It’s just absurd. "Oh but it works in France." Who says, the WHO? How many people fly to France to get life saving treatment? Only Arafat, and he died there. Secondly, this argument that things will get cheaper by cutting profits off the system is classic third world stuff. The Soviet Union striped the profit motive from the entire economy, how did that work? Do we need to relive such experiments even with individual industries? How can anyone sane at this point childish argument. There is a mountain of evidence the size of the Everest to show that that’s not the case at all. And this argument can be used to get the federal government involved in everything: Mortgage industry, student loans, auto manufacturing. Well never mind. But all I ask of people goes back to the first point: Leave it to the states. We shouldn’t be having "a national debate on healthcare". Such central planning is un-American. Despite its problems our system is the best in the world precisely because we don’t have the level of government involvement that other nations have. It’s not because Americans are brighter--it's because the founders limited the U.S. federal government. The more the federal government gets involved in health care, the worse it will get. Go visit any federal facility: a federal court, a federal immigration building, a federal hospital. Take a look at the offices, the ceilings, the floors, the waiting line. It’s not good. Keep at the state level, and if you want it so much, move to a state that has it. Leave the rest of us alone.
Post a Comment
<< Home