Gun Violence Has Too Many Causes

Popular Economics Weekly

The tragic Newtown, Connecticut elementary school mass shooting is just the latest in a string of mass shootings that have contributed to more than 1 million dead by guns over the past 3 decades in the U.S.—an average of almost 32,000 per year.
This is when no other country in the developed world has had more than 400 documented gun killings in a year, outside of wartime. The problem in understanding the causes of such mass shootings may be that much gun violence has many causes that make it difficult if not impossible to understand in isolation.
But not if we look at the culture of violence that has made U.S. the most violent nation on earth. In fact, gun violence, as violence in general, has too many causes. Studies bear out that record income inequality, a poor social safety net and lax, almost nonexistent gun control laws all contribute to the U.S. record as the most gun violent culture in the world.
The Trayvon Martin killing illustrated this culture with the Stand Your Ground Laws being enacted in several states. And thereby we are beginning to see where the National Rifle Association, backed by some elements of Big Business, is leading this country—into a greater lawlessness, at the very least. For the Stand Your Ground Law enshrines the gangster code—shoot first and ask questions later.
As Paul Krugman said in a March New York Times Op-ed after the Trayvon Martin killing:

“Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.”

Krugman was exposing the links between corporations and the NRA that continues to push for guns to be worn by everyone everywhere, with or without background checks or even licenses.
Why the push by the NRA, and Big Business for more guns, as I said back in April? The reason most gun advocates and the NRA give, is that it is for the purpose of self-defense in an increasingly violent world. The NRA even asserts it decreases violence. But studies cited in an excellent book, Gun Violence: The Real Costs by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig show that gun use tends to increase gun violence—i.e., there are almost 4 times more fatalities in gun-related robberies than other robberies with knives, clubs, etc.
And a study cited in the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) on home invasions found that just 3 percent were able to use guns against someone who broke in (or attempted to do so) while they were at home, when 40 percent of households have guns.
So it turns out guns are not very helpful in self-defense. Also overlooked is the fact that criminals are predators, and predators prey on the weakest and most vulnerable, not those who look like they can defend themselves. So really, does the agenda of the NRA to abolish all gun controls do more than reinforce the fear factor, the fear that your neighbor may be your assailant?

“But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture?” asks Krugman. “In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.”

The culture of violence is not a pretty picture in our crowded cities in particular. Philadelphia averaged more than 30 gun-related deaths per month in 2011, when Europe as a whole had less than 300 per year. The last time U.S. gun violence was this high was during the Great Depression, when we had gangsters like Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde.
English Sociologist Richard Wilkinson has brought this out in books and lectures, especially his TEDx lecture on the roots of violence and crime, in which he charts that countries with the most inequality in wealth are also the most violent countries. And surprise, the U.S. is now one of the most unequal countries—in terms of wealth and opportunities for wealth—in the world, as has been brought out by the CIA World Factbook. It is ranked 94th of the 136 countries ranked by the CIA for income inequality, next to Camaroon, Zimbabwe, which are some of Africa’s poorest countries.
There are many who will say that the deeds of a psychopath cannot be prevented. But is that the point when it is so ridiculously easy for an individual to purchase an arsenal without an alarm being set off? Why would anyone such as the Aurora, Colo. shooter need 6,000 rounds, for instance, said the New York Times?

“With a few keystrokes, the suspect, James E. Holmes, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police. It was pretty much as easy as ordering a book from Amazon.”

Do we need another reason to require reporting such weapon sales, other than for war?

Harlan Green © 2012

Gun Violence Has Too Many Causes

Popular Economics Weekly

The shooting in Aurora’s Central Theatres is not something “impossible to understand” as was said by Denver’s Mayor just after the massacre, if we look at the culture of violence that has made U.S. the most violent nation on earth. In fact, gun violence, as violence in general, has too many causes. Studies bear out that record income inequality, a poor social safety net and lax, almost nonexistent gun control laws all contribute to the U.S. record as the most gun violent culture in the world.

The Trayvon Martin killing illustrated this culture with the Stand Your Ground Laws being enacted in several states. And thereby we are beginning to see where the National Rifle Association, backed by some elements of Big Business, is leading this country—into a greater lawlessness, at the very least. For the Stand Your Ground Law enshrines the gangster code—shoot first and ask questions later.

As Paul Krugman said in a March New York Times Op-ed after the Trayvon Martin killing:

“Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.”

Krugman was exposing the links between corporations and the NRA that continues to push for guns to be worn by everyone everywhere, with or without background checks or even licenses.

Why the push by the NRA, and Big Business for more guns, as I said back in April? The reason most gun advocates and the NRA give, is that it is for the purpose of self-defense in an increasingly violent world. The NRA even asserts it decreases violence. But studies cited in an excellent book, Gun Violence: The Real Costs by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig show that gun use tends to increase gun violence—i.e., there are almost 4 times more fatalities in gun-related robberies than other robberies with knives, clubs, etc.

And a study cited in the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) on home invasions found that just 3 percent were able to use guns against someone who broke in (or attempted to do so) while they were at home, when 40 percent of households have guns.

So it turns out guns are not very helpful in self-defense. Also overlooked is the fact that criminals are predators, and predators prey on the weakest and most vulnerable, not those who look like they can defend themselves. So really, does the agenda of the NRA to abolish all gun controls do more than reinforce the fear factor, the fear that your neighbor may be your assailant?

“But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture?” asks Krugman. “In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.”

The culture of violence is not a pretty picture in our crowded cities in particular. Philadelphia averaged more than 30 gun-related deaths per month in 2011, when Europe as a whole had less than 300 per year. The last time U.S. gun violence was this high was during the Great Depression, when we had gangsters like Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde.

English Sociologist Richard Wilkinson has brought this out in books and lectures, especially his TEDx lecture on the roots of violence and crime, in which he charts that countries with the most inequality in wealth are also the most violent countries. And surprise, the U.S. is now one of the most unequal countries—in terms of wealth and opportunities for wealth—in the world, as has been brought out by the CIA World Factbook. It is ranked 94th of the 136 countries ranked by the for income inequality, close to Camaroon, Zimbabwe, some of Africa’s poorest countries.

There are many who will say that the deeds of a psychopath cannot be prevented. But is that the point when it is so ridiculously easy for an individual to purchase an arsenal without an alarm being set off? Why would anyone need 6,000 rounds, for instance, said the New York Times?

“With a few keystrokes, the suspect, James E. Holmes, ordered 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police. It was pretty much as easy as ordering a book from Amazon.”

Do we need another reason to demand laws that require the reporting of such weapon sales?

Harlan Green © 2012

Elizabeth Warren’s Teach-in

Popular Economics Weekly

What better way to understand Elizabeth Warren’s bid for Massachusetts Senator to replace Scott Brown that conduct a Teach-in, much as the OccupyWallStreeters are doing. She stands for what we all need, after all, more knowledge on how to combat the huge levels of social and economic inequality that have arisen over the past 30 years from a corporate and Wall Street culture that glorified profits over social responsibility, or even honesty.

Professor Warren’s specialty at Harvard is contract and bankruptcy law, after all, so she has seen firsthand the damage that fine print in mortgage contracts and wholesale deregulation of financial oversight can do. A New York Times profile spelled out some of her agenda. “Ms. Warren talks about the nation’s growing income inequality in a way that channels the force of the Occupy Wall Street movement but makes it palatable and understandable to a far wider swath of voters,” said the Times. “She is provocative and assertive in her critique of corporate power and the well-paid lobbyists who protect it in Washington, and eloquent in her defense of an eroding middle class.”

But it’s more than that. She is a teacher, and so teaching the public why the middle and lower classes have lost so much of their wealth is a priority. In fact, their loss of wealth is why economic growth has been slowing historically. Part of it has to do with the massive deregulation of industries begun by President Reagan in his war against government; waged on the promise it would raise everyone’s prosperity level. But the result instead was it took away the income and wealth of ‘everyone’ and gave it to the wealthiest on the thinnest of rationalizations—that they were the real job creators, not the consumers who bought their products.

Does that mean we are helpless victims who have to be protected by Big Government, unable to take care of ourselves? No, in “All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan” written with daughter Amelia Tyagi, she spells out her beliefs on individual responsibility. “You can't count on good old-fashioned hard work the way your parents did. Go to school, get a good job, do your work, don't go crazy with spending, and everything will work out, right? Not anymore. That advice may have worked in your parents' day, but today you have to be smart with your money. Not just a little smart, but super smart. You have to learn the new rules -- the rules nobody told you and nobody talks about. And you have to learn them fast.”

And that in fact is what her teach-ins are about—learning the new rules, as well as working to change them to be more consumer friendly. What are they? Firstly, a major rule change was abolishing usury laws that have enabled national banks to charge as much as 30 percent on credit card debt. In another bestseller with her daughter, “The Two-Income Trap”, they spell out why the middle class has lost ground. Deregulation has allowed banks to write their own rules, with no concern for their own customers’ welfare.

For instance, the 2005 bankruptcy laws have means testing—only those with below median incomes for their states can file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, which abolishes all unsecured debt. So struggling households saddled with catastrophic health care costs (because health care costs aren’t controlled), have to sell everything they own to even file for bankruptcy.

“That puts women trying to collect domestic support obligations and credit card companies in direct competition for the ex-husband's resources,” said Ms. Tyagi in a 2004 Mother Jones interview. “Credit card companies can hire lawyers and develop extensive debt collect departments, something that is really tough for women. When the credit industry controls the bankruptcy rules, women lose.”

That is the real reason the standard of living of all but the top 1 percent has fallen. And it hurts all of us. Richard Wilkinson has spelled it out in a recent TEDS conference, and his book with Kate Pickett, “The Spirit Level”. Countries and states with the highest income inequality have the highest crime rates, illness outcomes, and most environmental degradation—you name it—as well as least social mobility that would allow greater opportunities to improve themselves.

Graph: TED Conference

Why such a shift from equal opportunity back to an era of Social Darwinism in just 30 years that was capitalism in its earliest form? It is in part due to the huge amount of wealth we have amassed. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has said: “It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously.”

Wealth generates its own temptations, in other words, and so removing the barriers to its acquisition can overwhelm even common sense when dealing with severe financial crises.

Harlan Green © 2011

What Decline of Western Civilization?

Financial FAQs
It’s hard to say whether Harvard Historian Niall Ferguson means what he says in his new book, “Civilization: The West and the Rest”; that the western world’s 500 years of predominance are over, thanks to growing debt problems in the U.S. and Europe, and dwindling populations. He obviously believes it’s not a good thing.
Well, maybe not, but why worry about western predominance when so many Americans are suffering from the misdeeds of our own governance that has piled debt upon debt, all in order to make the wealthiest even wealthier?
It is true United States position in the world has declined—not as a military power, but in almost all the measures of social and economic well-being. This is reflected in studies just now coming out by sociologists and psychologists, as well as economists. Richard Wilkinson is one such researcher who has managed to bring together a huge amount of research—especially on how income inequality affects citizens’ well-being.
We have discussed how income and education disparities have affected individual states in past blogs that have divided them into Blue and Red states politically, but never socio-economic misery on a national scale. The list is long. The U.S. has highest prison incarceration rate of any country, combined with the highest per capita income, as well as sub-par educational standards accompanied by an income inequality level next to Bulgaria’s.
So, it’s true that the rest of the world is catching up to the developed West, and want what we have. For instance, the U.S. with 5 percent of the world’s population can no longer count on corralling 25 percent of its resources. Our military—a major source of budget deficits—is already stretched thin, for one thing, and can’t afford to invade another Iraq for its oil resources. In fact, those deficits are a major price we have had to pay to maintain our military dominance.
And we know from the #OccupyWallStreet protests and economic historians that the growth in income inequality has reached its limit. Americans are finally becoming aware, in a word, that they have made an enormous sacrifice—the 99 percent whose incomes stagnated because they didn’t benefit from the tax cuts, loopholes and such that have also elevated corporate profits as a share of GDP to the highest in history.
So the U.S. will continue to decline if we continue on the path of Oligarchy, where a few at the top have most of the wealth, and the rest of us have to borrow to maintain our standard of living. Then wealth will continue to be transferred to the developing giants who are willing to lend us money—China, India and Brazil with their young and growing populations.
But Dr. Ferguson’s theme isn’t new. Root causes of the rise and fall of civilizations were earlier explored by UCLA Professor Jared Diamond in his books “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, and “Collapse” in far more convincing fashion. Our technological superiority was enabled by having major resources such as oil, benign climates that allowed cultivation of the major foodstuffs, and domesticated animals that gave us immunity to the major diseases that have wiped out native populations where such animals didn’t exist.
It follows then that the huge debt loads are a symptom of the underlying illness, economic class warfare over the past thirty years that has taken away much of the wealth of the middle class. Governments can easily pay for public services if wages and salaries continue to grow. But there has been diminished income growth for the majority of Americans—the wage and salary earners who make up 80 percent of consumers.
We know where much of that wealth has flowed—to higher corporate profits, for one, as corporations cut back on employee payrolls and benefits. And those excess profits have created greater market instability, and so retarded economic growth rates. In his New York Times Op-ed, “It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid”, and various blogs, economic historian James Livingston says what has been known to most modern macro economists—consumer and government spending have driven economic growth over the past century, not corporate profits.

The great wealth shift began during the Great Depression, according to Livingston: “The underlying cause of that economic disaster (the Great Depression of 1929-33, 1937-38) was a fundamental shift of income shares away from wages/consumption to corporate profits that produced a tidal wave of surplus capital that could not be profitably invested in goods production—and, in fact, was not invested in good production…and that, on the other hand, produced the tidal wave of surplus capital which produced the stock market bubble of the late-1920s.”

So we know Niall Ferguson has taken the opposite tack. His glorification of empires has made him blind to the results. The west’s predominance was at the expense of exploiting underdeveloped countries, and when they began to want more of what we have, our privileged position began to decline.  Isn't that what we want?  To be an island of privilege among a sea of poverty does not make for a stable, or more peaceful world.
Harlan Green © 2011