Do Fewer Guns Mean Less Crime? - Page 51

Voidwar · 06-01-08, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Its getting more precise:

So we have you not reading Cook and Ludwig.

Did you provide proof of this while I wasn't looking ? ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

We also have you failing

No Scucca, as I explained to you before . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

No, Scucca, we have you failing.

Failing repeatedly to address this point even when confronted by it 7 times now :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Even if your mythical "externalities" existed, you are submitting your "bill" to the wrong party. The "bill" for your alleged "social costs" should be submitted to the perpetrator of the incident.

Scucca · 06-01-08, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Did you provide proof of this while I wasn't looking ? ?

The proof is in your continued failure to make any relevant counter-argument. You haven't read the article, nor have your read any of the empirical or theoretical evidence. That is darn obvious

Your understanding of externalities and its impact for the market price is of course zero.

Voidwar · 06-01-08, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

The proof is in your continued failure to make any relevant counter-argument.

Perhaps you are just confused about what is and what is not proof.

You made an assertion, and you cannot prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

You haven't read the article, nor have your read any of the empirical or theoretical evidence. That is darn obvious

Just repeating your assertion, and again, without the requested proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Your understanding of externalities and its impact for the market price is of course zero.

Already addressed, right here :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Man, you really are thick. I have explained to you more than ten times on this thread alone that I completely understand your argument, I just reject it because it is false. You keep trying this tired tactic of repeating that accusation, and it does nothing but make you look defeated and desperate, in denial and repeating a failed mantra.

By the way, in case your addled mind allowed it to slip again, THIS is the point you are currently dodging . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Even if your mythical "externalities" existed, you are submitting your "bill" to the wrong party. The "bill" for your alleged "social costs" should be submitted to the perpetrator of the incident.

Scucca · 06-01-08, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

By the way, in case your addled mind allowed it to slip again, THIS is the point you are currently dodging . . .

Answered it dear boy! Your failure to appreciate that reflects your total failure to entertain the theoretical and empirical literature. Externalities ensure that the market price is sub-optimal. There is no debate in that. Once the externalities are demonstrated (and they have been via the use of several peer refereed journals), that is the correct conclusion. Its a conclusion used in the paper that you haven't read too...

Voidwar · 06-01-08, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Answered it dear boy!

Blatant falsehood. Quote the passage if you did. You didn't mention the "bill" or the perpetrator once. So , now, on top of asserting things you can't prove, we now have you outright lying. This is good for the reader at large, because to expose your underhanded and decietful tactics shows the reader your credibility level.

Scucca · 06-01-08, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Blatant falsehood. Quote the passage if you did.

Chortle, chortle, you're so poorly read on this issue that you don't realise that my last comment blew your nonsense away

You need to go off and read an Econ 101 book, preferably one with pictures!

Voidwar · 06-01-08, 10:48 AM

Another attempt at dodging the same point, which has now confronted you 9 times, and from which you have run away like a little girl 8 times now. Can we see you flee again to make it 9 for 9 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Even if your mythical "externalities" existed, you are submitting your "bill" to the wrong party. The "bill" for your alleged "social costs" should be submitted to the perpetrator of the incident.

Scucca · 06-01-08, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Another attempt at dodging the same point, which has now confronted you 9 times, and from which you have run away like a little girl 9 times now.

You're making me laugh, so I'm not going to complain at your desperate tactics. Given externalities exist, the market price is wrong. That is very very basic info that you cannot deny.

To make me laugh more heartily, why don't you quote from the paper that you haven't read and provide a rebuke over the theory that you do not understand?

Voidwar · 06-01-08, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

You're making me laugh, so I'm not going to complain at your desperate tactics. Given externalities exist, the market price is wrong. That is very very basic info that you cannot deny.

To make me laugh more heartily, why don't you quote from the paper that you haven't read and provide a rebuke over the theory that you do not understand?

This is you repeating your failed mantra, and it is also you dodging the point again.

the point you have dodged 9 times in a row is . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

Even if your mythical "externalities" existed, you are submitting your "bill" to the wrong party. The "bill" for your alleged "social costs" should be submitted to the perpetrator of the incident.

Here it is confronting you for a tenth time, will you run away from it again ?

Scucca · 06-01-08, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

This is you repeating your failed mantra, and it is also you dodging the point again.

Nope. It blows you away. Talking to you is like telling someone that cannot count that two plus two equals four. The theory I've used is that basic! Externalities impact on market price, given marginal social costs exceed marginal private costs and therefore utility maximisation is not achieved

O, you forget to reply:

To make me laugh more heartily, why don't you quote from the paper that you haven't read and provide a rebuke over the theory that you do not understand?