« Fighting For Our Soul
Hard Is Out, Soft Is In »

de Blasio’s Safer NYC

de Blasio's Safer NYC
de Blasio’s Safer NYC

So, Mayor “Cop Killer” de Blasio releases a horde of 1500+ prisoners because of COVID-19 and brags how the city is safer. Meanwhile, inexplicably, murder rates and other crime rates soar immediately afterward.

It truly begs the question, safer for whom? Certainly, it’s not safer for those in NYC who actually pay taxes.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 23rd, 2020 at 3:52 am and is filed under Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

« It’s Sweater Time
Threatened By Truth »

A Safer AR

A Safer AR - AR-10
A Safer AR – The AR-10

After all, it’s all about feeling safer. Well that, and the AR seems to be unit of measurement for unreasoning fear among the gun-grabbers.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019 at 6:36 am and is filed under Humor, Politics, Society. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

« Orwell v. Huxley
You Want Jobs? »

Internalizing Peltzman

Dr. Sam Peltzman, Professor of EconomicsDr. Sam Peltzman, a renowned professor of economics from the University of Chicago Business School, espoused a hypothesis which became known as the Peltzman Effect. It dealt with the unintended, negative, and contrariwise effects of safety regulations.

Distilled down to its simplest terms the Peltzman Effect is a theory that claims that the safer people believe they are the more likely they are to engage in risky behavior.

Dr. Peltzman is certainly no crackpot and the Peltzman Effect has been discussed by experts in a variety of fields for years, though the public at large may have remained unaware of it.

The Peltzman Effect is the hypothesized tendency of people to react to a safety regulation by increasing other risky behavior, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the regulation.

— Paul G. Specht
Journal of SH&E Research, Volume 4, Number 3 (2007)

I think this rather prosaic phenomenon is one that Conservatives had long ago internalized, whereas Liberals have yet to grasp it. This causes a fundamental chasm between how the two groups view government involvement in people’s lives.

Dr. Peltzman’s rhetoric on the topic focuses on willful contrarian or reactionary risk taking. This I disagree with. I think the results are largely caused by subconscious false security instead.

It truly simple; every “safety net” that is emplaced results in people feeling more secure, often overly so, and results in them taking greater risks. AIDS relief, TARP’s “Too Big To Fail,” the Auto Bailouts, repeated extensions of unemployment benefits, ObamaCare, Union labor contracts, gated communities, and Peltzman’s favorite, seatbelts & airbags – they all result in the same thing, a reduction in perceived personal risk. They also all result in the unintended secondary or follow-on effect of increased risky behavior by those “protected” by such things.

Sadly, Liberals haven’t internalized Peltzman’s hypothesis and keep expecting regulation of people’s behavior to have positive results in the long run.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 7th, 2010 at 8:48 am and is filed under Politics, Society. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.