Reddit Reddit reviews Killing the Competition

We found 6 Reddit comments about Killing the Competition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Theory of Economics
Killing the Competition
Check price on Amazon

6 Reddit comments about Killing the Competition:

u/PM_ME_DANK_ME_MES · 1493 pointsr/worldnews

i could deal with the polar bears, but this climate change induced terrorism is too much!

EDIT: please stop telling me it's a real thing. large scale investigations of causes of violence is woefully rare. I know about the tenuously reported connections, that's the joke. Read Killing the Competition by Matin Daly for a very readable introduction to macro-scale violence.

u/unknownmosquito · 22 pointsr/Frisson

Because most of the people put in prison in the first place are Black. And that's because Blacks have been economically disadvantaged due to their history in this nation as second-class citizens, and there's a causal relationship between violence and local relative income inequality. So there are more Black criminals, and if there are more Black criminals, there will be more false convictions of them, because there are more convictions total. So the percentage rate of wrongful convictions could be the same, but the absolute number that would be Black would be higher.

tl;dr: history of racism and math

edit: I originally posted the wrong video as a citation; was on a totally different topic. Whoops! Here, also, is the book on the topic for anybody who is interested by one of the guys in the video https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Competition-Economic-Inequality-Homicide/dp/1412863368/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494433228&sr=8-1&keywords=killing+the+competition

u/winnie_the_slayer · 8 pointsr/politics

Well, the classic quote is "first you have to admit you have a problem." I'm not saying we shouldn't address guns and mental health; the point I am making is that violence correlates with income inequality so if we want to reduce violence, we'll need to do something about income inequality. Otherwise people will continue to kill each other with handguns, or knives, or baseball bats, or whatever weapon is available. Also, fixing income inequality is about as likely as fixing the mental health situation in the US, meaning I don't expect either one to happen anytime soon or to any degree that would matter.

u/AvroLancaster · 4 pointsr/canada

Sounds like you might find this book interesting.

It explores a lot of the "whys" to your "whats."

u/CMAN1995 · 1 pointr/AskEconomics

From the World Bank

And this book.

The author of the book says that it has a correlation is like .7.

u/Celda · 1 pointr/UBC

> No, you didn't. All you did was keep repeating the mantra that the "claim in question is not required for his argument". My point has nothing to do with the validity of the argument if his claim is corrected. It's about Peterson repeatedly talking out of his ass without having done his research, which adds up to people justifiably questioning his credibility.

Yes, I did. Your statement:

>Presumably he's making those claims because they're either required by or strengthen his argument. Why else would he include these claims in his presentation?

And I addressed and disproved that statement.

Certainly, he was wrong in stating the number of AIDS deaths. But given that the inaccuracy is minor, not within his field of expertise, and doesn't change his argument, I don't consider that affecting his credibility.

Perhaps you do, but then again - you seem quite biased against Peterson. I doubt you'd say the same if someone you support made a similar error.

Example of your bias:

>Peterson tries to make a smart sounding argument about how "groups are aimed at something because they can't be aimed at nothing because nothing cannot be aimed at something".

As I said, so? You yourself admitted that he wasn't wrong in saying. You just said it was an argument without any substance. And yet, you try to present it as an example of Peterson "getting things wrong".

>Peterson puts forth a conspiracy theory about how his grant was denied as a form of political persecution.

Ok, and? Again, you haven't actually proven he was wrong. At best, you can say he hasn't provided enough evidence for the claim.
And yet again, you seem to think it's an example of him getting things wrong.

So two out out of four are already failures. I don't feel like listening to a podcast, and I admit I'm not familiar at all with the concept discussed in the first link.

I also note that you completely ignored my statement proving you wrong about the Obama example. And you also ignored my example about Benjamin Perrin. Unless you would agree that Perrin should be disregarded in everything he says?

>May I put forth another possibility: You're an idealogue who will dismiss any critical opinion of Peterson because you're happy to buy into the "Hurr durr SJWs!!!" narrative and his neo-Marxist conspiracy theories. As much as you'll deny it, you're really no different than the people who show up to shut down Peterson's talks and call him a "crypto fascist".

Not at all. There's a significant difference between someone trying to prevent another person from speaking simply because they disagree, and someone who doesn't. You don't see me, or anyone else, trying to shut down left-wingers saying damn stupid or outright false shit.

E.g. BLM co-founder can have a public event outside where she yells that Justin Trudeau is a white supremacist terrorist (obviously completely bullshit), and no one tries to prevent her from speaking.

And I actually am attempting to engage with your arguments. You can't say the same about people trying to shut Peterson down.

Not to mention, I am happy to admit when Peterson says something incorrect, or at least something that is questionable.

For instance, if you had listened to his talk on Friday, you'd know he claimed that income inequality is one of the biggest correlators/predictors of crime, which seems obvious enough. But then he also said that income inequality has been increasing. Except crime has gone down in North America over the last several decades. So how can his argument be correct then?

I actually did ask him that. He didn't have time to give a full answer (it was just after the talk had ended) but he pointed me to a book by another scholar, which is presumably where he learned about that research.