haha aawsome. Im gald this thread took off while i was away.one thing that makes levitt's take on RvW so interesting is that he compared the crime rate drop with the relative legalization of abortion in different states. Some states leagalized abortion 2 years earlier and saw a precipitous drop in crime two years earlier than the states that waited until the ruling in RvW... that adds to the weight and credibility of the argumentlevitt also adresses all the causes that lie in conventional wisdom ie a strong economy. Under his analysis, a strong economy had very lttle to do with the drop but increasing the police had a substantial effect. RvW was not he only factor but a substantial one. here are my observations so far of the discussion:hilljack is a rambling buffoon (good luck on the LSAT, HTH).Everyone else should read this book because the abortion issue is a small part of the book. he answers the question of why drug dealers live with their mothers (the top 2% make 50% of the profits. the "dealers" or foot soldiers make between 3-7 dollars an hour), what the KK and real estate agents have in common (information asymetry over the public), and what teachers and sumo wrestlers have in common (they both cheat). the whole book is fascinating
I never even said he was wrong, but just that people should consider the fact that making correlations is difficult, and it becomes more difficult when there is no control group. Further, I thought that I made it clear that I would see great value in an evaluation immediately preceding and immediately following Roe v. Wade. Usually, that is how this type of analysis works. That is how we have studied government programs. But even this does not account for unforeseen consequences, the other point of my contention. We can all argue until we are blue in the face about the consequences of legalized abortion are. I think it is easy to say that if nothing else, reducing the number of at-risk, as I have described them, births, has a negative relationship with crime. But legalizing abortion and the abstract idea of lowering these birth rates is not the same thing. If you make them equal, it is easier to say that legalized abortion leads to lower crime, no questions asked, but to make them equal is to ignore other effects.I just ask people to be cautious. I am a great believer in economics and weighing costs and benefits, but I am also a great believer in some scrutiny. After all, how many times have two economists come to totally contradictory conclusions, one of them or both of them have to be wrong, the idea that this guy is so necessarily right is ridiculous. He has provided us with a study, a theory or whatever. But it is not price theory, it is not definite, so treat it as so at your own detriment.
The author certainly outlined the statistically significant link between high abortion rates and a reduction in crime. But isn't there a link between high abortion rates and almost every single societal ill that could be influenced by there being fewer poor people around? E.g: SAT scores, health insurance coverage, mortality rates, Lsat scores...hahaa. There you go, high abortion rates lead to higher mean Lsat scores! I should write a book
I appreciate the support BPThis reminds me of a joke:What is the difference between an economist and an econometrician?An economist uses economic laws and models to be wrong and an econometrician uses computers to be wrong.Just a joke, no malice intended.