Direct Democracy: Best Bet Or Mob Rule?

Direct democracy is defined as a democratic system where citizens, not elected officials, vote on major national issues to decide what becomes law.

As Statista"s Dyfed Loesche notes, some hail it as the purest form of democracy. Others are wary because some issues are highly complex and require a minimum of expertise to make a sound decision.

Some critics argue people can be moody and swayed by demagogues to vote for the wrong thing. The Brexit referendum in Britain is one example where many observers argue that people casted their votes ill-informed and manipulated by populist campaigns. Others see it as a vote pushed by a gut feeling of resentment, with voters not so much concerned with the matter at hand but rather wanting to throw a spanner in the works of a system they feel doesn"t profit them anymore.

You will find more statistics at Statista

As the infographic above shows, the British are comparatively wary of direct democracy, compared to, for example, the Germans.

In Sweden, often lauded for her ingrained democratic tradition, just a little more people than in Britain think of direct democracy as a good or very good system.

However, in all countries depicted more than half of the citizens think this system is at least somewhat good, according to data from Pew Research Center.

Labor Market Conundrum: Number Of Millennials Living At Home With Mom Continues To Surge

Nary a day goes by that President Trump and/or the talking heads on CNBC fail to mention the following unemployment chart as evidence that "everything is awesome" with the U.S. economy...

...which might be true unless you"re among the 95 million-ish Americans who have been looking for a job for so long that you no longer even count as a human being to the Bureau of Labor Statistics...

...or if you"re a millennial.

Despite being the most educated generation ever to walk the face of the

planet, at least according to their tuition bills paid by mom and dad, a

staggering number of millennials still can"t seem to land a steady job.  Moreover, despite the steadily improving labor market, as the USA Today points out, the outlook for millennials continues to inexplicably deteriorate with 20% of 26-34 year olds currently living at home with mom versus only 17% back in 2012.

The share of older Millennials living with relatives is still rising, underscoring the lingering obstacles faced by Americans who entered the workforce during and after the Great Recession.

 

About 20% of adults age 26 to 34 are living with parents or other family members, a figure that has climbed steadily the past decade and is up from 17% in 2012, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by Trulia, a real estate research firm. The increase defies record job openings and a 4.1% unemployment rate, the lowest in 17 years.

 

Not surprisingly, a much larger portion of younger Millennials age 18 to 25 (59.8%) live with relatives, but that figure generally has fallen the past few years after peaking at 61.1% in 2012.

So why does the professional development of millennials continue to diverge from other generations?  While one can never be sure, perhaps the answer to that question lies in the personal experience of young Heidi Toth who decided to quit her job, after gaining just two years of experience, to join a church mission for nearly two years.  Then, after returning to work from her travels, Toth quit again in 2013 after a "series of layoffs modified her duties"...which we assume roughly translates to..."a bunch of people got fired which meant I had to work harder so I quit."

After graduating from Texas Tech University with a journalism major in 2005, Heidi Toth, now 35, got a job quickly at a Provo, Utah, newspaper. But in early 2007, she went on an 18-month church mission, landing her back in the job market in the depths of the recession in 2008. Unable to find work, she moved in with her mother in Roswell, New Mexico, for nine months while she hunted for work and took part-time, low-paying jobs.

 

She was rehired at the Provo paper in spring 2009 but left again in 2013 after a series of layoffs modified her duties. After months of fruitless job searching and traveling, she returned to her mother’s house for three months until she was hired at a Lubbock, Texas, paper.

 

Toth was grateful she could live rent-free during her periods of unemployment. But, she adds, “It wasn’t ideal, professionally or personally.”

 

Prospective employers in larger, distant cities didn’t think she would be readily available for interviews. And at home, “I felt like I was back in high school,” she says. “I felt like I had to ask permission to go out.”

Meanwhile, as the Pew Research Center recently noted, even the Millenials that manage to hold a job and establish their own residence aren"t much better off as they now head more households living below the poverty line than any other generation and, in aggregate, represent nearly one-third of all impoverished households in the United States. 

More Millennial households are in poverty than households headed by any other generation. In 2016, an estimated 5.3 million of the nearly 17 million U.S. households living in poverty were headed by a Millennial, compared with 4.2 million headed by a Gen Xer and 5.0 million headed by a Baby Boomer. The relatively high number of Millennial households in poverty partly reflects the fact that the poverty rate among households headed by a young adult has been rising over the past half century while dramatically declining among households headed by those 65 and older.

 

Of course, that"s all despite the fact that they only head just over 20% of all households...

Millennials are the largest living generation by population size (79.8 million in 2016), but they trail Baby Boomers and Generation Xers when it comes to the number of households they head. Many Millennials still live under their parents’ roof or are in a college dorm or some other shared living situation. As of 2016, Millennials (ages 18 to 35 in 2016) headed only 28 million households, many fewer than were headed by Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) or Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70).

 

Of course, those aren"t the only stats that prove just how much those anthropology degrees are paying off...Millennials are also winning at the "cohabiting-couple" game...presumably because it takes a village of millennials to cover one monthly rent bill.

Conclusion:

Over 1.1 Million Refugees Remain In Limbo Across Europe

The majority - 52 percent - of asylum applications received by EU countries, Norway and Switzerland in 2015 and 2016 are still awaiting a decision.

You will find more statistics at Statista

As Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes, due to the historic influx of people over this period, that share accounts for roughly 1.1 million people, according to new analysis of Eurostat data by Pew Research Center.

Aside from those still in limbo over their future, 880,000 have had their applications accepted - the majority of such applicants came from Syria (about 520,000).

Millennials Head One-Third Of All Poverty-Stricken U.S. Households (The Rest Live With Mom)

Millennials just can"t catch a break.  Despite being the most educated generation ever to walk the face of the planet, at least according to their tuition bills paid by mom and dad, a staggering number of them now head households living below the poverty line...and that excludes the ones forced to live at home with mom and dad.

According to a recent note published by the Pew Research Center, Millenials now head more households living below the poverty line than any other generation and, in aggregate, represent nearly one-third of all impoverished households in the United States. 

More Millennial households are in poverty than households headed by any other generation. In 2016, an estimated 5.3 million of the nearly 17 million U.S. households living in poverty were headed by a Millennial, compared with 4.2 million headed by a Gen Xer and 5.0 million headed by a Baby Boomer. The relatively high number of Millennial households in poverty partly reflects the fact that the poverty rate among households headed by a young adult has been rising over the past half century while dramatically declining among households headed by those 65 and older.

Of course, that"s all despite the fact that they only head just over 20% of all households...

Millennials are the largest living generation by population size (79.8 million in 2016), but they trail Baby Boomers and Generation Xers when it comes to the number of households they head. Many Millennials still live under their parents’ roof or are in a college dorm or some other shared living situation. As of 2016, Millennials (ages 18 to 35 in 2016) headed only 28 million households, many fewer than were headed by Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) or Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70).

Of course, those aren"t the only stats that prove just how much those anthropology degrees are paying off...Millennials are also winning at the "cohabiting-couple" game...presumably because it takes a village of millennials to cover one monthly rent bill.

Meanwhile, for the first time in history, more young adults today are living at home with mom and dad than with a spouse.

Conclusion:

Greeks Trust Putin Most Relative To Trump, Brits Undecided

Around the world, few people trust Russian President Vladimir Putin to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. A global median of roughly one-in-four (26%) say they have confidence in the Russian leader. However, as KeepTalkingGreece reports, Greeks love the Russian President; much more so in fact than US President Donald Trump.

According to a survey conducted by PEW Research Center, only in three countries surveyed do majorities express a favorable opinion of Russia: Vietnam (83%), Greece (64%) and the Philippines (55%).

Doubts about Putin’s handling of foreign policy, however, do not necessarily coincide with perceptions of Russia as a security risk.

Across 37 countries, a median of 31% describe Russia’s power and influence as a major threat to their country – identical to the median percentage who say the same about China, and similar to the median share (35%) that sees America’s power and influence as a large threat.

Europeans are particularly harsh in their assessment of Putin, with a median in Europe of 78% expressing a lack of confidence in the leader. In the U.S. and Canada, few are confident in Putin’s global leadership, with more than three times as many people disliking Putin as liking him.

Faith in both leaders is high in South Africa and India while Australians, Canadians, and Brits just about trust Trump over Putin.

You will find more statistics at Statista

US Is "The Greatest Threat To Peace In The World Today," New Poll Finds

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

It has happened again: yet another international poll finds that the US is viewed by peoples around the world to be the biggest threat to world peace.

But, to start, let’s summarize the first-ever poll that had been done on this, back in 2013, which was the only prior poll on this entire issue, and it was the best-performed such poll: «An end-of-the-year WIN/Gallup International survey found that people in 65 countries believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace», as the N.Y. Post reported on 5 January 2014. 

On 30 December 2013, the BBC had reported of that poll: «This year, first [meaning here, ‘for’] the first time, Win/Gallup agreed to include three questions submitted by listeners to [BBC’s] Radio 4"s Today programme». And, one of those three listener-asked questions was phrased there by the BBC, as having been «Which country is the biggest threat to peace?» The way that WIN/Gallup International itself had actually asked this open-ended question, to 67,806 respondents from 65 countries, was: «Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?» #1, 24% of respondents, worldwide, volunteered that the US was «the greatest threat». #2 (the second-most-frequently volunteered ‘greatest threat’) was Pakistan, volunteered by 8%. #3 was China, with 6%. #s 4-7 were a four-way tie, at 5% each, for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and North Korea. #s 8-10 were a three-way tie, at 4% each, for: India, Iraq, and Japan. #11 was Syria, with 3%. #12 was Russia, with 2%. #s 13-20 were a seven-way tie, at 1% each, for: Australia, Germany, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, and UK.

The way that W/G itself had phrased this matter, in their highly uninformative press release for their year-end survey (which included but barely mentioned this finding, in it — as though this particular finding in their annual year-end poll, hardly even deserved to be mentioned), was: «The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat». That’s all there was of it — W/G never devoted a press-release to the stunning subject of this particular finding, and they even buried this finding when mentioning it in their year-end press-release.

I had hoped that they would repeat this excellent global survey question every year (so that a trendline could be shown, in the global answers over time), but the question was unfortunately never repeated.

However, now, on August 1^st of 2017, Pew Research Center has issued results of their polling of 30 nations in which they had surveyed, first in 2013, and then again in 2017, posing a less-clear but similar question (vague perhaps because they were fearing a similar type of finding — embarrassing to their own country, the US), in which respondents had been asked «Do you think that the United States’ power and influence is a major threat, a minor threat, or not a threat to (survey country)?» and which also asked this same question but regarding «China,» and then again but regarding «Russia,» as a possible threat instead of «United States». (This wasn’t an open-ended question; only those three nations were named as possible responses.)

On page 3 of their 32-page pdf is shown that the «major threat» category was selected by 35% of respondents worldwide for «US power and influence», 31% worldwide selected that for «Russia’s power and influence,» and also 31% worldwide said it for «China’s power and influence». However, on pages 23 and 24 of the pdf is shown the 30 countries that had been surveyed in this poll, in both 2013 and 2017, and most of these 30 nations were US allies; only Venezuela clearly was not. None of the 30 countries was an ally of either Russia or China (the other two countries offered as possibly being «a major threat»). And, yet, nonetheless, more respondents among the 30 sampled countries saw the US as «a major threat», than saw either Russia or China that way.

Furthermore, the trend, in those 30 countries, throughout that four-year period, was generally in the direction of an increase in fear of the US — increase in fear of the country that had been overwhelmingly cited in 2013 by people in 65 countries in WIN/Gallup’s poll, as constituting, in 2013, «the greatest threat to peace in the world today».

Consequently: though WIN/Gallup never repeated its question, the evidence in this newly released poll, from Pew, clearly suggests that the percentage of people in the 65 nations that WIN/Gallup had polled in 2013 who saw the US as being «the greatest threat to peace in the world today» would be even higher today than it was in 2013, when 24% of respondents worldwide volunteered the US as being the world’s most frightening country.

Perhaps people around the world are noticing that, at least since 2001, the US is wrecking one country after another: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Which is next? Maybe Iran? Maybe Russia? Maybe Venezuela? Who knows?

And this country has just increased its ‘defense’ spending, which already is three times China’s, and nine times higher than Russia’s. Do the owners of America’s military-industrial complex own the US government, and own the US ‘news’media, to permit this rabid military to control the government’s budget, in a ‘democracy’?

Is U.S. Or China The World's Economic Superpower?

Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the world has had one undisputed economic superpower: the United States.

But while the U.S. has enjoyed its moment in the sun, the balance of power has been slowly shifting towards the inevitable rise of China. It’s been a long time coming, but, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins notes, China now has the manpower, influence, and economic might to compete at a similar level – and if you ask people around the world, they’ve certainly taken notice.

ECONOMIC SUPERPOWERS

The United States and China combine for 39% of global GDP, 53% of estimated economic growth in the coming years, and 23% of the world’s population.

But which one is perceived as the more dominant economic power?

According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, the vary wildly depending on the people and country surveyed. However, on an aggregate level that uses the results from the people in 38 countries surveyed, Pew determined that a median of 42% of people list the United States as the world’s leading economic power, while 32% name China as top dog.

While the U.S. maintains a narrow lead in aggregate, things get much more interesting when we look at individual countries.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Do America’s closest allies view it as the clear global superpower? What about the countries that neighbor China – surely, they must witness China’s economic might firsthand.

Weirdly, the dominant perspectives in these places are not as obvious as one would think.

More people living in Canada, Australia, and major European countries like France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and the United Kingdom tend to view China as the global economic superpower.

Meanwhile, the majority of people in South American and African countries see the United States as the world’s major economic power – and people in countries near China (such as South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam) all tend to agree with that sentiment as well.

Most Republicans Say Universities Negatively Impact America

A majority of Republicans think higher education is having a negative effect on the U.S. according to new polling from the Pew Research Center.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, both Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided about the impact of a whole host of institutions and in many instances, that partisan divide has widened significantly over the past 12 months. The level of division is most evident when it comes to America"s colleges and universities...

You will find more statistics at Statista

While 55 percent of the public think U.S. colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the country, Republicans are particularly downcast about higher education. Pew found that an overwhelming 72 percent majority of Democrats think colleges and universities are exherting a positive influence while 58 percent of Republicans say they are having a negative effect.

Republican skepticism of the national news media is no secret so it comes as little surprise that 85 percent say it is having a negative effect on the country. Democrats are more divided on the media with 46 percent saying it is negative and 44 percent feeling it is positive. When it comes to banks and financial institutions, Democrats are more skeptical than Republicans while majorities in both parties are positive about churches and religious organizations.

Putin's Losing Public Support On Key Issues

According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, Russians still have a high level of confidence in President Putin"s ability to do the right thing regarding world affairs.

Despite his high overall approval rating, however, as Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, Putin is actually losing public support on many key issues...

You will find more statistics at Statista

Support for his handling of relations with Ukraine and the EU have dropped 20 and 15 percentage points respectively since 2015.

Russians are also increasingly dissatisfied with the way their president is handing relations with the United States. In 2015, 85 percent of people were satisfied with Putin"s handling of relations between Moscow and Washington and in 2017, that has fallen to 73 percent.

Russia & India More Confident In Trump Than Merkel At G-20

The leaders attending today"s G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, will have a lot to discuss. Key issues on the table of a deeply divided summit include terrorism, climate change and protectionism.

The event is particularly notable as the first time Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet each other face-to-face. Hopes are high that the two men will have a constructive meeting, given that they have praised each other on several occasions over the past few months. However, the US and Russia are still deeply divided, particularly over Syria and Ukraine.

But, as Statista"s Niall McCarty notes, when it comes to leadership at the G20, most countries are casting their eyes towards Angela Merkel.

You will find more statistics at Statista

The majority of G20 members have more confidence in the German chancellor than the US president, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center.

The research found that only 14 percent of people in France have confidence in Trump doing the right thing for world affairs compared to 79 percent for his German counterpart.

That pattern is repeated across the board, though Russia and India are notable exceptions with majorites in both nations having more faith in Trump"s global leadership.

(Un)Locked & Loaded

Recently, we shed light on the number of children in the U.S. that accidentally killed themselves or another child in the last three years. As reported by USA Today, in most cases the initial cause is the presence of a loaded, unsecured gun in the home. As Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes, data from Pew Research Center reveals that as much as 38 percent of gun owners in the States have a loaded, easily accessible gun in the home at all times.

You will find more statistics at Statista

An additional 17 percent said this is the case most of the time, while a minority 33 percent said that this never happens. The Pew poll also showed that for 67 percent of owners, a major reason for having a gun is for protection.

While this desire is completely understandable, with an average of one child under the age of twelve dying due to an accidental firearms accident every week, the inherent risks for a family may outweigh the gains unless the weapon is securely stored.

98% Of Greeks Consider Their Economic Situation As "Bad", Survey Says

Nearly a decade after the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, economic spirits are reviving, a PEW survey found. Economic spirits reviving everywhere? No. Not everywhere. Greeks remain pessimistic. No wonder about that, as they see no present and no future.

As KeepTalkingGreece,com reports, according to a survey conducted by Pew Research Center, many Europeans, Japanese and Americans feel better today about their economies than they did before the financial crisis. More broadly, in 11 of 18 countries from across the globe that were surveyed in both 2016 and 2017, publics feel more positive about their economy than they did a year ago.

The Dutch, Germans, Swedes and Indians see their national economies in the most positive light. While global publics are increasingly upbeat about economic conditions, the overall view of the economy is still in negative territory in many countries. Overall, a median of only 46% in the 32 nations surveyed this year say their current economy is doing well.

But as the table below illustrates, a staggering 98% of Greeks view their current economic situation as "bad."

At the same time, many are concerned about the future: A median of just 41% believe that a child in their country today will grow up to be better off financially than their parents. The most pessimistic about prospects for the next generation are the French, Japanese and Greeks.

People in advanced economies are quite pessimistic about young people’s financial prospects, just 34% believe they will be better off than the current generation.

Such despair is particularly strong in Greece, Japan, France, Australia, Canada, Spain and the UK, where roughly seven-in-ten people say today’s children will be worse off.

Democrats & Republicans Poles Apart On Global Warming

Amid widespread international condemnation, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he is pulling the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The leaders of France, Germany and Italy have issued a joint statement saying they regret the decision while affirming their commitment to continuing the global fight against climate change. Senior Republicans and coal industry officials have backed the president"s decision, however.

But as Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 86 percent of people in Brazil and 76 percent of people in India consider global warming a very serious problem. In the U.S., on the other hand, only 45 percent of respondents were seriously concerned.

You will find more statistics at Statista

There is also a massive gulf in perception among Democrats and Republicans.

Pew"s polling found that 68 percent of Democrats think global warming is a very serious problem compared to just 20 percent of Republicans, a level of concern similar to respondents in Poland and China.

Voter Fraud? 5,500 Non-Citizens Discovered On Virginia's Voting Rolls

A law firm working in the public interest has found that election officials in Virginia, a swing state that Hillary Clinton won by a comfortable margin, quietly scrubbed more than 5,500 non-citizens from its voting rolls between 2011 and 2017, according to a report published Wednesday.

But not only did they remain on the voting rolls, 1,852 of these noncitizens cast nearly 7,500 ballots during elections dating back to 1988, according to research by the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The report examined voting records across Virginia’s 133 jurisdictions and found that, unsurprisingly, Fairfax Country, A wealthy DC suburb and liberal bastion, was the worst offender in terms of the number of noncitizens registered to vote and the number of noncitizens who cast ballots, as the tables below reflect.

Elites keep howling that voter fraud in the US is virtually nonexistent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. According to a report conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2012, the capacity for voter fraud in the U.S. is substantial with nearly 2mm dead people found to be registered voters and nearly 3mm people registered in multiple states.

“Virginia’s voter registration system is so flawed, noncitizens have been found voting since the 1980s and weren’t caught until recently – by happenstance,” Logan Churchwell, PILF’s spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon. “It’s 2017 – using the honor system to determine eligibility is only defended by those without a sense of outrage toward voter fraud.”

Virginia’s lax voting-registration policies have even attracted the attention of the FBI and the left-leaning mainstream media when, back in September, the Washington Post reported that the bureau was investigating how 19 dead people somehow found their way back onto the voting rolls in the crucial swing state.

Last year, the organization released a similar report that found 1,000 noncitizens were removed from the state’s voter rolls, 200 of whom had voted illegally. Since then, the organization has gained access to voting records from all of the state"s voting jurisdictions.

And it’s likely that the state will continue to turn a blind eye to noncitizens who are registered to vote as long as Clinton loyalist Terry McAuliffe remains in the governor’s mansion. Since 2015, McAuliffe has repeatedly vetoed legislation designed to protect the right to vote in the Commonwealth. The former head of the Democratic National Committee has vetoed a staggering eight bills passed by the Virginia legislature that would have strengthened election integrity, according to the PILF report.

At least two of these bills were designed to remedy the issue of non-citizen registration and voting identified in the report.

51% Of Murders In The U.S. Come From Just 2% Of The Counties

Authored by John R. Lott, Jr. via Crime Prevention Research Center

The Distribution of Murders

The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.

In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders.  69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. As shown in figure 2, over half of murders occurred in only 2% of counties.

Murders actually used to be even more concentrated.  From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any give year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study.  Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates.

  

Breaking down the most dangerous counties in Figure 2 shows over half the murders occur in just 2% of the counties, 37% in just the worst 1% of the counties.

Figure 1 illustrates how few counties have a significant number of murders. Figure 3 further illustrates that with a cumulative perspective. 54% of counties have zero murders, 69% have at most one murder, 76% have at most two murders, and so on. To put it differently, only the top four percent of the counties have 16 or more murders.

If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.

Even within the Counties with the murders, the murders are heavily Concentrated within those counties

When you look at individual counties with a high number of murders, you find large areas with few murders. Take Los Angeles County, with 526 murders in 2014, the most of any county in the US. The county has virtually no murders in the northwestern part of the county. There was only one murder each in Beverly Hills, Hawthorne, and Van Nuys. Clearly, different parts of the county face very different risks of murder.

The map below shows the distribution of murders in Indianapolis, with 135 murders. Although the city extends well beyond the 465 Highway that encircles downtown Indianapolis, there are only four murders outside of that loop. The northern half of the city within 465 also has relatively few murders.

Washington, DC has large areas without murders. 14^th Street NW divides the eastern and western parts of the district, with murders overwhelmingly limited to the eastern half. The area around the capitol is also extremely safe.

Here is the murder map for Dallas.

Gun Ownership

According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.

Conclusion

This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year.  Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.  It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.

Most Illegal Immigrants Live In America's Metropolitan Areas

Having exposed $27 Billion reasons why a number of America"s city officials are up in arms over President Trump"s sanctuary city defunding decision, we thought it worth investigating just where the most illegal (or undocumented or unauthorized - pick your politically correct term) immigrants reside in America.

Across America, there are over 300 governmental jurisdictions claiming "sanctuary status." Of those governments, there are 106 cities, while the rest are states, counties or other units of government.

The new U.S. administration wants to overhaul America’s migration system, cracking down on undocumented migrants. As Statista"s Dyfed Loeche reports, in total there are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S. of which some 6.75 million took refuge in the big metropolitan areas, according to data collected by the Pew Research Center. Some of these metro areas have so-called sanctuary cities at their center.

You will find more statistics at Statista

Under Trump’s order, mayors defending their sanctuary city status are essentially imposing a defiance tax on local residents. On average, this tax amounts to $500 per man, woman and child. Major cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago have the most to lose, and nearly $27 billion is at stake across the country.

The threat of losing nearly $27 billion in federal funding seems to be having an effect on some cities. In fact, Miami already reversed their sanctuary city policy.

Obama "Housing Recovery" Crushes "Blacks, Young Adults" As Homeownership Rates Crash

The Obama administration has a tendency to conflate the strong performance of Fed-induced "assets bubbles" with "strong economic growth."  Unfortunately, as is often the case these days, the "hard data" paints a slightly different picture than the "narrative" being pushed by Obama and his staff.

Per a new report from the Pew Research Center, and as our readers are undoubtedly aware, home prices have indeed recovered to pre-recession levels with a little help from Janet Yellen and crew.

That said, the Obama narrative breaks down from there as further research readily reveals that home prices have recovered despite a massive drop in overall homeownership rates. 

Moreover, the folks that seem to have been hit the hardest are the ones that were the biggest supporters of Obama"s "Hope & Change" agenda.  Per the table below, homeownership rates among "Young Adults" and "Blacks" are down 18% and 16%, respectively, since the peak in 2004.  And while that"s definitely a big "Change," its somewhat lacking on the "Hope."

But if "mainstreet" Americans didn"t drive Obama"s housing recovery then who did?  Perhaps the following Bloomberg headline can help answer that question:

Yes, the benefits of Obama"s "housing recovery" accrued to none other than his "archenemy," Wall Street, which poured $100"s of millions into single-family houses on a weekly basis and $10"s of billions over the past couple of years.

Adding insult to injury, this massive pace of investment has re-inflated the housing price bubble, making it, once again, nearly impossible for "Young Adults" and "Blacks" to afford homes.  And, unlike in 2007 when subprime lending basically erased the need for down payments, homebuyers today are forced to "have some skin in the game" before banks will blindly give them $100,000"s of dollars. 

But, with the average American having about $3,000 in "financial assets," we"re not sure that"s feasible.

But, as we always say, who needs facts when narratives are so much more fun.