Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA29045 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:04:40 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D290@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:52:42 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
The British national lottery is often described as a tax on the poor.
Generally it is those in the lower socio-economic bands that spend most on
lottery tickets, and I presume that would be true elsewhere.
Interestingly a survey recently suggested that in Britain at least, the poor
give proportionately more of their income to charity that the wealthy as
Speaking of stock markets, has anybody read that book by those phsyicists
who were so convinced they could play the market and win big they dropped
out of their jobs to play the markets?
I thought, statistically speaking stock markets were inherently chaotic
systems, with rises and falls as much to do with statistical chance as
things like insider information or the rumour mill?
> From: AaronLynch@aol.com
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 23:15 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
> In a message dated 2/22/2002 4:00:35 PM Central Standard Time, Steve Drew
> <email@example.com> writes:
> > >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:18:10 EST
> > From: <AaronLynch@aol.com>
> > Subject: Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
> > I've expanded the footnote in the online version of this paper with
> > the passages quoted below. I suppose I could work up a whole
> > research project on the subject of negative wealth to fertility
> > correlations, especially given the social and scientific implications
> > that have been attached to the subject. The most recently added
> > text is as follows:
> > "... In such a society, most of the negative wealth to reproduction
> > correlation would be attributable to the multi-generation wealth
> > concentrating effects of people limiting reproduction. In any one
> > generation, limiting reproduction saves the large sums of extra
> > money it takes to raise large families. It also limits the ability of
> > couples to have two breadwinners working outside the home,
> > especially in demanding but lucrative careers. Women who do
> > not intentionally keep their families small often become
> > stay-at-home mothers. Men who do not intentionally keep their
> > families small may come to feel more constrained from pursuing
> > risky careers that have higher average expected earnings but
> > also higher variance in earnings, in which the high variance in
> > earnings poses an unacceptable risk to the other family members.
> > Such men might then forego lucrative but risky entrepreneurial
> > ventures in favor of stable careers with less growth potential.
> > Between generations, those who limit their reproduction can
> > spend more money on their children's educations and careers,
> > thereby allowing the children to not only inherit more money, but
> > also to earn higher annual incomes. The wealth concentrating
> > effects both within and between generations for limiting of
> > reproduction may exceed the reproduction-promoting effects of
> > money going to an average individual.
> > One way to study the causal effect of wealth on reproduction
> > (even in societies where the two are negatively correlated) is to
> > compare the post-winning reproductive careers of lottery winners
> > versus non-winners who bought the same numbers of tickets at
> > the same locations. If the winners exhibit higher reproduction rates
> > after winning, it would suggest that wealth does have at least some
> > fertility-promoting effect. ..."<
> > Hi Aaron.
> > Although this could be taken cynically (and there probably is some
> > in it) money buys silence. Although there seem to be a fair few 'rock
> > etc who have more than the average (2 ish?) via different females, we
> > to find out because the journalists are looking for stories. OTOH, a
> > businessman who few people have heard of, and cared about even less
> > able to buy silence as it would be in the womans interest, as the
> > would not care, and i doubt that many people are inclined to blackmail.
> > It is likely that until very recently it would be difficult to prove
> > paternity.
> > BTW, it seems to me that a lot of the lottery winners in the UK seem to
> > past their child producing years, which might skew your results :-)
> > Regards
> > Steve
> Hi Steve.
> Yes, the pool of lottery ticket buyers may not be representative
> of the general population. That is why I suggested comparing
> lottery winners to others who bought similar numbers of tickets
> at the same locations.
> One can compare groups of winners and ticket-buying
> non-winners matched by age, socioeconomic background,
> education, etc. Or if you have a really generous research ,
> budget you could create a lottery in which everyone in the
> country has an equal chance of winning, and that involves no
> ticket purchases.
> --Aaron Lynch
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 14:25:24 GMT