h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I detect a bit of linear thinking here, along with some pigeon holing.
The far-right to far-left framework of describing political systems is as limiting as using it to describe economic ones. There are working poor and working rich just as there are ildle poor and idle rich, is that the nub of what you were implying SWL?

Personally I believe that the ills of capatalism mostly spring from the Stock Market system. Once the operation of a corporation is solely motivated by profit for shareholders and greater *salaries* for boards of directors many benefits to the system are lost. Consider the great lay-offs of the late 1980s and early 1990s along with the wholesale buying of companies for assets which were then broken up for profit in the 1980s. These things were done strictly for profit and ultimately led to the bursting of the dot com bubble and companies like Enron.
Consider a family owned and run business, as it increases in size and eventually goes public with an IPO it loses more than control by individuals who had an initial vision to fulfill a need. It loses it's humanity in essence and becomes a money making machine. This is not to say that all companies do, but it takes a fairly unique internal organisation and a powerful CEO or COO to battle the system. Even that provides an oportunity for abuse like Enron or (allegedly) Lord Black.

Capitalism ranges from pure barter to the Stock Market, from socially conscious to ravenous greed, from laissez-faire to Oligarchy. Those things and every shade between them may be connected by a line but I'm fairly sure it isn't a straight one.

cl zoomer, you can hold the chief executive officers and the board of directors criminally responsible for the actions of the company, and retain the "humanity". That's where the breakdown occurs. The family run business has direct, legally responsible individuals, whereas the "corporation" has nothing so clear cut.

I agree, criminality can be punished but part of my point was that the opposite of criminality, social conscience cannot be legislated or even promoted if profit is the major motivator.

Every social, political or economic system has a double edged sword as part of it, legislation based on moral and ethical strengths is the only check to the down side of that sword.

nnnnyeah...It's a nice cosy generalisation that those who work the hardest are those who reap the greatest rewards. If only t'were true.

We can easily think of some counter examples. Those who are shitloads wealthier than your or my wildest dreams yet have never worked a day in their life. (not all of them with the surname Windsor ). Those piss-poor people from third-world industries who demonstrate their industry and fortitude by managing to get to our country via the Channel Tunnel or similar yet who end up in sub-breadline, grey economy jobs. I salute them for working harder than I ever have in my puff.

That said...capitalism is clearly good at creating wealth...measured in terms of the maxima. But you don't even need Marx to tell you that wealth is distributed unevenly. That's straightforward Ricardian economics. What Marx proposed is that this is an unstable situation. As the rich get richer and the poor poorer (and the two are connected), the situation becomes unstable: The centre will not hold.

As it happens, I think that Marx was utterly wrong on the detail. But it makes you think, does it not? How sustainable is unbridled capitalism? At what point do the wealthy start to live in fear of the huddled masses? What is the point of diminishing returns?

zoomer, I think the problem lies in the scale of the business well. I think it has been amply demonstrated that huge corporations, run by families, are just as bad as those run by boards/executive officers.

I think a small business, which interacts heavily with the local environment at all levels, will have the social conscience to protect its local environment and the people of that area - whether it is family run or not. I think the disconnect occurs when you have people living, etc. in location A and making decisions that heavily affect location B.

Trouble is, social conscience takes second place to the share price.

I hope no one is going to tout the line that social inequality is linked to crime. Because the evidence suggests otherwise. The Inequality index stayed stable between 1961 and 1983, but crime rose 300%. The inequality index rose between 1983 and 1988 but crime came down by 15%. That's in the UK. In the Nordic countries, the inequality level came down between 1961 and 1995, but crime rose at similar levels to the UK. (Source: UNESCO). So if the well-off are in fear of the huddled masses, it's not due to inequality. Maybe because the huddled masses can frequently see examples of ordinary people making good.

Crime: small word, big issue.

Lets forget for a minute any troublesome things like who does it and how they do the collecting of statistics for inequality indexes and occurencies of crime. Lets prtend that all reporting collatin and interpreting is 100% bang on.

You will still be left with the fact that some crimes arent as affected by poverty as others. Smuggling and theft two crimes primarily about earning money will be more affected than say beer fuelled punch ups in the taxi queues of city centres. You can find wealthy and dirt poor paedophiles. Its my contention that littering, which is a crime, goes up when people are more affluent shoplifting you'd expect to see that come down wouldnt you. As people get richer you'll probably get less people dodging fares on trains but more people being able to affords to drive means a higher demand for parking space and more parking offences.

Your mistake as with most people who talk about economies is to think that one or two indicators give the whole picture, they dont. Economies are incredibly complex and what's more are subject to the most inexplicable market force of all human whims.

Then you have to remeber that studying the figures can give a guide but you have to first understand the figures and take them with a inch of salt because they are likely to be A) wrong to a certain degree and B)out of date by the time they are all collated.

onelove

I'd imagine a huge rise in crime has more to do with drugs becoming simultaneously a) widely used, and b) illegal during the 60's. I'd say it's fairly likely that *some* crime is linked to social inequality, because social inequality is inextricably linked to social deprivation. Like Blicky says though, different crimes could be expected to rise or fall depending on prevailing social conditions.

Given that drugs are estimated to be a contributary factor in 70% of crimes, I would say that is a valid point. Inequalities in society will cause some crime undoubtedly, like the ned dragging a key down the side of a Mercedes, so there will be a link. But there is no evidence that it's a causal link. In the early 20th century, social inequality was far higher than it is now but crime levels were far lower.

There has however been research conducted that links some criminal behaviour with genetics.

The idea that affluence causes littering is risible. If this were true, Monaco and Contadora would be neck-deep in crisp packets.

"Given that drugs are estimated to be a contributary factor in 70% of crimes, I would say that is a valid point. Inequalities in society will cause some crime undoubtedly, like the ned dragging a key down the side of a Mercedes, so there will be a link. But there is no evidence that it's a causal link. In the early 20th century, social inequality was far higher than it is now but crime levels were far lower."

Then again the number of burglaries did rise in the 1930s.

"There has however been research conducted that links some criminal behaviour with genetics."

Genetics might explain why some people become criminals but it certainly doesn't explain why rates of crime rise or fall.

"The idea that affluence causes littering is risible. If this were true, Monaco and Contadora would be neck-deep in crisp packets."

Then again maybe these places can afford more streetcleaners.

I think reasons for crime are almost as complicated as capitalism. Unless people have changed drastically in genetic terms, then genes have no bearing on changing crime rates.

<>
Maybe so, but the fall in the cost of packaging is certainly a factor. We live in a throwaway society, and it's natural that some people throw things away. I don't think Monagasques eat an *awful* lot of crisps, and when they go out socialising, other people put their rubbish in the bin.

Monagasques? Is that what they're called? I never knew that.

Having just returned from a weekend break I have just caught up on this fascinating thread, one of the best argued for a while.

A couple of observations might be

1. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it gets things done, though incompetent management can destroy the efforts of the staff. (experience).

2 Thousands of usin this country have become "rich" in the last 20 years , just by buying a house - and if you're lucky enough to have started early on this ladder,without doing anything else, you have probably finished the mortgage, and on the accrued value, are buying a second home somehere.

Unless of course you became divorced!

Novo

When people talk about 'social inequality' what do they mean? If it's wealth-based, then that's not social, really. To me social inequality implies everything from wealth to education to health.

Deride my argument if being rude is your thing SWL but we can all imagine how many bags of walkers crisps or the local equivalent are sold in Monaco and just how many street cleaners the municipalityof that principality pays to keep its streets looking pristine. you cant really compare such places to your average housing estate or the thousands of miles ofless well kept beaches in the rest of Europe. Well you can if you just want to talk twaddle. Your call.

"In the early 20th century, social inequality was far higher than it is now but crime levels were far lower.

Where is your evidence or even argument for this. I say its rubbish. At the start of this century your boss lived in the same town as you and very likely his children went to the same school as your children because everyone pretty much walked to work. this is no longer the case but your trying to argue that we are less socially divided.



"There has however been research conducted that links some criminal behaviour with genetics.

Care to ellaborate on this I can think of one bunch of people who tried to link genetics and behaviour can you guess who they were?

onelove

'I can think of one bunch of people who tried to link genetics and behaviour can you guess who they were?'

Does this count as an instance of Godwin's Law?

Quick, fifty Hitler post...

>>There has however been research conducted that links some criminal behaviour with genetics.

While this is certainly true, such research tends only to have credibility amongst right-wing nutjobs. Of course...one might say that the left-leaning criminologists *would* say that. But just think: What would the study look like that separated out genetics by controlling for societal factors? Given that most offspring tend to share their parents' community.

I admit that my knowledge of the topic is limited to being married to someone with a criminology MSc...but the prevailing view is that crime is a multifactorial problem. No surprises there. Neither is it surprising that the poverty/crime correlation is less than clear. Amongst the poor (or, indeed, the rich), he majority of crimes will tend to be committed by a relatively small group. That completely buggers up most forms of correlation. (You have to get into stuff like cluster analysis. Statistics - I do know).

One major contemporary issue that must be faced is that we now have third generation drug addicts. So who shall we blame for the addict's crimes? The parents? The grandparents? The addict's own shortcomings? A meaningless question. Far better to ask "Who's going to fix it?" It's a *big* problem that needs wide, societal action.

I'm not promoting the research, I'm just adding it to the mix of factors that may affect levels of crime.

And just in case anyone thinks my source is Mengele:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2165715.stm