Topic: Poverty is the mother of crime
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 hour ago #137,361
Most human crime could e solved by giving people fulfilling livers worth living, with enough money to lead decent lives, have families, eat, etc.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,455,262
I used to think that too.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 6 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,263
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
No, I don't mean multi-billionaires. I mean, if the average people in the average poor neighborhood had dignified lives worth living, crime would plummet.
No, I don't mean multi-billionaires. I mean, if the average people in the average poor neighborhood had dignified lives worth living, crime would plummet.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,264
@previous (A)
I agree. There are crimes done out of necessity which is the most common type of crime. There are also crimes that are a little bit harder to understand.
I agree. There are crimes done out of necessity which is the most common type of crime. There are also crimes that are a little bit harder to understand.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 58 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,266
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
There's a sweet spot. Poor people have no hope, so they do crime to try to get the things they need or want. Super rich people have no connection to reality, so they start committing crimes just for hedonistic pleasure. The sweet spot is when people have enough money for food, some savings, a family, a decent house, a vacation, a hobby, a car, things like that.
There's a sweet spot. Poor people have no hope, so they do crime to try to get the things they need or want. Super rich people have no connection to reality, so they start committing crimes just for hedonistic pleasure. The sweet spot is when people have enough money for food, some savings, a family, a decent house, a vacation, a hobby, a car, things like that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 55 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,268
@previous (A)
I guess the thing is with economic policy, there’s usually a trade off between equality and efficiency. So like, for example, there are some industries where you can’t start a business unless you have a certain amount of capital. For instance, the average person can’t start a car company on their own with their own money. But sometimes those ventures are things that lead to technological innovations that can massively increase the productive output of society. Which is why societies that are unequal experience economic growth, while societies that strive to be perfectly equal generally have poor economic growth. But the issue is the logical extreme of inequality is you have an authoritarian dictatorship. So, there are conflicting priorities between economic development and individual quality of life, and I’m not sure what the best way to optimize that is.
I guess the thing is with economic policy, there’s usually a trade off between equality and efficiency. So like, for example, there are some industries where you can’t start a business unless you have a certain amount of capital. For instance, the average person can’t start a car company on their own with their own money. But sometimes those ventures are things that lead to technological innovations that can massively increase the productive output of society. Which is why societies that are unequal experience economic growth, while societies that strive to be perfectly equal generally have poor economic growth. But the issue is the logical extreme of inequality is you have an authoritarian dictatorship. So, there are conflicting priorities between economic development and individual quality of life, and I’m not sure what the best way to optimize that is.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 53 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,269
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
You hack have capital an innovation while not having desperate and poor people. The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one possible solution.
You hack have capital an innovation while not having desperate and poor people. The Universal Basic Income (UBI) is one possible solution.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 51 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,270
@previous (A)
Another solution is also government funded research. The government can do things that aren’t profitable. For example ITER in France isn’t profitable at all, no company would ever spend that much money and that much time on a science experiment that isn’t even intended to generate electricity, but if at some point decades from now the research done at ITER leads to a breakthrough in nuclear fusion reactors, that would have massive positive benefits for humanity.
Another solution is also government funded research. The government can do things that aren’t profitable. For example ITER in France isn’t profitable at all, no company would ever spend that much money and that much time on a science experiment that isn’t even intended to generate electricity, but if at some point decades from now the research done at ITER leads to a breakthrough in nuclear fusion reactors, that would have massive positive benefits for humanity.
Anonymous B double-posted this 36 minutes ago, 15 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,274
I feel like that’s also a mistake we’re making. There’s all this talk about oil. But that’s not the future it’s the past. And we have renewable energy and fission reactors now, but hypothetically if in the next 100 years some country by some chance figured out something better if we’re still worried about the last thing and we defunded all the scientists for being too woke, that’s going to cause some problems.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous B triple-posted this 32 minutes ago, 4 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,455,275
Like before the Industrial Revolution for example, Europe wasn’t really the most advanced culture in the world, the renaissance makes it a bit awkward but that’s partially due to wealth from the colonization of the Americas. But those two events, the colonization of the americas and the Industrial Revolution caused European economies to diverge from the rest of the world. I’m just saying, looking backwards is a mistake. And China also showed in the modern world you can actually catch up faster. The logic that you’re so far ahead nobody can ever catch up is wrong. It works the other way around.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)