**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Given points I've seen you make recently, I would think you would think that the ethic of the home and community would be the most important factor here.

They are. Those are factors driving poverty. And poverty is a factor that drives crime. Why do you insist on separating all of these things?

Do you think that adding wealth to a crimey situation would make it less crimey?

Yes. If a school has enough money for a basketball team, that's 20 kids who won't be slinging drugs after school. Now imagine if that school has enough money for a football team too. And a baseball team. And a chess team. And a debate club. See where this is going??

If a community has enough money to fund a community college or career training center......that will reduce poverty, and therefore crime.

Also money buys things like alarm systems, gates, and more cops. Security measures that reduce crime.

If people have more money, in general they are happier. That means less dysfunction and depression... both major indicators of drug prevalence. And using drugs, is a crime.

Do I have to keep going?

[wufwugy]

They are. Those are factors driving poverty. And poverty is a factor that drives crime. Why do you insist on separating all of these things?

As we just discussed, that is not known. They may both be epiphenomena of something else that is causing crime and poverty. There are plenty of wealthy criminals and poor law-abiding citizens.

Yes. If a school has enough money for a basketball team, that's 20 kids who won't be slinging drugs after school. Now imagine if that school has enough money for a football team too. And a baseball team. And a chess team. And a debate club. See where this is going??

If a community has enough money to fund a community college or career training center......that will reduce poverty, and therefore crime.

Also money buys things like alarm systems, gates, and more cops. Security measures that reduce crime.

If people have more money, in general they are happier. That means less dysfunction and depression... both major indicators of drug prevalence. And using drugs, is a crime.

Do I have to keep going?

This assumes that's how the money will get used and that the communities value that use. Many (all?) of these places that are currently destitute once had more wealth and more productive institutions. And then that went away.

Do you think the data show that throwing more money at problems fixes them.

If it is that poor function of a community reflects that community's values, then adding wealth will just contribute to the value system.

[BananaStand]

If it is that poor function of a community reflects that community's values, then adding wealth will just contribute to the value system.

It also adds the incentive of not wanting to lose wealth.

The way you're talking, there would be no way to reduce crime. You would just have to apprehend, incarcerate, and hopefully rehabilitate criminals (different thread) until there weren't anymore. We know that doesn't happen.

Many (all?) of these places that are currently destitute once had more wealth and more productive institutions. And then that went away.

Maybe there was a factory in town that employed a lot of people that moved overseas. Is that a reflection of the community? Is a dysfunctional system of community values that's making that town poor?

Could introducing wealth to the town reverse that process? Probably. Build a better highway, or a more accessible exit and suddenly your location is more attractive because of convenient shipping routes. there are lots of other ways to attract new businesses, but most all of them cost money.

[wufwugy]

The way you're talking, there would be no way to reduce crime. You would just have to apprehend, incarcerate, and hopefully rehabilitate criminals (different thread) until there weren't anymore. We know that doesn't happen.

I provide ample way to reduce crime. We do it with incentives. You agree with that too, as you are saying that giving poor people money incentivizes them to commit less crime. I'm here to say that is very unlikely, since the primary incentive in that case is to continue to commit crime. According to your premise, being poor causes crime, so if you receive a benefit because you are poor, the benefit incentivizes you to stay poor which results in crime.

The way we want to incentivize non-criminal behavior is by making crime more costly than law-abiding. The preferred way outside of a good justice system is by reducing government restrictions on economic behavior that increase the cost of law-abiding, also by not paying people to continue bad behavior like is current policy.

Could introducing wealth to the town reverse that process? Probably. Build a better highway, or a more accessible exit and suddenly your location is more attractive because of convenient shipping routes. there are lots of other ways to attract new businesses, but most all of them cost money.

Again this assumes what the money will be used for. Among those who commit a lot of crime, how many of them do you think will decide to put money they are handed into something not related to what they are currently doing?

[BananaStand]

As we just discussed, that is not known. They may both be epiphenomena of something else that is causing crime and poverty. There are plenty of wealthy criminals and poor law-abiding citizens.

Use your google machine man, the data is out there.

I did a google search for "does poverty cause crime" and just scanning the results it seems like 5 out of 6 links will bring you to some document that ultimately concludes "yes".

On the other side, the 1 out of 6 seem to be flimsy at best. One in particular is an opinion piece in the National Review where a guy pretty much just says "I know that if I were poor, I wouldn't commit a crime", and that's his evidence.

[wufwugy]

I did a google search for "does poverty cause crime" and just scanning the results it seems like 5 out of 6 links will bring you to some document that ultimately concludes "yes".

And they're wrong, at least according to the evidence they use. Those data show associations between poverty and crime, not causality. Believe me when I tell you that even the most stringent of econometric regression analyses leave a bunch out.