3 ms·

When the middle class is only barely more wealthy than the destitute, there is no point for the poor to try to rob them. And then only the political elite is m

When the middle class is only barely more wealthy than the destitute, there is no point for the poor to try to rob them. And then only the political elite is much richer (in practise even if not in theory), and they are protected well by the police and the military. This can be the situation in places with centrally managed economies like North Korea today. Obviously, they are also very safe (from the regular criminal behaviour point of view).

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If that were true then areas with concentrated poverty should have negligible crime - why bother robbing anyone if everyone is poor? Yet that is the exact opposite of what is seen in reality.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  A single concentrated poverty spot naturally doesn't work like that. It is immersed in a culture that shows it the income and wealth inequalities, as well as uses them to justify violence. But when a country is universally poor but has a working and stable government, you may have surprisingly low crime rates. But then, such a country often doesn't stay poor. (Look at China...)
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    So the poor commit crimes against each other solely because rich people exist somewhere else and don't interact with them? Malaysia is oddly anti-semitic for a country with about 0 Jews. I'd expect that if the Jews were causing all the problems, then Jews would actually need to exist in-country. But now you are making me re-think; is it plausible that simply by existing somewhere else, the Jews cause Muslims to engage in bad actions that harm themselves? I don't understand your general principle. When is it reasonable for one group to blame their actions on the existence of some far away out-group?
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Not exactly "somewhere else"; rich people exist in the vicinity to set a role model and perhaps target for easily and quickly acquired wealth. Jews are of course a global scape-goat for Muslim extremists.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

If that were true then areas with concentrated poverty should have negligible crime - why bother robbing anyone if everyone is poor? Yet that is the exact opposite of what is seen in reality.

ptaipale 10y ago
A single concentrated poverty spot naturally doesn't work like that. It is immersed in a culture that shows it the income and wealth inequalities, as well as uses them to justify violence. But when a country is universally poor but has a working and stable government, you may have surprisingly low crime rates. But then, such a country often doesn't stay poor. (Look at China...)
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So the poor commit crimes against each other solely because rich people exist somewhere else and don't interact with them? Malaysia is oddly anti-semitic for a country with about 0 Jews. I'd expect that if the Jews were causing all the problems, then Jews would actually need to exist in-country. But now you are making me re-think; is it plausible that simply by existing somewhere else, the Jews cause Muslims to engage in bad actions that harm themselves? I don't understand your general principle. When is it reasonable for one group to blame their actions on the existence of some far away out-group?
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Not exactly "somewhere else"; rich people exist in the vicinity to set a role model and perhaps target for easily and quickly acquired wealth. Jews are of course a global scape-goat for Muslim extremists.