5 ms·

That may be the case on a local level, but if we could stop corporate crime we would all (theoretically) be better off -> less street crime overall.

andi999 6y ago
A better off thug is still a thug. How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe.(the other implication might exist though, high crime culture can lead to decline of a country)
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  > A better off thug is still a thug. Citation needed. > How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe. Well, only because that's measured in a way that means Bill Gates could make Tuvalu the world's richest country simply by moving there. That has no bearing on whether rich people are safer – and whether extreme poverty makes people more of a risk to others.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  Contrary to the breathless screeds from fox news, "thug" is not a type of person. Crime is something a person does, not who they are. When people do things, they do them for a reason. The most common reason for street crime is extreme poverty, and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime.
  - andi999 6y ago
    So a cobbler is not a cobbler?
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      Yes, but they can also be a criminal. Criminal is not a race. It is not a class. It is not a profession. Nobody is a criminal until they do a crime, and anyone can do a crime. Most crimes are done by poor people in desperation at great risk. The most harmful crimes are done by rich people out of greed with very little risk.
      - andi999 6y ago
        With thugs I mean criminal as a profession.
  - adwn 6y ago
    > and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime You lost me there. Do you mean that a) of the set of extremely poor people, most are extremely poor because they've been the direct victim of white-collar crime, or b) white-collar crime as a whole is the leading cause for extreme poverty in a society? Both interpretations seem very wrong to me. Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

andi999 6y ago

A better off thug is still a thug. How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe.(the other implication might exist though, high crime culture can lead to decline of a country)

wizzwizz4 6y ago
> A better off thug is still a thug. Citation needed. > How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe. Well, only because that's measured in a way that means Bill Gates could make Tuvalu the world's richest country simply by moving there. That has no bearing on whether rich people are safer – and whether extreme poverty makes people more of a risk to others.
hannasanarion 6y ago
Contrary to the breathless screeds from fox news, "thug" is not a type of person. Crime is something a person does, not who they are. When people do things, they do them for a reason. The most common reason for street crime is extreme poverty, and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime.
- andi999 6y ago
  So a cobbler is not a cobbler?
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    Yes, but they can also be a criminal. Criminal is not a race. It is not a class. It is not a profession. Nobody is a criminal until they do a crime, and anyone can do a crime. Most crimes are done by poor people in desperation at great risk. The most harmful crimes are done by rich people out of greed with very little risk.
    - andi999 6y ago
      With thugs I mean criminal as a profession.
- adwn 6y ago
  > and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime You lost me there. Do you mean that a) of the set of extremely poor people, most are extremely poor because they've been the direct victim of white-collar crime, or b) white-collar crime as a whole is the leading cause for extreme poverty in a society? Both interpretations seem very wrong to me. Do you have any data to back up that assertion?