Home Uncategorized Another Beautiful Theory Destroyed By A Mere Fact

Another Beautiful Theory Destroyed By A Mere Fact

Author

Comments

Apparently, so we’re told, crime is soaring in the United States. But that’s OK, we know the reason why. We even know what to do about it. Just take all he money of the rich bastards and crime will fall again.

A friend is trying to sell his condo in downtown Portland but large parts of downtown have been turned into a giant homeless camp so there are few buyers even in this hot real estate market. The nearby streets are pockmarked with tents and the curbs frequently sport human waste.

It’s possible that this is something to do with the way that Portland is being governed but then hey, what do we know?

This isn’t to romanticize poverty; it’s tough, and crime is a problem in barrios and slums around the world. But crime isn’t sweeping the cities of Europe, Japan, South Korea or Taiwan the way it is American cities, because in those countries the very wealthy are appropriately taxed and therefore average people are still well within the parameters of the middle class.

Research published in the Oxford Economic Papers in 2014 found that not only does inequality cause increases in crime (including violent crime), but the main variable is people’s perception of inequality: When the morbidly rich are conspicuous in their consumption, crime explodes faster than when they’re discreet.

“Using variation within US states over time, we document a robust association between the distribution of conspicuous consumption and violent crime,” authors Daniel and Joan Hicks noted.

Well, it’s a nice theory. And of course our old friends Wilkinson and Pickett make an appearance. But as with any hypothesis we do need to refer to reality. As and when there’s a conflict between fact and theory then it’s the universe that wins.

Ah:

Hmm, wealth inequality – which is what our Man Talking About Portland is talking about – has risen in recent decades at the same time as the crime rate has plummeted.

That is interesting, isn’t it? That the hypothesis has been tested and been found to be bollocks.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

3 COMMENTS

Comments are closed.

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Agatha has been published.

Aunt Agatha has been published (the money came from an anonymous donor). It was £2500+ If you'd like a copy, donate £10+ and you'll get...

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

Recent comments