| > Now if you take an absolute definition, you need to explain why a lot of countries much poorer than the US (much of Europe) have less crime. No, I don't, because I'm not postulating that poverty is the only reason for crime, merely that it is a substantial factor. Another obvious factor is difference in legal systems that makes general crime rates extremely hard to compare (consider that the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison in the world) Further, you're being imprecise. Many countries that are considered rich have high poverty rates. Such as the US. > Or why Brazil, Mexico and South Africa have far more crime than India. Apart from what I wrote above, all of these countries have massive poverty rates. I haven't checked all three, but South Africa's poverty level is at least under some measures at similar levels to India. Mexico also have a massive US-fueled drug war that accounts for a substantial proportion of all crime to the extent that it mostly swamps out most other factors. But of course, this alone is not very relevant unless you - unlike me - assume poverty is the only factor. > If you want to use a relative definition of poverty (e.g. what Norway does), then you need to postulate that the existence of someone earning more than you do within a national boundary is what causes you to murder people. No, I don't. You're making up strawmen again. The reason for pointing out the relative definition was to make it clear that the US definition (which is also relative - the specific numbers are adjusted regularly) and Norwegian definitions are not directly comparable, and that Norway's 4.5% number is vastly higher than it would have been under a US definition. As such, we can not with confidence say that if the US brought poverty down to 4.5% after the US definition, even all else being equal, it would provide sufficiently stable living conditions to make it possible to reap whatever level of benefit the Norwegian system does from reduced poverty. This was to address your issue of how much social security would be enough, after the ludicrous claim that the US tried to provide social security in the 60's and 70's, and that it didn't have any positive effect on crime rates, and my counter-claim that the US have never seriously tried to provide proper social security. Also, despite your aggressive and rude way of asking for me to support my claims, you've provided nothing but that in defence of your claims. I take your aggression and rudeness and lack of support for your own claims as a good indicator that you have nothing. > Assume poverty is the sole cause of homicide Nice strawman. Pretty much your entire line of reasoning appears to be founded on setting up strawmen. Has anyone suggested poverty is the sole cause of homicide? No. I suggested that differences in poverty levels was one major factor confounding the claimed link between homicide and race. The rest is your own invention. > I don't know what you mean by "tack on". Do you have a coherent theory, or are you just hoping? By "tack on" I meant that, unlike what you seem to believe, I have never claimed poverty to the be the only factor. In fact, I originally pointed to social status specifically of those other factors. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion and trying to explain anything to you, as you seem intent on misinterpreting every word, or you would have seen that "my" two theories are quite simple: 1) Poverty level (your own, and that of your immediate community, though they are usually largely the same) has a substantial effect on crime rate. You can falsify this theory by correcting for poverty levels in crime rate data, and see what difference it makes to the crime rate in the population reviewed. 2) If you adjust for factors that influence social status, the vast majority in the gap between crime rates for African Americans and white Americans will disappear. These factors include poverty, but also other factors such as education level and family cohesion. The main point is not the specific set of factors, but that there are confounding factor that needs to be corrected for, that has dramatic effect on levelling the inter-racial differences in crime rates. To falsify this, I don't need for there to be evidence of the specific effects of poverty on crime, as controlling for poverty and other such factors when looking at crime rates broken down by ethnic groups will either yield a result or not. |