How does capitalism affect crime?

[arildno]

The lines of argument was, roughly as follows:

a) Poverty elimination in the West has reduced crime (granted by most posters)
b) Capitalism has reduced poverty..hence, caused crime reduction, by a) (held by many posters)
c) Here, I intervened, saying it was not capitalism per se that had eliminated poverty, but the revolutionized processes of production, through the inventions made by various scientists/engineers (capitalism effectivizing immensely the spread of technologies) (post 16).
Certainly, that was a juncture point in the thread, from which it has gone down two separate lines.
d) Then YOU came on board, asserting that capitalism was the mechanism driving invention forwards.
e) To which I objected, saying most scientists aren't primarily motivated by capitalist considerations.
f) Whereupon YOU, suddenly shifting tracks, asking what this has to do with "crime".

If you want that connection, go back to c).

Besides, you have, as you say, only MAINTAINED that consumerism drives innovation, i.e, made a wholly empty assertion.

To take another counter-example to that:
The chemical industry was revolutionized in 19th century Germany, NOT through free-market trade mechanisms, but by a network of state officials and huge corporation TRUSTS (an anti-market institution), like IG Farben, that financed, and upheld thousands of scientists and engineers.

19th century German economy was a Prussian command economy, not a libertarian laissez-faire economy of the British and American variety.
Similary hold for both the German and Japanese "Wirtschaftswunders" after the second world war.

 

[DaveC426913]

Certainly, that was a juncture point in the thread, from which it has gone down two separate lines.
d) Then YOU came on board, asserting that capitalism was the mechanism driving invention forwards.
e) To which I objected, saying most scientists aren't primarily motivated by capitalist considerations.
f) Whereupon YOU, suddenly shifting tracks, asking what this has to do with "crime".

I shifted from the derailed track (why are we talking about Newton?) back to the on-track (innovation driven by consumerism). If that's a weaselly tactic, then we surely don't see eye to eye about discussions.

As for the rest of your argument, frankly, I'm a bit put off by the fact that you've called me a weasel and accused me of deliberately obfuscating anything. Now you want to just move on as if you can can insult anyone anytime you feel like it and that's OK because you're Arildno.

 

[arildno]

Again, you seem to forget (or choose to suppress?) the trivial fact that, as it happens, it is scientists and engineers who MAKE discoveries and inventions.
Therefore, when you assert that "consumerism drive innovation", it is, indeed, relevant, to see what motives and aspirations those scientists and engineers are actually driven by.

In particular, if they are NOT driven by commercial interests, but even so, produce technology, then it is incorrect to say that capitalism drives inventions forward.

 

[Mk]

was not capitalism per se that had eliminated poverty, but the revolutionized processes of production, through the inventions made by various scientists/engineers (capitalism effectivizing immensely the spread of technologies).

It sounds like you would say the economic system in place has less to do with crime than level of public education (fostering more scientists/engineers).

 

[BWV]

Capitalism refers to an economy where private individuals own the means of production and pricing is set in a more or less free market

Given that any government that is not capitalist by this defintion has virtually unlimited power it therefore follows that crime would be much less (as it was in the USSR or Maoist China) the only limit is the reach and power of the government.

Capitalism does create wealth apart from technological innovation, I would encourage anyone who disagrees to read the first chapter of The Wealth of Nations or http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html" famous essay. The information delivered in market pricing combined with the specialization of labor and free exchange of goods is wealth creating in the absence of technological innovation. The aggregate wealth created with this is greater than what could be obtained from the direction of some centralized planning entity. However the aggregate level of wealth is also subject to technological constraints (so Adam Smith's Britain could never be as rich as the decrepit Socialist Britain of the 1970s) An economy is a complex emergent phenomena beyond the comprehension or control of any individual or organization.

 

[arildno]

It sounds like you would say the economic system in place has less to do with crime than level of public education (fostering more scientists/engineers).

1. It has been asserted, and I concur with that, that the huge increase of wealth in the West has greatly reduced the level of crime.

2. I think capitalism is a necessary, but not sufficient factor behind the wealth increase we have seen; in addition to an effectivizing economic system, we must regard the evolution of science&technology as primarily driven by other mechanisms than the individuals' desire to make money. At its core, scientific research presupposes material well-being (rather than a scramble for it), and is a type of luxury activity.

 

[Dale]

we must regard the evolution of science&technology as primarily driven by other mechanisms than the individuals' desire to make money. At its core, scientific research presupposes material well-being (rather than a scramble for it), and is a type of luxury activity.

I don't agree with that. There may be a few rare individuals for whom that is true, but as a typical engineer I know that I am very driven by my desire to make money. For me, and my many colleagues, innovation is not a luxury activity done after other activities have satisfied our needs, but it is our primary economic activity. As such, it is no more a luxury activity than cash-crop farming.

As an innovator, but not an entrepeneur, I have a great respect for the value of both in our modern western capitalist economy.

 

[turbo]

I am no expert, but I agree with TheStatutoryApe here. Most communist governments (to use a common example), enforce total control through relatively large police forces. Furthermore, their punishments are generally much more harsh than what you'd find in a democratic, capitalist society which I'd also take as a much greater deterrent to crime.

(sorry for not substantiating, but it's late and I'm tired )

I think you'll find that the US locks up WAY more people than any communist government on a per-capita basis, and many of the prisoners have sentences that are quite harsh compared to the severity of their offenses. For instance, a person who gets a lengthy jail-term for a drug offense in which there was no assault, no intent to commit a violent act, no property damage, etc, and no weapons involved.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't agree with that. There may be a few rare individuals for whom that is true, but as a typical engineer I know that I am very driven by my desire to make money. For me, and my many colleagues, innovation is not a luxury activity done after other activities have satisfied our needs, but it is our primary economic activity. As such, it is no more a luxury activity than cash-crop farming.

As an innovator, but not an entrepeneur, I have a great respect for the value of both in our modern western capitalist economy.

Most scientific and technological innovations, as Arildno pointed out earlier, come out of universities. Researchers at uni may worry about money but generally only as a matter of needing it to continue research. The engineers on your end tend to be the ones finding applications for new concepts and innovations unless I am mistaken. Is your experience otherwise? I don't mean this to degrade engineers by the way, finding and implimenting application is an important part of the process.

I think you'll find that the US locks up WAY more people than any communist government on a per-capita basis, and many of the prisoners have sentences that are quite harsh compared to the severity of their offenses. For instance, a person who gets a lengthy jail-term for a drug offense in which there was no assault, no intent to commit a violent act, no property damage, etc, and no weapons involved.

The US definitely has the highest number of incarcerations both actual and proportional it seems, though remember that the US is not the only capitalist country in the world. There is a problem with the numbers though considering that neither China nor Cuba (since we're contrasting communist countries) have submited to accurate documentation of prison statistics. Both insist on supplying their own numbers which are often said to be wrong, so it's possible they are closer to the US statistics than reported. There have been numbers suggested for china that would put them in first place over the US with a prison population about ten times bigger (though they are likely exagerated). As far as harshness of punishment vs severity of offense in China people are arrested for visiting the 'wrong' websites, going to the 'wrong' church, and publishing the 'wrong' news articles. In Cuba you can be arrested for being gay (though it is not "officially" illegal anymore) or executed for any number of offenses labeled as 'treason'. As far as the OP is concerned (on the matter of capitalism promoting crime over other systems) these offenses may not constitute 'crime' per se but if so I think we could agree that it constitutes crimes against the people by their government and so still a measure of crime rate.
Back to prison populations there is also the matter of treatment of prisoners. What is medical aid for prisoners like in these communist countries? How likely are prisoners to be killed by other prisoners or guards while in prison? How many potential prisoners are killed by police during apprehension or interogation? In short what percentage of prisoners and potential prisoners die due to conditions and treatment thereby reducing the overall population?

 

[arildno]

I don't agree with that. There may be a few rare individuals for whom that is true, but as a typical engineer I know that I am very driven by my desire to make money. For me, and my many colleagues, innovation is not a luxury activity done after other activities have satisfied our needs, but it is our primary economic activity. As such, it is no more a luxury activity than cash-crop farming.

Most engineers streamline existing concepts and technologies to the particular demands of the product they wish to sell, rather than breaking new ground.

Without this streamlining process, of course, we wouldn't get top-notch products at reasonable prices, and I fully agree with you that the basic driving mechanism behind this ongoing process is private enterprise and the free market.

So, I am not one to denigrate the work of engineers, nor underplay the role of capitalism in the diffusion and proliferation of technologies, but I have tried to single out a crucial element that, on the evidence, does not seem to be driven by those mechanisms per se.

The evolution of a society is not due to mono-causalism, numerous factors come into play, both symbiotically and parasitically.

 

[Dale]

The evolution of a society is not due to mono-causalism, numerous factors come into play, both symbiotically and parasitically.

I agree completely here, that many factors come into play. I just think that they are all inter-related and that you cannot separate entrepeneurism, innovation, and capitalism in the economic success story of the west. I think it is a mistake to claim that the modern success of anyone is independent of the support and influence of the others.

Even the most academic of scientists and engineers in our universities are not independent of the capitalist market, but rather it is that enormous enterpeneurial economic engine that sets up a structure where their primary economic activity (not lesiure) can be innovation. The role of the "gentleman scientist", one for whom invention is a leisure activity, is insignificant in modern capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree completely here, that many factors come into play. I just think that they are all inter-related and that you cannot separate entrepeneurism, innovation, and capitalism in the economic success story of the west. I think it is a mistake to claim that the modern success of anyone is independent of the support and influence of the others.

Even the most academic of scientists and engineers in our universities are not independent of the capitalist market, but rather it is that enormous enterpeneurial economic engine that sets up a structure where their primary economic activity (not lesiure) can be innovation. The role of the "gentleman scientist", one for whom invention is a leisure activity, is insignificant in modern capitalism.

I think it ultimately goes back to scarcity of resources and social pressures, or more basicly "competition for resources". Technological advances help to alleviate these issues. The Times article I linked previously supposes that the most common "crime" in communist Russia was the illicit appropriation of resources.

 

[arildno]

I agree completely here, that many factors come into play. I just think that they are all inter-related and that you cannot separate entrepeneurism, innovation, and capitalism in the economic success story of the west.

Sure you can. In the same manner as you can separate pressure from volume from temperature.

I think it is a mistake to claim that the modern success of anyone is independent of the support and influence of the others.

They are related to each other, but distinguishable.
Similarly, pressure, volume and temperature are distinguishable phenomena, yet they are related to each other through, say, the ideal gas equation.

 

[Dale]

Then let me express my thoughts in a more concrete manner. By your comment:

we must regard the evolution of science&technology as primarily driven by other mechanisms than the individuals' desire to make money.

I understand you to be saying that dIx/dSx = 0 where Ix is the amount of Innovation done by some individual scientist x and Sx is the Salary of that same scientist*.

If that is what you are saying then I disagree. I think researchers are interested in their pocketbooks, like anyone else. I also think that the more invention you pay for the more you get, like any other market good. Scientists don't do science because they don't care about money, but rather because that is the best way for them to make money given their skills and personality (at least that is true for me).

If that is not what you are saying, then perhaps you can explain more clearly.

*Of course making reasonable "typical scenario" assumptions like Sx >> P where P is the poverty income and Iminx < Ix < Imax and assuming that x is a "normal" scientist or engineer and not unusually greedy or generous relative to his peers.

 

[AeroFunk]

It is not free trade and the free circulation of capital AS SUCH that has eliminated poverty in the West.

Rather, it is the countless technological INNOVATIONS that have revolutionized produce extraction&distribution which must be regarded as the direct causes within poverty elimination.

The primary beneficial role of our economic system in this, is the swiftness by which the market forces distribute these innovations throughout society. This, of course, should not be forgotten, and illustrative comparisons are plenty:
1. In the medieaval age, monasteries and the manorial systems were often "experiment labs", where new techniques of agriculture, for example, were implemented.
But these important techniques were impeded for swift distribution by the closed, "cellular" economy of those times. Ideals were those of self-sufficiency and suspicion towards "strangers", and trade were looked down upon.
Thus, important innovations took a very long time to distribute themselves.'

2. In the Soviet Union, scientific expertise was at least as prevalent than in the West (the maths&physics education were, in general, superior to that in many Western coun tries), but the planned economy ideas failed to distribute growth in any rational manner, so that economic development was extremely patchy and inconsistent.


However, we shouldn't assume that capitalism and "fierce" competition PER SE stimulates technological growth, on occasion it does, but not as a general principle:

Most innovators and scientists have rarely been inspired by the idea of making a monetary profit, and this constraint may not really be conducive to the growth of KNOWLEDGE.
To learn, and develop ideas that MIGHT be useful, involves much trial and error and conditions of growth seem rather to be to let scientists be luxuriously "independent" of profit considerations and have the time to mature their ideas.

The most important parts in scientific, AND technological progress has happened within UNIVERSITIES, rather than in run-of-the-mill companies involved in the daily struggle for existence and profit margins. (The main exceptions are huge, almost monopolic companies like GM which can AFFORD a large staff of scientists ambling about, mostly in the same manner as if they had been tenured professors)


For run-of-the-mill companies,providing sufficient "research space" is an uncertain, risky and COSTLY investment; a more realistic approach for such companies is mere applied science were ready-made technologies is put into use, or only altered in minor ways.

I completely disagree, maybe for large discoveries like the theory of relativity or something this may be true. But most innovations and discoveries are small, like designing a new machine that can produce widgets 10 cents cheaper. With capitalism this kind of innovation is rewarded with increased profits. Without capitalism there is no incentive for small run of the mill inventions.

If what you are saying is true then why do we need a patent system? Why do pharmaceutical companies drop billions of dollars into R&D? Your saying that new drugs would be invented by university scientists. Without capitalism these scientific efforts would be directed into other areas, whatever the hot new scientific field is, and the market would not drive research into the most socially desirable areas.

 

[Pseudo Zing]

I think that most people in this thread are sort of thinking about crime in the terms that are most beneficial for the ruling class. Capitalism has assisted with a lot of good things (innovation), but it has also created an entirely new class of criminal: the corporate kind. To paraphrase the quote, robbing one person with a gun gets you labeled "criminal," and robbing thousands of people with a fountain pen gets you labeled "dishonest." And let's not forget about people like commodities speculators, who cause starvation in other countries, and, yet, are not even considered criminals since what they are doing is legal.

"Crime" is a term that is very polluted by propoganda/public relations, and I'm not even sure how constructive it is to talk about societies in terms of "crime."

 

[DaveC426913]

o paraphrase the quote, robbing one person with a gun gets you labeled "criminal," and robbing thousands of people with a fountain pen gets you labeled "dishonest."

While I sympathize with your point, there is a pretty distinct difference. You know, the whole imminent-bodily-harm-and-possibly-death thing.

Turn the argument on its head. Say you set a reasonable sentence for corporate crime - say, two years (forget the details). Then someone goes out and points a loaded weapon in a victim's face, threatening to blow them (or their loved ones) to bits. Do they get sentenced no worse?

 

[Pseudo Zing]

Turn the argument on its head. Say you set a reasonable sentence for corporate crime - say, two years (forget the details)

How am I supposed to answer a hypothetical question without any details? 8^\

Certainly every brand of crime is different and has different consequences, but I'm not sure the differences are so incredible. Beating someone up and taking their wallet has painful consequences and so does robbing a large group of people of their pensions and ruining their retirement.

 

[russ_watters]

That's the point, though: if a corporate criminal steals a million dollars from his investors, perhaps he gets 5 years in jail. If he puts the money in a duffle bag and someone robs him at gunpoint, that robber might get 10. Fair or unfair?

 

[DaveC426913]

How am I supposed to answer a hypothetical question without any details? 8^\

The point is that it's a difference of quality, not quantity. Assign your own numbers.

Certainly every brand of crime is different and has different consequences, but I'm not sure the differences are so incredible. Beating someone up and taking their wallet has painful consequences and so does robbing a large group of people of their pensions and ruining their retirement.

No. Being shot to death is worse than losing one's pension - hands down.

That's the point, though: if a corporate criminal steals a million dollars from his investors, perhaps he gets 5 years in jail. If he puts the money in a duffle bag and someone robs him at gunpoint, that robber might get 10. Fair or unfair?

I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against a tougher penalty for the mugging.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against a tougher penalty for the mugging.

I was just restating the question, since Pseudo Zing didn't want to answer it the way you worded it.

 

[mheslep]

I think you'll find that the US locks up WAY more people than any communist government on a per-capita basis, and many of the prisoners have sentences that are quite harsh compared to the severity of their offenses. For instance, a person who gets a lengthy jail-term for a drug offense in which there was no assault, no intent to commit a violent act, no property damage, etc, and no weapons involved.

We are running out of modern communist governments with which to compare, but back just before Stalin died we had:
Soviet Union (1953): ~2.5 million in gulags in colonies, not counting local jails and prisons.
US (1953): ~250,000.
In addition there was the forced conscription in the Red Army of 2-5 million all through the Cold war.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/AHR/AHR.html