Experts: Bad Economies Don't Cause Crime Waves
Posted on: 2010-04-07 17:55:42
Leftists spill the beans: race matters
Submitted by WVWNews reader
Whenever liberal types (and, lately, even those who call themselves conservatives) get on their soap boxes to preach about crime, crime itself is regarded as a mere symptom of a systemic and insidious disease: poverty. The solution to crime is, of course, to spend more tax-dollars on social programs intended to lift the low-income people out of their economic morass and into the blessed glory that is middle-class America. The media’s evidence supports this claim, by simply reporting the truth: most violent crime in America originates in the places where the lowest-income people reside.
This is a fact. It is not disputable.
The media and the liberal establishment even go so further, saying the people and depressed neighborhoods (that supposedly need tax-funded care to fight against the disease that is poverty) are, respectively, minorities and the places where minorities live.
This is also a fact. It is also not disputable.
So, by the media’s own admission, the majority of violent crime occurs in minority neighborhoods. However, the media always qualifies that statement by asserting that poverty or lack of financial resources, and not the inherent cultural nature of the minorities who live there, is the disease for which crime is merely the symptom.
That is, until now.
National Public Radio’s November 20, 2008 Morning Edition included an article by Laura Sullivan titled Experts: Bad Economies Don't Cause Crime Waves. Interested readers can see and listen to the whole article here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97234406.
The gist of this article (ignoring the irrelevant sob story at the very end) can be summarized as follows:
• During times of (nationwide) economic hardship, such as the Great Depression, violent crime actually decreases.
• During times of (nationwide) economic boom, violent crime increases.
• Here is a direct quote from the article: ….there will always be some people who take to robbing liquor stores in tough times. But those people were already likely to rob stores even in good times, making it a statistical wash.
• Domestic violence increases in times of economic hardship. However, and the article conveniently omits this part, the vast majority of domestic violence does not involve what law enforcement classifies as “violent crime”. (Yes, it is violence, but most of it does not constitute violent crime.)
The national statistical decrease in violent crime in relation to times of economic recession and the increase in violent crime in economic good times shows very clearly that economic hardship, whether nationwide, locally or on an individual basis, has nothing whatever to do with an individual’s tendency to commit violent crimes. Those people who are likely to commit violent crimes will be likely to commit such crimes regardless of the state of the nationwide or their own personal economy.
Of course, the liberal reader will immediately make some ridiculous reference to macro- vs micro economics. That is, a nationwide economic crisis (macro-economics) is not the same as an individual economic hardship (micro-economics). This is a ludicrous argument. Nobody, not even liberals, expects someone to take to crime because their neighbors are out of work (macro-economics). Since the liberal argument is that people take to crime because they as individuals are experiencing economic hardship, at issue is how economic recession affects people as individuals, and how the individuals behave as their personal economic hardship increases (micro-economics).
So Laura Sullivan and NPR, the standard-bearer for liberalism in its most perverted form, has unintentionally admitted what the rest of us knew all along. Since there is no legitimate relationship between poverty and crime, throwing tax-dollars into social programs to stop violent crimes by minorities or in minority neighborhoods is an absolute waste of everybody’s money.