19-year-old man shot in Stockwell last night

[co-op]

While I like Denmark a lot and I've done quite a lot of work there, its not quite the utopia people seem to believe. There's a lot of discussion about the fact that social services are unsustainable. I heard a lot of people I worked with complaining about the extremely high taxes they had to pay. Something like 900,000 people are dependent on state benefits out of a population of 5 million (compared to 300,000 in the 70s with no significant increase in population).

There have been significant increases in crime since the 70s (both non-violent and violent) despite the fact more income is redistributed in Denmark than pretty much any other country in the developed world.

Almost twice as many people in the US hold a degree or higher than in Denmark (26% v 16%).

Denmark is a lovely place and there are perhaps lessons to be learned from them but its not perfect.

There's a lot to talk about in this post, but firstly, I don't believe in utopias when it comes to human society so I'm not setting Denmark up on a pedestal - but it's certainly a better model for where we should be heading than US cities are imo.

The increasing number on benefits is of course imposing a strain on their social model - and is largely a consequence of global economic changes that are beyond the power or individual countries to change - to some extent increasing division is impossible to avoid when the dominant global economies are embracing it so whole-heartedly.

However, for those Danes who are in work, the choice is now more taxes and maintain the relative status quo, or allow the market to define their society and follow the US path. If they choose this path there will probably be a time lag while the accumulated social capital produced by decades of social democratic policy can be milked dry, but eventually they will re-produce the same harshness that seems unavoidable when you produce sufficient numbers of people who are permenantly excluded from the primary important benefits of a society.

As far as the numbers with degrees goes - that doesn't really tell us much except that the top 26% of US society are a highly privileged and corespondingly "successful" group.

Sometimes the real benefits of deep social solidarity are only revealed in times of crisis. Thus New Orleans fell apart the minute the levees broke after their great storm, civil society sinply had no bonds to hold it together. By contrast Denmark's behaviour under Nazi occupation stands out as a beacon of righteousness - I think the ?no Danish jews at all were murdered during the second world war - an extraordinary achievement.

I really wonder what would happen if we had to live through any similar emergency now - a possibility that our recklessness over climate change is making ever more likely.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Being something of a stats nerd, I have just put the more-inequality-means-more-violence hypothesis to the test for 28 European countries, loading homicide rates and Gini coefficients of income inequality into a correlation matrix. (You don't get this sort of thing on the Daily Mail forums.)

There is a very weak positive correlation between homicide rate and Gini coefficient, with only 3.5% of variance accounted for. Looking at the countries individually, I get the impression differences in homicide rates might be better explained by presence or absence of hard-man/piss-head traditions. Of course, this begs the question of where traditions come from. Also, income inequality might have a clearer impact on other kinds of crime.

 

[Blagsta]

I think that in times of poverty economic stress related do rise but not to the extent that some would like to say it is.

Also there are some who would kill for fun or status whether they lived in a palace or a hole in the ground.

Indeed. But there is a growing body of evidence that stressed mothers transfer their stress to their babies, both in the womb via cortisol and via their relationships with their child. Unresponsive mothers lead to emotional disregulation in children which affects brain development. Poverty makes stress more likely - this is the link.

 

[editor]

Indeed. But there is a growing body of evidence that stressed mothers transfer their stress to their babies, both in the womb via cortisol and via their relationships with their child. Unresponsive mothers lead to emotional disregulation in children which affects brain development. Poverty makes stress more likely - this is the link.

Makes you wonder how the post-WW2 generation - where many of their mothers experienced horrendous stress and grief during the war - managed.

 

[Blagsta]

Makes you wonder how the post-WW2 generation - where many of their mothers experienced horrendous stress and grief during the war - managed.

Probably because there was more of a communal society, more of a family. If a mother is stressed and can't cope but there is someone else who can be responsive to the infants needs and can regulate their emotions then it's less likely that the child will grow up to be unable to regulate his or her own emotions. We live in a much more fractured society than we did then.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Indeed. But there is a growing body of evidence that stressed mothers transfer their stress to their babies, both in the womb via cortisol and via their relationships with their child. Unresponsive mothers lead to emotional disregulation in children which affects brain development. Poverty makes stress more likely - this is the link.

Interesting point there. And one I agree with up to a point. What if it wasn't just stress that affected in utro development but bad nutritional choices on the part of the mother? I've known people who have had enough money to eat well but choose to eat pot noodles twice a day during their pregnancy. Thats not poverty thats personal choice.

An idiot is an idiot whether they are claiming dole or the beneficiaries of a trust fund.

Agree about unresponsive parents. Its funny how some of the shittest kids seem to come from the parents who just sit drooling in front of the TV all day and ignore their children.

How much of this is down to poverty and how much of this is down to the parent being an arse is debateable.

However, poverty and personal responsibilty do contribute together to problems with child development.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Makes you wonder how the post-WW2 generation - where many of their mothers experienced horrendous stress and grief during the war - managed.

Better than some do now I would wager but don't forget if you dig down into family stories about this time there are horror stories that that generation just didn't talk about.

 

[Blagsta]

Interesting point there. And one I agree with up to a point. What if it wasn't just stress that affected in utro development but bad nutritional choices on the part of the mother? I've known people who have had enough money to eat well but choose to eat pot noodles twice a day during their pregnancy. Thats not poverty thats personal choice.

An idiot is an idiot whether they are claiming dole or the beneficiaries of a trust fund.

Agree about unresponsive parents. Its funny how some of the shittest kids seem to come from the parents who just sit drooling in front of the TV all day and ignore their children.

How much of this is down to poverty and how much of this is down to the parent being an arse is debateable.

However, poverty and personal responsibilty do contribute together to problems with child development.

It's not just stress. The experience in the womb is important too and contributes to the temprament of the baby. Nutrition can certainly be a factor as can whether the mother smoked or drank during pregnancy. Rich people are just as capable of being unresponsive but poverty makes parental stress more likely. Also, how we were treated as babies has a major impact on how we raise our own children so it's not as simple as saying parents are being arses.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

It's not just stress. The experience in the womb is important too and contributes to the temprament of the baby. Nutrition can certainly be a factor as can whether the mother smoked or drank during pregnancy. Rich people are just as capable of being unresponsive but poverty makes parental stress more likely. Also, how we were treated as babies has a major impact on how we raise our own children so it's not as simple as saying parents are being arses.

As I've said before I agree with a fair amount of what you've said and I accept that poverty can make stress more likey. However, a big factor in whether or not children of those suffering poverty turn out to be thugs and killers is parental attitude not just to themselves and to their children but to their situation. Why is it when we live in a society which actually has benefits are we seem to be producing more thugs and psychos when previous generations who had materially much less seem to have produced much more well adjusted offspring?

Poor pre and post natal nutrition and things like smoking and drinking during pregnancy do have a negative effect but to remove personal responsibility from the equation is dangerous and counterproductive in my opinion. Some people no matter what their material situation will be arses and will adversely affect their children because of their arseholeness.

We shouldn't automatically use the word 'poverty' to excuse shitty behavour or shitty parenting but accept that poverty is one factor in producing anti social people or people with limited empathy for others.

 

[Blagsta]

As I've said before I agree with a fair amount of what you've said and I accept that poverty can make stress more likey. However, a big factor in whether or not children of those suffering poverty turn out to be thugs and killers is parental attitude not just to themselves and to their children but to their situation.

Agreed. Parents have a massive influence, not just in the things you mention, but in forming the unconscious emotional "background" that we all have. Whether we generally feel other people are going to be hostile or not, whether we feel secure or not etc

Why is it when we live in a society which actually has benefits are we seem to be producing more thugs and psychos when previous generations who had materially much less seem to have produced much more well adjusted offspring?

Lack of community, the fact we are living more individualistic lives, we are told that the individual is the most important thing, you can have it all, buy this now etc.

Poor pre and post natal nutrition and things like smoking and drinking during pregnancy do have a negative effect but to remove personal responsibility from the equation is dangerous and counterproductive in my opinion. Some people no matter what their material situation will be arses and will adversely affect their children because of their arseholeness.

I'm not talking about removing personal responsibilty. I'm pointing out that the concept of "personal responsibility" is not as simple as it first appears.

We shouldn't automatically use the word 'poverty' to excuse shitty behavour or shitty parenting but accept that poverty is one factor in producing anti social people or people with limited empathy for others.

I don't think anyone is excusing anything. There is a difference between understanding and excusing (I always seem to have to point this out to you!).

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Agreed. Parents have a massive influence, not just in the things you mention, but in forming the unconscious emotional "background" that we all have. Whether we generally feel other people are going to be hostile or not, whether we feel secure or not etc

Agreed

Lack of community, the fact we are living more individualistic lives, we are told that the individual is the most important thing, you can have it all, buy this now etc.

I'm not talking about removing personal responsibilty. I'm pointing out that the concept of "personal responsibility" is not as simple as it first appears.

I think that this lack of community is tied up with a diminishing of personal responsibility and the growth of material as opposed to other forms of individualism. I think that you can mix individualism with community but it needs a much more detailed debate as to what is the community responisibilities to the individual and what is the individuals responsibilities to the community.

I don't think anyone is excusing anything. There is a difference between understanding and excusing (I always seem to have to point this out to you!).

I agree that we must understand but we must be careful that this understanding isn't misunderstood as excusing.

 

[Giles]

This is a huge debating topic, and I won't be able to do it justice in the time I've got today.

But anyway; the evidence that shows a correlation between crime/violence and poverty is not one between violence and absolute poverty, but between violence and relative poverty. Exactly how people define to themselves exactly who they compare themselves to is where it gets a bit complicated. But - for example - in the 'typical' situation of poverty in 1930s Britain - there was often relatively low levels of (apparent) relative inequality. The manufacturing towns that bore the brunt of the recession were often made up of 90% working class and tradespeople. Nearly all of these people would have been very harshly hit by unemployment and recession, but hit fairly equally. The poverty was almost certainly "absolute" by modern standards (ie malnutrition, untreated illness etc), but the (apparent) relative poverty was almost nil. In these situations it seems that social solidarity actually increases and crime drops.

I've put the word "apparent" in their to make the point that it depends who you compare yourself to - which is where the debate gets complex. But there is a pretty firm and unwavering correlation between wealth divisions and levels of violence in a society. The wider the more violent. You meither have to shrug and say ok, I'll take them both or you have to re-structure your economy to share wealth more equally. But the idea you can "cut crime" while maintaining massive social inequalities - that's a fantasy, and all the stupid amounts of money being poured into prisons and the police won't change a thing.(well tbf they may mean that the guy who slices you up for tuppence in your pocket is more likely to get caught, but is that a satisfactory outcome in the big picture?)

This post implies that people have no choices, that "inequality causes violence" as if people are not responsible for what they do.

I would have had a fair bit of sympathy with people who steal because they are in absolute poverty - someone stealing to feed themselves or their families.

But this "relative poverty" thing seems less deserving of sympathy. People mugging people for a snazzy mobile phone, no sympathy at all.

Living in London, I see plenty of people with more money than me, as well as quite a lot with less. I have so far resisted the urge to go out and knife someone due to my frustration at seeing someone else in a Porsche. If I can control my behaviour, so can everyone else.

Stealing off people and hurting people is wrong.

People know this, so if they do it, they should get locked up.

If they don't know this, and do mad stuff anyway, then they are clearly deranged, and should be locked up also.

Giles..

 

[Blagsta]

I agree that we must understand but we must be careful that this understanding isn't misunderstood as excusing.

The only people who confuse understanding with excusing are people who don't or can't think about these issues, for whatever reason.

 

[Blagsta]

Agreed

Lack of community, the fact we are living more individualistic lives, we are told that the individual is the most important thing, you can have it all, buy this now etc.

I think that this lack of community is tied up with a diminishing of personal responsibility and the growth of material as opposed to other forms of individualism. I think that you can mix individualism with community but it needs a much more detailed debate as to what is the community responisibilities to the individual and what is the individuals responsibilities to the community.

Agreed. But a lot of this stuff operates at an unconscious level. The stuff I referred to about how unresponsive relationships in infancy lead to children and adults who are unable to regulate their own emotions and thus act out their anger or whatever in anti-social ways. This isn't something that can be changed by merely "taking more responsibility". It can be changed, but it's hard work and requires time and patience and good relationships and skilful therapists. This costs money - and therapy services are underfunded. It also requires more support for mothers and families. More support for breastfeeding, longer maternity leave, more emotional and practical support, more support for dads etc. Having a baby is stressful enough even if you have a bit of money and your own upbringing wasn't too bad. If your own upbringing was neglected and you're own your own with no money, it's very hard to respond to your baby's needs.

 

[d.a.s.h]

This post implies that people have no choices, that "inequality causes violence" as if people are not responsible for what they do.

All causal explanations encroach on free will.

 

[Bob]

Agreed. But a lot of this stuff operates at an unconscious level. The stuff I referred to about how unresponsive relationships in infancy lead to children and adults who are unable to regulate their own emotions and thus act out their anger or whatever in anti-social ways. This isn't something that can be changed by merely "taking more responsibility". It can be changed, but it's hard work and requires time and patience and good relationships and skilful therapists. This costs money - and therapy services are underfunded. It also requires more support for mothers and families. More support for breastfeeding, longer maternity leave, more emotional and practical support, more support for dads etc. Having a baby is stressful enough even if you have a bit of money and your own upbringing wasn't too bad. If your own upbringing was neglected and you're own your own with no money, it's very hard to respond to your baby's needs.

I completely agree with that.

Ironically though none of that would have any measured impact (except in the very long term) on the government's measured poverty target - which is completely money centred.

 

[Blagsta]

This post implies that people have no choices, that "inequality causes violence" as if people are not responsible for what they do.

It's not as simple as "taking personal responsibility"! People just aren't like that. We aren't wholly consciusly in control of what we do. There is a large body of evidence that adults who have been emotionally neglected as children can have great difficulty in controlling their own emotions.

 

[Blagsta]

Of course this isn't to say that people don't need to be responsible for trying to change their own behaviour - of course they do! But it requires help that often just isn't available.

 

[co-op]

Being something of a stats nerd, I have just put the more-inequality-means-more-violence hypothesis to the test for 28 European countries, loading homicide rates and Gini coefficients of income inequality into a correlation matrix. (You don't get this sort of thing on the Daily Mail forums.)

There is a very weak positive correlation between homicide rate and Gini coefficient, with only 3.5% of variance accounted for. Looking at the countries individually, I get the impression differences in homicide rates might be better explained by presence or absence of hard-man/piss-head traditions. Of course, this begs the question of where traditions come from. Also, income inequality might have a clearer impact on other kinds of crime.

Well I did say it gets complicated! It's not always the case that "inequality" is something that occurs within strict national boundaries - nor of course does numbers of episodes of violence. Thus for example, the homicide rate in the USA varies between 2 and 18 per 100,000 of population depending on which state you are in. That's a pretty massive internal variation and the "national" stats will of course mask it. Unfortunately I don't have his breakdown of these figures at hand but Wilkinson (2000) in "Mind the Gap" states that "much the biggest single influence accounting for these differences was income inequality".

As I said earlier - much of this comes down to the question of who is comparing themselves to who. A nice simple example of this is that there is a lot of evidence that women often don't notice pay inequalities with men
because they are comparing themselves with other women (again no references to hand for this but I think it's a fairly well known example).

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Of course this isn't to say that people don't need to be responsible for trying to change their own behaviour - of course they do! But it requires help that often just isn't available.

Agreed.

However if they are still tossers even after appropriate help is given then slam the fucking cell door on them.

 

[editor]

As I said earlier - much of this comes down to the question of who is comparing themselves to who.

I wonder what part youth-tailored consumerism and its constant slick message that more is more plays in all this.

I guess it can't help much when so many pop stars endlessly boast and brag about the importance of wealth too, and if the kids are comparing what they've got to superstars, it's not surprisingly that they're going to be a tad disappointed.

That doesn't excuse young people going around murdering each other though.

 

[Blagsta]

Agreed.

However if they are still tossers even after appropriate help is given then slam the fucking cell door on them.

You're completely missing the point! People who are distrustful because of upbringing are not going to easily accept help. They require patience and understanding along with consequences for their behaviour.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You're completely missing the point! People who are distrustful because of upbringing are not going to easily accept help. They require patience and understanding along with consequences for their behaviour.

No I'm not missing the point. If after the sort of patient and understanding help someone is still a wanker then lock them up.

 

[Blagsta]

I wonder what part youth-tailored consumerism and its constant slick message that more is more plays in all this.

I guess it can't help much when so many pop stars endlessly boast and brag about the importance of wealth too, and if the kids are comparing what they've got to superstars, it's not surprisingly that they're going to be a tad disappointed.

That doesn't excuse young people going around murdering each other though.

No one is excusing anything.

 

[co-op]

This post implies that people have no choices, that "inequality causes violence" as if people are not responsible for what they do.
..

Nope it's saying there's a correlation between the two - you can argue all night about why any given individual does or doesn't behave in a particular way on a particular occasion. Specific incidences do not shed much light on the bigger picture imo.

One of the problems with the whole crime arena is that it tends to elicit highly emotional responses from people - I'd argue that your claim that I am saying it's "as if people are not responsible for what they do" is a good example of that.

If you want a less moralistic arena, and one which yields very similar results you should look at health inequalities. These have been known about for years - they manifest in all sorts of ways but if you take lifespan as a decent bench mark for health you find persistent and major inequalities between richer and poorer that (a) can be separated from all known lifestyle causes (eg smoking, diet etc) and (b) get greater when income differentials get greater. And these are major differences - 5-15 years of life less for the lower status individuals.

It was argued at one stage that these very well-known effects could be explained as a process whereby the healthy moved up socially and the unhealthy moved down. However longitudinal studies of individuals from birth to middle-age and beyond show that social mobility makes only a very small contribution to health inequalities; in fact if anything they tend to mask the effect (compared with the non-mobile population who do not change class, socially mobile people tend to diminish the class differences because their health tends to be intermediate between that of the class they left and that of the one they join).

My point is - no one would argue that poor people consciously choose to have more heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc. They just do. And here's the key thing - this effect only correlates with relative inequality not with absolute levels of wealth. Thus - eg - Greeks have less then half the average wealth of Americans but are healthier (they live longer). Greek social income divisions are correspondingly lower.

Same with crime I'm afraid.

I would have had a fair bit of sympathy with people who steal because they are in absolute poverty - someone stealing to feed themselves or their families.

But this "relative poverty" thing seems less deserving of sympathy. People mugging people for a snazzy mobile phone, no sympathy at all.

Living in London, I see plenty of people with more money than me, as well as quite a lot with less. I have so far resisted the urge to go out and knife someone due to my frustration at seeing someone else in a Porsche. If I can control my behaviour, so can everyone else.

Stealing off people and hurting people is wrong.

People know this, so if they do it, they should get locked up.

If they don't know this, and do mad stuff anyway, then they are clearly deranged, and should be locked up also.
..

Your opinions here are pretty typical, and I'd guess personally that they are based on retributative principals/emotions that are fairly deeply ingrained in us as part of our evolutionary development. But we evolved in small social groups with very low levels of inequality - our emotions are hot-buttons that provide quick emergency responses appropriate to that context.

Rational analysis of mass society makes it pretty clear that increasing inequality leads to deterioration in the quality of social relations. The increasingly hysterical tabloid-style reactions to crime of the lock 'em up and throw away the key type, can be seen as exactly this kind of deterioration; these responses require the utter de-humanisation of the perpetrators of these crimes.

The actual trigger for crime increasingly becomes not the actual "snazzy mobile phone" or whatever, but the imputations of status that are associated with it. Moreover much of the violence that accompanies these kinds of crimes is not "rational" violence (ie to facilitate the theft) but irrational "respect-based" stuff derived from constant reminders of low social status and the disrespect that embodies. You have to watch out now in case you 'look at someone funny' - we are producing a society which is turning out a growing number of people who are wildly over-touchy about their standing in society and will react very savagely to any suggestion of being looked down on.

More inequality, will produce more of the same; the choice is ours. Less and we have a chance of something more interesting.

 

[Blagsta]

No I'm not missing the point. If after the sort of patient and understanding help someone is still a wanker then lock them up.

How many chances will you give?

 

[co-op]

I wonder what part youth-tailored consumerism and its constant slick message that more is more plays in all this.

I guess it can't help much when so many pop stars endlessly boast and brag about the importance of wealth too, and if the kids are comparing what they've got to superstars, it's not surprisingly that they're going to be a tad disappointed.

And not just consumerism aimed at the young, our streets and lives are filled with a massive bombardment of head-polluting shite encouraging anyone of whatever age to gratify pointless status assertions...what else are all those ridiculous 4x4s in our streets? Of course the obvious fantasy being played out is that of crazy off-roading maverick rachero or whatever nonsense is being zero-ed in on in this weeks ad. But it's really just a way of asserting your spending power and social standing - in the case of 4x4s, in the crassest possible way by literally being bigger and higher, and more able to kill lower status groups such as pedestrians. The scramble for status is completely endemic in modern consumerism.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

How many chances will you give?

Depends on the previous record and the person themselves.

If you want a scenario then heres one. You have someone who is addicted to smack and is committing crimes to fund addiction. If you give this person a maintanence dose of pharma heroin instead of methadone and couple it with finding out WHY the person uses drugs and offer help in supporting themselves and some counselling to give a person other ways of dealing with their issues and then this help is refused or ignored then bang them up.

If someone has all the ideal help and they are still an antisocial scumbag say after one to two then fuck them off to prison. In this case they may be either incurable and dangerous to others in which case remove them from society or they are just selfish and stubborn in which case society still needs to be defended from them.

However, I'm not one of those who just want to nail people up for retributive reasons (although I believe that retribution should play a part in criminal justice but shouldn't be the primary part) if someone is imprisoned there should be help for those who need it and accept it and isolation for those who refuse it.

 

[Blagsta]

Except most of the evidence shows that people need several times in and out of rehab before they finally "get" it. Changing is hard, it involves re wiring neural pathways, reliving primary relationships in a different way, re-living emotional experiences and dealing with them differently. This doesn't happen over night, it doesn't happen on first go (or even 2nd or 3rd).

Of course some people won't change, but we have to give them chances.

 

[Giles]

Nope it's saying there's a correlation between the two - you can argue all night about why any given individual does or doesn't behave in a particular way on a particular occasion. Specific incidences do not shed much light on the bigger picture imo.

One of the problems with the whole crime arena is that it tends to elicit highly emotional responses from people - I'd argue that your claim that I am saying it's "as if people are not responsible for what they do" is a good example of that.

If you want a less moralistic arena, and one which yields very similar results you should look at health inequalities. These have been known about for years - they manifest in all sorts of ways but if you take lifespan as a decent bench mark for health you find persistent and major inequalities between richer and poorer that (a) can be separated from all known lifestyle causes (eg smoking, diet etc) and (b) get greater when income differentials get greater. And these are major differences - 5-15 years of life less for the lower status individuals.

It was argued at one stage that these very well-known effects could be explained as a process whereby the healthy moved up socially and the unhealthy moved down. However longitudinal studies of individuals from birth to middle-age and beyond show that social mobility makes only a very small contribution to health inequalities; in fact if anything they tend to mask the effect (compared with the non-mobile population who do not change class, socially mobile people tend to diminish the class differences because their health tends to be intermediate between that of the class they left and that of the one they join).

My point is - no one would argue that poor people consciously choose to have more heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc. They just do. And here's the key thing - this effect only correlates with relative inequality not with absolute levels of wealth. Thus - eg - Greeks have less then half the average wealth of Americans but are healthier (they live longer). Greek social income divisions are correspondingly lower.

Same with crime I'm afraid.




Your opinions here are pretty typical, and I'd guess personally that they are based on retributative principals/emotions that are fairly deeply ingrained in us as part of our evolutionary development. But we evolved in small social groups with very low levels of inequality - our emotions are hot-buttons that provide quick emergency responses appropriate to that context.

Rational analysis of mass society makes it pretty clear that increasing inequality leads to deterioration in the quality of social relations. The increasingly hysterical tabloid-style reactions to crime of the lock 'em up and throw away the key type, can be seen as exactly this kind of deterioration; these responses require the utter de-humanisation of the perpetrators of these crimes.

The actual trigger for crime increasingly becomes not the actual "snazzy mobile phone" or whatever, but the imputations of status that are associated with it. Moreover much of the violence that accompanies these kinds of crimes is not "rational" violence (ie to facilitate the theft) but irrational "respect-based" stuff derived from constant reminders of low social status and the disrespect that embodies. You have to watch out now in case you 'look at someone funny' - we are producing a society which is turning out a growing number of people who are wildly over-touchy about their standing in society and will react very savagely to any suggestion of being looked down on.

More inequality, will produce more of the same; the choice is ours. Less and we have a chance of something more interesting.

I just don't buy this. I manage to walk down the street without demanding "respeck" from everyone. I managed, both when I was younger, and had no money at all, and since, not to start fights with people for "looking at me funny" etc etc.

None of my friends act like this. Or ever did. Rich or poor.

You don't *have* to spend all your time worrying about how much you've got, or how much anyone else has got. It isn't compulsory. Some people are like that, others aren't.

It would seem to me that this touchy, ever ready to resort to savage violence, attitude is very disproportionately concentrated in certain areas and certain cultures.

So long as everyone has a roof over their heads and enough to eat etc, what does it matter what some rich people have got? There have always been rich people.

Some people have got over-large egos and equate "respect" with "fear". They enjoy the power-trip of a reputation for nastiness and violence. That is their choice - most people are not like that.

Giles..