What is my responsibility to the poor?

[cybercoma]

This definition is wrong. Correlation does not mean linear relationship. You can have non-linear correlations.

When you say researchers have shown that there is a correlation between two variables, you are implying that there is a linear relationship between the two variables.

For an explanation on Pearson's correlation:

... Yes it can. Did you not see how the link I provided takes into account population density, age, unemployment rate, race, geographic region and other variables?

To be blunt, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Correlation is a simple bivariate analysis. You're likely confusing it with multivariate regression analysis that accounts for confounding variables and controls. Correlation, on the other hand, is a standardized measure that describes the linearity between two variables. You do not control for confounding variables when calculating correlations.

You are never going to have perfect information and perfect statistics to base your opinions on, but it is better to base your opinion on what you can observe than on nothing.

No, it's not. Basing your opinions on something that you don't understand or incomplete information is dangerous. People who know just enough to barely understand something, but don't take into account very important things can come to some drastically incorrect conclusions. In this case, it's not a matter of "well this is as good as it gets." The problem is that most of these models use Uniform Police Data, which does not properly account for white collar crimes. I gave a couple examples already of how the results of white collar criminality are the same, but the perpetrators are very rarely charged or even arrested. Point being, when you're trying to link class to crime, there is a fundamental problem because the crimes committed by white collar criminals are rarely considered crimes, despite having the same outcomes for their victims. That is the limitation of these studies and a serious one at that, if you're trying to make the argument that poor people commit more crimes. Poor people are arrested and convicted more. That's absolutely true. Do they commit more crimes? That's another issue altogether and one that cannot ignore the fact that white collar crime is rarely prosecuted.

Maybe the crab people that control everything might be behind the majority of our crimes and cause the most damage...

Look, if you want to change my opinion then try to estimate this so called 'massively unaccounted for crime', explain your methodology and statistics used to get to your conclusions, monetize the damage, then show me how is is larger than damage caused by so called 'regular crime'.

Don't just go like... 'oh well, you don't have perfect information so therefore you are wrong and my baseless opinion is correct'

Maybe if you actually look at what I'm saying, you would understand why the statistics don't reflect white collar criminality. Nevertheless, it's not that difficult to see how much white collar crime has costed society, but it is difficult to put an accurate figure on it. The Savings and Loan scandal of the early 80s costed billions and damn near destroyed the economy. How many people lost their life savings from criminal bankers that robbed them blind? Yet, the guy who steals your wallet is more likely to end up in jail.

This article explains the difficulty in assessing the exact costs of white collar crime, but attempts to do so nevertheless. Unfortunately, it only looks at issues dealing with financial crimes, which doesn't account for things like medical malpractice and executive negligence with safety standards. These white collar crimes that cause bodily harm and even death are rarely even considered white collar crime by those who even recognize that white collar crime is a "thing." Nevertheless, financial crimes and their cost are estimated to be between $426 Billion to $1.7 Trillion. Again, it's the person that takes your wallet who is arrested, charged, and prosecuted. The white collar criminals very often get away with it, face negligible jail time, and almost never have to pay back in its entirety what they criminally procured. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167026

So essentially, you're asking me to quantify something that is not quantifiable. We look at crime by looking at police records. If the police aren't going after white collar criminals that cause both physical and financial harms, then it's obviously a problem trying to quantify it.

You do not understand the meaning of correlation.

You keep saying that, but believe me, I understand it quite well, thanks.

If these statistics do not exist so cannot be analyzed (as you claim), how can you make claims as the the relative damage to society of 'white collar crime' vs other types of crime?

I don't need to make the claim about relative damage. I'm making the claim that the damage is not accounted for when you're trying to draw "correlations" between criminality and class because white collar crimes are rarely prosecuted or even considered crimes.

I said that there is a well known relationship between poverty and crime and that greater poverty increases crime. Therefore, some level of income redistributive policies can result in a decrease in crime. What part do you disagree with exactly? What are you arguing?

I disagree with how overly simplistic it is and on the grounds that it perpetuates a myth that the poor are criminals while the upper classes are clean s the driven snow. I disagree with it because I fundamentally disagree with how we define criminality and who we focus our crime prevention efforts on.

You have not provided sufficient evidence to justify this claim. If you want to properly justify it then provide estimates for the amount of damage caused by 'white collar crime' on an annual basis, monetize it, and then compare it to the amount of damage caused by other kinds of crime.

As I've been saying, you're asking for numbers that don't exist. Some researchers have tried quantifying it, but it's very difficult for all the reasons I've already said and the reasons given in the research above. If our criminal justice system doesn't go after white collar crime, then how do you get an accurate number on it?

All you have demonstrated is that 'white collar' crime exists... which I agree with. Okay... now what? How is that relevant to the topic under discussion?

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. The poor need to be treated humanely and be given a helping hand to get out of poverty. I just find the research that people have done into the relationship between poverty and crime to be fundamentally flawed because they don't account for white collar crime. More importantly, they can't account for white collar crime because the criminal justice system fails to take into account white collar crime. The poor are thusly vilified as criminal, while the upper class gets away with activities that cause financial harm and physical harm to countless numbers of people. How do you quantify the harm both physical and financial caused to a pensioner that loses their life's savings because some bankers decided to game the system? These criminals methods are barely understood even by the people entrusted with policing these crimes.

Anyway, in short, I agree with you that we should be helping the poor and that desperate people will do desperate things. That's all well and true. I disagree with the notion that there's a linear relationship between someone's wealth and criminal activity. I believe the white collar criminals are just better at hiding their crimes and ensuring that the legislation is wholly inadequate to deal with their criminality.

Edited April 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

You tried to but then you backed off almost as fast as you raised this very topic. Why you insist on taking out the frustration of your own futile impotence when it comes to having influence on those within your own station instead of joining with them against those who have a monopoly on influence remains a bit of an enduring mystery.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here. I think both the rich and the poor are escaping societal obligations, particularly in terms of paying for the governmental framework which holds that society together.

Why do you feel I can only rant against the rich and not against the poor? I can rant against them both.

[Argus]

English translation?

Why bother? He doesn't make any more sense in English.

[Argus]

I'm arguing that white collar crime causes greater poverty and that a redistribution of influence can result in a decrease of white collar crime. Why do you disagree?

While I would agree white collar crime is insufficiently punished, I think you and Cyber are exaggerating the costs, especially vs other crime.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever put anything like an accurate dollar figure of what 'regular' crime costs a society, but you can start with the immense costs of paying for all those police officers, the criminal courts, and prisons. Then you can add in pretty much the entire security industry, from security guards, locks and safes to burglar alarms and investigators. Then add in all the damage caused by theft and destruction of private property, along with the damage to individuals in terms of medical costs and lost wages. Then there's the hit to the entertainment industry (restaurants, clubs, theaters) from people not wanting to go out at night due to percieved danger, and you get far and away more of a cost than what bankers get up to from time to time.

As to the poor, imagine what resources society would have to address povert if it weren't paying so many tens of billions to address criminality.

[cybercoma]

The poor aren't the ones that destroyed the economy with their crimes in 2008.

[eyeball]

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here. I think both the rich and the poor are escaping societal obligations, particularly in terms of paying for the governmental framework which holds that society together.

I guess I also feel that way to the extent that we don't take enough responsibility for the governments we elect, particularly in terms of how it operates and for whom.

Why do you feel I can only rant against the rich and not against the poor? I can rant against them both.

The disparity between the amount you rant against one vs the other seems to suggest otherwise and when you do it's mostly way off the mark. You ID'd that mark once, influence, but now what? I think our biggest obligation to ourselves is to focus our attention on that like a laser beam, but maybe that's just me.

[-1=e^ipi]

Experience, observation, intuition, deduction. You can't always teach these in school. They don't come with a diploma.

And I know some people that claim that they have experience, observation & intuition that tell them that homeopathy works and isn't nonsense. That does not make them right.

Well for ridiculous beliefs sure, but for reasonable one's, you go as you said with the information you've got.

It is ridiculous to believe that unrecorded 'white collar crime' is somehow significant enough in magnitude to make the positive correlation between poverty and crime disappear when you do not have sufficient evidence.

When you finally get past your need to reiterate the point about poverty causing crime please incorporate the apparently new information (to you) that Argus came along with - that a fairly wide disparity exists between white collar influence and blue collar influence.

I have provided more that sufficient evidence and reasoning to justify a belief in a strong positive relationship between poverty and income. Poorer people have greater incentives to commit crimes because they are more desperate and have less alternatives. If you want to demonstrate that this strong positive relationship does not exist then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.

It will become more obvious to you as you grow up

What does my age have to do with anything?

I'm arguing that white collar crime causes greater poverty and that a redistribution of influence can result in a decrease of white collar crime. Why do you disagree?

I do not disagree with that statement but I am disagreeing with you for a number of reasons:

1. You are the one who started challenging my claim that poor people commit more crime on page 4 in the first place.

2. This thread is about poverty and under what conditions helping the poor can be justified. You and cybercoma are the ones who have somehow brought rich people in the discussion because you thought I was somehow attacking the integrity of poor people by saying they commit more crimes.

3. If one establishes that there is a significant positive relationship between crime and income due to this 'white collar crime' and at the same time a negative relationship between crime and income due to poverty then the net tendency is unclear. Furthermore, it would then need to be shown that the poverty effect is stronger at lower incomes and the 'white collar' effect is stronger at higher incomes because otherwise a small redistribution can increase crime (even when ignoring economic inefficiency created from redistribution).

Edited April 4, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

@ cybercoma, your definition of correlation is wrong and you are mixing up correlation with correlation coefficient. Maybe the wikipedia article will help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence

"Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence."

Look, they even have a section '6.2 Common misconceptions: Correlation and Linearity'. Maybe you should read that.

No, it's not. Basing your opinions on something that you don't understand or incomplete information is dangerous.

Not basing your beliefs upon incomplete information when incomplete information is all you have is even more dangerous. Better to base beliefs on incomplete information than no information.

I gave a couple examples already of how the results of white collar criminality are the same, but the perpetrators are very rarely charged or even arrested.

And I can give a couple of examples of people claiming that homeopathy works.

Point being, when you're trying to link class to crime

I have not brought 'class' into this. Where have I used the word class? I do not even agree with the existence of 'classes' to begin with.

That is the limitation of these studies and a serious one at that, if you're trying to make the argument that poor people commit more crimes. Do they commit more crimes? That's another issue altogether and one that cannot ignore the fact that white collar crime is rarely prosecuted.

If you cannot estimate something or at least give an order of magnitude then you ignore it. I can just imagine your 'philosophy' being applied to a number of situations:

NASA getting ready to go to the moon.

Engineer: Hey, we haven't taken into account the fact that our use of Newtonian Physics is incorrect and Physicists haven't reconciliated quantum gravity with relativity.

NASA: Guess we can't make a decision go to the moon.

IPCC deciding on what to do about climate change.

Scientist: Hey, we haven't taken into account the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

IPCC: Guess we can't make any decisions on what to do about climate change.

Me going to a shop to buy a doughnut.

Crazy Guy on Street: Have you considered the possibility that the doughnut will mutate into a giant teddy bear that will devour you?

Me: Guess I can't make a decision to buy a doughnut.

Maybe if you actually look at what I'm saying, you would understand why the statistics don't reflect white collar criminality.

I never claimed that they did. But I haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to justify a change in the conclusion that poverty increases crime.

but it is difficult to put an accurate figure on it. The Savings and Loan scandal of the early 80s

Despite being 'difficult', if you want to make the claims you are making then you should make an attempt to estimate their damages. Also, it isn't the 80's.

This article explains the difficulty in assessing the exact costs of white collar crime... their cost are estimated to be between $426 Billion to $1.7 Trillion... https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167026

I looked at your silly article:

1. It's outdated (1996)

2. It is so biased when you read it. The 'National White Collar Crime Center' clearly has an incentive to exaggerate the costs of white collar crime.

3. Their methodology is ridiculously over-simplistic and they do several 'rounding up' techniques that I will not get into. Some of their ranges are ridiculous because of this poor methodology... employee theft range is from $5 - $435 billion.

4. Many of the issues they are talking about are not relevant today, such as checking fraud, debit fraud, etc.

5. Most importantly, their definition of 'cost' is not opportunity cost to society or loss in economic efficiency due to crime, or anything along those lines. Their definition is something along the lines of 'damages to others in society'. Stealing $20,000 dollars from a bank is far less harmful to society than destroying a car worth $20,000.

Wikipedia references a 2006 FBI study that gives an estimate of annual cost to USA between $330 and $660 billion, so maybe we use that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime#cite_note-2

But again, the difference between 'cost' and 'opportunity cost' makes this an overestimate in the context relevant in our discussion.

Meanwhile, total crime is estimated have a cost of $3.2 trillion annually, at least according to the following 2012 study (by an economist who has been studying this stuff for a while, did a similar study in 1999, and has good methodology).

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9947109.htm/

I'm making the claim that the damage is not accounted for when you're trying to draw "correlations" between criminality and class because white collar crimes are rarely prosecuted or even considered crimes.

Proof?

I disagree with how overly simplistic it is and on the grounds that it perpetuates a myth that the poor are criminals while the upper classes are clean s the driven snow. I disagree with it because I fundamentally disagree with how we define criminality and who we focus our crime prevention efforts on.

Ah, we to the real reason behind your 'disagreement'. It has nothing to do with facts. Instead, you think that I am trying to demonize the poor by acknowledging the relationship between poverty and crime.

If our criminal justice system doesn't go after white collar crime, then how do you get an accurate number on it?

You estimate it. If you think that the majority of 'white collar criminals' get away, then you try to infer the percentage of white collar criminals that get caught based on some sort of evidence. Of course, the burden of evidence lies on you since you are making the claims about all of these unaccounted for crimes.

How do you quantify the harm both physical and financial caused to a pensioner that loses their life's savings because some bankers decided to game the system?

Try to monetize the net loss in social welfare using some sort of utility function? Burden of proof is on you to figure out a reasonable method.

I disagree with the notion that there's a linear relationship between someone's wealth and criminal activity.

I never made a claim about a linear relationship.

[WestCoastRunner]

This has really turned into a complicated conversation.

[WestCoastRunner]

I wouldn't know where to begin to address this thread?

[eyeball]

Are you dazzled by the brilliance or baffled by the bullshit?

[eyeball]

And I know some people that claim that they have experience, observation & intuition that tell them that homeopathy works and isn't nonsense. That does not make them right.

Nothing could in the case of homeopathy, nonetheless when talking about things that aren't nonsense these suffice to base a hunch on. The fact that criminologists are citing a lack of data and pointing at an apparently lax data collecting regime suggests there is a strong undercurrent of unwillingness to collect it never mind analyze it.

It is ridiculous to believe that unrecorded 'white collar crime' is somehow significant enough in magnitude to make the positive correlation between poverty and crime disappear when you do not have sufficient evidence.

Why would you say that if you believe that an equal distribution of power and influence will reduce white collar crime and poverty thereby reducing blue collar crime?

I have provided more that sufficient evidence and reasoning to justify a belief in a strong positive relationship between poverty and income. Poorer people have greater incentives to commit crimes because they are more desperate and have less alternatives. If you want to demonstrate that this strong positive relationship does not exist then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.

That's not what I want to demonstrate.

What does my age have to do with anything?

Inexperience, with the phenomenon of unequal influence impacting your livelihood and trying to cope with it given the dearth of information there is to work with. I mean, it should be as obvious as the nose on your face why there is so much secrecy surrounding the application of influence not to mention the efforts taken to cater to it. The effects of being left out of the discussions and decision making process that follow are obvious too.

I do not disagree with that statement but I am disagreeing with you for a number of reasons:

1. You are the one who started challenging my claim that poor people commit more crime on page 4 in the first place.

I challenged what I viewed was an inappropriate use of the word more in the context of this thread and have tried to convince you why. I agree that there are more poor people and that it stands to reason that they commit a higher rate of crime than wealthy people but I stand by my assertion that white collar crime has way more impact on society and the economy.

2. This thread is about poverty and under what conditions helping the poor can be justified. You and cybercoma are the ones who have somehow brought rich people in the discussion because you thought I was somehow attacking the integrity of poor people by saying they commit more crimes.

Actually Argus brought the wealthy and their undue influence into the discussion. I've been under the impression you were defending this advantage the wealthy possess (because you've been ignoring it and repeating over and over again the long established correlations between poverty and crime, which I've never disagreed with) but it's good to see you now agreeing with me that redistributing influence away from the wealthy can be justified when trying to help the poor.

Perhaps you could help me convince Argus to focus his anger more appropriately.

3. If one establishes that there is a significant positive relationship between crime and income due to this 'white collar crime' and at the same time a negative relationship between crime and income due to poverty then the net tendency is unclear.

Furthermore, it would then need to be shown that the poverty effect is stronger at lower incomes and the 'white collar' effect is stronger at higher incomes because otherwise a small redistribution can increase crime (even when ignoring economic inefficiency created from redistribution).

Okay, but you're talking about redistributing income instead of influence. Again I remind you that you said you agree that redistributing influence will lead to less poverty which sounds a lot more efficient than simply doling out money to the poor. To clarify, a redistribution of influence is the same as saying we simply stop affording as much to the wealthy. The effect of doing that is something we should be able to measure. I trust you'll agree that the effect of political powerlessness on poverty has long been established - that not having power/influence means more poverty hence more crime. If the effect on poverty is that it lessens when decreasing wealth's influence we'll know we're doing the right thing...from the perspective of the poor at least.

Edited April 5, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

I say there's a problem with the definition of crime because white collar criminality is not considered a crime in these ams way as blue collar crime, and -1=e^ipi wants me to do an accounting of the costs. After trying to explain that it's incredibly difficult to account for the costs of crimes that are not properly considered crimes, -1=e^ipi continues to push the point for some insane reason.

Also, -1=e^ipi seems to think that the Pearson's correlation coefficient (by far the most commonly used measure of correlation) has nothing to do with correlation. Essentially, -1=e^ipi wants quantitative statistical proof of something that is a qualitative issue (white collar crime is not perceived the same as blue collar crime and is therefore not prosecuted or legislated against in the same way), but then wants to use a qualitative definition for correlation, which has a very specific quantitative meaning.

Sorry, but I have no interest in having a discussion with someone that is stubbornly going to stick to fundamental misunderstandings of not only my arguments, but basic concepts and methods that he/she is invoking.

Saying poverty and crime are related is fundamentally flawed because our definitions of crime, how we measure crime, and what we consider crimes differs substantially between social classes. If there's a problem from the start with what we consider crimes between social classes, then saying there's a correlation between crime and social class is inadequate.

[Bryan]

When Mike Harris was the premier of Ontario the Conservatives there setup a hotline so people could report social assistance fraud. You know what they found? The people being reported weren't on social assistance. Frankly, I don't trust anecdotal opinions about what the poor have and don't have because people don't often know who truly is and is not on social assistance.

Who told you that?

http://news.ontario.ca/archive/en/2002/01/15/Thousands-caught-through-Harris-government39s-tough-welfare-fraud-measures.html

Between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2001, assistance was reduced or terminated in over 17,700 cases, including thousands of people in jail, those who did not declare a spouse, and people who did not declare another source of income.

During the last fiscal year, investigations uncovered $58.2 million in social assistance that people were not entitled to receive, and $16.6 million in avoided future costs.

Over 17,000 cases of fraud in the first year.

[Argus]

The poor aren't the ones that destroyed the economy with their crimes in 2008.

So?

[Argus]

I guess I also feel that way to the extent that we don't take enough responsibility for the governments we elect, particularly in terms of how it operates and for whom.

I've suggested previously that people should need to prove they should be allowed to vote. They should have to take a test of their political knowledge, a test showing they have made the effort to inform themselves, before being allowed to vote.

The disparity between the amount you rant against one vs the other seems to suggest otherwise

You mean because I spend WAY more time complaining about the unequal tax laws that protect the rich, WAY more time complaining about the way corporations are not taxed, WAY more time complaining about the rich influencing elections?

[eyeball]

I've suggested previously that people should need to prove they should be allowed to vote. They should have to take a test of their political knowledge, a test showing they have made the effort to inform themselves, before being allowed to vote.

Someone appears to have decided that people with lots of money get to sidestep the weight of all the votes that everyone else casts and enjoy private/secret relations with our government. How will a post election test change that? What they should do is outlaw in-camera lobbying so people can become more knowledgeable.

You mean because I spend WAY more time complaining about the unequal tax laws that protect the rich, WAY more time complaining about the way corporations are not taxed, WAY more time complaining about the rich influencing elections?

No, because of the way you touch on why and how they came to enjoy these advantages and then flit away as fast as a hummingbird. You also spend a fair bit of time defending the government's surveillance programs so what do you think of a public souveillance program starting with banning in-camera lobbying as a means to check undue influence?

[-1=e^ipi]

Nothing could in the case of homeopathy, nonetheless when talking about things that aren't nonsense these suffice to base a hunch on.

The homeopathy supporters will claim their position isn't nonsense. The faith-healing supporters will claim their position isn't nonsense. See the problem? Different people define different positions as nonsense.

The fact that criminologists are citing a lack of data and pointing at an apparently lax data collecting regime suggests there is a strong undercurrent of unwillingness to collect it never mind analyze it.

Does the fact that there is limited data on supersymmetric particles indicate there is a strong 'undercurrent of unwillingness to collect it'? Some data is just more difficult to obtain/define.

Why would you say that if you believe that an equal distribution of power and influence will reduce white collar crime and poverty thereby reducing blue collar crime?

I think you missed the word evidence in my last post. Make whatever claims you want but back them up with decent evidence.

That's not what I want to demonstrate.

So you retract your statements on page 4?

Inexperience, with the phenomenon of unequal influence impacting your livelihood and trying to cope with it given the dearth of information there is to work with.

More implicit ad hominem arguments... Maybe you should instead provide evidence to back up your claims rather than more conspiracy nonsense.

I challenged what I viewed was an inappropriate use of the word more in the context of this thread and have tried to convince you why.

Poor people commit more crime per capita. This is fact and I have backed this up with empirical evidence.

I agree that there are more poor people and that it stands to reason that they commit a higher rate of crime than wealthy people

I swear this is a type of fallacy, but I cannot find the name (maybe call it fallacy of the inability to understand that people can divide two numbers). There is more crime per capita for people in poverty than for rich people. Trying to pretend this does not exist because 'poor people commit more crime since there are more people' makes no sense when talking about crime on a per capita basis.

but I stand by my assertion that white collar crime has way more impact on society and the economy.

Muslims assert that Mohammed flew to heaven on a flying horse. A girl at my work asserts that astrology works. A neighbour of mine asserts that their house is haunted by a ghost.

Is it fun to assert things without evidence?

Actually Argus brought the wealthy and their undue influence into the discussion. I've been under the impression you were defending this advantage the wealthy possess (because you've been ignoring it and repeating over and over again the long established correlations between poverty and crime, which I've never disagreed with) but it's good to see you now agreeing with me that redistributing influence away from the wealthy can be justified when trying to help the poor.

I am not Argus, I have never made these claims.

With respect to 'redistributing influence away from the wealthy when trying to help the poor' I can not agree or disagree with this statement without better definitions (such as what you mean by rich or poor, or how one redistributes influence) and empirical evidence and/or a theoretical model. Also, I'd rather things be justified on the basis of if they are good for society overall and not just 1 subgroup of people (be they rich or poor).

Okay, but you're talking about redistributing income instead of influence.

Influence or income, your claims are too vague and lacking in sufficient evidence or justification for me to agree with.

Again I remind you that you said you agree that redistributing influence will lead to less poverty which sounds a lot more efficient than simply doling out money to the poor.

This statement is both too vague and too absolute for me to agree with.

Notice there is a big difference between how you make claims and how I make claims. When I make claims I often put a lot of words like 'if then', 'might', 'could', 'may', 'under these conditions', etc. and try to clearly define all the concepts in my statement.

To clarify, a redistribution of influence is the same as saying we simply stop affording as much to the wealthy. The effect of doing that is something we should be able to measure. I trust you'll agree that the effect of political powerlessness on poverty has long been established - that not having power/influence means more poverty hence more crime.

Many of your 'concepts' are too poorly defined for me to agree with what you are stating. Please clearly define what you mean.

[-1=e^ipi]

and -1=e^ipi wants me to do an accounting of the costs.

Yes, I want you to back up your claims with evidence.

After trying to explain that it's incredibly difficult to account for the costs of crimes that are not properly considered crimes

Just because things are difficult, doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Was it not difficult to verify the existence of the Higg's Boson up to 5 sigma?

-1=e^ipi continues to push the point for some insane reason.

It's insane to want sufficient evidence to justify a claim? Then I guess I am insane.

Also, -1=e^ipi seems to think that the Pearson's correlation coefficient has nothing to do with correlation.

Strawman argument, I never said this.

Now are you going to retract your earlier claims that 'correlation means linear relationship' or not?

Maybe you should read that link I sent to the wiki article about common misconceptions between correlation and linearity.

"The Pearson correlation coefficient indicates the strength of a linear relationship between two variables, but its value generally does not completely characterize their relationship. In particular, if the conditional mean of Y given X, denoted E(Y|X), is not linear in X, the correlation coefficient will not fully determine the form of E(Y|X)."

Just admit you were wrong and move on...

Essentially, -1=e^ipi wants quantitative statistical proof of something that is a qualitative issue (white collar crime is not perceived the same as blue collar crime and is therefore not prosecuted or legislated against in the same way)

I do not ask for proof, only strong evidence with good methodology. If there is a different in the quality of the crime then try to account for that and provide your reasoning. Look, you can even assign a monetary value to a person's life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

but then wants to use a qualitative definition for correlation, which has a very specific quantitative meaning.

No, I want to use the correct definition of correlation. Do you not have the capability to distinguish between correlation and a correlation coefficient?

Sorry, but I have no interest in having a discussion with someone that is stubbornly going to stick to fundamental misunderstandings of not only my arguments, but basic concepts and methods that he/she is invoking.

Says the person that misunderstands the word 'correlation' then refuses to admit they are wrong.

Run away if you want. It is your choice if providing evidence is too difficult for you.

I do see that you avoided commenting on what I wrote related to crime-cost statistics and your so called 'source of $1.7 trillion dollar cost of white collar crime'. Anyway, if you want to use the $3.2 trillion dollar cost of general crime and the ~400 billion dollar cost of 'white collar' crime to the USA per year for the sake of argument, then you can go ahead.

Saying poverty and crime are related is fundamentally flawed because our definitions of crime, how we measure crime, and what we consider crimes differs substantially between social classes.

So you want to say that poverty and crime aren't related because the evidence isn't 100% perfect?

Sigh, from my last post:

If you cannot estimate something or at least give an order of magnitude then you ignore it. I can just imagine your 'philosophy' being applied to a number of situations:

NASA getting ready to go to the moon.

Engineer: Hey, we haven't taken into account the fact that our use of Newtonian Physics is incorrect and Physicists haven't reconciliated quantum gravity with relativity.

NASA: Guess we can't make a decision go to the moon.

IPCC deciding on what to do about climate change.

Scientist: Hey, we haven't taken into account the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

IPCC: Guess we can't make any decisions on what to do about climate change.

Me going to a shop to buy a doughnut.

Crazy Guy on Street: Have you considered the possibility that the doughnut will mutate into a giant teddy bear that will devour you?

Me: Guess I can't make a decision to buy a doughnut.

[cybercoma]

So you want to say that poverty and crime aren't related because the evidence isn't 100% perfect?

I never once claimed that poverty and crime aren't related. Nor did my argument have anything to do with the evidence not being 100% perfect. I'm simply raising a question about your statement: poverty and crime are correlated. When you make that connection between social class and crime, how are you accounting for the way white collar crime is handled? It's obvious that it's not pursued or prosecuted the same way at all. This is generally accepted stuff. So you ask me to account for the unaccountable, when that's my question to you. Now you're completely making up some random stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

This is why I'm "running away" because I realize that it's a waste of my time trying to have a discussion with you.

Edited April 6, 2014 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

So you retract your statements on page 4?

Nope.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ cybercoma - fine, ignore 90% of my posts...

I never once claimed that poverty and crime aren't related.

No, but you did say this:

Saying poverty and crime are related is fundamentally flawed because our definitions of crime, how we measure crime, and what we consider crimes differs substantially between social classes.

Which is why I wanted clarification. Do you want to reword your statement? It clearly tries to challenge the premise that poverty and crime are related.

When you make that connection between social class and crime, how are you accounting for the way white collar crime is handled?

You keep using 'class' and 'social class'. Can you define what they mean and how you determine what class someone is in?

And the crime statistics I have linked to consider/handle all crimes, including so called 'white collar' crime.

It's obvious that it's not pursued or prosecuted the same way at all. This is generally accepted stuff.

Murder is treated differently from theft. Theft is treated differently from assault. Assault is treated differently from fraud.

Different crimes are treated differently. What is your point?

So you ask me to account for the unaccountable, when that's my question to you. Now you're completely making up some random stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

What is your proof that white collar crimes are unaccountable for?

And clearly you do not understand the concept of the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims regarding 'white collar' crime being massively underrepresented for or unaccounted for. Just like the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed that the majority of the damage from crime was committed by crab-people that control everything.

Until then, I will invoke Occam's Razor and go with the belief that poverty causes crime since I have provided sufficient evidence to justify that belief under Occam's Razor.

This is why I'm "running away" because I realize that it's a waste of my time trying to have a discussion with you.

Look, I get it. You want to make your baseless opinionated statements, but when asked to back up your statements you run away.

[-1=e^ipi]

Nope.

Do you still do not accept that poor people commit more crime per capita than richer people?

[eyeball]

Do you still do not

Like you said, please clearly define what you mean.

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you still do not accept that poor people commit more crime per capita than richer people?

While this fact may be true, let's not forget that people living below the poverty line are treated quite differently in the legal system than with folks having higher incomes. Higher income allows access to more resources like highly paid lawyers. If a young person with wealthy parents commits a crime, chances are, these stats won't be captured or reported in any statistics.

Lower income people hang out on the streets for lack of nothing else to do. The police like to target them because they receive complaints of loitering etc. and the slightest misdemeanor could get them busted. This also skews the statistics.