Curious... Vandalism and the economy

Damini

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,234
So, today I find that my side mirror has been smashed off my car for what must be about the fourth or fifth time. It got me thinking... how much does crime bolster the economy? I've not got a great grasp of economics, so if someone could explain it out to me, that would be great. The way I see it, every time I buy a new side mirror, I'm paying tax, so the government profits. Every time I buy paint to paint over the graffiti, I'm paying tax. The two new steering locks for the car... the new side window, all those tyres I had to replace, and so on, and so forth. Over the last five years I think I'll have spent in excess of £800, fixing the fall out from crime.

So does the government actually profit from rising crime levels?

Also, does anyone bother reporting vandalism or damage to property anymore?
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
It doesn't bolster the economy, it only hurts it. Its little different than paying 2 men, 1 to dig a hole, another to fill it in, just to keep them employed.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Its a mixed picture - crime can create demand - for repairs but also the whole security industry from locks to burglar alarms to security guards is worth billions.(not to mention internet security - the virus creator/anti-virus maker synergy is deeply suspicious :p).

However fear of crime has a negative effect on the economy - why buy nice stuff if it will get destroyed/stolen, dont go out to bar/restaurant due to fear of muggers, dont buy on internet for fear of fraud etc.

Its a very complex picture - if I had to guess I'd say the security industry was worth more than the costs of crime in the UK at least.

Obviously if you have a society with too much crime the economy stalls eventually - look at some dodgy African states like Cameroon.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
But if you didn't have crime, you wouldn't need a security industry - and that money could be spent on something that actually benefited society.
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
I reckon it hurts the economy, it becomes a case of wasting resources to such problems when you would rather use those resources elsewhere.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
But if you didn't have crime, you wouldn't need a security industry - and that money could be spent on something that actually benefited society.

Thats an odd idea - the security industry creates jobs/ employs folk in factories etc. etc.

These things all benefit society - much consumer spending is on things that dont directly benefit society but indirectly do.

Crime creates demand for a security industry which can then sell products, earn tax money for the government etc. etc.

How is this different to spending your cash at Tesco - how are they directly benefitting society?
 

Draylor

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,591
How is this different to spending your cash at Tesco - how are they directly benefitting society?
We kinda need food to survive.

And toilet paper is a little more important to civilisation than big fuckoff locks.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
We kinda need food to survive.

And toilet paper is a little more important to civilisation than big fuckoff locks.

Say you go into tesco and buy yourself a DVD - how does this benefit society more than you going into tesco to buy a new door lock - it doesnt surely :)

Anyone who thinks any industry is not beneficial to the economy and society isnt thinking in sufficient depth - all industries create jobs - people with jobs create demand - demand drives the economy.

The only things that actually hold back the economy are taxes - theres no such thing as 'bad expenditure' in the economy or indeed 'good expenditure'.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Didn't they have an article on the reg recently about why 'it creates jobs' was a bolox argument economically ?

Would you rather we spent £1,000,000 clearing up after chavs or the same curing cancer ? That sort of stuff.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Don't be daft. Crime isn't a necessity, its a fucking pain in the arse. Nobody likes it, nobody likes having to spend money on security.

No such thing as bad expenditure? Really, so you wouldn't mind if I bricked your windows?
 

bob269

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
556
Don't be daft. Crime isn't a necessity, its a fucking pain in the arse. Nobody likes it, nobody likes having to spend money on security.

No such thing as bad expenditure? Really, so you wouldn't mind if I bricked your windows?

I think the point being made is crime will happen no matter what, so there's an industry manufacturing/offering services that can help you protect yourself, thus generating income/jobs

Nobodies said crime is a necessity and if you think it's possible to erradicate crime then you are somewhat naive.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
No such thing as bad expenditure? Really, so you wouldn't mind if I bricked your windows?

I meant bad for the economy - obviously it inconveniences the individual but its all great for the economy - think how much insurance is sold on the back of fear of crime etc.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Didn't they have an article on the reg recently about why 'it creates jobs' was a bolox argument economically ?

Would you rather we spent £1,000,000 clearing up after chavs or the same curing cancer ? That sort of stuff.

I cant find that article - just one about some government anti cybercrime department cutting jobs.

On the million if its private individuals money then its more likely the choice between doorlocks n dvd's - pretty neutral.

If its government money its the choice between employing policemen or employing nurses say - both give a positive result to society.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Depends how you look at it; at a micro level, certain industries gain from crime, generate tax revenues (via cost of sales or employment) and generally add to GDP; whether the increase in GDP developed by these industries more than offsets the cost of dealing with the consequences of crime, I'm not sure (there's probably a cost-benefit break-even point but it will be pretty fluid).

At a wider macro level, then the Opportunity Cost of crime is definitely negative; there's the cost of the crime itself, and the costs of all the resources involved in the "crime prevention industry" that could be more usefully utilised elsewhere for the benefit of society. Of course you can make the same argument about military spending. Unfortunately we don't live in a world where economic theory works perfectly, so we have to "waste" resources to fight crime and prepare for wars.

*edit* Of course it also depends on your definition of "crime" and the consequences of said "crime"; e.g. a drug user who o-d's and ends up in hospital is seen as a cost of crime, but a smoker who ends up in hospital with emphesema isn't. Legalise drugs and the economic cost is still in the system, but not as a cost of crime (and of course a "legal" drug user will have covered at least some of the costs of his treatment through tax).
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Nobodies said crime is a necessity and if you think it's possible to erradicate crime then you are somewhat naive.

The question was "Does crime bolster the economy"

The answer is "No."
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
The question was "Does crime bolster the economy"

The answer is "No."

I entirely disagree and as with all good internet discussions neither of us can be proved wrong :p
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
At a wider macro level, then the Opportunity Cost of crime is definitely negative; there's the cost of the crime itself, and the costs of all the resources involved in the "crime prevention industry" that could be more usefully utilised elsewhere for the benefit of society.

Woahhh - hold on thar Lesley!

People do not spend their money to benefit society - I'm sorry but not on this planet - so then it just comes down to competing products.

Spending on security does not harm society per se - whereas spending your money on fatty foods or a gas guzzling 4X4 or booze etc are actually negative choices from societies viewpoint.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Woahhh - hold on thar Lesley!

People do not spend their money to benefit society - I'm sorry but not on this planet - so then it just comes down to competing products.

Spending on security does not harm society per se - whereas spending your money on fatty foods or a gas guzzling 4X4 or booze etc are actually negative choices from societies viewpoint.

Apart from the fact I pointed out the flaws in the macro economic argument myself (in the bit you didn't quote), I'm not sure I'd agree that "spending on security does not harm society per se". There's a whole section of the security industry that relies on fear to sell its products and happily thrives on people being shit scared of everything. Its like those idiot parents on that TV show last week who were talking about tagging their kids; think that's not harming society? Personally I think its doing more harm than a Hummer full of anthrax-laden cheeseburgers being driven by Osama bin Laden.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Spending on security does not harm society per se - whereas spending your money on fatty foods or a gas guzzling 4X4 or booze etc are actually negative choices from societies viewpoint.

I'm amazed you don't understand this. Nobody likes spending money on security, or police, or prisons, or courts. They're bloody expensive. Everyone would rather that all those things were completely unnecessary, because then they'd have a fatter wedge in their pocket to buy nice stuff, and the government would be able to spend more on things that matter.

Destruction is cheap. Creation is expensive. Crime is responsible for the former, and we have to pay for the latter as a direct consequence.

Spending money on security is a pain in the arse. It shouldn't be necessary. Its like purposely buying a house or a car that completely unnecessarily has a designed-in flaw, which you have to spend a load of money fixing, every year.

I tell you what, why don't you find the most crime-ridden scum-filled area you can, and move there. See how long you last. See how long you enjoy the fruits of crime.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Apart from the fact I pointed out the flaws in the macro economic argument myself (in the bit you didn't quote), I'm not sure I'd agree that "spending on security does not harm society per se". There's a whole section of the security industry that relies on fear to sell its products and happily thrives on people being shit scared of everything. Its like those idiot parents on that TV show last week who were talking about tagging their kids; think that's not harming society? Personally I think its doing more harm than a Hummer full of anthrax-laden cheeseburgers being driven by Osama bin Laden.

Indeed and their insecurities drive sales - its true of many industries and it all helps the economy - its not a fixed pot - if you can get money to circulate faster the economy grows - anything that increases demand is generally good therefore.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Spending money on security is a pain in the arse. It shouldn't be necessary. Its like purposely buying a house or a car that completely unnecessarily has a designed-in flaw, which you have to spend a load of money fixing, every year.

I tell you what, why don't you find the most crime-ridden scum-filled area you can, and move there. See how long you last. See how long you enjoy the fruits of crime.

I'm sorry you cant rise above the perspective of the individual - anything that drives demand helps the economy - the economy employs people (and employed people are the major part of society) and those people pay taxes that pay for healthcare and everything.

It could even be argued that the major financial institutions have crime to thank (in part) for their creation.

In the old days people used to stash their money by burying it, hiding it under the bed etc. This need for a secure way to hold their money lead to the creation of banks - these banks then began to lend the money out to others who wanted to buy capital or expand businesses.

This increased circulation of wealth meant it wasnt sitting around doing nothing anymore.

Companies grew - employed more people - company owners grew rich etc. etc.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
You're presuming that only banks have the ability to lend money. This isn't true, and you're taking one small part of the argument and using it to try and bolster the false assumption that crime is good for an economy.

How come, if crime is so beneficial, that the most crime-ridden areas are the poorest? You'd think with all that lovely crime around, those areas would be stinking rich.

Next you'll be telling us that World War 2 didn't cost any money, that all that destruction and death and all the spending on military has made the world a better place.
 

bob269

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
556
How come, if crime is so beneficial, that the most crime-ridden areas are the poorest? You'd think with all that lovely crime around, those areas would be stinking rich.

Maybe because the poor areas can't afford the security etc and are thus an easier target, whereas the rich area's can and the fear of crime ensures they spend lots of money on security :)
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
You're presuming that only banks have the ability to lend money. This isn't true, and you're taking one small part of the argument and using it to try and bolster the false assumption that crime is good for an economy.

Its not a false assumption until proved otherwise and frankly your opinion is not proof - historically lending was largely from banks though this has changed in the modern economy but without the old economy we wouldnt be here :p

How come, if crime is so beneficial, that the most crime-ridden areas are the poorest? You'd think with all that lovely crime around, those areas would be stinking rich.

Wow - what an over-simplification - whats the weather like today in black n white land? :p

The crime figures for violent crimes are very different for those of burglary - lots of rich places have high rates of burglary n car theft and the link between poverty and crime has never been proven.

Being poor does not automatically make you a criminal and its pretty poor attitude to think so. By your logic surely the rich areas are havens of crime free living - yeah right...
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
I give up. Really if you can't see how crime costs the nation as a whole, theres no point continuing.

So I'll end by saying "LOL YOUR GAY!"
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
I give up. Really if you can't see how crime costs the nation as a whole, theres no point continuing.

So I'll end by saying "LOL YOUR GAY!"

I invoke Godwins Law as a fitting end to such a thread - NAZI!!!!

Omg!! Lolz - IR 2L33T!!£"!
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
As I said I think most crime is a waste of resources and is unlikely to ever be truely beneficial, however the original topic was based around vandalism and in particular mindless vandalism which is even worse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom