UK Riots

[Pugwash]

The worst thing we can possibly do as a result of the riots is to apply more restrictions on freedom. Harsh sentences and knee-jerk politics do nothing to stem the causes or reasons for the riots.

I also don't understand how this is being blamed here on immigrant. It has nothing to do with immigrants, race or religion. Not a single thing.

It was caused by a perfect storm of conditions and opportunity. Ask anyone the cause and they will explain it in a way that supports their philosophy and politics. If you're a racist [censored]tard, you'll blame it on Muslims. If you're a trot, you'll blame it on Thatcherism. I don't know what caused it, but I'm not pretending I do.

One thing that is clear is the photographic evidence that the looters were mixed races, socio-economic backgrounds and income levels. The mix happens to coincide with whoever lived in the area.

[Pugwash]

Bill Gates started in a garage and by force of will, changed the world. Nobody else in his high school class or neighborhood did what he did and they all came from the same socio-economic strata.

Bill Gates came from a wealthy family. Looking at his elite private school alumni, there are several people who did quite well. He's not some poor kid who got out; he's the son of a rich attorney who sent him to the best school he could find.

So, yeah, if you come from money, you're in a stronger position to make money. There is nothing new here.

Maybe you can come up with a better example because Bill Gates isn't it.

Edit: This is where Bill Gates went to School:

Edited August 20, 2011 by Pugwash

[HauteHippie]

I don't believe that stating credentials as an economist and then resting a case based on the perception of some kind of intellectual superiority lends much at all to an intellectual discussion. Have you ever seen Yoram Bauman? There are two kinds of economists: micro and macro. Micro economists are people who are wrong about specific things, while macro economists are people who are wrong about things in general. I have an advanced degree in economics from what some might consider a very good school of economics, and couldn't agree more.

Now in regards to this statement: "Working hard, has nothing to do with earning more. IN fact.. the people that make the least money in western societies.. categorically ALWAYS work more hours than people that earn more than them." This is first and foremost a fallacious statement. And I suspect the poster knows as much. But putting that aside, and even assuming it to be true, we should then be able to consider a well reasoned argument as to why increasing the number of hours worked at a productive task does not increase wealth in general. But I've yet to hear one. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the average joe probably won't get very far ahead just by working harder. But exceptionally talented people will. The real "problem" is much more likely to simply be that not everyone is born with the ability to become the next Gates or Buffet. So thankfully, the world needs plumbers, cooks, and maids too. And the hardest working and most ambitious in those fields can become small business owners, and restaurant or hotel managers. Me - I'd love to have a watch box full of gen JLC tourbillons, a 100' yacht, and a garage with Bentleys and Maseratis parked in it... but no matter how hard I work, I'm simply not going to be productive enough to be able to have those things. And that's not because hard work hasn't paid off. And it most likely never is.

[Pugwash]

The real "problem" is much more likely to simply be that not everyone is born with the ability to become the next Gates or Buffet.

Warren Buffett's father was a Congressman. Like Gates, he had both the ability and the financial support to allow him to become the man he s today.

Ability alone rarely does it; you usually need a wealthy family as well.

[HauteHippie]

Warren Buffett's father was a Congressman. Like Gates, he had both the ability and the financial support to allow him to become the man he s today.

Ability alone rarely does it; you usually need a wealthy family as well.

I'll call your Buffet and Gates and raise you Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs. But of course examples of a couple wealthy people were never central to my point, nor are they now.

[Pugwash]

I'll call your Buffet and Gates and raise you Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs. But of course examples of a couple wealthy people were never central to my point, nor are they now.

Both from very poor families, I'll give you that, but both were adopted by rich parents.

The reason I keep going on about this is it's easier to succeed if you're starting from a place from which failing once or twice won't kill you.

You didn't miss me at all, did you.

[plaifender]

I don't believe that stating credentials as an economist and then resting a case based on the perception of some kind of intellectual superiority lends much at all to an intellectual discussion. Have you ever seen Yoram Bauman? There are two kinds of economists: micro and macro. Micro economists are people who are wrong about specific things, while macro economists are people who are wrong about things in general. I have an advanced degree in economics from what some might consider a very good school of economics, and couldn't agree more.

Credentials as an economist? At no point have I ever said that I'm an economist. I'm simply finishing a master's degree in International Relations and Economics with a concentration in Geo-economics and Geopolitics. A mere student of sorts. Economy is interesting, but I didn't mean to sound the voice of authority on the subject. Simply trying to put my thoughts in context to my background.

As far as your argument against my statement that people that work the most hours categorically earn less money than people that work less hours (at least in occupations with higher earning-inequality). Refer to Linda A. Bell. She's a professor of Economics at Haverford and has written several papers on the subject. She came to speak to my class this year in Madrid and we talked specifically about this subject. I don't claim to be an expert, simply a student, but the academics are there none-the-less.

[HauteHippie]

Credentials as an economist? At no point have I ever said that I'm an economist. I'm simply finishing a master's degree in International Relations and Economics with a concentration in Geo-economics and Geopolitics. A mere student of sorts. Economy is interesting, but I didn't mean to sound the voice of authority on the subject. Simply trying to put my thoughts in context to my background.

As far as your argument against my statement that people that work the most hours categorically earn less money than people that work less hours (at least in occupations with higher earning-inequality. Refer to Linda A. Bell. She came to speak to my class this year in Madrid and we talked specifically about this subject. I don't claim to be an expert, but the academics are there.

Apparently I misunderstood this statement:

"I rest my argusment (sic) ... as an economist and student of international relations and immigration,the truth is, the only real indicator is that hours and type of work do not have positive parallels to the amount of money made"

Or perhaps you mistyped it.

I've not heard of Linda A. Bell, and would have to take a look at her literature in order to comment on it in any way.

[HauteHippie]

Both from very poor families, I'll give you that, but both were adopted by rich parents.

They were? That doesn't ring a bell for me. Here's what I could gather in a 5 second google search (which reminded of Roman Abramovich and Oprah Winfrey among others):

Larry Ellison is the genius person behind the success of Oracle software company and his wealth is close to $28 billion. His single teenage mother who gave birth to Ellison in the Bronx sent him to live in Chicago with his aunt and uncle, who later adopted him. He dropped out of college reportedly after his adoptive mother died. Founded Oracle in 1977, now one of the world’s biggest software companies. Got $130 million pay package in 2009, making him second-highest-paid CEO in the U.S., according to our recent compensation survey. Sailing buff owns mega-yacht and won latest America’s Cup.

(apparently his aunt and uncle were rich?)

Steve Jobs, will probably be the most famous guy along with Bill Gates. Not because Steve Jobs is the richest person, although he is one of the richest person with his net worth about $5.5 billion, but because he is a co-founder of Apple. Just think iPod and iPhone. San Francisco native was adopted by a working-class couple and grew up in nearby Santa Clara, Calif. Dropped out of Reed College when he couldn’t afford tuition but continued auditing classes. Jobs started Apple computer outlet in parents’ garage in 1976. Fired after power struggle 1985. Started Pixar. Returned to Apple 1996. Health of revered chief executive has been scrutinized after he took leave of absence for a liver transplant. Back now, leading continued expansion in music and media through devices and software including iPod, iTunes and new iPad.

('working class' couple is my recollection too. not "rich". Santa Clara isn't where the rich people live in Silicon Valley, either.)

The reason I keep going on about this is it's easier to succeed if you're starting from a place from which failing once or twice won't kill you.

I don't dispute that. It's the very same reason why you don't follow Buffet's investment patterns as an average Joe. Buffet can afford big losses. You can not.

Don't be a stranger.

[plaifender]

Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the average joe probably won't get very far ahead just by working harder. But exceptionally talented people will. The real "problem" is much more likely to simply be that not everyone is born with the ability to become the next Gates or Buffet.

But Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not exceptionally talented are they? and if they are.. aren't there people just as talented in the world that don't make it..?? Talent might have something to do with it. But like I said before.. the best indicator of how whether a person will ascend the socio-economic scale is the socio-economic status of his or her parents. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come from well-to-do families.. Bill Gates' success doesn't have so much to do with his work ethic as it does to his special and unique circumstances. (As Pug stated)

[Pugwash]

Bill Gates' success doesn't have so much to do with his work ethic as it does to his special and unique circumstances. (As Pug stated)

You missed my point, though: it's both. You need to be talented and have a support structure. Bill Gates was smart and he put the effort in. Tales of his coding the file-allocation table in the hotel room the night before demonstrating DOS are legendary.

[HauteHippie]

But Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not exceptionally talented are they? and if they are.. aren't there people just as talented in the world that don't make it..?? Talent might have something to do with it. But like I said before.. the best indicator of how whether a person will ascend the socio-economic scale is the socio-economic status of his or her parents. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet come from well-to-do families.. Bill Gates' success doesn't have so much to do with his work ethic as it does to his special and unique circumstances. (As Pug stated)

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are indeed exceptionally talented, which pains me to admit... But of course talent is key. And yet, at the same time, it's no big secret that money makes many things easier. There simply is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. Socioeconomic status makes a difference; losers breed losers in most cases, and vice versa. And as a general rule, one's lot in life is a product of "special and unique circumstances". Talent, money, connections, personality (e.g. work ethic), and luck all factor in. A high score in one area can help compensate for a lower score in other areas, e.g. hard work can overcome a low socioeconomic background, etc.

Nanuq absolutely said it best a few posts back, though. Your specific observations can be made to correlate performance to the number of vowels in the participants' surnames, if you wish.

[HauteHippie]

You missed my point, though: it's both. You need to be talented and have a support structure. Bill Gates was smart and he put the effort in. Tales of his coding the file-allocation table in the hotel room the night before demonstrating DOS are legendary.

Need to have a support structure? Nah. It happens often, but is hardly a prerequisite. Clearly it can help to come from a privileged background. More often than not, it probably improves your chances of having good genes.

[Pugwash]

Need to have a support structure? Nah. It happens often, but is hardly a prerequisite. Clearly it can help to come from a privileged background. More often than not, it probably improves your chances of having good genes.

99% of success comes from having both. Of course there are the outliers that succeed in spite of it all, but most rich people start rich. At least in Europe, this is the case.

[HauteHippie]

99% of success comes from having both. Of course there are the outliers that succeed in spite of it all, but most rich people start rich. At least in Europe, this is the case.

There are many factors. It's not so cut and dried. I think Western Europe has been in a state of gradual but continual productivity decline for quite some time, whereas only over the last 20-30 years has it really picked up steam here in the US. I think social mobility is much more difficult in Europe than in the USA for a number of reasons. It could be due to high costs, and severe regulations. It could be due to wealthy Europeans who like to create entry barriers for the middle class through legacy admissions, punitive income taxes, and school integration. It's just more difficult, in general, to start a small business in Europe when you're on the hook for obscene taxes and extreme employee benefits. USA companies will rarely if ever consider corporate acquisitions from any number of European countries for these reasons. Real estate could also be a factor. Less land, less sprawl.

Now here in the US, our heyday is all but over. In its recent so-called prime, though, it brought a plethora of nobodies from rags to riches. But that phenomenon is going to go by the wayside very soon, as overall decline - or at best stagnation - becomes the norm.

[permabull]

GUYS - back on topic please - let's take a moment to listen to this English guy's rant about the riots http://youtu.be/9pAC0YSmK0g. I don't agree with all of what he says but he gets it right on many counts. I think it helps if you're English or have lived in the UK to understand the variety of the issues behind the riots.

[Pugwash]

I don't agree with all of what he says but he gets it right on many counts. I think it helps if you're English or have lived in the UK to understand the variety of the issues behind the riots.

I'm English. He's mostly wrong, and when he's right, it's through luck more than judgement.

Water Cannon would not have helped as they are indiscriminate and, at the times he says they should have been used, not everybody out there was a looter or rioter. In the later days when the probability was higher that anyone out was there to create trouble, the problem was dealt with through adequate policing.

The correct level of policing was used eventually and it did the job. Cracking heads CRS-style doesn't help, as the French riots proved four years ago. Arming the police also doesn't work, either. Do the US get fewer riots than us?

Again, knee-jerk politics are the absolute wrong answer. We should be more like Norway and less like Bush-era US in our reaction.

Also, characterising the rioters as welfare-collecting drug-addicts not only shows his agenda, but creates a loose foundation on which to build his arguments as arrest demographics show a wide cross-section of people were involved.

No, anyone coming up with authoritarian solutions to this is just helping a right-wing government sneak through more extreme policies that do not in any way serve the general public. This is what governments do if we let them, much like the previous government's civil liberty restrictions.

What we should do is stand back and let level heads prevail. Don't arm the police with baton rounds and water cannon without readin about their devastating effect on innocent children in Northern Ireland, for instance.

[TeeJay]

Both from very poor families, I'll give you that, but both were adopted by rich parents.

The reason I keep going on about this is it's easier to succeed if you're starting from a place from which failing once or twice won't kill you.

You didn't miss me at all, did you.

Absolutely spot on, bro... Much easier to keep trying when you have a trustfund safety net incase things don't work out. Much harder to try again (with anything) when you live hand to mouth, and making a choice between new supplies or food for the day

[dax]

Hi another uk poster.

I agree mostly what pugwash is saying .

Interesting to see what our Us friends think about all this...

The original 'riot ' in London was supposedly about the police shooting a black man in London, who was assumed armed and dangerous.

Then all hell broke loose that night.

Yes there appears to be a lot of black, some asian and white teenagers rioting. The thing is it wasn't a riot. Just an excuse to cause damage shops, rob and attack other people. None of them really knew what it was all about just an excuse to cause trouble.

Then it spread to other cities around uk. Gangs who would normally fight each other were looting together! People were being contacted via txt and Facebook to go looting.

I work in Manchester just 5min walk from the riots, that was an interesting week at work watching the hoodies grouping up and walking into the city as I drove home at 4.00

Yes the uk is very soft on criminals, kids are not scared of the cops. Too many do gooders claiming human rights issues, what about the victims, they have very little support or retribution.

Luckily the people in the riot areas started standing up for themselves and protecting their property. Because the police didn't do it.

Communities did not let the rioters take control, anti-riot gangs started to roam the streets, groups of 50-100 strong taking matters into their own hands. Good I say. It worked the riots stopped in those areas.

Every major city in the uk was hit by riots... I believe over 500 people in jail. Courts were running 24hrs to process the arrests.

_____

Mustang GT300 (500HP Roushcharged

Sent from Samsung Tab…

[Pugwash]

Nowhere near every major city in he UK was affected. Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance, were completely unaffected.

[dax]

Stand corrected, most major cites... it was bad enough in Manchester.

Although leaving work every day early was a bonus...

[Pugwash]

Check the map to see where was actually affected. It was limited to a few cities in England and possibly Cardiff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

[HauteHippie]

Should I be hesitant about traveling to London next month? (I'm assuming not)

[Pugwash]

Should I be hesitant about traveling to London next month? (I'm assuming not)

Not at all. It's all over.