• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Who wants Globalisation??

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Also if guns are great and everybody should have one, why are the crime rates so high in the states? You are vitual prisoners, house to car to work to car to house. Doesn't seem like freedom to me.


Your view is quite a bit distorted.
England has worst crime rate in world

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.
According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.


The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.


Most importantly, since handguns were banned in the UK in 1997, crime has skyrocketed, with the rate of violent crime more than doubling. In the US, the crime rate continues to decrease.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.



It's really difficult to believe that New Zealand has a higher crime rate
than England and Wales. The rest is very possible.
regards
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The murder rate is far lower in England than the states, petty crime may be higher. I prefer to have my mobile phone stolen than a shot in the head.
Gun crime has increased in England as cocaine trade has soared, gun crime is almost completely associated with the drug trade and the want-to-be hangers on. So I would say my chance of getting shot here in England is very much lower than being shot over in the states.
Tony
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
The murder rate is far lower in England than the states, petty crime may be higher. I prefer to have my mobile phone stolen than a shot in the head.
Gun crime has increased in England as cocaine trade has soared, gun crime is almost completely associated with the drug trade and the want-to-be hangers on. So I would say my chance of getting shot here in England is very much lower than being shot over in the states.
Tony


I personally find it hard to believe that you're more likely to be attacked here than in South Africa, given its reputation for violent crime ( I know a few South Africans and they all seem to know someone who was raped, murdered or carjacked. ) That aside, I think crime has risen here in the last few years. I think it is to do with drugs, nearly all of the shootings you hear about are drug dealers trying to shoot each other. They do miss though, so don't stand too close to one...
 
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Most importantly, since handguns were banned in the UK in 1997, crime has skyrocketed, with the rate of violent crime more than doubling. In the US, the crime rate continues to decrease.


I'd say thats true, but just because theres a correlation it doesn't mean causality. The number of people who had legal handguns was not large, and most of those were locked in shooting clubs, rather than in their own homes or cars for their own protection. I think a large part of the increase, as I said in another post, is the increase in cocaine and crack dealing. I read somewhere that part of the problem we have may be because of the US's success in dealing with them - they've come to the UK because its easier. Maybe its because not many of our police are armed, but thats gradually increasing. I don't see that as a bad thing.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 716
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Steve Wink:

I'd say thats true, but just because theres a correlation it doesn't mean causality. The number of people who had legal handguns was not large, and most of those were locked in shooting clubs, rather than in their own homes or cars for their own protection. I think a large part of the increase, as I said in another post, is the increase in cocaine and crack dealing. I read somewhere that part of the problem we have may be because of the US's success in dealing with them - they've come to the UK because its easier. Maybe its because not many of our police are armed, but thats gradually increasing. I don't see that as a bad thing.



Perhaps correlation doesn't equal causality, but are you going to throw any possible link away right off?
Perhaps it could be a psychological link. Perhaps criminals now know that law-abiding citizens don't have guns, so getting an (illegal) gun is the simplest way to get the absolute upper hand?
Could it be increased confidence that the risks of any encounter with the general public are low?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:


Cod is really expensive now. No one is sure whether it's due to EEC regulations or overfishing.
If there was overfishing of cod it was due to criteria set by EEC regulations,IMHO.
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]


Seems like most of your complaining is directed at the EEC, but I think how the EEC is administered is a completely separate issue from one of opening up global markets for free trade which is what I, as a capitalist, have been referring to as globalisation.
I can't comment on the British fishing industry, perhaps it is outmoded and inefficient, or perhaps like the horse carriage manufacturers, its time is now past, or perhaps simply a mistake has been made calculating how much fish stock could be harvested each year. In any event, it doesn't really matter what the reasons are, none of them could be a valid argument that should prevent South American countries from selling food, even fish (Chilean sea bass is excellent!), to British consumers at a lower cost, which would benefit all consumers and raise all boats.

In my local US supermarket, I benefit from an amazing diversity and variety of food from around the world at quite reasonable prices. Fruits from New Zealand and South America, various nuts from India and China, wines from South America, France ($2.50 a bottle last month!!), etc.. you get the picture. Here, in the US, its the average consumer that benefits from the health effects of a varied diet and the cost savings that global competition produces.
The argument that no policy should ever be adopted if anyone anywhere is displaced would stagnate the progress of mankind, in effect lowering all boats. I guess you would have prevented the Industrial Revolution or the adoption of any techonology that renders one industry obselete. Progress always entails the removal and dislocation of that which is obselete or less efficient, but it also raises everyones standard of living.
 
frank davis
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Then there should be no subsidy also in free market and globalisation, right ??
Let prople pay what is the actual cost of product. Why to subsidies it ??


Subsidies and globalisation for free markets are separate issues. As a capitalist, I see subsidies as a distortion of the marketplace that lead to inefficiencies that benefit only the subsidized producer. Everyone else will pay the price for the subsidy in one way or another (such as higher taxes).
I agree with you, but the US has not been consistant on this issue because of politics.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

But they don't bring any character to the places while turning Britain's coastline into one huge marina.


I think I've got it now. We are going to be Europe's Jersey, for the rich to live tax-free. That's what happened to Jersey for collaborating.
A search for responsible fishing policy for the European Union is futile.Each fishing minister goes to negotiate good agreements which means one that damages his country not at all while others stop fishing. Instead there is some ugly trading nd the European fishing industry continues to self-inflicted extinction.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

herb slocomb : In my local US supermarket, I benefit from an amazing diversity and variety of food from around the world at quite reasonable prices. Fruits from New Zealand and South America, various nuts from India and China, wines from South America, France ($2.50 a bottle last month!!), etc.. you get the picture. Here, in the US, its the average consumer that benefits from the health effects of a varied diet and the cost savings that global competition produces.


I'm all for world progress. If only we were all responsible consumers and take globalisation personally. If there is no direct benefit at source avoid it like the clappers. Indian farmers are behaving responsibly and turning their backs on genetic engineering. They see no benefits to them: there is no room on the sub-continent for mega agri-businesses. Genetic bio-engineered plants would kill off local farming which would be bad for the planet in general.But if local farm products could fill your super market shelves that would be good.

I guess you would have prevented the Industrial Revolution or the adoption of any techonology that renders one industry obselete. Progress always entails the removal and dislocation of that which is obselete or less efficient, but it also raises everyones standard of living.


globalisation is nothing new. If we are taking a fresh look at globalisation that would be a positive thing to do. The same with the Industrial Revolution.
[ November 28, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Tony Collins:

Also if guns are great and everybody should have one, why are the crime rates so high in the states? You are vitual prisoners, house to car to work to car to house. Doesn't seem like freedom to me.


That's only in states which are reluctant to issue handgun concealed carry permits to private citizens. In 1996 Louiasiana passed a law forcing police to issue them to any citizen with a clean record who takes modest training, and now that I can carry a gun most anywhere I please, I feel pretty free to go anywhere (at least within those states where my permit is honored).
Fear of robbery, not murder, is what made Americans prisoners in their homes, and which forced people to flee the cities for the suburbs. Murder has always been primarily something that happens between people in the illegal drug culture. Of course, our crack cocaine culture is probably a lot bigger than yours.
There are also occasional some murder/suicide combos by rejected husbands and boyfriends, but that also can be usually be avoiding relationships with the wrong sort of people. But more than once, a women who found herself in such a position had her life saved by the gun she or her new sweetheart carried.

The murder rate is far lower in England than the states, petty crime may be higher. I prefer to have my mobile phone stolen than a shot in the head.


Don't leave your mobile phone lying around and it won't be stolen. On the other hand, if you're talking about armed robbery, I hardly consider that a petty crime.
I'd say that in America, in a state with a good concealed carry law, you have a better chance of avoiding having to choose between death and submission to robbers.

Gun crime has increased in England as cocaine trade has soared, gun crime is almost completely associated with the drug trade and the want-to-be hangers on.


What sort of weapon do they use for taking your mobile phone, if not a gun? (If you're not in danger of being murdered, then why not simply refuse to hand it over?)

So I would say my chance of getting shot here in England is very much lower than being shot over in the states.


Wouldn't that depend upon whether you obey the order to give up your mobile phone?
Actually, what the statistics indicate is that you are much more likely, as an American, to be a member of the drug dealing/using criminal underclass than if you are as some random resident of England.
But then, none of us are really random Americans or Englishmen, are we? We are either members of the criminal subculture, or we aren't.
America's criminal underclass grew because multiple generations of unmarried mothers living on welfare (the dole) became a standard way of life in some huge communities. Now it's happening to England, and within one decade you went from having 1/9th our murder rate to having 1/3rd.
Of course, a higher percentage of our murderers use firearms, due to their availability. (The only way availability of firearms could make a difference in the overall murder rate would be if England had many thousands of victims of _attempted_ murder -- who were alive only because the would-be murderer's weapon wasn't lethal enough. I don't know of many such people.)
Americans don't really consider gun murders to be more lamentable than any other kind of murder. I've heard that guns make it easier to commit murder, but if my loved one were a victim I would find it very small consolation to know that the killer had been required to apply a bit of elbow grease.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

the US has not been consistant on this issue because of politics.


And so the other countries ..
And thats why we cant achieve true Globalisation ...
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R K Singh:

And so the other countries ..
And thats why we cant achieve true Globalisation ...


True globalisation. What is that ?
"When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done," said the great economist John Maynard Keynes.
The package of international regulations and mores known as "free trade" today is a carricature of free trade as it was understood from the past century and a half. Then it didn't mean the right of the rich and powerful to ride roughshod over the poor.
"Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterise our age." - Albert Einstein, though he was probably talking about science, but but could aptly describe the current non-debate about free trade.
From 1848 - the year Britain adopted a free trade policy - to 1980, free traders conceded the right of countries to manage their own affairs. That included defending small businesses and family farms ( Tony Martin must have stuck at this point ).
After 1980, the term began to aquire a much more expansive meaning and the boundaries between foreign and domestic blurred. Free traders talked of doin away with "non-tariff trade" barriers. - any regulation or tax that inhibited the movement of goods and services across borders.
The rules have changed. In an earlier time countries were allowed to impose the same standards on importers that they did on domestic producers. That is no longer true.
For many countries, economies grew fastest during the 1950's , 1960's and 1970's operating in a highly protectionist fashion. Since adopting new free trade rules , countries in Latin America and Africa have experienced economic stagnation or decline. In many countries , exports are up but living standards are down.
Three years after enactment of the NAFTA , Mexico's trade with the US went from a modest deficit to a $14 billion surplus. Yet Mexico's economy imploded living standards plunged, unemployment soared and a wave of drugs and violence swept the country.
WTO ruled in 1998 that Europe had no right to impose bans on hormone additives even though the problem of two- to three- year olds reaching puberty was traced to growth hormones.
Let's hope that the battle in Seattle ( that's why they are Sleepless in Seattle ?) finds it's way into political debate. The debate in Seattle was largely about whether and how to extend GATT into services like education , healh and finance.
This isn't your father's free trade - Anita Roddick
[ November 29, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
Tony Collins
Ranch Hand
Posts: 435
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Tony Collins:
Wouldn't that depend upon whether you obey the order to give up your mobile phone?
Actually, what the statistics indicate is that you are much more likely, as an American, to be a member of the drug dealing/using criminal underclass than if you are as some random resident of England.
But then, none of us are really random Americans or Englishmen, are we? We are either members of the criminal subculture, or we aren't.
America's criminal underclass grew because multiple generations of unmarried mothers living on welfare (the dole) became a standard way of life in some huge communities. Now it's happening to England, and within one decade you went from having 1/9th our murder rate to having 1/3rd.
Of course, a higher percentage of our murderers use firearms, due to their availability. (The only way availability of firearms could make a difference in the overall murder rate would be if England had many thousands of victims of _attempted_ murder -- who were alive only because the would-be murderer's weapon wasn't lethal enough. I don't know of many such people.)


Street robbery rarely involves guns in England, because we do have such tight gun control. Mainly late teens with knifes.
I would not blame gun crime on single mothers. People have to find ways to live and in the city I live in there aren't many ways to make money if you come from a particular background. What with the manufacturing industry being lost and the ports laying off. So kids aspire to becoming bouncers/drug dealers, the police let it go because drugs brings money into the city.
The one good thing is that guns are only in the hands of people that intend to premediately use them , guns are rarely used in moments of anger of protection of property.

Tony
 
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:


Perhaps correlation doesn't equal causality, but are you going to throw any possible link away right off?
Perhaps it could be a psychological link. Perhaps criminals now know that law-abiding citizens don't have guns, so getting an (illegal) gun is the simplest way to get the absolute upper hand?
Could it be increased confidence that the risks of any encounter with the general public are low?


I would throw the link away. As I said, Britons haven't ever had a tradition of having firearms in the home ( or at least not for over a century), so criminals would always have known that law-abiding citizens don't have guns. Reading the news reports of shootings and gun related murder in Britain, I'd say 90% involve drug gangs. They may see the UK as an easy option as not many of our police carry guns, and there never seem to be enough of them.
 
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3404
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

I'm all for world progress. If only we were all responsible consumers and take globalisation personally. If there is no direct benefit at source avoid it like the clappers. Indian farmers are behaving responsibly and turning their backs on genetic engineering.


I recently read that the Bhatinda province in Punjab have an epidemic of farmers suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural area in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. It's mostly waterlogged desert - "even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because of heavy use of pesticides have killed bees and pollinators".
I am not sure if globalisation was the culprit here, but if it was, and if it can do that to the Punjab ( the nearest I've got to the area was Mumbai) think what globalisation can do to Ethiopia, Somalia and surrounding regions, not to mention East European countries.
Well I guess these countries have nothing but arms left....
How's that for Irony ?
[ December 04, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
 
You have to be odd to be #1 - Seuss. An odd little ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!