Behind England's Riots

[renewable]

Re: Behind England's Riots

FIRE wont be paying out much, UK tax payers will through police because of this - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...50/38/contents

1886 Riot Damages Act

And companies like Lloyds of London have individual "Names" putting their money where the profits are.

This is why the politicians can never say the word 'riot'. Aren't they going to do their best to claim that these were 'civil disturbances' and say that the Riot Act was not read in this case? Guess it will be decided in the courts if the insurance companies do decide to contest.

[don]

Re: Behind England's Riots

I choose D: All of the above.

The more I know about people, the more I love my dog.

hell is other people . . .

from Sartre's play No Exit

Politically, this insight can be interpreted in a grim and pessimistic way.

here's mad max's take on the riots . . .

pre-revolutionary?

each country is different . . . or is London a stand-along event, as portrayed in the MSM?

Was the 4-day stand down political opportunism?

[Master Shake]

Re: Behind England's Riots

I guess you just chose to ignore the fact that one of the questions I asked in my post was "Why aren't kids in other countries doing it?"

You haven't been paying attention to the violent "flash mob" attacks in the US, have you? Google "Flash mob violence" and see what you get. Granted, it's not as prolonged and extensive as in the UK currently, but the same sort of violent, dysunctional behavior is on display. There's also a distinct racial component to the perps and victims that the MSM typically ignores.

[Raz]

Re: Behind England's Riots

i don't know where to begin with this post.

of course people are being hurt, and i say that not just in the sense of a few banged up teens and/or cops. that's the least of it. just because it doesn't manifest itself in the form of bruises, it doesn't mean that people are not being hurt. for example, i would argue that they are hurting a shop keeper by taking away his/her source of income, as well as the time and capital invested in the shop. what about his / her employees? what about his / her dependents?

your comments re: let insurance pay reveals a lack of knowledge of how the insurance industry and FIRE works.

how certain are you that these policies cover this sort of thing? that they will immediately pay vs contest it? what will happen to premiums going forward based on these losses? etc.

who are the insurance company's lenders? (banks and other institutions, but who lends to/finances these banks and institutions? or better yet, who backstops them? me, you, our pensions, our savings, etc.)

who are the insurance company's shareholders? (typically me, you, our pensions, etc.)

costs and losses will ultimately be passed through to us individuals. trust me on this.

to understand the larger scale, which is the unseen or the opportunity cost to all of this, i suggest that you read up on the broken window fallacy by bastiat.

for some of us violence is the means to apply force or a form of force itself. thus, it extends beyond the actual physical act of violence ... although the threat is always there to apply said force. violence is a form of an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power that forces people into a state / condition that is against the "victim's" wishes.

quite frankly, even the threat of violence is compelling enough at times to make some folks give away their rights.

if the shop keeper was allowed to have a gun, then the [perceived] threat of violence would be mitigated.

+1. And thank you.

I couldn't aggree more.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Behind England's Riots

This would not happen in the United States. Kids know better (they WILL be shot).

LA riots? 6 days, 53 lives.

[shiny!]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Exactly. For a misanthrope, this whole business makes it hard to decide - who to hate more? The evil, villainous rich? The stupid, rioting poor? Or the smug, judgmental-yet-clueless middle class?

I choose D: All of the above.

The more I know about people, the more I love my dog.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Britain is one of the most unequal societies in the world, whilst simultaneously being one of the most consumerist.

My antennae quiver every time I read someone blaming thuggery on "inequality". Talk about a vague concept...what precisely are you criticizing about "inequality"? What constitutes a level of "inequality" that you think is a problem?

Human beings are NOT equal. They have a wide range of abilities, intelligence, and self-control. This naturally means that there will be - quite justly! - a very wide range of economic outcomes, without any wrong being involved at all. Those who are smart and disciplined are going to create much more wealth (CREATE the wealth - not take it from others) then those who are stupid and undisciplined. There is no wrong there.

I shudder to think of a world without "inequality". Social engineers could "redistribute" the wealth created by the productive until everyone had virtually exactly the same amount, and if someone had ten cents more than someone else, someone would cry "inequality!" and feel ill-served that they are not one of those lucky few who have an extra 10 cents. There is nothing at all wrong with inequality - vast, huge, wide gulfs of inequality - if that inequality is the result of money gained through arms-length free-market transactions.

The problem is not the inequality of wealth. The problem is the envy and the resentment over the fact that someone else has created more wealth than you have.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Maybe, maybe not. The police randomly shooting someone and lying about it is pretty serious stuff, but I have no clue how common that sort of thing is over in the UK. I thought it was almost unheard of but reading some UK forums and blogs suggests to me the UK police are fairly corrupt, or at least that is what an awful lot of people seem to think. If abuse by corrupt/incompetent police + shitty standard of living + little to no means to improve your standard of living isn't something to riot about I don't know what is.

"If a shitty standard of living and no way to improve it isn't something to riot about, I don't know what is." EXCELLENT comment.

I keep thinking about the UK, as well as California and British Columbia, and I keep thinking about city and regional planners preventing cities from developing outward, approving only high density development projects, and creating an outrageous cost of housing. And no-one in the planning profession says anything about this absurd way to plan cities.

Add to this, unemployment, low wages, no unions, deficits, and government mandated "healthy and necessary inflation," and no wonder the youth are discontent. Put this in perspective of these elitist, irrelevant, and arrogant planning concepts of sustainability, carbon footprints, cap-'n-trade, preservation, combating sprawl, native plants, ecological diversity, combating urban sprawl, preventing global warming, high density planning, growth boundaries, zoning, developmental review process, environmental impact statements, carbon taxes, adopting a polar bear, green energy solutions, anti-autos, habitat preservation---- and no wonder housing costs are outrageous. No wonder the entire cost of living is outrageous.

Here we are now, with riots, fires, looting, hooligans, and mass discontent.

[mesyn191]

Re: Behind England's Riots

I shudder to think of a world without "inequality". Social engineers could "redistribute" the wealth created by the productive until everyone had virtually exactly the same amount, and if someone had ten cents more than someone else, someone would cry "inequality!" and feel ill-served that they are not one of those lucky few who have an extra 10 cents.

Funny you should say this since the social engineers we do have seem to have helped rig the system to enrich the richer while making the poor poorer and at the same time have been chipping away at social saftey nets. I guess these folks want a redo at the Gilded Age.

There is nothing at all wrong with inequality - vast, huge, wide gulfs of inequality - if that inequality is the result of money gained through arms-length free-market transactions.

Oh OK so nothing you're saying applies here seeing as how the inequality we're seeing is due to the FIRE economy redistributing wealth to the top, which is fundamentally fradulent and essentially class warfare on the non rich by the rich. Good that we see eye to eye on things and all.

[leegs]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Exactly. For a misanthrope, this whole business makes it hard to decide - who to hate more? The evil, villainous rich? The stupid, rioting poor? Or the smug, judgmental-yet-clueless middle class?

We must be careful, lest we be confused with Serge_Tomiko. Really, I'm not kidding.

[renewable]

Re: Behind England's Riots

My antennae quiver every time I read someone blaming thuggery on "inequality". Talk about a vague concept...what precisely are you criticizing about "inequality"? What constitutes a level of "inequality" that you think is a problem?

Human beings are NOT equal. They have a wide range of abilities, intelligence, and self-control. This naturally means that there will be - quite justly! - a very wide range of economic outcomes, without any wrong being involved at all. Those who are smart and disciplined are going to create much more wealth (CREATE the wealth - not take it from others) then those who are stupid and undisciplined. There is no wrong there.

I shudder to think of a world without "inequality". Social engineers could "redistribute" the wealth created by the productive until everyone had virtually exactly the same amount, and if someone had ten cents more than someone else, someone would cry "inequality!" and feel ill-served that they are not one of those lucky few who have an extra 10 cents. There is nothing at all wrong with inequality - vast, huge, wide gulfs of inequality - if that inequality is the result of money gained through arms-length free-market transactions.

The problem is not the inequality of wealth. The problem is the envy and the resentment over the fact that someone else has created more wealth than you have.

It is possible to have empathy and try and understand people's motivation (however misguided or wrong it may be) without agreeing with what they do. You should try it some time.

edit: thinking about your post some more, you need to understand that I am talking about equality of opportunity, something I had understood that Americans aspire to?

[don]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Former LA police detective Michael Ruppert's take:

[renewable]

Re: Behind England's Riots

'Great Fire of London 2.0'

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Behind England's Riots

We must be careful, lest we be confused with Serge_Tomiko. Really, I'm not kidding.

Tongue firmly in cheek. Guess I need a "gallows humor" smiley:

[shiny!]

Re: Behind England's Riots

I choose D: All of the above.

The more I know about people, the more I love my dog.

I posted in thoughtless haste before, so I'm going to reply to my own reply to correct myself.

I actually hate evil, villainous, stupid, smug, and judgmental-yet-clueless people, regardless of whether they're rich, poor or middle-class. Most everybody else is OK in my book.

But I still love my dog more.