The tragic consequences of the Greek collapse

[pap]

I guess Pap, you need to go find another country to live, one that is anti every thing you appear to dislike, Cuba for instance.

 

I commend you for your input, but part of what makes this country great is the liberal tradition and the freedom to express one's views. I can believe that the entire world financial system is corrupt and workable, and you get to believe I should take a one-way trip to Chez Castro.

 

That's democracy, and vive la difference. If you can't deal with that, then there are plenty of places that'll do for you. Burma's looking dodgy, but North Korea is still very much a go-er, despite recent events.

[pap]

I don't think he will need to, the current monetary system is obviously f*cked. It's just a matter of time.

 

It will go pop when the US just decide they don't owe anyone anything and delete the trillions owed off the computer.

 

And I'd much rather they did that than go to war so their military industrial complex could make money.

 

Thanks for piping up. Nice to see someone else who can see the wood for the trees.

[Petersfield Saint]

Functioning monetary system is an oxymoron. As long as any system allows individuals and corporations to accumulate vast sums of capital, you are always going to create inequality, meaning your "functional monetary system" comes at the cost of dysfunctional societies and human misery. Sure, some people have all the fun, but the fact remains that the vast amount of the world's wealth is in the hands of a very select few. Your functioning monetary system is a loosely federated hierarchy in which wealth flows upwards.

 

When it comes down to it, the majority of society's problems come down to money. People will steal for it, kill for it, or move jobs overseas to make more of it. Look at the current financial crisis. The world is going crazy over what are essentially numbers in data-banks. I'd like someone to tell me how a country like America can really be in any trouble at all. They have everything they need to survive on their own land.

 

Look at the EU. If we banded together and sussed out what we had, why couldn't we do that too? We might get a few less bananas, and might have to make our own TVs, but again - everything we need.

 

It really is the biggest scam ever, and people believe it. In my opinion, the primary concern of this planet should be meeting the needs of the people on it. Some of the responses on here boil down to "Own fault. Not my problem. F**k him". You're entitled to that view, but I find it both abhorrent and quite apt. That's precisely what our "functioning monetary system" thinks of you.

 

Absolutely correct in the grand scheme of things. However, (sadly) never gonna happen, at least in our lifetimes due to human nature (i.e. greed and selfishness)...

[trousers]

Absolutely correct in the grand scheme of things. However, (sadly) never gonna happen, at least in our lifetimes due to human nature (i.e. greed and selfishness)...

 

Indeed. Species (including humans) only evolve over millions of years to where they are today because they are ultimately selfish and greedy. It's the less competitive and unselfish species that end up extinct. Survival of the fittest and all that. Capitalism is simply a modern day moniker we give to the the natural state of the human race.

[pap]

Absolutely correct in the grand scheme of things. However, (sadly) never gonna happen, at least in our lifetimes due to human nature (i.e. greed and selfishness)...

 

I actually do think it will happen at some point, and it'll be a shame if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes.

 

Why?

 

When humanity finally realises this and builds a more equitable society, future generations are going to look at us and say "what a bunch of f**king idiots", in much the same way as we laugh at people who thought the Earth was flat. And they wouldn't be wrong.

[Petersfield Saint]

Heart totally agrees with you, head says I'm not going to hold my breath too long...

[Lighthouse]

Out of interest Pap, what kind of financial system would you have the world running? Not trying to be sarky, I'm actually interested.

[pap]

Indeed. Species (including humans) only evolve over millions of years to where they are today because they are ultimately selfish and greedy. It's the less competitive and unselfish species that end up extinct. Survival of the fittest and all that. Capitalism is simply a modern day moniker we give to the the natural state of the human race.

 

Not really sure I'm on-board with this, trousers.

 

Co-operation is as much a part of our success as a base need to survive at all costs. Go back 300 years, and pretty much every settlement in the world had a strong local identity, and all the incentives to co-operate.

 

In any event, we're not really practising survival of the fittest. That implies that we are using our natural advantages to out-compete our peers. We're not doing that - it's survival of the richest, which isn't the same thing.

 

Put it this way. Take one uber-healthy dude with great genetics and one markedly less so. Now give the wimp a million quid. The reality is that the wimp would have better "survival" capacity in this world, yet would lose hands down in any Darwinian contest of the fittest.

[pap]

Out of interest Pap, what kind of financial system would you have the world running? Not trying to be sarky, I'm actually interested.

 

No problem, it's a great question.

 

I'd like to have no financial system. I'd like everything to be free, for human rights to be enshrined in global law, and human needs prioritised above everything else. Essentially, a resource-based economy based on actual human requirements.

 

I really like what these guys are trying to do:-

 

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

Edited 5 January, 2012 by pap
Changed 'global war' to 'global law'. Great point-making, pap.

[Thedelldays]

pap...you were born about 1000 years too early

[buctootim]

Does that mean free Mercedes and Bang & Olufsen hi-fi for all plus I get to live in that really nice house by the river? What happens if someone else wants that nice house by the river which should be MINE? If no price is placed on my labour, I think I wont bother with the hassle and kjust kick back and travel.

[Verbal]

I'd like to have no financial system. I'd like everything to be free, for human rights to be enshrined in global war, and human needs prioritised above everything else. Essentially, a resource-based economy based on actual human requirements.

 

In which case you should call yourself Mohammad, and go and discover some tablets. (Sorry: formatting went to hell)

[pap]

pap...you were born about 1000 years too early

 

I chuckled at this

[pap]

Does that mean free Mercedes and Bang & Olufsen hi-fi

 

Sorry for snipping you mid-sentence, but I'd go for this. Under such a system, the idea of cyclical consumerism is massively frowned upon. Isn't it a more productive use of resources to get you a really good motor that will last, and a really good sound system that will last, instead of doling out crap with a pre-determined shelf-life destined to end up in a landfill?

 

for all plus I get to live in that really nice house by the river? What happens if someone else wants that nice house by the river which should be MINE?

 

You've got me there, as rivers are in short supply Does it have to be a river? We can build canals easily enough.

 

In an attempt to answer your question seriously, your objections are bound up in the concepts of ownership, which is a temporary conceit at best. Queen Victoria once owned a large part of the world. What does she own now? At best, we're custodians of this rock for the short time we're here.

 

 

If no price is placed on my labour, I think I wont bother with the hassle and kjust kick back and travel.

 

And why not?

 

One of the things that the Venus project bangs on about is mechanisation. They argue that we should have more of it, not less of it - freeing up humanity to do other stuff. I have no problem with you sitting on your arse for the rest of your life and kicking back. Do you think you'd be able to handle the pressure?

[Clapham Saint]

If everybody is just going to kick back and go travelling, who is going to design and build all the really good motors that will last?

 

Or build the canals for that matter?

[pap]

Who said that no-one would work?

 

If everybody is just going to kick back and go travelling, who is going to design and build all the really good motors that will last?

 

Well, I'd imagine that anyone with a burning passion for design would get involved. I'm not suggesting that no-one works. I'm suggesting that we have the technology for everyone to work less. Indeed, it's already in use in some of the fields you mention. The production of cars is largely done without human intervention.

 

Not suggesting that we all become idle bums.

[Lighthouse]

Who said that no-one would work?

 

 

 

Well, I'd imagine that anyone with a burning passion for design would get involved. I'm not suggesting that no-one works. I'm suggesting that we have the technology for everyone to work less. Indeed, it's already in use in some of the fields you mention. The production of cars is largely done without human intervention.

 

Not suggesting that we all become idle bums.

 

The citizens in your theoretical society. Why would anyone do working class jobs if it weren't for money? Who would chose to clean hospital toilets if they weren't getting paid.

 

For all the evils of capitalism, it does create a desire to suceed. Go to school, go to uni, get a job and you could have a Ferrari and a £2m estate in Hertfordshire. Don't bother, drop out of everything and you end up living on a council estate in Brixton. It's not fool proof, but it's the best system we've got.

 

If there is one evil in the world that can match human greed, it's human lazyness.

[Colinjb]

If there is one evil in the world that can match human greed, it's human lazyness.

 

As proven by both extremes of society currently. They both have one thing in common, it's humanity playing the system for it's own selfish benefit.

 

Humanity is defined by it's own inheirent flaws. The things that make us great as a species are equally defined by the things that make us repugnant.

[pap]

The citizens in your theoretical society. Why would anyone do working class jobs if it weren't for money? Who would chose to clean hospital toilets if they weren't getting paid.

 

A very interesting question. First of all, how many working class jobs will actually exist that aren't about the creation of capital? How many can be automated completely? I suspect the example that you give is definitely one that could be automated and improved upon as part of that process. What's going to perform more consistently? Someone earning minimum wage to scrub urine off the floor, or a sensored-up cleaning bot?

 

I honestly think a lot of the reason that some jobs exist is because society needs jobs. The first thing you need to do is establish what tasks actually need to be accomplished to sustain a functioning society. How many of the things people do in this country actually need to be done?

 

I take your point about capitalism being a driver for self-improvement. It's undeniable, but its by far the only factor which drives us. What about people who want to follow their passions? Become an artist, actor or writer? Right now, we're giving those people a real bum deal - the universities you speak of are dropping valued subjects and re-orienting themselves to serve business interests. Not only that, but people are often deterred from these professions because of the financial hardships associated with long periods with no income, and the relatively low commercial success rate. It's just another area in which our present financial system is eroding what makes our humans. For all we know, we could have the next Shakespeare in our midst and not know it. His work might not be commercial enough, or worse still, he might just be plodding away in a job he hates because he needs the money.

 

I don't think people are lazy. I think they're disinterested, worn down and uninspired by their surroundings. Capitalism is the eternal compromise of the soul. The vast majority of people on this board would have gritted their teeth and smiled through many a workplace incident because at the end of the each month, you've got bills to pay. We're in conflict with ourselves every day over this bolox, a stunning feat of self-repression which we barely notice. The whole thing is a sideshow. A distraction. A monthly quest to replenish all the numbers that will disappear from our bank accounts. It keeps most people too busy to realise its meaningless.

 

Back to the subject of Greeks putting their kids into care. The easiest way to address that problem is to ensure that the human needs of those families is met. Under our system, those families can become destitute and end up in state-run care. If you consider all that entails; paperwork, staffing requirements, accommodation and the distress caused to all - our system seems like utter madness.

 

No-one needs to work five days a week. If people were free to pursue their passions, were truly free from fear and were not living in a society which pits them against each other, I think you'd have an energised populace who wouldn't mind getting stuck into the jobs that still existed.

Edited 5 January, 2012 by pap

[Gingeletiss]

Forgive me for saying Pap, but what a crock of sh1te!

[pap]

Forgive me for saying Pap, but what a crock of sh1te!

 

Brilliant debating sir, as always. Love what you bring to the place.

[Verbal]

I honestly think a lot of the reason that some jobs exist is because society needs jobs. The first thing you need to do is establish what tasks actually need to be accomplished to sustain a functioning society. How many of the things people do in this country actually need to be done?

 

Dear God, where to start? This paragraph alone is utterly baffling. What on earth is this 'society' that's made a 'conscious' (!) decision that it 'needs' jobs? Is it this same mysterious 'society' that decides what jobs need to be accomplished? What is a 'functioning society'? And how can you calculate what a 'country' (no longer 'society'?) 'needs to be done'.

 

You can only get away with a paragraph as odd as that by anthropomorphising 'society' and/or 'country' to the point of absurdity.

[Lighthouse]

Pap, no polite way of saying it but you're living in dream land. There are millions of jobs essential to society which nobody in their right mind would do for free. As for getting super intelligent robots to do them... I'm starting to think you're on a wind up here.

[Colinjb]

A very interesting question. First of all, how many working class jobs will actually exist that aren't about the creation of capital? How many can be automated completely? I suspect the example that you give is definitely one that could be automated and improved upon as part of that process. What's going to perform more consistently? Someone earning minimum wage to scrub urine off the floor, or a sensored-up cleaning bot?

 

I honestly think a lot of the reason that some jobs exist is because society needs jobs. The first thing you need to do is establish what tasks actually need to be accomplished to sustain a functioning society. How many of the things people do in this country actually need to be done?

 

I take your point about capitalism being a driver for self-improvement. It's undeniable, but its by far the only factor which drives us. What about people who want to follow their passions? Become an artist, actor or writer? Right now, we're giving those people a real bum deal - the universities you speak of are dropping valued subjects and re-orienting themselves to serve business interests. Not only that, but people are often deterred from these professions because of the financial hardships associated with long periods with no income, and the relatively low commercial success rate. It's just another area in which our present financial system is eroding what makes our humans. For all we know, we could have the next Shakespeare in our midst and not know it. His work might not be commercial enough, or worse still, he might just be plodding away in a job he hates because he needs the money.

 

I don't think people are lazy. I think they're disinterested, worn down and uninspired by their surroundings. Capitalism is the eternal compromise of the soul. The vast majority of people on this board would have gritted their teeth and smiled through many a workplace incident because at the end of the each month, you've got bills to pay. We're in conflict with ourselves every day over this bolox, a stunning feat of self-repression which we barely notice. The whole thing is a sideshow. A distraction. A monthly quest to replenish all the numbers that will disappear from our bank accounts. It keeps most people too busy to realise its meaningless.

 

Back to the subject of Greeks putting their kids into care. The easiest way to address that problem is to ensure that the human needs of those families is met. Under our system, those families can become destitute and end up in state-run care. If you consider all that entails; paperwork, staffing requirements, accommodation and the distress caused to all - our system seems like utter madness.

 

No-one needs to work five days a week. If people were free to pursue their passions, were truly free from fear and were not living in a society which pits them against each other, I think you'd have an energised populace who wouldn't mind getting stuck into the jobs that still existed.

 

You are an idealist, that I admire. Your naivety is however an issue.

[pap]

Dear God, where to start? This paragraph alone is utterly baffling. What on earth is this 'society' that's made a 'conscious' (!) decision that it 'needs' jobs? Is it this same mysterious 'society' that decides what jobs need to be accomplished? What is a 'functioning society'? And how can you calculate what a 'country' (no longer 'society'?) 'needs to be done'.

 

You can only get away with a paragraph as odd as that by anthropomorphising 'society' and/or 'country' to the point of absurdity.

 

I think I've made my points perfectly clear elsewhere in this thread. I am not going to repeat them, but I will provide a bit of context. I write software that satisfies discrete supply chain requirements for a major manufacturer. For the uninitiated, discrete manufacturing means you build to order instead of specialising on one thing. The sort of components you might need to get vary from screws to complex electronics. We even buy components so we can make other components. It's managed through a process of hierarchical demand. You start with the desired result and work your way back to see what other steps need to be achieved.

 

So, if I (and countless others) can write software to help locate and satisfy discrete requirements, couldn't that same technology feasibly be used to determine the demands of a family? And in this age of technology, couldn't the public Internet be a means of expressing that demand?

 

I admire your unfailing assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I kind of do all of the above for a living. Resolving demand isn't hard. It happens every day and it doesn't happen by accident.

[pap]

Pap, no polite way of saying it but you're living in dream land. There are millions of jobs essential to society which nobody in their right mind would do for free. As for getting super intelligent robots to do them... I'm starting to think you're on a wind up here.

 

Not really letting you get away with that without any qualification. Give me an example of a job that is as crap as you describe, isn't the direct result of the present financial system and cannot be automated in any way.

 

We already have autonomous vacuum cleaners. How is a mop-bot such a stretch for you?

[Colinjb]

Not really letting you get away with that without any qualification. Give me an example of a job that is as crap as you describe, isn't the direct result of the present financial system and cannot be automated in any way.

 

You are treating society as a mathematic equation. Humanity as a one dimensional simply satisfiable and placatable entity. And for that reason, i'm out.

[Verbal]

I think I've made my points perfectly clear elsewhere in this thread. I am not going to repeat them, but I will provide a bit of context. I write software that satisfies discrete supply chain requirements for a major manufacturer. For the uninitiated, discrete manufacturing means you build to order instead of specialising on one thing. The sort of components you might need to get vary from screws to complex electronics. We even buy components so we can make other components. It's managed through a process of hierarchical demand. You start with the desired result and work your way back to see what other steps need to be achieved.

 

So, if I (and countless others) can write software to help locate and satisfy discrete requirements, couldn't that same technology feasibly be used to determine the demands of a family? And in this age of technology, couldn't the public Internet be a means of expressing that demand?

 

I admire your unfailing assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I kind of do all of the above for a living. Resolving demand isn't hard. It happens every day and it doesn't happen by accident.

 

Actually not one word of that addressed the questions I asked. Let's start with a simpler one: can you define this apparently conscious 'society'?

[pap]

You are treating society as a mathematic equation. Humanity as a one dimensional simply satisfiable and placatable entity. And for that reason, i'm out.

 

I'm not doing that at all, which is precisely why I explained how simple it is to resolve discrete requirements. Humanity isn't something to be made into one thing. People have different needs depending on their situation. Are we meeting those needs at the moment. Definitely not.

 

People are staying sicker for longer, our kids can't go to higher education, we are paying back billions of the money we earn to cover the losses of what are essentially professional gamblers.

 

In the midst of this nonsense, you're equating the efficient resolution of human requirements with a pap-led Borg invasion, and that's not really on, especially as I think I've covered those bases quite well.

[Colinjb]

I'm not doing that at all, which is precisely why I explained how simple it is to resolve discrete requirements. Humanity isn't something to be made into one thing. People have different needs depending on their situation. Are we meeting those needs at the moment. Definitely not.

 

People are staying sicker for longer, our kids can't go to higher education, we are paying back billions of the money we earn to cover the losses of what are essentially professional gamblers.

 

In the midst of this nonsense, you're equating the efficient resolution of human requirements with a pap-led Borg invasion, and that's not really on, especially as I think I've covered those bases quite well.

 

How do you cater for personality? The infinate different potential combinations that make each individual person utterly unique in every way?

Edited 5 January, 2012 by Colinjb

[pap]

Actually not one word of that addressed the questions I asked. Let's start with a simpler one: can you define this apparently conscious 'society'?

 

That's funny. Don't remember having mentioned society one bit in the post you just replied to, and you made the conscious bit up yourself, so none of what I just wrote really covers that either.

 

Just because I didn't pull you up on it, don't assume I'm validating it.

 

Debate me on points instead of things you're imagining.

[pap]

How do you cater for personality? The infinate different potential combinations that make each individual person utterly unique in every way?

 

Our species has been around a lot longer than our current broken financial system, and it has always accommodated individuality, now more than ever.

 

When you talk about individuality, give me a clue. The things you need? The things you want to do? No disrespect Col, and I'm not trying to dodge this, but individuality is a broad concept - a bit of clarification would be handy.

[Verbal]

That's funny. Don't remember having mentioned society one bit in the post you just replied to, and you made the conscious bit up yourself, so none of what I just wrote really covers that either.

 

Just because I didn't pull you up on it, don't assume I'm validating it.

 

Debate me on points instead of things you're imagining.

 

Are you kidding? I was quoting YOU. See post 72. Again, when you say 'society' makes decisions, or, more quaintly, 'has needs' what do you mean by 'society'?

[pap]

Are you kidding? I was quoting YOU. See post 72. Again, when you say 'society' makes decisions, or, more quaintly, 'has needs' what do you mean by 'society'?

 

Oh, ok. Fair enough.

 

So when I said that society needs jobs, referring to society as y'know, the people and places that make a civilsation up, what you got out of that was "pap thinks that society is a conscious, Lovecraft-inspired beast that makes decisions on it's own"?

 

Well, it's quite a leap, but an interesting thought all the same. Might even get a short story out of it. Well within my range

[Colinjb]

Our species has been around a lot longer than our current broken financial system, and it has always accommodated individuality, now more than ever.

 

When you talk about individuality, give me a clue. The things you need? The things you want to do? No disrespect Col, and I'm not trying to dodge this, but individuality is a broad concept - a bit of clarification would be handy.

 

And vagueness of defining humanity within the models you are suggesting is exactly the point mate! While there can be systems and processes that could seem to cater for all of societies needs, the constantly evolving and organic nature of the human race would mean that no system, no matter how adaptable, no matter how impossibly clever and sophisticated would ever, ever be able to anticipate, placate, control or encourage the inhabitants within to totally accept and go with it.

[Verbal]

Might even get a short story out of it. Well within my range

 

Not a book?

 

And yes, precisely, you imply a Lovecrafty 'society', as a thinking, feeling entity - whether you intended to or not.

[pap]

And vagueness of defining humanity within the models you are suggesting is exactly the point mate! While there can be systems and processes that could seem to cater for all of societies needs, the constantly evolving and organic nature of the human race would mean that no system, no matter how adaptable, no matter how impossibly clever and sophisticated would ever, ever be able to anticipate, placate, control or encourage the inhabitants within to totally accept and go with it.

 

So how do we do it now, then?

 

Just think about the process of production and consumption. A bunch of companies go out to make essentially the same thing. They spend millions advertising it, protecting it via the courts, distributing it and hoping it sells. We venerate the winners like Apple, but history is littered with flops. That's not really efficient.

 

What about people who commute an hour or so each way to do a job they don't enjoy and provides no value to society? That's not efficient either, just as it is no longer efficient to build much in the UK, purely because of money.

 

But you're right. No system is going to placate everyone. Capitalism certainly isn't placating me at the moment, and to go back to the first post, 500 families who are putting their kids into state care aren't getting placated either.

[pap]

Not a book?

 

And yes, precisely, you imply a Lovecrafty 'society', as a thinking, feeling entity - whether you intended to or not.

 

Communication is about transmission and reception, Verbal. I think I'm verbose and up-front enough to not have to imply anything.

[Verbal]

Communication is about transmission and reception, Verbal. I think I'm verbose and up-front enough to not have to imply anything.

 

Clearly you didn't intend to. However...

 

And to the next question: 'demand'. How can this be something that's just kind of 'there'. It's manipulated, stimulated, depressed, prone to collapse or to come from nowhere. As Henry Ford used to say, if he gave people what they wanted he'd have produced faster horses. And his natural successor Steve Jobs specialised in creating demand for things where none previously existed.

 

No amount of clever software-writing gets around this problem, that demand is fabricated: we need what we want, we want what we need - and we want and need things we once never imagined existed.

 

Your Utopia is built on sand.

[Colinjb]

So how do we do it now, then?

 

Just think about the process of production and consumption. A bunch of companies go out to make essentially the same thing. They spend millions advertising it, protecting it via the courts, distributing it and hoping it sells. We venerate the winners like Apple, but history is littered with flops. That's not really efficient.

 

What about people who commute an hour or so each way to do a job they don't enjoy and provides no value to society? That's not efficient either, just as it is no longer efficient to build much in the UK, purely because of money.

 

But you're right. No system is going to placate everyone. Capitalism certainly isn't placating me at the moment, and to go back to the first post, 500 families who are putting their kids into state care aren't getting placated either.

 

I am in no way saying that things are perfect at the moment. The crux of my point though is that due to the nature of humanity itself, there will never be a solution that is 100% effective for 100% of everyone alive.

 

The one thing through history that has been consistent is our own 'inhumanity' towards each other.

[pap]

And to the next question: 'demand'. How can this be something that's just kind of 'there'. It's manipulated, stimulated, depressed, prone to collapse or to come from nowhere. As Henry Ford used to say, if he gave people what they wanted he'd have produced faster horses. And his natural successor Steve Jobs specialised in creating demand for things where none previously existed.

 

No amount of clever software-writing gets around this problem, that demand is fabricated: we need what we want, we want what we need - and we want and need things we once never imagined existed.

 

Your Utopia is built on sand.

 

I don't like to pull people up on what they've said before, but I think this is relevant. I remember a very good post from you enumerating the forces that drive consumerism, the relentless marketing and the fact that people are essentially brainwashed into wanting things they don't need. You almost make the point yourself when you say that demand is fabricated.

 

Isn't it then reasonable to question the legitimacy of some of that demand?

 

Your comment on "software-writing" seems to be a victory of your truculence over common sense. How do you think that we meet demand at the moment? The vast majority of the goods are delivered through software systems, tied into systems on-site that automatically notify provisioning systems when stocks are running low.

 

Clever software-writing also helps in the design, fabrication and distribution of new products. It even helps to create products from scratch.

 

So, if we can meet all of these demands currently through the abstraction of shops and delivery, what is preventing us from doing the same in the future? And if we were not constantly cultivated into a life of consumerism, would we even really want as much, as often?

[pap]

I am in no way saying that things are perfect at the moment. The crux of my point though is that due to the nature of humanity itself, there will never be a solution that is 100% effective for 100% of everyone alive.

 

The one thing through history that has been consistent is our own 'inhumanity' towards each other.

 

I know, and I'm not saying that any system can be 100% perfect. That shouldn't stop us from aspiring to better things, or better values to live by. I honestly believe that money is a corroding influence on us, and is responsible for a lot of that the inhumanity we visit upon each other.

 

It's also self-perpetuating. I don't want to get into facts and figures, but I think we can safely say that a lot of crime is linked to poverty. Our solution is to recruit coppers, build jails and maintain a large justice system. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have those institutions. I agree with you, no society is going to be 100% sorted - but making sure people's needs are met would reduce a lot of the noise.