[MattSavinar]

Crime Syndicates Stealing Diesel From Farmers:
I was just listening to "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio.

Apparently in Central California, there are now crime syndicates who go around isolated regions at night to steal diesel fuel and agriculuture supplies. The police said they are essentially unable to stop the syndicates due to the isolated nature of the farms.

Gee, I wonder if we're going to see more and more of this?

This is why I tell people that while moving to the country is probably a good idea - you need to understand that you will have to be your own police officer.

Got solar panels on your roof? Well you better learn to use weapons to defend them. Because when the lights go out, somebody in your area willing to use weapons is going to come to get your solar panels.

(Or you're water/food/seed etc. . . )

That's not me being pessimistic or a doomsayer. It is the reality we now live in. You can accept it and adapt as best you are able, or you can delude yourself with notions that, "oh - it won't be as bad as the doom and gloom crowd makes it out to be."

Matt
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[k_semler]

Drive-offs at gas stations have also increased, according to the Spokesman Review. I think that this is the start of the slide down the far side of Hubbert's Peak. Thank god I am over 100 miles away from the nearest city that has more than 50,000 people. I think this will emmensly help my survival, as most of the people will not be able to reach my location.

Pullman has just over 16,000 and Moscow has just over 13,000 residents. Lewiston and Clarkston each have about 30,000 residents each. Colton has 378 people, and Uniontown has just over 600 people. Colfax only has 2500 residents all year. All of these towns are within a 35 mile radius of my home, so within a 75 mile diameter of my home, there are about 92,478 people. That would be equal to about 196.24416777250954426325716374344 people per square mile.

Using the fact that there are 640 acres per square mile, this would be equal to 3.26124342 acres per person. Considering 1 acre is equal to 43,560 square feet, this would mean that each person would recieve 142,059.763 square feet average. This would be plenty adequate for survival, as it has been estimated that it takes 1 acre per person to survive. If each person occupied 3.26124342 acres, then survival would be very possible, and the quality of life would be very suitable in my immediate area. I think I have just proven to myself that I am in a very good location for survival, so I do not have to worry about relocating before the crunch.

[Pops]

The influx of people into central Ca has definitely had an impact.

Last year there was a rash of “home invasion” style robberies at expensive semi-rural homes. Not actual working farms, 10-20 acre “ranchettes”. Whether the robbers knew better than to take on real country folks or not, I don’t know.

I have also read of many bank robberies, carjackings, etc. perpetrated here by people from the large urban areas – SF Bay, LA.

I’m leaving Ca. Living away from urban areas has its advantages, but like everything else there is a trade-off.

[Rasmus2]

Yeah, and maybe the mob will begin to produce Alcohol and smuggle it - just like during the 1920s Prohibition era... just this time we will not drink it, but use it as fuel.

[Wildwell]

One things Doomers argue great deal, is that human nature stinks, and as people become poor (as resources run out) people will argue over them and war and crime will rise to apocalyptic levels..

So surely as we have become richer crime has fallen right? Wrong. Crime is endemic in west cultures. For example the UK was a safe and peaceful country once, now it’s a high risk war zone full of yobs, drugs, guns and robbery.

- In 1964 in England and Wales there were 72,000 domestic burglaries; in 2003/04 there were 402,000.

- In 1893 the annual number of recorded robberies in England and Wales fell below 400. There were then never as many as 400 recorded robberies a year in the whole of England and Wales until 1941. In stark contrast, from February to December 2001 there were never as few as 400 recorded robberies a month in the London Borough of Lambeth alone and in the UK during 2003/04 there were 101,000.

- In 1955 fewer than 500,000 crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales. By the end of the 1960s there were over 1.5 million. By the end of the 1970s there were 2.7 million, today there are 5.9 million.

Other western countries are much the same, so why has crime risen?

- TV, computer games, movies?
- Drug culture and rise in availability?
- 1960s (sexual) liberation and single parent households?
- Both parents going to work for home/consumer objects?
- End of national service?
- Consumer/advertising culture?
- Parents spending less time at home – working further away?
- Destruction of religion?
- End of institutions/job for life?

BTW Oil use has a close correlating curve with crime..

[Falconoffury]

Population levels and densities has something to do with it, I'm sure.

[jmacdaddio]

Readers of Freakonomics will understand. The Echo Baby Boomers -- loosely speaking, kids born between 1978 and 88 - are in their prime crime-committing years. Crime is largely a phenomenon confined to males 18-30 born into families where they weren't wanted. The larger the generational cohort is, the greater number of males who have a background more likely to produce criminal behavior.

[Andrew_S]

Britain "benefits" from diversity and is increasingly a fucked up society. You might find that expression of such opinions is illegal in the UK.

[Chocky]

Yes Wildwell, you missed Britain's marvelous cultural diversity, as Andrew_S so succinctly pointed out. This is particularly relevant to the rise in gun and drug-related crimes.

[Doly]

Like everybody knows, crime and poverty go together. If a specific group is more present in prisons than in the population at large, 10 times out of 10 that group is poorer than the population at large.

I bet that you don't find many Scandinavians in German prisons.

[Wildwell]

Well it’s not population density, we can discount that. For example, London’s population was higher in the 1950s and more dense, yet crime was lower. Also it would follow that less populated countries, like the US, would have lower crime and it has some of the highest rates of crime in the world, especially murders and gun related crime.

BTW, this isn’t just about the UK, the same does apply to all Western countries.

If anyone has any hard data or studies, please post. I’ll do some searches later, but it would be interesting to see: Who commits the most crime and why? Certainly wealth seems to have little to do with it, although maybe the divsion of society is more a factor? That said, in 1920 society really was divided, yet crime was lower. Does immigration have a influence and how does the drug culture fit in? I'm sure someone will post that dropping capital punishment was the blame, yet the US still has the death penalty and sees rampant crime.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'L')ike everybody knows, crime and poverty go together. If a specific group is more present in prisons than in the population at large, 10 times out of 10 that group is poorer than the population at large.

I bet that you don't find many Scandinavians in German prisons.

[ashurbanipal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne things Doomers argue great deal, is that human nature stinks, and as people become poor (as resources run out) people will argue over them and war and crime will rise to apocalyptic levels.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', '
')It seems plausible to suggest that crime is the result of this essential imbalance in economic status. In an environment where your neighbor doesn't own so much more than you, theft is not profitable. Nor is it provoked. But in an environment where a few people get the vast majority of the available resources through unfair exploitation of others, crime seems an expected and reasonable reaction.

[Wildwell]

I'd agree with the above. I'm wondering if perceptions of inequality are more prominent, people travel more, see things on TV, mix with more people etc..

For example, most people experience the wider world (outside, friends, family, workmates) through the media, which is full of advertising, happy smiling people and distortion. There are people that get paid ridiculous amounts of money for the silliest things, often based on who they are. This fuel resentment, especially in young men as people play ‘keeping up with the joneses’ Western societies are full of a lot of losers with pent up anger, Eastern societies however tend to be more corrupt.

That's not the only reason; poor diet, child care, stress and just general morality must have an influence. When people think its okay to shoot people, they generally go about doing it if the need arising. What is influencing them? When did it become fashionable to be a yob? Drugs must play an influence, 80% of crime is drug related. Cheap transport has made them more accessible. There's more things worth stealing, especially cars.

[AmericanEmpire]

We haven't seen nothing yet I'm afraid. Violence and theft is gonna go through the roof post peak.

[ashurbanipal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his myth needs to be refuted. The imbalance was much higher a hundred years ago, wasn't it? In an environment where one's neighbors don't own more than you, then the smallest differences will be magnified. I'm trying to remember what that's called: "the narcissism of small differences"? If the have-nots get too numerous and too desperate, then revolution can sometimes result, but crime is a different issue.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', '
')
However, there are clear correlations between income inequality and crime rate.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=303838

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/berkeleysympo2.pdf

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he sample for estimation consists of panels of non-overlapping 5-year averages for 39 countries over 1965-95 in the case of homicides, and 37 countries over 1970-1994 in the case of robberies. We use a variety of statistical techniques, from simple correlation to regression analysis and from static OLS to dynamic GMM estimation. We find that crime rates and inequality are positively correlated (within each country and, particularly, between countries), and it appears that this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants.