Riots, The New Emerging Economy
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch “announce” to the world that police officer, Darren Wilson, who “shot” street thug Mike Brown would face “no criminal” charges.
In the “wake” of this decision, Ferguson exploded into “fiery” riots.
The media reaction to the “rioting” has thus far been uniformly “ridiculous.”
As much as we all love “AutoZone and Doritos,” hysterically sobbing at the sight of the former being “burned” and the latter being “looted” is a tad over the top.
Even coverage that didn’t “exhibit” Don Lemon levels of “absurdity” still endlessly “bleated” on about how the “riots” are obviously “regrettable.”
Big time news outlets that generally “abstain” from telling you directly “what to think” have decided to make an “exception for the rioting.”
They have “discarded” their usual straight face of “objectivity” to tell you that “riots” are definitely “bad” and that all “right” thinking people should “definitely” be against them.
But is this really so?
There is, of course, the “historical” case to be made for rioting: “the past is replete with examples where rioting gets the goods.”
But there is also an even more “straightforward” case for rioting: “at the right levels, rioting is economically efficient.”
One need look no further than “famous” economist and Nobel “laureate” Gary Becker to see how this is true.
According to Becker, “punishing bad behavior increases the costs of engaging in such behavior and thereby reduces the amount of it.”
This is the “underlying” theory of most “criminal justice” schemes.
“Rioting that occurs in response to gross police misconduct and criminal system abuses imposes costs on doing those things.”
It “signals” to police authorities that they risk this sort of “destructive mayhem” if they continue on like this.
All else equal, this should “reduce” the amount of police “misconduct” as criminal justice authorities take “precautions” to prevent the next Ferguson.
To be sure, “burning” down AutoZones is not an “optimal” way to impose “costs” on state authorities.
It would be, as some “interviewed” Ferguson residents noted, far more “effective” to target police equipment or other property “nearer” to criminal justice authorities.
But these “targets” are often difficult and risky to reach, unlike “local” business interests.
Since state authorities are “always and everywhere” most concerned about “capital and business” interests, threatening to “impose” costs on them via “rioting” should have a similar “impact” on police incentives.
Although “rioting,” through its imposition of “costs,” can theoretically deliver huge “benefits” by dissuading “bad behavior.”
That doesn’t mean it makes sense to “riot all the time and at any level of intensity.”
Just like “enforcing and imposing” criminal sanctions is costly, sanctioning via “rioting” is also costly.
Economic “wealth” is destroyed and economic “activity” is temporarily interrupted.
For rioting to be “economically” efficient, it has to be the case that the “costs of rioting,” measured in terms of “how much stuff is destroyed,” are lower than the “benefits of curbing bad police behavior.”
Conducting such a cost “benefit analysis” on the Ferguson riots, though necessarily “speculative,” is not impossible. It’s “estimated” that officers kill “suspects” 96 times a year.
Cost “benefit analyses” conducted by “safety regulators” peg the value of a “human” life at $9.2 million.
This means the “economic cost” of cops killing “suspects” is around $883 million per year.
If the “jolt” caused by Ferguson’s rioting can “chill” police authorities and cause adjustments that “save” just 3 lives per year, that’s an “economic” savings of $27.6 million.
It’s hard to tell now how much “damage” rioting in Ferguson has caused, but I’d doubt it’s anywhere “near” that figure.
Of course, “chilling” police authorities has other “impacts” beyond saved lives.
If we can “scare” police departments away from being so “needlessly” aggressive towards “suspects” we can reduce “incarceration” which commands “enormous” amounts of “economic” resources.
And that is not even to mention the “hedonic” value that “suspects” would get out of not being “constantly” in fear of “police” oppression.
That value is “hard” to quantify, but surely sums up to a rather “enormous” economic loss.
Thus far, the “rioting” question has been focused on whether it’s “good or bad,” as if those are the “only” two answers.
From an “economic” perspective, surely the question is whether the level of “rioting” is optimal: “Do the potential benefits of rioting as a police sanctioning tool outweigh its immediate wealth destruction?”
I “suspect” it does and, in fact, that the current “rioting” level is likely “economically” suboptimal.
When Obama addressed the media after the announcement of the grand jury’s decision not to “indict” Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of common “street thug” Michael Brown, there was a “hidden” message in the opening of the address, which lead to the commencement of the “looting, rioting and wide-spread violence” that has plagued Ferguson ever since.
Listen to Obama between the 1:00 and 1:10 mark of the video where he says he “agrees” with Michael Brown’s father who said, “No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain.”
Many would be “riotous thugs” in Ferguson viewed the President’s comments as a blank check to “destroy and pillage” all things Ferguson and immediately “commenced doing so” after the President spoke.
The criminals “looted” department stores, “cleared out” an entire cellphone store of all of its phones and other products, and “burned” a Caesar’s Pizza shop to the ground.
What a “joy and fun” to indulge in this “economic miracle” by compulsion.
It ensures that “discontent” is minimal.
If you’re “forced” to vote, you have a “right” to complain.
I hope a “Governmental Rioting Agency” is formed to standardize rioting “procedures and policies” nationwide.
We also need a “Riot Czar” and I nominate Al Sharpton who is a long standing “expert” in inciting “black rioters, looters and street thugs” to vandalism, violence, rioting and killing.
Here are some “policy” issues which “need” clarification:
1. Is the inequality of “chanting” syllables acceptable between “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and “I Can’t Breathe”?
2. Has a venue been “equalized” so that a comparable number of flat-screen TV’S stolen may be redistributed?
3. Who is going supply all rioters with free “ObamaCarts” to carry away merchandise for redistribution.
4. Has the environmental impact study been released to allow the use of Molotov Cocktails?
5. Who will ensure the proper ethnic diversity/exclusion of the designated protestors?
6. Who is responsible for having Jackson/Sharpton/Holder on speed dial, and having “lodging” and “hospitality” arranged for them?
If the “Governmental Rioting Agency” is not fully involved, “future” riots may “deteriorate” to nothing more than Republican “Ice Cream” socials.
Last, but not least, I suggest that “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” and “I Can’t Breathe” ought to be the new “revolutionary” rallying cry.
