Most people, from top to bottom say that crime shouldnt be there, it is not good for the society, not good for the numanity, nation etc., but this is not what the elites know it to be true. The only countries which truly wanted the crime to go away have done so because it is not good for the economy. So the crime is only bad when it is not helping the economy and the elites.
Singapore is a good example. The crime rate, especially theft carries a very discourageous punishment of upto 10 years of jail. Cameras everywhere. It is a small country, fueled by tech companies. Signapore is smaller than bengaluru, another tech hub city in india, it is the capital city of karnataka, a state in india. Other countries where the crime rate is very low are mostly middle eastern regions like dubai, saudi, tajikistan etc., where there is no democracy so the current parties cant blame the previous party or leader for the current conditions. They have natural resources and their source of income doesnt depend much on citizen's consumption and it works against them to have crime.
In democratic countries like USA, the crime is part of the economy. Theft ensures that people invest in security. Investment in security promotes growth in research and development, production, innovation, invention, manufacturing. These things promote employment generation. Crime also helps Law & Order economy which consists of police system, prison system, surveilance system, judiciary system. If pharmaceutical companies cure something they lose out on the continuous business of healthcare because money is in the treatment and not in the cure, so it is in their best interest that they dont cure any diseases, ailments but keep making money in treating them where your condition will worsen or roll back if you stop the treatment. Same way it is in the best interest of all these government corporations like police system, judiciary system, private and govt prison system, surveillance system, intelligence system etc., to ensure that crime doesnt end, crime is controlled. Few years back there was a defund the police movement. Police then rightfully woke up and losened their grip on crime, now the same group of people are asking for more police force to protect them. This is often done by letting lose the habitual career criminals, psychotic criminals in the society. Many of these have been to prison multiple times on serious charges. Combine this with a racial angle where only the career criminals of a particular racial or religous background are let out in the society so that the stereotype of them being criminals is justified without having to spell it out. If there are 100 white career psychotic criminals, 50 black career psychotic criminals, then they keep letting the blacks out, give them lighter sentences in the name of social justice, going easy on the minorities etc., however the actual reason is to ensure that they commit more crime outside and the stereotype of blacks being criminals, theives, rapists and murderers, keeps getting solidiefied. Then there will be more money spent on rehabilitation of blacks, improving their opportunities, giving them reservations/quota in jobs etc., but this is mostly done to loot in their name. Most of it never reaches them, they never solve any of these problems exactly because of the example I gave about the healthcare industry. It is in their best interest to not cure any diseases to continue to make higher profit. In the same way, it is in the best interest of all these groups receiving a lot of funds to help a group of people of any race/religion/caste/gender etc., to not actually achieve their goal so that they keep getting paid. Those who are getting paid to solve the problem of homelessness in USA, it is in their best interest that they dont solve that problem, never reach their goal so that they keep getting paid. If homeless ends tomorrow, then govt doesnt have to pay these groups who are working on solving this problem, then these groups cannot give a kick back to the politicians who approve their funds.
wealth/money/riches in hinduism is a female deity called laxmi. She is chanchal (fickle, unsteady, restless, inconstant, quivering, or moving) like mercury. She is like water. Flowing water in a river is cleaner, healtheir and nicer. A steay lake with no movement rots, smells and breeds diseases and slowly the lake dries up and dies. Same thing is true with economy. USA is rich because they consume a lot, their highest produce is waste. They produce highest per capita waste in the world.
All these are very true in every democratic country whose GDP based economy depends on rotation, consumption. More roads, buildings, bridges are being built, better it is for the 'growth' of the economy but what if we build all the bridges, roads and every infrastructure that is needed and more? Well then the growth stops, country still stays prosperous, healthy and peaceful but the elites, the top 1% want growth. The investors who are investing in india want to see their money grow. So it is in the best interest of the govt to ensure that whatever they build, they fall apart very soon so that they can keep rebuilding these more often. Repeated engagement of labor, repeated usage and consumption of materials and something to show, brag or crib about in the election process.
Next time when you say 'why aren't they fixing it or improving it or solving this or these problems?' Then just ask yourself, whom does it benefit by not solving this problem?. Whom does the street dogs and rabies help? The pet industry and pharma industry. Whom does the crime, theft help? Everyone, especially the law & order industry and now you have to buy what you have lost, all these are good for the economy.
