A better off thug is still a thug. How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe.(the other implication might exist though, high crime culture can lead to decline of a country)

> A better off thug is still a thug.

Citation needed.

> How rich or poor a country is doesn't really imply how safe.

Well, only because that's measured in a way that means Bill Gates could make Tuvalu the world's richest country simply by moving there. That has no bearing on whether rich people are safer – and whether extreme poverty makes people more of a risk to others.

Contrary to the breathless screeds from fox news, "thug" is not a type of person.

Crime is something a person does, not who they are. When people do things, they do them for a reason. The most common reason for street crime is extreme poverty, and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime.

> and the most common cause of extreme poverty is white-collar crime

You lost me there. Do you mean that a) of the set of extremely poor people, most are extremely poor because they've been the direct victim of white-collar crime, or b) white-collar crime as a whole is the leading cause for extreme poverty in a society?

Both interpretations seem very wrong to me. Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

So a cobbler is not a cobbler?

Yes, but they can also be a criminal.

Criminal is not a race. It is not a class. It is not a profession. Nobody is a criminal until they do a crime, and anyone can do a crime.

Most crimes are done by poor people in desperation at great risk. The most harmful crimes are done by rich people out of greed with very little risk.

With thugs I mean criminal as a profession.