I did not blame the decline of the region on the mob alone. The decline had many other causes, the problems of the steel industry being first among them. Most of steel's problems were due, in turn, to larger national and worldwide economic trends. Nonetheless, organized crime is a very serious economic drain. We are not talking about small change, but about millions and in some cases billions of dollars. One article I read online said that Mexico loses between 8 and 15% of GDP to organized crime; in 1967, a Presidential commission estimated that organized crime cost the United States more annually than all other forms of crime combined. More recent studies of several countries also show the severity of the economic drain. Now, when you are talking about an area that is economically marginal to begin with (Mexico, Southern Italy, and now the Steel Valley), the economic damage inflicted by organized crime will be even greater proportionately. It has to be factored in with everything else.

It is also true that it takes two to tango, as you say. The mob could only survive in the Steel Valley (as in New York, Boston, or anywhere) as long as public opinion was indifferent or actively tolerated it. But who is at greater fault here, the corrupted or the corrupter who tempts him? I will always have some sympathy for the sucker and none at all for the crook who exploits the sucker. I never suggested that greed was confined to Italian-Americans either; in its heyday the national mob consisted of men from many ethnic groups, including Protestants like Murray Humphreys and Benny Binion. Allan May points out in his Youngstown books that the local mob included Greeks, Syrians, Slavs, and others.

On another note, I am part Pennsylvanian and it is nice to hear from someone in New Castle. Are you aware of this site? http://smalltownnoir.com/

I find it quite interesting, though it does not touch on the mob.