14 Dec 09
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, has suggested that drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis - the proceeds of organised crime having been "the only liquid investment capital available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
So, did the annual gak-blizzard seen around this time of year save the world? Was capitalism saved by self-important jibber-jabber, ill-advised sexual conduct and droning repetition?
14 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFIs there a reasonable estimate as to the size of the black economy?
So, did the annual gak-blizzard seen around this time of year save the world? Was capitalism saved by self-important jibber-jabber, ill-advised sexual conduct and droning repetition?
the article quotes 350bill worth of profits being absorbed into the real economy. What does the actual trade turnover I wonder. Either way its a stimulus program that many are willing to die for.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by kmax87Costa stated that "a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system".
Is there a reasonable estimate as to the size of the black economy?
the article quotes 350bill worth of profits being absorbed into the real economy. What does the actual trade turnover I wonder. Either way its a stimulus program that many are willing to die for.
The article goes on to state that:
"The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover.
Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US."
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by DrKFGiven the state of the world economy, its no big stretch to work out which group of consumers forked out the greatest amount of dosh to generate that profit!
Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US."
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by kmax87We give our money to the banks in bail-outs; they continue to pay out large bonuses to bankers; the bankers hoover it up - giving money to drugs gangs; the banks launder the drug money which will help them repay the taxpayer quicker...
Given the state of the world economy, its no big stretch to work out which group of consumers forked out the greatest amount of dosh to generate that profit!
A virtuous circle if ever there was one.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by SeitseThe old marching powder tends to blunt the subtleties of such debates, I have always found. Rather than attempting to get to the nub of the dilema, it seems likely more Thai midget hookers were demanded.
And in the bottom of the whole issue the shareholder v. stakeholder debate persists.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by DrKFLulz
The old marching powder tends to blunt the subtleties of such debates, I have always found. Rather than attempting to get to the nub of the dilema, it seems likely more Thai midget hookers were demanded.
By the way, do you think Tony Montana would be a good board of
directors member for Citibank? 🙂
14 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by DrKFJust think if drugs had been made legal. The government would have taxed and regulated the poo out of it and taken the profitability out of it and the system would have collapsed.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, has suggested that drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis - the proceeds of organised crime having been "the only liquid investment capital available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/glo ...[text shortened]... lism saved by self-important jibber-jabber, ill-advised sexual conduct and droning repetition?
Edit: Its just a shame no one told "W" and Obama that all those bail outs and stimulus packages were not the reason the system did not crash. Just think of all the tax payer money we could have saved.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyIf drugs were legalized, the prices would be reduced so sharply that demand would go up. The government would earn tax revenue and most of the people who ruin their lives committing crimes to obtain drug money would be productive citizens instead; reducing the needs for welfare and other social services for the indigent.
Just think if drugs had been made legal. The government would have taxed the poo out of it and taken the profitability out of it and the system would have collapsed.
Edit: Its just a shame no one told "W" and Obama that all those bail outs and stimulus packages were not the reason the system did not crash. Just think of all the tax payer money we could have saved.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76I say make everything illegal then!! 😀
If drugs were legalized, the prices would be reduced so sharply that demand would go up. The government would earn tax revenue and most of the people who ruin their lives committing crimes to obtain drug money would be productive citizens instead; reducing the needs for welfare and other social services for the indigent.
14 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Yes. We could probably solve a lot of our budget problems. Also, all of those new drug addicts would also require lots of expensive healthcare, rehab, and counseling services to deal with the damages, which would create millions of new jobs and finally get the economy back on track.
If drugs were legalized, the prices would be reduced so sharply that demand would go up. The government would earn tax revenue and most of the people who ruin their lives committing crimes to obtain drug money would be productive citizens instead; reducing the needs for welfare and other social services for the indigent.
We could even put up lots of new posters with Uncle Sam holding a baggie with white stuff in it, and saying "Put America's Economy Back on Track. Uncle Sam Wants You to Buy Some Crack"
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesChrystal Meth - The Patriot's Choice.
Yes. We could probably solve a lot of our budget problems. Also, all of those new drug addicts would also require lots of expensive healthcare, rehab, and counseling services to deal with the damages, which would create millions of new jobs and finally get the economy back on track.
We could even put up lots of new posters with Uncle Sam holding a bagg ...[text shortened]... n it, and saying "Put America's Economy Back on Track. Uncle Sam Wants You to Buy Some Crack"
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWelcome back, Mel. I hope you have a doctor's note excusing you for your absence from the forum.
Yes. We could probably solve a lot of our budget problems. Also, all of those new drug addicts would also require lots of expensive healthcare, rehab, and counseling services to deal with the damages, which would create millions of new jobs and finally get the economy back on track.
We could even put up lots of new posters with Uncle Sam holding a bagg ...[text shortened]... n it, and saying "Put America's Economy Back on Track. Uncle Sam Wants You to Buy Some Crack"
If drugs were legalized, there would be no such thing as crack. Everyone would be able to afford the real stuff. Would the number of addicts go up significantly? I don't know. You can advertise against it. If people had jobs and felt good about themselves, they'd be more likely to limit usage to recreational usage and not become a "junkie." Addictions would go up, yes. But not enough to offset the benefits of putting the illegal drug culture out of business.
It wold probably be like alcohol. Does alcohol ruin lives? Yes. Is it as damaging to society as illegal narcotics like heroin and crack? No way.
14 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76While agreeing with the thrust of what you say, I have to disagree that people would all necessarily switch from crack to coke. While crack(ed cocaine) is indeed cheaper by weight than simple cocaine, it is also so (almost incomparably) stronger that, in many ways, the two drugs are apples and oranges and the two drugs are probably best regarded as not even being related. Given their different effects, I'd expect a market in crack to persist. It's not a matter of a bigger bang for your buck, but just the bigger bang.
Welcome back, Mel. I hope you have a doctor's note excusing you for your absence from the forum.
If drugs were legalized, there would be no such thing as crack. Everyone would be able to afford the real stuff. Would the number of addicts go up significantly? I don't know. You can advertise against it. If people had jobs and felt good about themselves, they'd ...[text shortened]... ives? Yes. Is it as damaging to society as illegal narcotics like heroin and crack? No way.
On the question of a rise or otherwise in addiction numbers, the oft-quoted Portuguese experiement suggests no rise or a very small rise.