crimes contribution to economy?
17 May 2012, 09:39 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crimes contribution to economy?
illegal activity from tax evasion, money laundering, companies doing cash jobs, to drug dealers or prostetution, to fraudulent company accounts eg taxis which can be "tailored" to meet any current tax limits, and the many more - how do they affect the economy?
money raised through such activity generally goes back into circulation at some point or other.
obviously im not talking about crimes like rape, terrorism, murder ect, but crimes perceived as less serious.
if all crime was eradicated overnight - would the general population be better/worse off, or the economic propserity of the country be positivley or negativley influenced? do the likes of police/insurance companies ect rely on crime just to exist? And infact use the threat of crime, to remain in operation?
does crime have any positive effects, or just out and out all negative?
worth a discussion? anyone feel strongly either way?
could make an interesting thread lol
money raised through such activity generally goes back into circulation at some point or other.
obviously im not talking about crimes like rape, terrorism, murder ect, but crimes perceived as less serious.
if all crime was eradicated overnight - would the general population be better/worse off, or the economic propserity of the country be positivley or negativley influenced? do the likes of police/insurance companies ect rely on crime just to exist? And infact use the threat of crime, to remain in operation?
does crime have any positive effects, or just out and out all negative?
worth a discussion? anyone feel strongly either way?
could make an interesting thread lol
17 May 2012, 10:18 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting question.
How many businesses exist just to clean dirty money?
Removing illegal drugs would have health benefits as well as reducing other related crimes such as burglary, etc.
Reduction in burglary/robbery/thefts, would mean insurance would be cheaper, though it would mean the insurance industry would not employ so many people.
If you have no need for prisons, you would have to consider all of the jobs in the supply chain as well as those working in prisons.
It would be unlikely you could replace the police, as the police are nor just a crime fighting/solving organisation. The role of the police covers many other areas, such as dealing with disasters and accidents.
There are so many other areas to look at, such as the technology which has been developed to assist in crime fighting etc.
How many businesses exist just to clean dirty money?
Removing illegal drugs would have health benefits as well as reducing other related crimes such as burglary, etc.
Reduction in burglary/robbery/thefts, would mean insurance would be cheaper, though it would mean the insurance industry would not employ so many people.
If you have no need for prisons, you would have to consider all of the jobs in the supply chain as well as those working in prisons.
It would be unlikely you could replace the police, as the police are nor just a crime fighting/solving organisation. The role of the police covers many other areas, such as dealing with disasters and accidents.
There are so many other areas to look at, such as the technology which has been developed to assist in crime fighting etc.
17 May 2012, 10:42 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting points,
i agree there a massive list of "knock on" impacts that rely on crime or its effects.
crime generates some income to authorities eg speeding fines ect, but it obviously pales in comparision to running costs - but its an often quoted opinion of motorists being easy targets for income generation - how far does that actually go?
and yes i hadnt thought of the polices roles outside crime prevention/investigation - id agree they would still have a role in emergency situations even if crime was eliminated - although obviously the size of the service would be impacted
i agree there a massive list of "knock on" impacts that rely on crime or its effects.
crime generates some income to authorities eg speeding fines ect, but it obviously pales in comparision to running costs - but its an often quoted opinion of motorists being easy targets for income generation - how far does that actually go?
and yes i hadnt thought of the polices roles outside crime prevention/investigation - id agree they would still have a role in emergency situations even if crime was eliminated - although obviously the size of the service would be impacted
17 May 2012, 10:43 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hodgy0_2;10627865[B
]By and large crime rarely traverses socio economic boundarys [/B]
Put simply the poor steal from the poor and the rich steal from the rich
Put simply the poor steal from the poor and the rich steal from the rich
17 May 2012, 10:51 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeding is a civil rather than criminal offence. The speed camera vans are normally crewed by civilians with no police powers, rather than a bobby out to get Joe public.
Trending Topics
17 May 2012, 11:06 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Put in simple terms if you live on a council estate and drive a corsa you are most likely to be burgled and your car stolen by someone else living on the same council estate who also drives a corsa
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 17 May 2012 at 11:11 PM.
17 May 2012, 11:14 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put in simple terms if you live on a council estate and drive a corsa you are most likely to be burgled and your car stolen by someone else living on the same council estate who also drives a corsa
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
Most burglars travel under a mile from their homes to commit crime.
17 May 2012, 11:20 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put in simple terms if you live on a council estate a drive a corsa you are most likely to be burgled and you car stolen by someone else living on the same council estate who also drives a corse
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
If you live in a million pound house and drive a bentley you are very unlikely to be To be burgled buy someone from a council estate, you are much more likely to be a victim of a fraud like the madoff scam etc
Young urban blacks are the overwhelming victims of violent street crimes, perpetrated by young urban blacks
behaviour that doesnt pay the government but still generates income and also expenditure of that income.
its failry common practice in many aspects of buisness ect, for the individual or company to "bend the rules" to minimise outlay in order to increase personal wealth. Ultimatley they still spend the money, so it goes back into the economy in some shape or form.
even wholly illegal activity, prostitution/drug dealing/ accountants providing fraudulant figures ect
but then insurance companies may end up paying or the population pay in reduced benefits, through restriction in services provided - increased premiums or reduced employee numbers ect?
i dint really mean one off single crime events - more crime lifestyles even though some may not be perceived as such - lol finding it hard to explain but assume you get my point?
does one massivley outweigh the other
17 May 2012, 11:24 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
As posted on this forum 33% of the Greek economy came from the black economy, I would imagine a fair degree of crime involved
Look where it got them
But Greece has more millionaires per head of population than most of Europe
So every cloud
Look where it got them
But Greece has more millionaires per head of population than most of Europe
So every cloud
17 May 2012, 11:32 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so the thinking maybe influenced by maintaining economic stability, rather than ultimate crime reduction for the immediate benefit of the population (obv they benefit long term through a nations stability)
yep i can undersatnd that tbh.
yep i can undersatnd that tbh.
18 May 2012, 10:12 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the black economy the country would collapse. Too many business's would not survive paying their full VAT and tax amount and given the nature of criminals they tend to spend lots of cash rather than hoard it so it keeps currency moving.
18 May 2012, 11:58 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LPB i agree to an extent
but it raises the question of, is the current buisness model/economic set up workable atall?
if everyone paid in full what they were meant to pay, and there was no crime, how would the general population be affected? would the rich just get richer, or would the joe bloggs actually be better off?
is the current set up actually relying on crime of sorts to keep things the way they are today?
but it raises the question of, is the current buisness model/economic set up workable atall?
if everyone paid in full what they were meant to pay, and there was no crime, how would the general population be affected? would the rich just get richer, or would the joe bloggs actually be better off?
is the current set up actually relying on crime of sorts to keep things the way they are today?
18 May 2012, 01:57 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesnt crime also keep lot of people in a job, solicitor's etc, politicians and stupid think tanks that come up with stupid laws, seems the powers that be dont actually want reduce crime because its a massive industry, legal or illegal, there is too much to lose if there was no crime for the people at the top.
18 May 2012, 02:24 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article here which gives a good insight into the effect and cost of drugs on various world economies http://www.globalchange.com/truth-ab...-chapter-2.htm
In summary the answer to your question seems to be no, as more is spent on fighting specifically drugs crime ($1,000 per capita in America) and the laundered money from the trade is kept in safe havens rather than ploughed back into western economies.
Taken from that article:
Proportion of GDP
What about the drugs economy inside a nation as a proportion of GDP? The UK heroin and cocaine trade alone is worth more than 0.2% of GDP,so the whole UK drugs economy must be at least 0.3%.The US is higher and Australia slightly less.Total figures for retail sales therefore could be (minimum):
US GDP $6,737 billion 0.5% = $34 billion
UK GDP $1,000 billion 0.3% = $3 billion
Australia GDP$300 billion 0.2% =$0.6 billion
Some would place the US figure higher at $46 - $50 billion or 0.7% GDP.
US cost to society of drugs and alcohol abuse
Total social and health costs of dealing with the consequences of illegal use of drugs in the US has been estimated to be a further $66.9 billion a year.The total social and health costs to US society of dealing with alcohol and illegal drug abuse has been estimated as $167 billion. The US spends around $10 billion a year on supply reduction and $5.5 billion on demand reduction. What this means is that every man, woman and child pays almost $1,000 annually to cover the extra health care, law enforcement, car accidents, crime and lost productivity.
· Illegal drugs $66.9 billion
· Alcohol $100 billion - including 500 million lost days at work a year
· Tobacco $72 billion
If you add the health and social costs of tobacco, the total becomes around $240 billion.
So then, the total costs of illegal drug purchases, and society costs comes to around $100 billion, or 1.5% of GDP.If you add the society costs of dealing with tobacco and alcohol abuse (not including purchase costs), then the total becomes more than $270 billion, or 4% of GDP - more than all America spends on schools or housing.
In summary the answer to your question seems to be no, as more is spent on fighting specifically drugs crime ($1,000 per capita in America) and the laundered money from the trade is kept in safe havens rather than ploughed back into western economies.
Taken from that article:
Proportion of GDP
What about the drugs economy inside a nation as a proportion of GDP? The UK heroin and cocaine trade alone is worth more than 0.2% of GDP,so the whole UK drugs economy must be at least 0.3%.The US is higher and Australia slightly less.Total figures for retail sales therefore could be (minimum):
US GDP $6,737 billion 0.5% = $34 billion
UK GDP $1,000 billion 0.3% = $3 billion
Australia GDP$300 billion 0.2% =$0.6 billion
Some would place the US figure higher at $46 - $50 billion or 0.7% GDP.
US cost to society of drugs and alcohol abuse
Total social and health costs of dealing with the consequences of illegal use of drugs in the US has been estimated to be a further $66.9 billion a year.The total social and health costs to US society of dealing with alcohol and illegal drug abuse has been estimated as $167 billion. The US spends around $10 billion a year on supply reduction and $5.5 billion on demand reduction. What this means is that every man, woman and child pays almost $1,000 annually to cover the extra health care, law enforcement, car accidents, crime and lost productivity.
· Illegal drugs $66.9 billion
· Alcohol $100 billion - including 500 million lost days at work a year
· Tobacco $72 billion
If you add the health and social costs of tobacco, the total becomes around $240 billion.
So then, the total costs of illegal drug purchases, and society costs comes to around $100 billion, or 1.5% of GDP.If you add the society costs of dealing with tobacco and alcohol abuse (not including purchase costs), then the total becomes more than $270 billion, or 4% of GDP - more than all America spends on schools or housing.
Last edited by deepy; 18 May 2012 at 02:26 PM.
18 May 2012, 02:43 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deepy good post mate
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
18 May 2012, 02:48 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not sure I believe info like this, I cant help thinking we are beiing lied to, the elite of this country, and the the states all made money from opium, but punished the locals of the country that were growing it if they sold any.
Drugs are there for a purpose, to fuel crime, as the legal side of the crime also benefits, and governments get to make stupid laws that punish decent law abiding people.
Drugs are there for a purpose, to fuel crime, as the legal side of the crime also benefits, and governments get to make stupid laws that punish decent law abiding people.
18 May 2012, 05:03 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
deepy good post mate
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
Take a criminal/corrupt activity; let’s keep the example of Drugs
Then look at some examples where the trade in drugs forms a large part of countries economy
Let’s say Afghanistan, or Columbia and compare them with countries that have a low trade in drugs as a proportion its total economy, let’s take the example of the US and Germany
Seems pretty obvious to me
What it does do is magnify the winners and loser’s effect -- create a few big big winners and lots of losers
18 May 2012, 06:02 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article here which gives a good insight into the effect and cost of drugs on various world economies http://www.globalchange.com/truth-ab...-chapter-2.htm
In summary the answer to your question seems to be no, as more is spent on fighting specifically drugs crime ($1,000 per capita in America) and the laundered money from the trade is kept in safe havens rather than ploughed back into western economies.
Taken from that article:
Proportion of GDP
What about the drugs economy inside a nation as a proportion of GDP? The UK heroin and cocaine trade alone is worth more than 0.2% of GDP,so the whole UK drugs economy must be at least 0.3%.The US is higher and Australia slightly less.Total figures for retail sales therefore could be (minimum):
US GDP $6,737 billion 0.5% = $34 billion
UK GDP $1,000 billion 0.3% = $3 billion
Australia GDP$300 billion 0.2% =$0.6 billion
Some would place the US figure higher at $46 - $50 billion or 0.7% GDP.
US cost to society of drugs and alcohol abuse
Total social and health costs of dealing with the consequences of illegal use of drugs in the US has been estimated to be a further $66.9 billion a year.The total social and health costs to US society of dealing with alcohol and illegal drug abuse has been estimated as $167 billion. The US spends around $10 billion a year on supply reduction and $5.5 billion on demand reduction. What this means is that every man, woman and child pays almost $1,000 annually to cover the extra health care, law enforcement, car accidents, crime and lost productivity.
· Illegal drugs $66.9 billion
· Alcohol $100 billion - including 500 million lost days at work a year
· Tobacco $72 billion
If you add the health and social costs of tobacco, the total becomes around $240 billion.
So then, the total costs of illegal drug purchases, and society costs comes to around $100 billion, or 1.5% of GDP.If you add the society costs of dealing with tobacco and alcohol abuse (not including purchase costs), then the total becomes more than $270 billion, or 4% of GDP - more than all America spends on schools or housing.
In summary the answer to your question seems to be no, as more is spent on fighting specifically drugs crime ($1,000 per capita in America) and the laundered money from the trade is kept in safe havens rather than ploughed back into western economies.
Taken from that article:
Proportion of GDP
What about the drugs economy inside a nation as a proportion of GDP? The UK heroin and cocaine trade alone is worth more than 0.2% of GDP,so the whole UK drugs economy must be at least 0.3%.The US is higher and Australia slightly less.Total figures for retail sales therefore could be (minimum):
US GDP $6,737 billion 0.5% = $34 billion
UK GDP $1,000 billion 0.3% = $3 billion
Australia GDP$300 billion 0.2% =$0.6 billion
Some would place the US figure higher at $46 - $50 billion or 0.7% GDP.
US cost to society of drugs and alcohol abuse
Total social and health costs of dealing with the consequences of illegal use of drugs in the US has been estimated to be a further $66.9 billion a year.The total social and health costs to US society of dealing with alcohol and illegal drug abuse has been estimated as $167 billion. The US spends around $10 billion a year on supply reduction and $5.5 billion on demand reduction. What this means is that every man, woman and child pays almost $1,000 annually to cover the extra health care, law enforcement, car accidents, crime and lost productivity.
· Illegal drugs $66.9 billion
· Alcohol $100 billion - including 500 million lost days at work a year
· Tobacco $72 billion
If you add the health and social costs of tobacco, the total becomes around $240 billion.
So then, the total costs of illegal drug purchases, and society costs comes to around $100 billion, or 1.5% of GDP.If you add the society costs of dealing with tobacco and alcohol abuse (not including purchase costs), then the total becomes more than $270 billion, or 4% of GDP - more than all America spends on schools or housing.
18 May 2012, 06:26 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this does not need much intellectual rigor to work out
Take a criminal/corrupt activity; let’s keep the example of Drugs
Then look at some examples where the trade in drugs forms a large part of countries economy
Let’s say Afghanistan, or Columbia and compare them with countries that have a low trade in drugs as a proportion its total economy, let’s take the example of the US and Germany
Seems pretty obvious to me
What it does do is magnify the winners and loser’s effect -- create a few big big winners and lots of losers
Take a criminal/corrupt activity; let’s keep the example of Drugs
Then look at some examples where the trade in drugs forms a large part of countries economy
Let’s say Afghanistan, or Columbia and compare them with countries that have a low trade in drugs as a proportion its total economy, let’s take the example of the US and Germany
Seems pretty obvious to me
What it does do is magnify the winners and loser’s effect -- create a few big big winners and lots of losers
sorry mate, what doesnt take rigour to work out?
tbh i wasnt wanting to focus on drugs alone, more the cumulative effect of all illegal income generation, and its effect. singling out a single for discussion the direction is easily diverted.
18 May 2012, 06:56 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deepy good post mate
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
whats the "no" in referance to, i was jst asking questions to intiate a debate and thinking really, my mistake.
although your post and its quotes are not toally accurate in this case as they are inclusive of alcohol and tobacco, - even though i agree with sentiment it doesnt take into account income generated through legal sales - but thats maybe for another thread
havent read the link but its it just drug related? id hazard a guess at drugs not being the be all and end all, of illegal income generation- although it would be significant, still would only represent a fairly small % imo.
good post, but not convinced one way or the other just yet.
as a side not, of all illegal income sources, drugs probably result in the largest % of money spent to counter the issue. so its the most expensive for the economy to bear imo.
other activites have very little finacial expendature to counter from the state, this may even things out over the whole spectrum invovled?
what you think?
What I have difficulty getting straight in my mind is that the money spent on drugs be it by users, dealers or suppliers originated somewhere. At some point it was in circulation in some country. Once its hoarded by the gangs and because the sums are so huge, it effectively becomes dead money. I imagine the only serious outlet for those sums could be on world trading markets and either withdrawal of, or spending into smaller markets could potentially destabilise a whole economy. But as far as I'm aware this hasn't happened so I dont know what the real effect could be. Maybe someone with the appropriate knowledge could comment?
18 May 2012, 07:04 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm off to the pub, beer prices - that's another bloody crime.
Last edited by deepy; 18 May 2012 at 07:06 PM.
18 May 2012, 07:14 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old boss (noted from previous threads LOL)
for about 8 or so years now does the following
Tax evasion
VAT fraud
Misapropriate use of company funds
Theft from suppliers / creditors
Asset fraud
Gambling
Class a drugs
Fraudulent trading
Trading whilst insolvents
Drink/Drug Driving
Driving whilst disqualified
Ficticious Companies for Fictious invoicing against factoring companies
The list goes on
Fraud Squad know all the details, said they won't do anything as they just simply do not have the resource or the time
So he carries on with no consequences for his actions and he knows this and will continue to carry on regardless
for about 8 or so years now does the following
Tax evasion
VAT fraud
Misapropriate use of company funds
Theft from suppliers / creditors
Asset fraud
Gambling
Class a drugs
Fraudulent trading
Trading whilst insolvents
Drink/Drug Driving
Driving whilst disqualified
Ficticious Companies for Fictious invoicing against factoring companies
The list goes on
Fraud Squad know all the details, said they won't do anything as they just simply do not have the resource or the time
So he carries on with no consequences for his actions and he knows this and will continue to carry on regardless
18 May 2012, 07:23 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pmsl that actually got me thinking the media or more accurately newspapers really rely on crime to prop up sales also. just a side thought.
hodgy, i dont have a hypothosis to test, you seem to be misunderstanding me - im purley asking questions for a discussion, not promoting behaviour or trying to justify it. this is a thread on NSR and i thought would generate comments and general interest. sorry, thats all.
i sit on the fence and like to read others input, not trying to decide wether crime is right or wrong??
in resposnse to those saying drugs are possibly the biggest illegal activity, they may well be, but i think its because of the interest they generate- unreported/boring crimes, like altering legitimate buisnesses figures to remain within tax bounderies i think is extemely common, even just by tiny amounts - but goes un-reported and is almost accepted practic in small buisnesses. or those claiming tax releif or expenses
- id argue that its cumulative effect is indeed massive but not really contreverstial enough to generate much interest.
what about the trade in illegal sexual activity - is that not fairlly large?
again didnt really want to go in the direction of singleing out one activity over the other, was just really about the total effect of this on an economy.
hodgy, i dont have a hypothosis to test, you seem to be misunderstanding me - im purley asking questions for a discussion, not promoting behaviour or trying to justify it. this is a thread on NSR and i thought would generate comments and general interest. sorry, thats all.
i sit on the fence and like to read others input, not trying to decide wether crime is right or wrong??
in resposnse to those saying drugs are possibly the biggest illegal activity, they may well be, but i think its because of the interest they generate- unreported/boring crimes, like altering legitimate buisnesses figures to remain within tax bounderies i think is extemely common, even just by tiny amounts - but goes un-reported and is almost accepted practic in small buisnesses. or those claiming tax releif or expenses
- id argue that its cumulative effect is indeed massive but not really contreverstial enough to generate much interest.
what about the trade in illegal sexual activity - is that not fairlly large?
again didnt really want to go in the direction of singleing out one activity over the other, was just really about the total effect of this on an economy.
18 May 2012, 07:38 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by deepy;10628835[B
]The illegal drugs trade generates by far the most income of any crime the sums involved are so vast that its virtually impossible to spend. So billions are being held in various havens whilst massive but smaller sums are used to try and combat the trade.
[/B]
What I have difficulty getting straight in my mind is that the money spent on drugs be it by users, dealers or suppliers originated somewhere. At some point it was in circulation in some country. Once its hoarded by the gangs and because the sums are so huge, it effectively becomes dead money. I imagine the only serious outlet for those sums could be on world trading markets and either withdrawal of, or spending into smaller markets could potentially destabilise a whole economy. But as far as I'm aware this hasn't happened so I dont know what the real effect could be. Maybe someone with the appropriate knowledge could comment?
[/B]
What I have difficulty getting straight in my mind is that the money spent on drugs be it by users, dealers or suppliers originated somewhere. At some point it was in circulation in some country. Once its hoarded by the gangs and because the sums are so huge, it effectively becomes dead money. I imagine the only serious outlet for those sums could be on world trading markets and either withdrawal of, or spending into smaller markets could potentially destabilise a whole economy. But as far as I'm aware this hasn't happened so I dont know what the real effect could be. Maybe someone with the appropriate knowledge could comment?
i do agree with your point on the actual currency - such huge amounts of real money being removed from circultaion, must have an impact? how many notes are removed from circulation yearly purley due to natural degredation, anyone know?
that kindof enforces my thoughts that there cant be that many incredaible stashes lying around?