Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration

19495969799

Posts

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Soledad O'Brien is taking the Breitbart editor to task about the Obama video. I'll try to find the video on Youtube later today.

    EDIT: It quickly turns into an attack against "Mainstream Media". It's too bad Soledad didn't point out that with millions of readers and their stuff being covered by the "mainstream media" for years, Breitbart.com should count as the mainstream media.

    Tomanta on
    camo_sig2.png
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.

  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    So right now a big problem for Obama in reelection is gas prices that keep rising. If gas is over $5 a gal avg, Mr Potatohead might be able to win as the R candidate.

    And gas prices confuse me as we are refining oil so well America has an excess of gasoline and is exporting a lot of it now. Speculators and other things are keeping gas high for some reason.

    I got to thinking of the few people who dump enormous sums into these super pacs, essentially keeping campaigns running. Through uses of their finances, trading commodities and such, are they in a position to be able to keep prices artificially high? I've heard speculation can be the cause of up to 40% of the price per barrel.

    111813113553.png
    360 GT Tommatt
  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    Tommatt wrote: »
    So right now a big problem for Obama in reelection is gas prices that keep rising. If gas is over $5 a gal avg, Mr Potatohead might be able to win as the R candidate.

    And gas prices confuse me as we are refining oil so well America has an excess of gasoline and is exporting a lot of it now. Speculators and other things are keeping gas high for some reason.

    I got to thinking of the few people who dump enormous sums into these super pacs, essentially keeping campaigns running. Through uses of their finances, trading commodities and such, are they in a position to be able to keep prices artificially high? I've heard speculation can be the cause of up to 40% of the price per barrel.

    IIRC we are a net exporter of refined petroleum products but still very much a net importer of crude oil. Speculation tends to drive prices in the short term but I'm pretty sure it all evens out to basic supply and demand in the long run (e.g. speculators buy a ton of oil because they think prices will go up -> they cause a short term price spike -> once prices are sufficiently high speculators start selling -> they cause a short term price drop).

    I am hardly an expert on this stuff though.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    That is getting into conspiracy waters. I think you would need a lot of big players to drive speculation given the amounts of money we are talking about: hundreds of billions of dollars. At that point, you are risking a ton of money just to make sure one guy doesn't get re-elected.

    You would be far better served using that money to lobby congress.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.

    Depends on how you define profit. The business itself is certainly stable enough, what they have to worry about is the people running it. The hard part is paying the people who are potentially being shot. If they have to cut wages, that'll cut down on the people willing to work for them.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.

    Well cartels entering the legitimate market for marijuana would probably have to make due with way smaller profit margins. (due to the rest of the competition)

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    Crossposting from the primary thread, this is apparently the video Breitbart was hyping up before he died.


    Hey look it wasn't a secret
    http://books.google.com/books?id=F6HAasv2v-4C&pg=PA213&dq=obama+derrick+bell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9fxYT4f1KZKDsgKf9Pi-DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=obama%20derrick%20bell&f=false

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    One of the things Soledad O'Brien pointed out this morning is that this video was around in 2008.

    The counter? "Mainstream Media wasn't talking about it!".

    I just checked, but that interview still doesn't show up in youtube. But I found it On CNN's site. I don't think that's the full segment, though.

    Tomanta on
    camo_sig2.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    One of the things Soledad O'Brien pointed out this morning is that this video was around in 2008.

    The counter? "Mainstream Media wasn't talking about it!".

    I just checked, but that interview still doesn't show up in youtube. But I found it On CNN's site. I don't think that's the full segment, though.

    It was part of Frontline's quadrennial documentary on both Presidential candidates. I mean I guess PBS isn't all that mainstream, unfortunately, but they are by far the best American news source outside of Britain.

    tea-1.jpg
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Tommatt wrote: »
    So right now a big problem for Obama in reelection is gas prices that keep rising. If gas is over $5 a gal avg, Mr Potatohead might be able to win as the R candidate.

    And gas prices confuse me as we are refining oil so well America has an excess of gasoline and is exporting a lot of it now. Speculators and other things are keeping gas high for some reason.

    I got to thinking of the few people who dump enormous sums into these super pacs, essentially keeping campaigns running. Through uses of their finances, trading commodities and such, are they in a position to be able to keep prices artificially high? I've heard speculation can be the cause of up to 40% of the price per barrel.

    America being a net importer/exporter of oil really doesn't matter much for prices. Oil and gas are worldwide markets; if the stuff can be sold halfway around the world for more, well then guess where all the American drilled and refined oil is going to go. Free market!

    Drilling domestically really matters only in that it might be cheaper to get to the refinery and the increase in global supply will apply a small downward pressure on prices. It also reduces (slightly) the supply dependence on the middle east. You do actually have generally cheaper gas than most places anyway.

    Phyphor on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    Crossposting from the primary thread, this is apparently the video Breitbart was hyping up before he died.


    Hey look it wasn't a secret
    http://books.google.com/books?id=F6HAasv2v-4C&pg=PA213&dq=obama+derrick+bell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9fxYT4f1KZKDsgKf9Pi-DQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=obama%20derrick%20bell&f=false

    They also showed this same video in a PBS documentary about Obama back in I think 2009.

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    jothki wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.

    Depends on how you define profit. The business itself is certainly stable enough, what they have to worry about is the people running it. The hard part is paying the people who are potentially being shot. If they have to cut wages, that'll cut down on the people willing to work for them.

    Rank and file Drug dealers in america work for very little, Fairly old but gives an idea . If a drug dealer in america works for so little, I would guess (without evidence) that one in mexico would work for even less.

    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    BSoB on
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Stupid phone. Sorry.

    Zython on
    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.
    I dont recall ending prohibition getting rid of the mob, but at least it slowed down their growth and reduced their influence.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    That is getting into conspiracy waters. I think you would need a lot of big players to drive speculation given the amounts of money we are talking about: hundreds of billions of dollars. At that point, you are risking a ton of money just to make sure one guy doesn't get re-elected.

    You would be far better served using that money to lobby congress.

    It's easier to effect congress without a good, competent president fucking up their plans. He'd also give the Democrats coattails, during the election as well.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.
    I dont recall ending prohibition getting rid of the mob, but at least it slowed down their growth and reduced their influence.

    Didn't prohibition have the opposite effect? With alcohol being illegal, it was far more lucrative business for the mob IIRC.

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    That is getting into conspiracy waters. I think you would need a lot of big players to drive speculation given the amounts of money we are talking about: hundreds of billions of dollars. At that point, you are risking a ton of money just to make sure one guy doesn't get re-elected.

    You would be far better served using that money to lobby congress.

    It's easier to effect congress without a good, competent president fucking up their plans. He'd also give the Democrats coattails, during the election as well.

    Or you could save your hundred billion dollars and just lobby congress four years from now? Who would risk their fortune just to keep a guy from getting elected? It seems vastly more likely people are speculating on oil going up because the economy is recovering rather than some massive conspiracy against Obama.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    That is getting into conspiracy waters. I think you would need a lot of big players to drive speculation given the amounts of money we are talking about: hundreds of billions of dollars. At that point, you are risking a ton of money just to make sure one guy doesn't get re-elected.

    You would be far better served using that money to lobby congress.

    It's easier to effect congress without a good, competent president fucking up their plans. He'd also give the Democrats coattails, during the election as well.

    Or you could save your hundred billion dollars and just lobby congress four years from now? Who would risk their fortune just to keep a guy from getting elected? It seems vastly more likely people are speculating on oil going up because the economy is recovering rather than some massive conspiracy against Obama.

    They can do both simultaneously. The Koch Brothers certainly have the money and resources for it. Nor would it be out of character for the oil execs do shit like that on their own, either IMO. Republican employers have been very open that they'd deliberately sabotaging their companies to make Obama look bad.

  • s7apsters7apster Registered User regular
    This speculation thing is a real issue. Futures and other commodity derivatives were invented to protect people who depend on commodities from unforeseen changes in price. Airlines, for example, are able to hedge against the massive cost that an increase in gas prices can impose on them. Same thing goes in reverse for farmers who may want to protect themselves against large drops in the price of the commodities they produce.

    For these people, derivatives provide real value. The fact is that the market for these financial instruments has been overrun by the big banks and investment houses, who use algorithms, computers and massive trading volume to profit off any fluctuation in prices. This activity drives the market, creates wholly unnecessary volatility, and separates the price of commodities from their real supply/demand driven value.

    There are a few solutions to this that I like. First, there is the STET (securities transactions excise tax) of a small fraction of a percentage of trades. It discourages high-frequency trading without affecting the original purpose of the derivatives market. The other option is taxing capital gains from short-term investments at a much higher rate than long term investment. The US used to have both of these policies on the books. They should bring them back.

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.
    I dont recall ending prohibition getting rid of the mob, but at least it slowed down their growth and reduced their influence.

    Sure, but the original premise was that legalization would do significant damage to the cartels. Slowing their growth and eroding their influence over decades doesn't really qualify in my mind.

    So, yea, it's a start. Yea, it will do something to the cartels. Will it seriously curtail their operations? Will it stop the massive amount of violence that results from cartel operations in Mexico? Doesn't seem like it based on those numbers.

    It's just really not a good argument for legalization of marijuana.

    Sticks on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.



    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.[/quote]
    Sticks wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    I've seen articles that estimated only half of cartel profits even come from drugs anymore. Kidnapping, pirating goods, stealing oil. They've diversified a lot since Clear and Present Danger came out.

    Yea, it mightwill hurt their bottom lines, but it wouldn't effect any serious change (by itself). So, it's not really a strong argument for legalization of marijuana.
    The last estimate I heard was that 40-60% of cartel profits came from Marijuana. And you're assumption that they could just make it up with other drugs assumes that because marijuana becomes legal, suddenly demand increases dramatically for other illegal drugs, i.e. the people who used to buy marijuana to smoke decide that since its legal, they're going to do heroin instead.

    I had heard similar. I've only done a cursory review of it, but the source everyone seems to be pointing to now is this study by RAND which seems pretty legit.
    The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican DTO export revenues come from U.S.
    marijuana consumption (Fainaru and Booth, 2009; Yes on 19, undated) should not be
    taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent
    analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis—
    though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range
    of the share of drug export revenues attributable to marijuna.

    So it sounds like the 60% was pretty overblown (as was the total amount of money they were making off of marijuana). Again, I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana wouldn't hurt the cartels. I'm saying it wouldn't significantly impair in anything other than the short term.

    How is losing a quarter of your income not a significant impairment of your ability to operate?

    Because that implies that the cost of operating a cartel is greater than 75% of revenues, which seems way high to me. You don't go into a risky business like that to eek out a tiny profit margin. Also, that is a quarter of their drug export revenue, which doesn't take into account the money they make on kidnapping, extortion, pirating, gun running, and human smuggling.

    Finally, I don't know the answer to this so it may be erroneous, but how do you prevent the cartels from entering the legitimate market for marijuana?

    I think this is a very poor argument for legalizing marijuana. There are much better ones to be made, even if they fall on deaf ears in Washington.
    I dont recall ending prohibition getting rid of the mob, but at least it slowed down their growth and reduced their influence.

    Sure, but the original premise was that legalization would do significant damage to the cartels. Slowing their growth and eroding their influence over decades doesn't really qualify in my mind.

    So, yea, it's a start. Yea, it will do something to the cartels. Will it seriously curtail their operations? Will it stop the massive amount of violence that results from cartel operations in Mexico? Doesn't seem like it based on those numbers.

    It's just really not a good argument for legalization of marijuana.

    The argument for legalizing marijuana is the exact argument used against prohibition. Which includes putting a serious dent in organized crime.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    That can be solved by helping those communities succeed without having to rely on crime to survive. Particularly in minority communities. Though some communities are far too gone for even that, like the Avenues. They have evolved in a large cult like community where adults raise their children from young ages into gang members. It's worse then usual since from what I've heard they keep to themselves so entire neighbourhoods are full of families from multiple generations which are gang members.

    Harry Dresden on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

    Harry Dresden on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.
    Hahaha.

    I know you're trying to make some very serious point here, but if you're "bootstrapping" with medicare and social security, you may be subsidizing a train that has already left the station. I'm likely the only one who found it funny, so feel free to ignore me.

  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.
    Hahaha.

    I know you're trying to make some very serious point here, but if you're "bootstrapping" with medicare and social security, you may be subsidizing a train that has already left the station. I'm likely the only one who found it funny, so feel free to ignore me.

    You don't think it's helpful for younger Americans to not have to worry about their older family members being ground into poverty?

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

    It never fails to raise my ire to hear my cousin, a young man with a $100,000 private school education and a new Mercedes coupe purchased for him as a graduation present by his parents, rant and rail about how awesome Ron Paul and Libertarianism is.

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qncbr/218_reasons_to_vote_for_obama_forbes/

    Man, that comment explaining all the bad stuff Obama has done. Really disheartening.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

    It never fails to raise my ire to hear my cousin, a young man with a $100,000 private school education and a new Mercedes coupe purchased for him as a graduation present by his parents, rant and rail about how awesome Ron Paul and Libertarianism is.

    Personally, I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideology the upper classes created to feel good about themselves and a guilt free reason to keep the status quo in tact. If they actually started being compassionate they would have to consciously think about others poorer than they are, how society is extremely fucked up for the lower classes and might have to emotionally deal with the consequences. It also reinforces the psychopaths in the upper classes, too. They can justify their behavior and recruit others to feel the same as they do so they're not lonely weirdo's.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qncbr/218_reasons_to_vote_for_obama_forbes/

    Man, that comment explaining all the bad stuff Obama has done. Really disheartening.

    I agree with almost everything in that comment being a terrible thing that makes me dislike Obama a little bit at a time.

    Then I look at the two guys who plan to be the Republican nominee later this year.

    Obama could eat a live golden retriever during his next speech and I'd still vote for him.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote:
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qncbr/218_reasons_to_vote_for_obama_forbes/

    Man, that comment explaining all the bad stuff Obama has done. Really disheartening.

    I agree with almost everything in that comment being a terrible thing that makes me dislike Obama a little bit at a time.

    Then I look at the two guys who plan to be the Republican nominee later this year.

    Obama could eat a live golden retriever during his next speech and I'd still vote for him.

    I would think if he ate the Buddies on television, people would vote for him for doing that.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

    It never fails to raise my ire to hear my cousin, a young man with a $100,000 private school education and a new Mercedes coupe purchased for him as a graduation present by his parents, rant and rail about how awesome Ron Paul and Libertarianism is.

    Personally, I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideology the upper classes created to feel good about themselves and a guilt free reason to keep the status quo in tact. If they actually started being compassionate they would have to consciously think about others poorer than they are, how society is extremely fucked up for the lower classes and might have to emotionally deal with the consequences. It also reinforces the psychopaths in the upper classes, too. They can justify their behavior and recruit others to feel the same as they do so they're not lonely weirdo's.

    My problem with actual Libertarians is the same problem with Evangelicals: they all cherry pick which parts of the source material they choose to follow while waving the banner of the whole text.

    An honest Libertarian who followed objectivism in the manner Ayn Rand laid out would:
    - hate churches
    - advocate for gay rights
    - advocate for broad civil rights
    - support free market reforms to decrease barriers to entrepreneurship.


    I don't know many libertarians that cop to those principles. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Obama could eat a live golden retriever during his next speech and I'd still vote for him.

    Wow, I guess you really are a yellow-dog Democrat.


  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Obama could eat a live golden retriever during his next speech and I'd still vote for him.

    Wow, I guess you really are a yellow-dog Democrat.


  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    According to the research, there are people willing to take a job that pays $3.50 an hour, with a 25% chance of death for a period of 4 years, in LA.

    True, but a lot of those folks aren't paying for housing, if my experience tells me anything.

    My dad operates government housing, and with a large degree of certainty knows that several of his tenants (or the people who live with them illegally) deal drugs, many of them their own prescriptions as well as pot, cheese heroin, crack, and meth.

    So no rent or mortgage, subsidized food, and no need for transportation because they're working at home. Taking a "real" job for $8/hour would deprive them of most of that. It's a pretty tempting option.

    I think its likely other factors come into play. Drug dealers are glamorized and seen as bad ass in a lot of the worst communities. Compare that to wearing a paper hat and being laughed at by peers. That's before you get to gangs who indoctrinate from early childhood.

    The article I linked speculates that they do it because they have the irrational expectation that they will one day be the ones making $500k tax free.

    It's just like every actor/musician/Minor-leaguer that thinks he's "paying his dues" and "any day now" he'll be rich.

    So, multiply "bootstrap objectivism" x "almost no education whatsoever."

    The irony is that liberals create more "bootstrapping" for the lower classes with education, access to training, medicare, social security etc than Republicans. To them "bootstrapping" only counts if you do all on your own with no help at all, which naturally fails unless people get very, very lucky. It's crazy.

    It never fails to raise my ire to hear my cousin, a young man with a $100,000 private school education and a new Mercedes coupe purchased for him as a graduation present by his parents, rant and rail about how awesome Ron Paul and Libertarianism is.

    Personally, I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideology the upper classes created to feel good about themselves and a guilt free reason to keep the status quo in tact. If they actually started being compassionate they would have to consciously think about others poorer than they are, how society is extremely fucked up for the lower classes and might have to emotionally deal with the consequences. It also reinforces the psychopaths in the upper classes, too. They can justify their behavior and recruit others to feel the same as they do so they're not lonely weirdo's.

    My problem with actual Libertarians is the same problem with Evangelicals: they all cherry pick which parts of the source material they choose to follow while waving the banner of the whole text.

    An honest Libertarian who followed objectivism in the manner Ayn Rand laid out would:
    - hate churches
    - advocate for gay rights
    - advocate for broad civil rights
    - support free market reforms to decrease barriers to entrepreneurship.


    I don't know many libertarians that cop to those principles. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

    I'd have respect for them were they like this.

    That said, Ayn Rand isn't a good model under any circumstances. From what I've read her views went far beyond those points you bought up. She was obsessed with a philosophy that was far to close to social darwinism only for the rich and talented (though the latter seem less important to her then the wealthy), agreed with the Soviet Union's methods just not the targets*, an unhealthy obsession for a convicted serial killer** and other crazy unhinged beliefs. Had she still been alive today she'd give Bachmann a run for her money in crazy shit.

    * which she was a victim

    ** William Edward Hickman

    Harry Dresden on
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Dont forget that in her later years she also collected welfare under an assumed name - making her an ultimate hypocrite.

    CptKemzik on
This discussion has been closed.