john banks

If there was no crime, then the people working in related industries that would collapse would be able to do "more useful" things that would increase the quality of life and leisure of the population? Police would be engineers, prison officers would be nurses, criminal lawyers would be florists etc? I'm sure that productive things could be found to be done and that society as a whole would be "better off"?

jef

iTrader: (13)

looking back, it looks like i asked too many questions in my o.p tbh.

but it was for the purpose of discussion, not justification.

i put a question mark after " whether crime is beneficial to an economy", quite possibly it wasnt clear enough though, my mistake

but that aside, i think its been interesting reading opinions and facts that people have formed and possibly there reasons for drawing that conclusion.

better than the "how much is my 99 uk turbo worth" lol

i quite like a lot of threads on NSR, topical discussion gives me information i didnt know sometimes.

jef

iTrader: (13)

good point, the situation we have is just a resposne to the current situation we experience. - if it were not origionally in place then there would have been no need to counter it - and resources could be used elsewhere.

although i feel many industries take advantage of or exploit the results of criminal activity, eg insurance. also as previously mentioned the media - specifically newspaper publications thrive on the subject.

whether in reality the amount of resources currently used to combat the effects of crime and the people employeed as a results, would equal what other industries could provide for , i wouldnt know, woud there be a shortfall either way?

warrenm2

Also you need to check out Bastiat's broken window fallacy

jef

iTrader: (13)

ive just had a skim read of that, not really applicable, or relevant to this discussion tbh - and doesnt really represent or reflect my thoughts tbh?

does make interesting reading, but doesnt represent what i think, or my experiences tbh, sorry lol

Luan Pra bang

This is ridiculous the drugs trade works the same as any other business in one interesting analysis the wages in an American gang scaled almost pefrectly with the rates and ratios of corporate America. The same applies that the boss or owner of a large business gets to stockpile money. I would love to know where you are reading this rubbish as it is clearly not from any genuine scientific source.

deepy

iTrader: (1)

No problem. But would you say that a UN report of 2005 suggesting that drugs sales were around $322 billion in 2003 was inaccurate? Is it because the figures are so huge that you find them unbelievable? Or is it because you previously said that "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."

If you are suggesting that VAT and Tax fraud are comparable in any way to the amounts made from drugs then I think you are flogging a long dead horse. And the British economy is not reliant on the black market economy for survival, utter rubbish.

As a former Revenue Inspector I can assure you that the amounts made from defrauding HMRC are insignificant in comparison, which would confirm your point that criminals spend it rather than hoard it - it is spendable because it is not substantial.

There's a downloadable PDF on this page of the UN report: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a.../WDR-2005.html If you dispute it then supply some facts.

Turbohot

Hence the Broken Window Fallacy (quoted in Warren's post below) is relevant to the discussion as it attends to the visible and invisible effects of crime.

Luan Pra bang

The report and numbers you mention are irrelevent, and as it happens every single body making an estimate of the size of the worlds drugs market starts with the caveat that its speculative to estimate the size of an illegal activity. You have completely missed the point with comparisons between the size of the world drug market and what the net effect or benefits are. If you take estimates for the UK drug market it ranges from 2 billion to 6 billion not alot in comparison to estimates of UK tax evasion from 15 billion to 40 billion all of which evades the point that the size of the market in no way esablishes a cost to the economy. Take cannabis, the cost to the economy in drug treatments and enforcement is almost certainly much less than the revenue it generates seeing as it is produced and grown in the UK. Heroin on the other hand while much smaller in terms of money spent has the problem of users being constant drains on society and a far higher percentage of the profits leaving the country.

jef

iTrader: (13)

interesting, i suppose youve had more of an insight than many then.

i dont think the economy would collapse without black market subsidy, but i know that point wasnt directed me.
the thing ive noticed when working for small-ish companies, and some large ones throughout my working life, was that there wasnt a single one that paid fully what they should have.
that includes not just the companies i worked for, but also many comapies that had trade with my employer.
im not saying its every single company nation wide doesnt toe the line, and tbh recently the amount of "cash jobs" ive witnessed seems to definitely be in decline.

also ive never been involved in senior management, and dont know if much bigger compaies may "bend the rules" to suit them, im sure its happened, but maybe not as common place - but obviously with substantially bigger amounts of money.

i think even if the % of small companies not paying in full was as little as 10% it must still amount to many millions?
and im not meaning its common practice atall, for those that may mis-interpret, but the odd job thats not declared.
massive industries like private hire or taxi companies must be quite susceptible to this? then construction work, garages the list could be failry lengthy.

disagree?

GlesgaKiss

Jef,

These two are very relevant to the discussion.

The mistake you are making is in thinking that a 'contribution' to one big thing is made when a person receives the proceeds of trade, i.e. a certain amount of money in exchange for a particular drug. You would only consider the production of drugs (and therefore their 'contribution to the economy') beneficial if you wanted drugs, or if the production of drugs somehow made it possible to produce or provide other goods and services more easily.

Economic activity as measured by GDP does not show us whether something 'contributes' to the nation's wealth in the sense that you are thinking of.

This thread might help: https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...in-detail.html

The key to understanding whether something contributes or not is to stop thinking about it in the manner that the government and media report it, i.e. as 'activity'. Using that logic, destruction is beneficial, as the people repairing it are engaged in 'economic activity', hence the broken window fallacy.

To repeat John's point, if people stopped taking drugs, they would demand more of something else, or perhaps invest or save instead.

jef

iTrader: (13)

actually, deepy, since your here,

i have what may be a really stupid question - but dont know the definative answer lol

as a citizen of this country, whats the legal status for trading with other citizens?

for things like homers for anything from car repairs to garden work or building works and all thats inbetween - are you meant to pay on all these activites (discounting tax allowances ect) as i know you dont pay on earnigns below a certain amount, but for theories sake - and averaging the years jobs out, where you increase persoanl wealth, or atleast charge for the work youve done?

or do you only have do that once you set up a company in any shape or form?

as an example, Bob works for ford, earns 25k as a technichan, pays all relevant tax, n.i ect ect

but over the year he does 10 homers say one permonth, including head gaskets, clutches ect in his own gargae beside his house earning say 2k

should he be paying tax on that income?

actually ive got a feeling the answer is yes now lol, but just to clarify please

in short to trade, you must be a set up comapny of sorts, where all income figures are provided to Inland revenue or who ever is responsible?

thanks

jef

iTrader: (13)

yes i agree johns point is relevant, ive responded to that point above mate, the window thing may well be, its just worded in an overly complex way imo , and doesnt really make for a good clear understanding.

also the thread was constructed to not single out one activity - drugs being the probable favorite topic. As its clear to see the negatives drug use can lead to.
im trying to steer the thread away from a single issue, (although have some side discussion on certain things, drugs being the most popular so far) and try to encompass any and all illegal activity thats used for income generation. And analyse its effect as a whole, if you get me, lol finding it hard to explain exactly what i mean, let me know if you do please lol.

the issue of drugs id like to eliminate here, as it really is quite clear to see the damage they can do, and its detracted from the initial purpose.

feel free to carry on discussing them however,if people want to - it just wasnt my intention.

also be nice to hear more on GDP, its something i know very little about

GlesgaKiss

It might be worded in an overly complex way - or it could just be archaic! It was written around 150 years ago. It may not be something you can just glance at and instantly understand, but it gives a deep understanding of a principle that, in my opinion, will answer your question. It may even make your question irrelevant in your own eyes, because, as I've said, this idea of GDP - economic activity - demonstrating a 'contribution' is false.

Drugs was the obvious one to choose as there's a clear trade process going on, but the same principle can be applied to all crime which results in money (purchasing power) changing hands.

jef

iTrader: (13)

btw appreciate the input GK, one quick question

how, would you say would be the most accurate or relevant way to understand or relate to, how much something contributes to the economy?

thinking about it, its actually quite hard to pin point

jef

iTrader: (13)

yeah may well take a bit more than a glance lol - and then make my o.p irrelevant.

but as i mentioned the thread was posted with the intention of not singleing out any activity, but to look at income generation through illegal activity as a whole. in its entirety - and what effects that has

its not meant to be a cause and effect study on a single activity, and never was meant that way

john banks

jef, to trade, you have to tell the Inland Revenue within I think 3 months (we told them straight away and spent an hour on the phone after they didn't acknowledge to confirm and they couldn't track it still) and start paying national insurance at a few pounds a week (even if you already pay it as an employee), and complete a tax return when they ask you to. If your earnings are low you only need to tell them a couple of simple figures, like income and expenditure and profits but you need to be able to back it all up if they ask. You then pay your tax if you've made a profit, and if it is small it can sometimes be incorporated into your pay as you earn tax code if you have a main job, otherwise twice yearly bills for income tax and earnings related national insurance, with payments on account towards future years.

jef

iTrader: (13)

thanks john

GlesgaKiss

Ah, I see. Well that is something else altogether, I suppose. I had written a reply to your previous post but it seems pretty unnecessary now.

With regard to the part highlighted in bold, the effects on what? I guess what I was talking about was the bare logic (the 'truth') of economics, whereas you are intending it as more of a socioeconomic discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomics

jef

iTrader: (13)

GK welcome your input to the intended thread direction

looking through whats been raised so far, i realise its an un-answerable question with so many variables, and different veiw points as to what "contribution" actually means. your comment "effects on what" just about summerises things up - if i suggest all possible crime and effects, its effect or even size of operation is ultimatley unkown, so any figure are estimates, and then how do you quantify the figures, and interperate them into a context that would apply to my o.p - it bridges on being impossible

not easy lol

even still its been a good discussion - and raised some points id never considered

Leslie

Do you think then that it might be advantageous for the whole of society to degenerate into complete moral decay in order to create extra profit over those gained from legal activities?

It has already gone quite a long way in that direction in recent years of course. How do you see that so far?

Les

jef

iTrader: (13)

most definatley not! i dont think anyone with a few brain cells would encourage that tbh - i cant see a single argument that could be presented to encourage your question.
i dont think its went all that far up until now tbh, a large %of the population do as they are meant to by law imo, where do you think the advances in such behaviour have been?

Leslie

Yes I agree that in the main most people are law abiding, so far.

I can foresee however a big move in the wrong direction in future if that sort of behaviour was to become acceptable. It is natural that people would find it easier to slide in that direction that to maintain honourable dealing.

Les