7 ms·

Banks don't always act in citizen's best interest. Don't forget about the cartel money laundering: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has

Banks don't always act in citizen's best interest. Don't forget about the cartel money laundering: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-has-form-mexico-laundered-drug-money http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/hsbc-ha...

civilian 11y ago
The Drug War doesn't have a sound moral basis, so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade. I say this as someone who used to work in drug policy reform and strongly opposes the drug war: Providing money to cartels isn't exactly a noble proposition either. Banks that do that really do have blood on their hands. Between 2006-2012, over 100,000 people died incredibly gruesome deaths in Mexico alone since 2010 at the hands of these cartels[0]. I'm not going to defend the drug war, but I'm not going to defend banks that willingly funnel money to them either. And I'm not going to claim that providing money to cartels actually undermines the drug war, in any meaningful sense. The cartels are, ironically, the largest profiteers of the drug war, right alongside the LEOs and correctional facilities that enforce drug laws. Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it. There are plenty of great ways to work actively to end the drug war. Funding drug cartels (or enabling their business operations) is not one of them. [0] The number of deaths in Mexico have dropped slightly since then, but only because the violence has moved further south in Central America
  - aianus 11y ago
    > Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it. I would disagree with this sentiment. There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence.
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence. First, what Mexico wants has (unfortunately) very little connection to what the US will actually do, and it's the US's drug policy that matters here. Second, this is like saying that the arrests and drug-related violence in the US creates pressure for legalization. It may in a way, because it raises the stakes, but that's not necessary to create pressure for change. And it's a rather horrible way to do so, because it involves putting people's lives at (even more) risk in the meantime. On top of that, it also further empowers the people who profit off of the status quo, providing them with even more money (and therefore power and influence) to maintain the status quo. For comparison, it's a good thing that police violence has gotten attention recently, which may ultimately lead to substantial reform. But that's not to say that facilitating (and profiting off of!) police violence in the US is a noble act. We can argue about whether the connection is nonexistent or simply 'very weak', but my point remains that it's hard to defend a profit-hungry bank funneling money into the hands of violent murders so they can profit off of more murders, all on the grounds that it will eventually translate into fewer murders later on. Especially when there are much more compelling ways of addressing the issue directly and immediately.
      - nosuchthing 11y ago
        The assumption of the decriminalization/legalization stance is the drug market has a demand that currently is only supplied by murderous drug syndicates which is for the most part created by the effects of prohibition.
  - misiti3780 11y ago
    I am pretty interested in the drug war - just finished el narco and chasing the scream: http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/dp/1608194019 http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/d... http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902 http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/162... can you recommend any other good books on the topic ?
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. If you believe the statement you wrote above then you are a gullible person.
- knieveltech 11y ago
  Someone sold you something if you think free trade is a beneficial condition worth striving for. It benefits a handful of major corporations at the expense of the populace.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Would love to hear more in detail about how free trade hurts the population at large.
    - knieveltech 11y ago
      I'm quite certain that's sarcasm. If it were actually true you'd have already googled the subject and be quietly reading right now. Edit: what the hell, I'll play your game. "Critics of the TPP reference the failures of NAFTA, which was first conceived during this period by the original champion of trickle-down, Ronald Reagan. Leading up to the 1994 elections, NAFTA garnered bipartisan support, but lone wolf, Independent candidate Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound" that America would hear if NAFTA passed and American jobs were drawn south. Global Trade Watch's assessment of NAFTA's "20 year legacy" demonstrates just how right Perot was. An estimated one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA. It's put downward pressure on wages, and exacerbated America's income gap. And while pre-NAFTA, the U.S carried a trade surplus with Mexico, and was just $26 billion in the hole with Canada--as of 2014, we had a combined trade deficit with both countries of $177 billon." From the following article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transpacific-part_1_b_6598604.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transp... So, in summary: it suppresses wages, costs jobs, and exacerbates income inequality. Market efficiencies created by globalization also have a tendency to drive all but the largest players out of any given market. Surely you don't claim lowered wages and pressure on small to medium sized businesses to try to compete on a global scale are in any way beneficial to the larger populace? You don't honestly believe having access to cheap goods is more beneficial than plentiful, well-paying jobs? Edit: some additional light reading: http://www.citizen.org/nafta http://www.citizen.org/nafta
      - wpietri 11y ago
- turk- 11y ago
  "The Drug War doesn't have a sound moral basis" Drug War is immoral because drug laws almost exclusively enforced on the poor and minorities. Big banks getting away with funneling money to cartels is the heart of why the drug war is immoral!!

civilian 11y ago

The Drug War doesn't have a sound moral basis, so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> so I'm okay that the banks were undermining western governments in the interest of free trade. I say this as someone who used to work in drug policy reform and strongly opposes the drug war: Providing money to cartels isn't exactly a noble proposition either. Banks that do that really do have blood on their hands. Between 2006-2012, over 100,000 people died incredibly gruesome deaths in Mexico alone since 2010 at the hands of these cartels[0]. I'm not going to defend the drug war, but I'm not going to defend banks that willingly funnel money to them either. And I'm not going to claim that providing money to cartels actually undermines the drug war, in any meaningful sense. The cartels are, ironically, the largest profiteers of the drug war, right alongside the LEOs and correctional facilities that enforce drug laws. Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it. There are plenty of great ways to work actively to end the drug war. Funding drug cartels (or enabling their business operations) is not one of them. [0] The number of deaths in Mexico have dropped slightly since then, but only because the violence has moved further south in Central America
- aianus 11y ago
  > Pumping money into the pockets of the drug cartels only further entrenches the current system; it does not provide pressure to dismantle it. I would disagree with this sentiment. There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > There is plenty of pressure in Mexico to decriminalize/legalize drugs as a result of cartel violence. First, what Mexico wants has (unfortunately) very little connection to what the US will actually do, and it's the US's drug policy that matters here. Second, this is like saying that the arrests and drug-related violence in the US creates pressure for legalization. It may in a way, because it raises the stakes, but that's not necessary to create pressure for change. And it's a rather horrible way to do so, because it involves putting people's lives at (even more) risk in the meantime. On top of that, it also further empowers the people who profit off of the status quo, providing them with even more money (and therefore power and influence) to maintain the status quo. For comparison, it's a good thing that police violence has gotten attention recently, which may ultimately lead to substantial reform. But that's not to say that facilitating (and profiting off of!) police violence in the US is a noble act. We can argue about whether the connection is nonexistent or simply 'very weak', but my point remains that it's hard to defend a profit-hungry bank funneling money into the hands of violent murders so they can profit off of more murders, all on the grounds that it will eventually translate into fewer murders later on. Especially when there are much more compelling ways of addressing the issue directly and immediately.
    - nosuchthing 11y ago
      The assumption of the decriminalization/legalization stance is the drug market has a demand that currently is only supplied by murderous drug syndicates which is for the most part created by the effects of prohibition.
- misiti3780 11y ago
  I am pretty interested in the drug war - just finished el narco and chasing the scream: http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/dp/1608194019 http://www.amazon.com/El-Narco-Mexicos-Criminal-Insurgency/d... http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902 http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/162... can you recommend any other good books on the topic ?
anigbrowl 11y ago
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. If you believe the statement you wrote above then you are a gullible person.
knieveltech 11y ago
Someone sold you something if you think free trade is a beneficial condition worth striving for. It benefits a handful of major corporations at the expense of the populace.
- aianus 11y ago
  Would love to hear more in detail about how free trade hurts the population at large.
  - knieveltech 11y ago
    I'm quite certain that's sarcasm. If it were actually true you'd have already googled the subject and be quietly reading right now. Edit: what the hell, I'll play your game. "Critics of the TPP reference the failures of NAFTA, which was first conceived during this period by the original champion of trickle-down, Ronald Reagan. Leading up to the 1994 elections, NAFTA garnered bipartisan support, but lone wolf, Independent candidate Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound" that America would hear if NAFTA passed and American jobs were drawn south. Global Trade Watch's assessment of NAFTA's "20 year legacy" demonstrates just how right Perot was. An estimated one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA. It's put downward pressure on wages, and exacerbated America's income gap. And while pre-NAFTA, the U.S carried a trade surplus with Mexico, and was just $26 billion in the hole with Canada--as of 2014, we had a combined trade deficit with both countries of $177 billon." From the following article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transpacific-part_1_b_6598604.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/why-the-transp... So, in summary: it suppresses wages, costs jobs, and exacerbates income inequality. Market efficiencies created by globalization also have a tendency to drive all but the largest players out of any given market. Surely you don't claim lowered wages and pressure on small to medium sized businesses to try to compete on a global scale are in any way beneficial to the larger populace? You don't honestly believe having access to cheap goods is more beneficial than plentiful, well-paying jobs? Edit: some additional light reading: http://www.citizen.org/nafta http://www.citizen.org/nafta
    - wpietri 11y ago
turk- 11y ago
"The Drug War doesn't have a sound moral basis" Drug War is immoral because drug laws almost exclusively enforced on the poor and minorities. Big banks getting away with funneling money to cartels is the heart of why the drug war is immoral!!