5 ms·

> One important future to avert is where organized crime is rampant... one study in Italy suggests mafia domination cost 16% of per-capita GDP. Given the US's $

> One important future to avert is where organized crime is rampant... one study in Italy suggests mafia domination cost 16% of per-capita GDP. Given the US's $20 trillion GDP, that's quite a lot. You’re making two separate, tenuous extrapolations here. Can you justify them?

wpietri 8y ago
I probably can. Did you want to ask some specific question? Better, do you you have a way of calculating path-not-taken costs for rampant organized crime that you think might be more effective?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  I didn't see any calculation in the parent comment.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Are you asking me to do some sort of calculation? If so, could you spell out what and why? The point of my original comment was to point out a couple of things we'd have to include in a cost/benefit analysis of KYC/AML regulation, not to actually do a proper analysis, which I would expect to run to hundreds of carefully researched pages.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      Maybe I misread your comment. What did you mean by "Given the US's $20 trillion GDP, that's quite a lot"? What is "that" in this sentence referring to?
      - wpietri 8y ago
        That "that" refers to the implied product of 16% times $20 trillion. It's meant to provide an order-of-magnitude notion of what rampant organized crime could cost an economy, so that people who had previously read "costs of such bureaucratic monstrosities is in the range of hundreds of billions, whereas the benefit is a few orders of magnitude lower" could more usefully think about what the benefits of crime reduction really are.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        Exactly. You have provided no reason at all to think that repealing KYC laws (which were introduced by the Patriot Act in the 2000s) would transform the US into Italy, which is frankly just silly. It also flatly contradicts the fact that the US didn’t lose 16% of its GDP to mafia activity before KYC laws were introduced.
        wpietri 8y ago
        Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. It obviously doesn't seem silly to me. If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can live with that. If next time you would like a writer's help in understanding what they've written, try asking succinctly and with at least a modicum of respect. Because people generally have better things to do than spoon-feed anonymous jerks.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. I stated my point quite clearly at the very beginning of this thread. Did you miss it? > Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. In what way is requesting evidence for an implausible extrapolation "shallow and dismissive"? > If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can live with that. Is "anonymous rando" supposed to be an insult of some sort? Is it relevant to the topic in some way, or just a plain ad hominem? > try asking succinctly and with at least a modicum of respect I did. You should do likewise. > Because people generally have better things to do than spoon-feed anonymous jerks. The only one being a jerk here is you, my friend. Take a deep breath and re-read the thread. And no, requesting evidence rather than accepting your assumptions at face value isn't "spoon-feeding". Frankly, your response (or lack thereof) gives the impression that you've been backed into a corner and have resorted to name-calling and "spoon-feeding" accusations to try to save face.

wpietri 8y ago

I probably can. Did you want to ask some specific question? Better, do you you have a way of calculating path-not-taken costs for rampant organized crime that you think might be more effective?

antidesitter 8y ago
I didn't see any calculation in the parent comment.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Are you asking me to do some sort of calculation? If so, could you spell out what and why? The point of my original comment was to point out a couple of things we'd have to include in a cost/benefit analysis of KYC/AML regulation, not to actually do a proper analysis, which I would expect to run to hundreds of carefully researched pages.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Maybe I misread your comment. What did you mean by "Given the US's $20 trillion GDP, that's quite a lot"? What is "that" in this sentence referring to?
    - wpietri 8y ago
      That "that" refers to the implied product of 16% times $20 trillion. It's meant to provide an order-of-magnitude notion of what rampant organized crime could cost an economy, so that people who had previously read "costs of such bureaucratic monstrosities is in the range of hundreds of billions, whereas the benefit is a few orders of magnitude lower" could more usefully think about what the benefits of crime reduction really are.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        Exactly. You have provided no reason at all to think that repealing KYC laws (which were introduced by the Patriot Act in the 2000s) would transform the US into Italy, which is frankly just silly. It also flatly contradicts the fact that the US didn’t lose 16% of its GDP to mafia activity before KYC laws were introduced.
        wpietri 8y ago
        Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. It obviously doesn't seem silly to me. If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can live with that. If next time you would like a writer's help in understanding what they've written, try asking succinctly and with at least a modicum of respect. Because people generally have better things to do than spoon-feed anonymous jerks.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > Well I'm glad that after 4 comments, you've finally gotten to stating a point. I stated my point quite clearly at the very beginning of this thread. Did you miss it? > Unfortunately, your point is shallow and dismissive, rather than engaging substantively. In what way is requesting evidence for an implausible extrapolation "shallow and dismissive"? > If you're saying it seems silly to you, an anonymous rando, I can live with that. Is "anonymous rando" supposed to be an insult of some sort? Is it relevant to the topic in some way, or just a plain ad hominem? > try asking succinctly and with at least a modicum of respect I did. You should do likewise. > Because people generally have better things to do than spoon-feed anonymous jerks. The only one being a jerk here is you, my friend. Take a deep breath and re-read the thread. And no, requesting evidence rather than accepting your assumptions at face value isn't "spoon-feeding". Frankly, your response (or lack thereof) gives the impression that you've been backed into a corner and have resorted to name-calling and "spoon-feeding" accusations to try to save face.