By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
snyps on 30 September 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
snyps said:
Kasz216 said:

 



B) Your new source isn't saying the average producer can take 90% off of profits and still be profitable. He says the average drug trafficing organization can (which is completely absurd and i'll explain). So you taking 90% off of the $2000 the producer sells it at inland is preposterous. How is a producer in Columbia going to buy a kilo of leaves for $800 and sell the kilo of purest powder for $200!? Now let me explain the absurdity of the agents argument. He's saying, "Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail)".

1) he's claiming the trafficing organization can take 90% off of nearly $66,000 and still be profitable. Thus (like you went on to say) a kilo would cost $6,600 at retail. Well yeah the one who buys from a producer can sell it that cheap, infact they do in the ports of Columbia. But another guy has to buy from that guy, and another guy buys from him. Then another guy buys it, and another, until final consumption. Each dealer makes a profit on the one beneath him/her. So by the time its in our children's bloodstream it become pretty pricey. If there was only one middle man between producer and consumer, then it could be $6.6 per gram. But if some guy is buying a hundred killos he'd rather sell his buy the kilo/ounce and let the little man worry about the grams. So no.

2) I do see this 'single middleman' scenario happening in a legal market. Under this scenario:
a)the black market (as i explained) cannot compete (one middleman vs several).
b)legislation would fix prices to compete with gangsters.
c)taxes would suck up a nice portion of the excess proffits

A)  Simple, the leaves can be sold for cheper too.      Every rung has MASSIVE ammounts of profit in it.  THAT is what it's saying.  Otherwise they couldn't afford to lose 90% and still make a profit.

  Cocaine is cheap as hell.

 

If the whole organization can it means everyhting can.  Otherwise there would be no profit.


That's your argument!  "You're wrong, just admit it."  Speak for yourself.

 

So rather than admit that a producer can't sell a kilo for $200 you tell me to admit I'm wrong.   You funny!  I went into detail for you.. from the prices and hands it's exchanged through.  I made it simple, I said in a scenario where there is only ONE middleman your $6 coke is feasible.  I could explain for days but you just aren't able to refute my points.

 

You do understand that thousands of kilos of coke made in one country and consumed by the gram in another country gets bought and sold many times in between?  That is the reason a kilo brings in a grand total of $66,000, each person it touches doubles the price and cuts it.  When your article said the grand total of profits could be reduced 90% he means by cutting out the middle men.  From the article: "the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product."

 

I'm sure you just woke up in the middle of the night feeling cranky so I won't take it to heart, but please don't bother replying if you don't have the time to give me a decent argument.  I have no problem admiting I'm wrong.  I was wrong about over regulation, I was wrong about coke being so cheap at the source, I was wrong that there weren't gangsters and turf wars in Amsterdam over illegal drugs, I was wrong about the rehabilitation of thugs after prohibition ends, I was wrong about the tiny profits the bottom feeder gangster makes selling drugs.  I'm wrong about a lot of things.  When are you wrong?

 

;)