![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: Drugs money worth $352 billion kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, says Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
There are some obvious jokes here, and of course the banks are denying this (wouldn’t you?).
But assuming it’s true, I’m rather struck by this in the context of the entire War On (Some) Drugs, which is a key reason why the illegal drug business is as lucrative as it is. And I’m sure that the $352 billion doesn’t represent the entire gross revenues of the drug kingpin sector. So considering the US has spent around $22 billion on the WO(S)D this year to help generate at least a third of a trillion in dope revenues, that’s a pretty good margin.
And you thought irony was dead, etc.
It’s tempting to argue that if more banks had turned a blind eye to money laundering, we could have avoided the meltdown altogether. On the other hand, as Charles Stross (of all people) points out, the implications of this go beyond the concept of shoring up failing banks with drug money:
Invest wisely,
This is dF
"Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered.
There are some obvious jokes here, and of course the banks are denying this (wouldn’t you?).
But assuming it’s true, I’m rather struck by this in the context of the entire War On (Some) Drugs, which is a key reason why the illegal drug business is as lucrative as it is. And I’m sure that the $352 billion doesn’t represent the entire gross revenues of the drug kingpin sector. So considering the US has spent around $22 billion on the WO(S)D this year to help generate at least a third of a trillion in dope revenues, that’s a pretty good margin.
And you thought irony was dead, etc.
It’s tempting to argue that if more banks had turned a blind eye to money laundering, we could have avoided the meltdown altogether. On the other hand, as Charles Stross (of all people) points out, the implications of this go beyond the concept of shoring up failing banks with drug money:
What we've just seen, hidden in the euphemism here, is a confession that drug cartels and other organized criminals have gone on a $352Bn asset-buying spree — and the banks and regulators, world-wide, turned a blind eye to this because the alternative was to allow the banks to collapse. And the corollary is that these investments are now in the system, laundered, whitewashed, and legit. These narcodollars aren't neatly bundled up inside the mattress any more; they're in the system, doing their owners' bidding.
Obviously, there's no single Mr Big here, no Blofeld investing SPECTREs ill-gotten billions in an ambitious bid to go legit.
But one wonders whether the "organised criminals" have been investing in anything innovative. (Politicians, if they're smart.) And what the long-term consequences are going to be ...
Obviously, there's no single Mr Big here, no Blofeld investing SPECTREs ill-gotten billions in an ambitious bid to go legit.
But one wonders whether the "organised criminals" have been investing in anything innovative. (Politicians, if they're smart.) And what the long-term consequences are going to be ...
Invest wisely,
This is dF
