

A drug dealer on economists' theories about drug dealing  - trustfundbaby
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/13/135354436/the-tuesday-podcast-a-former-crack-dealer-on-the-economics-of-drugs?ft=1&f=93559255

======
Perceval
As a student of international relations, this seems familiar to me. Liberal
international relations theorists focus on economic variables as causal to a
far greater degree than realists or constructivists, and have also imported a
bunch of their methodologies from economics/econometrics. Realists tend to
deny the primary importance of economics, going on about power and the _animus
dominandi_ like old saws.

It's funny that in this NPR piece economists focus on all the monetary and
financial risk aspects, while seemingly blind to the central motivation of the
people on the streets:

 _What's more, he really liked being a drug kingpin.

I loved it. ... I felt like I was powerful. ... It was every man's dream to be
free. ... I'd rather be doing that than anything else, almost._

Power and independence, not money, were the ultimate goal. Very realist.

~~~
dtegart
I think if you dig a bit deeper into most people's motivations for wanting to
be rich, you will find out that independence is the really reason. Without any
evidence I think that people want to be rich, so they don't have to worry
about money.

~~~
hugh3
I think Aristotle Onassis' theory is a bit more accurate:

 _“If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.”_

Furthermore, the best approximation to human behaviour I know is that human
beings will do whatever it takes to maximise ... not their wealth, not their
freedom, but... their status.

For nice middle-class me, going to prison for drug dealing would be a huge
step down in my status. For some kid in the ghetto, though, it could easily be
the opposite.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>" _Furthermore, the best approximation to human behaviour I know is that
human beings will do whatever it takes to maximise ... not their wealth, not
their freedom, but... their status._ "

// Many people choose to take on a lower "status" though.

Chasing "the good life" or "down-sizing" for example.

This is, to my mind at least, a hankering for something more meaningful than
financial acumen or societal position.

~~~
hugh3
Well of course the great part and the worst flaw of my status-maximization
theory is that it can't be disproved. The guy who gives up a high-paying job
in finance to go become a starving artist is arguably maximising his status
("Oooh look at that guy following his dream and not caring about money") and
so is the guy who makes the reverse decision ("Being an artist is for try-hard
suckers, look at my money!").

It's hard to find an example of someone unambiguously lowering their own
status, since voluntarily lowering your status in order to achieve some other
aim can be, in itself, a status-raising activity.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It appears you're messing with your definition of status in order to make such
statements. Could you give a succinct definition of what you mean by "status"?

Status is defined by the general populus, others define your status, your
place in the "pecking order". People regarding your actions as positive
('following his dream, blah blah') doesn't mean your status is increased.

"a starving artist is arguably maximising his status"

Yes, it depends on your definition of status .. so ...

------
bingaman
Not just a drug dealer, but Freeway Ricky Ross, who arguably helped invent
crack whose cocaine supplier was the Nicarguan Contras, the CIA-funded army of
Iran-Contra fame. I love Planet Money, but I wish they'd gone a little deeper
into his involvement with the contras. If you want to know more look into Gary
Webb's series, Dark Alliance. The restored site is here:
<http://www.narconews.com/darkalliance/drugs/start.htm>

------
michaelchisari
I'm sure it's great to be a kingpin, but I'd be interested to hear the
perspective of the low level dealers and other rank-and-file.

~~~
schmittz
That's true, the best stories come from the middle or the bottom. The top guy
says he'd make less, but would the bottom guys wind up making more? It's a
potentially interesting business dynamic. Would you have more horizontal than
vertical management structure?

