Mexico blasts Forbes for putting drug lord on billionaires list [Archive]

Harvey Specter

03-12-2009, 07:12 PM

MEXICO CITY – Mexico is decrying Forbes Magazine's decision to include the reputed leader of one of the country's most violent drug cartels on its list of billionaires.

Forbes ranks Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, with an estimated $1 billion fortune, at No. 701 — between a Swiss oil-trading tycoon and an American chemical heir.

Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted fugitive, is believed to head the Sinaloa cartel.

President Felipe Calderon said Thursday that "magazines are not only attacking and lying about the situation in Mexico but are also praising criminals."

Mexico's Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said Forbes is defending crime by "comparing the deplorable activity of a criminal wanted in Mexico and abroad with that of honest businessmen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/apfn_lt_mexico_drug_billionaire.

KingDeeCee

03-12-2009, 07:13 PM

WAIT LOL?! Forbes allows criminals in their list?! LOL.

Alphamale

03-12-2009, 07:17 PM

Although I don't know the full extent of it, didn't Microsoft break anti-trust laws?

And if they were convicted of such (and I think they were if memory serves me right), wouldn't Mr. Gates be a criminal himself? Then again, one can separate the corporation from CEO...or not. I have no idea. I'm going to make myself a tuna sandwich.

ajax

03-12-2009, 08:06 PM

shit he deserves to be on the list if he found a way to make a billion like that.

Skyliner

03-12-2009, 09:04 PM

Pablo Escobar at one point was the number one guy on the list before Bill Gates and all the others came along... the sick part is that these drug lords' wealth is liquid!

StaxBundlez

03-12-2009, 10:05 PM

haha drug money baby

Sid Vicious

03-12-2009, 10:23 PM

Pablo Escobar at one point was the number one guy on the list before Bill Gates and all the others came along... the sick part is that these drug lords' wealth is liquid!

he was on the list, just never #1

StylinRed

03-12-2009, 10:56 PM

drug-king pins and corrupt chinese officials could probably fill the top 100

BNR32_Coupe

03-12-2009, 11:52 PM

drug-king pins and corrupt chinese officials could probably fill the top 100

yeah wtf china has like thousands of billionaires.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 01:41 AM

Alphamale

03-13-2009, 01:43 AM

^In which case, about 90% of the list would be voided.

Meowjin

03-13-2009, 03:22 AM

Pablo gained world infamy as a Colombian drug lord and became so wealthy from the drug trade that in 1989 Forbes magazine listed him as the seventh richest man in the world.

chun

03-13-2009, 05:38 AM

The people that are complaining are stupid.

Being included in the list isn't praising them. It's just reporting a fact.

If they have that money, regardless of how they made it, they should be included as part of the list.

Unless they change the list to be "list of the wealthiest people who's money did not come from crime".
Are you daft or just daft?

Forbes is a national BUSINESS magazine. Covering billionaires is not actually covering them for the fact of their money, but the BUSINESS in which they made their money. Would you feel alright if CNN started putting Hell's Angel's activities under "business news" on money.cnn.com? Or how about we start publishing the local weedman's latest deals on canada.com too? These people are raking in large amounts of money, yes, but it has no place in wholesome business publications.

Regardless of how they made it? OKAY there buddy.

shit he deserves to be on the list if he found a way to make a billion like that.

Uh, no he doesn't.

achiam

03-13-2009, 06:08 AM

WAIT LOL?! Forbes allows criminals in their list?! LOL.

Yes. In the 1980s, Pablo Escobar headed up the Medellin Cartel in Colombia and was ranked 3rd richest man in the world.

Carl Johnson

03-13-2009, 06:31 AM

Mexico got more serious shit to worry about than Forbes listing some drug lord in their magazine. I mean fuck half of their people lived under poverty line with no clean water.

hotjoint

03-13-2009, 06:59 AM

damn thats nuts

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 10:12 AM

Are you daft or just daft?
Is there supposed to be more than one option there?

Forbes is a national BUSINESS magazine. Covering billionaires is not actually covering them for the fact of their money, but the BUSINESS in which they made their money. Would you feel alright if CNN started putting Hell's Angel's activities under "business news" on money.cnn.com? Or how about we start publishing the local weedman's latest deals on canada.com too? These people are raking in large amounts of money, yes, but it has no place in wholesome business publications.

Regardless of how they made it? OKAY there buddy.
Is the list called "The world's wealthiest legitimate businessmen"? No? Then invalid argument.

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not.

bossxx

03-13-2009, 11:08 AM

But how can Forbes know of how much money a criminal is actually worth? I mean its not like they are reporting every year lol. An estimated 1 billion is ridiculous. It's like estimating how many fish are in a fucking lake. They have no idea of the depth of his operations. If anything he could be higher or lower on that list. I guess imo its just incredibly inaccurate which degrades the value of these articles.

Noir

03-13-2009, 11:10 AM

Is the list called "The world's wealthiest legitimate businessmen"? No? Then invalid argument.

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not.

Yes the legitimacy of the business does matter.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 12:08 PM

Yes the legitimacy of the business does matter.
But if the list is simply "The world's wealthiest individuals", why should criminals be excluded?

And maybe some of his money might be from criminal proceeds, but maybe he then took that money and used it in legitimate businesses to make even more money... who knows... maybe only $100M was drug money, but $900M was from legitimate business... should he still be excluded from the list?

wddian

03-13-2009, 12:15 PM

- Bill Gates lost $18 billion (Can$22.3 billion) but regained his title as the world's richest man. Warren Buffett, last year's No. 1, saw his fortune decline $25 billion (Can$31.0 billion) as shares of Berkshire Hathaway (nyse: BRK-B) fell nearly 50 per cent in 12 months, but he still managed to slip just one spot to No. 2. Mexican telecom titan Carlos Slim Helú also lost $25 billion (Can$31.0 billion) and dropped one spot to No. 3.

So is there anywhere one can still make a fortune these days? The 38 newcomers offer a few clues. Among the more notable new billionaires are Mexican Joaquín Guzmán Loera, one of the biggest suppliers of cocaine to the U.S. -

chun

03-13-2009, 12:25 PM

Is there supposed to be more than one option there?
By asking, you've picked both.

Is the list called "The world's wealthiest legitimate businessmen"? No? Then invalid argument.

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not.
Yeah, the title isn't "politically correct" but it needn't be. Like I said, how would you feel if money.cnn.com covered Hell's Angel's activities as a legitimate business?

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not? LOL okay, I'd expect Canucks.com to have two homos spooning, on an article about how gay couples are just as "regular" as straight couples. Let's see how many people complain. Oh wait! :rolleyes: Just because Canucks.com is a SPORTS website doesn't mean they have to publish SPORTS.

PS. It doesn't become an "invalid argument" just because your ignorant closed mind was capable of typing out 15 letters with a space in between.

chun

03-13-2009, 12:26 PM

But if the list is simply "The world's wealthiest individuals", why should criminals be excluded?

And maybe some of his money might be from criminal proceeds, but maybe he then took that money and used it in legitimate businesses to make even more money... who knows... maybe only $100M was drug money, but $900M was from legitimate business... should he still be excluded from the list?

BECAUSE it's not BUSINESS. Business = paying taxes, employees, playing your part in society.

And the second part of your post = mad fail attempt at trying to weasel some sort of possible and probable way that it COULD possibly maybe be interpreted as business.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 01:28 PM

Yeah, the title isn't "politically correct" but it needn't be. Like I said, how would you feel if money.cnn.com covered Hell's Angel's activities as a legitimate business?

It doesn't matter whether it's a business magazine or not? LOL okay, I'd expect Canucks.com to have two homos spooning, on an article about how gay couples are just as "regular" as straight couples. Let's see how many people complain. Oh wait! :rolleyes: Just because Canucks.com is a SPORTS website doesn't mean they have to publish SPORTS.

PS. It doesn't become an "invalid argument" just because your ignorant closed mind was capable of typing out 15 letters with a space in between.
Aggressive much? Are you always this insulting to everyone, or do you have a special agenda with me? I didn't know we had any beef.

The examples you provided aren't counter examples at all.

Forbes published a list of the world's billionaires.

It is not a list of the world's businessmen billionaires.

What part of that do you not understand?

The list is a factual document. If you're a billionaire, you get included in the list. If you're not a billionaire, you're not included in the list. It does not MATTER how the money was obtained for the sake of being included in the list.

What if someone on the list just inherited the a billion dollars? He was never a businessman himself. He never earned any of it. Shoud he also not be on the list?

You're the one who's ignorant and closed minded.

Noir

03-13-2009, 01:39 PM

Forbes published a list of the world's billionaires.

But those billionaires earned the right of ownership of those billions. Drug Kingpins have not. If law enforcement was anywhere near adept, their wealth would be stripped.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 01:46 PM

BECAUSE it's not BUSINESS. Business = paying taxes, employees, playing your part in society.

And the second part of your post = mad fail attempt at trying to weasel some sort of possible and probable way that it COULD possibly maybe be interpreted as business.
It's fucking ridiculous how closed minded you are about this being a BUSINESS magazine.

Just because it's a BUSINESS magazine doesn't mean every single freaking detail in all of its articles need to be 100% business related.

They must have made a mistake on their website because they have dedicated sections for stuff like health, sports, style, and food.

And I GUARANTEE you many of the articles are not actually business articles.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/sports/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/wine/
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/style/

You and most others who are making a big deal out of this seem to be under this false impression that being included in the list is a special honour or accolade, or that each person was hand-picked by Forbes.

IT'S NOT.

It's a factual list. Period.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 01:47 PM

But those billionaires earned the right of ownership of those billions. Drug Kingpins have not. If law enforcement was anywhere near adept, their wealth would be stripped.
This argument just isn't relevant to why they should or should not be included in the list.

Noir

03-13-2009, 01:48 PM

This argument just isn't relevant to why they should or should not be included in the list.

Because they're not legally entitled to the wealth they possess. That very much is the relevance.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 01:56 PM

Because they're not legally entitled to the wealth they possess. That very much is the relevance.
Are you sure about that?

Are you sure that he doesn't actually have a billion dollars that he is legally entitled to?

I don't know the answer to that, but my assumption is that if he was included in the list, the figure associated with him is the acual amount of money he DOES have legal entitlement to, not just some random figure of how much worth of drugs he has or whatever.

Noir

03-13-2009, 02:15 PM

Are you sure about that?

Are you sure that he doesn't actually have a billion dollars that he is legally entitled to?

Of course I'm not sure. I am neither an associate of the "El Chapo" nor am I Mexican and am aware of their local society. But the President of Mexico and Mexico's Attorney General sure are.

ajax

03-13-2009, 04:04 PM

Uh, no he doesn't.

How not? Last time I checked, drug dealing is a business which involves many transactions and profit, losses and so on.

chun

03-13-2009, 05:00 PM

How not? Last time I checked, drug dealing is a business which involves many transactions and profit, losses and so on.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/chrishorgen/Funnay/facepalm.jpg

Maybe listen to a little less T.I., a little less Ricky Ross there guy.

chun

03-13-2009, 05:06 PM

It's fucking ridiculous how closed minded you are about this being a BUSINESS magazine.

Just because it's a BUSINESS magazine doesn't mean every single freaking detail in all of its articles need to be 100% business related.

They must have made a mistake on their website because they have dedicated sections for stuff like health, sports, style, and food.

And I GUARANTEE you many of the articles are not actually business articles.

You and most others who are making a big deal out of this seem to be under this false impression that being included in the list is a special honour or accolade, or that each person was hand-picked by Forbes.

Uh, yeah they have other sections to their magazine. However, the "Billionaires" portion is under BUSINESS. I'm sure you know that already since you've browsed the site so much, so I don't really know why you're bringing in the "lifestyles" section of the site on it.

And no, it's not a big deal, honour or accolade. It IS publicity however, AND a bad influence to be publishing drug traffickers as "successful businessmen".

Aggressive much? Are you always this insulting to everyone, or do you have a special agenda with me? I didn't know we had any beef.

The examples you provided aren't counter examples at all.

Forbes published a list of the world's billionaires.

It is not a list of the world's businessmen billionaires.

What part of that do you not understand?

The list is a factual document. If you're a billionaire, you get included in the list. If you're not a billionaire, you're not included in the list. It does not MATTER how the money was obtained for the sake of being included in the list.

What if someone on the list just inherited the a billion dollars? He was never a businessman himself. He never earned any of it. Shoud he also not be on the list?

You're the one who's ignorant and closed minded.
Yep, I've got a special agenda for online keyboard warriors. How did you guess?

How was my example not relevant? Why are drug lords not on the front page of money.cnn.com? Some organizations make much more than some of the small fry corporations out there, especially nowadays. Yet, like I said, I don't see Hell's Angel's, MS-13, or whatever else gang on the front of the finance section in the paper.

Inheriting is legal. Drug trafficking is not.
(I actually deconstruct your crappy examples instead of just saying "NO ITS NOT TRUE!")

You'd better start writing editorials in to the Vancouver Sun telling them that they're missing out on some crazy business going down on the street corners at 4am then...

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 05:29 PM

Uh, yeah they have other sections to their magazine. However, the "Billionaires" portion is under BUSINESS. I'm sure you know that already since you've browsed the site so much, so I don't really know why you're bringing in the "lifestyles" section of the site on it.
So does that mean every single detail in every article under the business section have to be 100% related to "legitimate business"? The article is under business because it relates to money. It's about how much money certain individuals have. It does not discuss how these individuals obtained the money.

And no, it's not a big deal, honour or accolade. It IS publicity however, AND a bad influence to be publishing drug traffickers as "successful businessmen".
Who said anything about successful businessmen? Nowhere in the article does it describe those listed as businessmen. They are described as "people" or "billionaires". Is that drug guy a person and a billionaire? Yes.

Once again, it is just a FACT. Can you get that through your thick skulled head? Sure, you can consider it "publicity", but it's not like he's being featured, is he? He is just one out of hundreds of names there. Bad influence? Yeah, I'm sure all the little kids reading Forbes is going to be a bad-ass drug dealer instead of the hundreds of successful business people also on that list. Give me a break.

Yep, I've got a special agenda for online keyboard warriors. How did you guess?
You're the one being the biggest keyboard warrior, guy.

How was my example not relevant? Why are drug lords not on the front page of money.cnn.com?
Is this guy featured on the front page of Forbes? No. He is just one of hundreds of names on a LIST for an article about who the world's billionaires are.[/quote]

Inheriting is legal. Drug trafficking is not.
(I actually deconstruct your crappy examples instead of just saying "NO ITS NOT TRUE!")
WHO THE FUCK CARES. Do you see any qualification rules that says any person included in the list must have made all of their money through legitimate business?

NO.

THE LIST INCLUDES ALL OF THE WORLD'S BILLIONAIRES.

Is that guy a billionaire?

Yes.

END OF DISCUSSION.

ZhangFei

03-13-2009, 05:32 PM

how about the rothschilds?

where are THEY on the list?

chun

03-13-2009, 07:23 PM

WHO THE FUCK CARES.

NO.

THE LIST INCLUDES ALL OF THE WORLD'S BILLIONAIRES.

Is that guy a billionaire?

Yes.

END OF DISCUSSION.

lol, anger much?

trollguy

03-13-2009, 07:32 PM

get a room ladies

chun

03-13-2009, 08:09 PM

care to join us?

Meowjin

03-13-2009, 08:31 PM

Yes. In the 1980s, Pablo Escobar headed up the Medellin Cartel in Colombia and was ranked 3rd richest man in the world.

jesus. I just posted 2 post's up that it was 7.

Nightwalker

03-13-2009, 10:32 PM

Because they're not legally entitled to the wealth they possess. That very much is the relevance.

They are until they're convicted.

InvisibleSoul

03-13-2009, 10:37 PM

lol, anger much?

LoL, nope.

And that's the only retort you have left? LoL, okay.

97ITR

03-14-2009, 08:42 AM

This is the same guy that had like 200 million USD stacked on a pallet that was confiscated by the authorities. The pictures circulated the net a while back.

welfare

03-14-2009, 10:03 AM

Ludepower

03-14-2009, 12:08 PM

what a silly argument.
wealth and immorality go together like peanut butter and jelly.
i'm sure a good number of the people on that list committed some form of unscrupulous act to get where they are. some more elusive than others. in the big picture, what's the difference? you don't get on that list by helping others

Agreed...this billionaire drug dealer is no different then the other billionaires commiting white collar crimes.

He's ranked 700 on the list...I bet you half of the 699 on the list has attain their wealth by illegal means.

These jealous haters trying to discredit El Chapo achievements are naive in believing the rich and politicans are good people.

welfare

03-14-2009, 01:04 PM

well, i did use the word immoral rather than illegal. as time passes, and wealth amasses, those two words grow further and further apart

ajax

03-14-2009, 07:19 PM

Maybe listen to a little less T.I., a little less Ricky Ross there guy.

You dont have to listen to shitty rap music to know that its a business. What else is it? Selling lemonade? This man made possibly a BILLION from his business. Within what he does, there are many risks and its amazing to see that he's still alive with that much money made. HA's, I.S. and all them are not in the business page of the newspaper because they're small time compared to this guy. Many of them make millions, but we're talking billions here.

Noir

03-15-2009, 03:11 PM

Once again, it is just a FACT. Can you get that through your thick skulled head? Sure, you can consider it "publicity", but it's not like he's being featured, is he? He is just one out of hundreds of names there. Bad influence? Yeah, I'm sure all the little kids reading Forbes is going to be a bad-ass drug dealer instead of the hundreds of successful business people also on that list. Give me a break.

I don't think that's Chun's point. Making the list is a matter of misappropriation of recognition.

Are you saying a win is a win regardless of how it's achieved? MLB is having the same kind of dilemma (regarding steroid use).

They are until they're convicted.

Only in RS eh? :rolleyes:

That's right. Let the inadequacies of law compromise your given intellect and sound-judgement. If any. I mean, it's not like I'm taking the word of hear-say reputation here, it's just the words of people of stature such as the President of Mexico or it's Attorney General

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 03:23 PM

I don't think that's Chun's point. Making the list is a matter of misappropriation of recognition.

Are you saying a win is a win regardless of how it's achieved? MLB is having the same kind of dilemma (regarding steroid use).
Does the MLB have a rule saying that steroid is banned? Yes.

Does Forbes list have a rule saying that the money had to have been made legitimately? No.

But again, that's not exactly a very good counter example.

twitchyzero

03-15-2009, 03:26 PM

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 03:31 PM

When you think of Fobres..

drug dealing doesnt come to mind.

It should come as a surprise..and personally i dont think illegit stuff should be included into Forbes list.

EIther way someone else brought up a good point, it's not like drug dealers publically annouced their earnings and claim their business and file taxes, therefore how are we ever gonna know how much they actually made.

I'd assume it's just an rough estimation
It is just another name on a list of hundreds of names. It's only these people who KNOW he's a drug dealer to begin with that's causing the ruckus. It's not like Forbes mentions in the article anywhere that his fortune was made from dealing drugs.

I'm assuming it is NOT a rough estimation. My guess is that he may have made most of his money through drug dealing, but the reported amount of his net worth is based on the amount of money that he has either washed or otherwise made legitimately WITH the money that the got through drug dealing.

Noir

03-15-2009, 03:32 PM

Does the MLB have a rule saying that steroid is banned? Yes.

Does Forbes list have a rule saying that the money had to have been made legitimately? No.

No, but I'm sure the Criminal Code of America (Forbes Mag.) and Mexico (El Chapo) has a rule regarding narcotic trafficking.

But again, that's not exactly a very good counter example.

I could very much say your counter example was not a very good one either.

BoneThug

03-15-2009, 03:51 PM

Agreed...this billionaire drug dealer is no different then the other billionaires commiting white collar crimes.

is this sarcasm? the difference is if one guy leaves his house he might get asked for his autograph and the other might go to jail. that is a big difference.

03-15-2009, 04:00 PM

is this sarcasm? the difference is if one guy leaves his house he might get asked for his autograph and the other might go to jail. that is a big difference.

i am pretty sure if u committed a white collar crime, u wont expect to go outside and get asked for autograph

Noir

03-15-2009, 04:04 PM

i am pretty sure if u committed a white collar crime, u wont expect to go outside and get asked for autograph

Depends of what kind of "white collar" crimes.

Are we talking about corporations that push the letter of the law to maximize tax returns or write offs?

Or are we saying that most Fortune 500 companies are all scammers of Enron proportions?

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 04:11 PM

No, but I'm sure the Criminal Code of America (Forbes Mag.) and Mexico (El Chapo) has a rule regarding narcotic trafficking.
And this has to do with publishing a name on a list of the world's billionaires how?

I could very much say your counter example was not a very good one either.
I didn't provide a counter example. I provided a response to your example.

I can't believe you two can't get what I've said several times now.

The list is inclusive of all of the world's billionaires.

Is that guy a billionaire?

If the answer is yes, THAT IS ALL THE QUALIFICATION that's required.

There are no IFs or BUTs to being included or excluded from the list.

BoneThug

03-15-2009, 04:12 PM

i am pretty sure if u committed a white collar crime, u wont expect to go outside and get asked for autograph

being suspected of committing a white collar crime and being known as a huge drug lord are also to very large and different distinctions.

Noir

03-15-2009, 04:17 PM

There are no IFs or BUTs to being included or excluded from the list.

And why not when the legitimacy of the wealth is in question?

Alphamale

03-15-2009, 04:19 PM

being suspected of committing a white collar crime and being known as a huge drug lord are also to very large and different distinctions.

..and at the same time, they shouldn't be.

Don't kid yourself. The crimes of a white collar are very similar if not equivalent to the crimes a drug lord carries out.

Sure people don't die, but if you think about it, I'm sure a lot of people would rather die than to lose their job @ 40 or 50 and have no future prospects with 4 kids and a wife at home that still depend on them.

Oh, who's responsible for this "war on crime/drugs"...oh I dunno..the GOVERNMENT. Durrrr.

Edit: I see your play on words there. Suspect vs known. What's the difference? Time, really. If everyone knows that he's a drug lord..etc all that junk, why doesn't someone just sweep in and take him down?

CanadaGoose

03-15-2009, 04:21 PM

But those billionaires earned the right of ownership of those billions. Drug Kingpins have not. If law enforcement was anywhere near adept, their wealth would be stripped.

One could argue, if anything, 'Drug Kingpins' have earned more of a right to ownership, because they can count law enforcement, corruption, and the constant possibility of death as obstacles. Do you really think being in that kind of business, on that kind of scale, is just a matter of buying and selling and making easy money? Wakey wakey, that is not how it works

I don't see how Forbes has any way of confirming numbers with business's that don't file taxes, and have no way of officially declaring earnings though... it loses all credibility by including those types of businesses imo. Probably just an advertising gimmick, I mean we are all talking about Forbes now.

antonito

03-15-2009, 04:26 PM

being suspected of committing a white collar crime and being known as a huge drug lord are also to very large and different distinctions.

Yeah, one ruins the lives of thousands of innocent people.

The other is the drug lord

:haha:

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 04:27 PM

antonito

03-15-2009, 04:29 PM

And why not when the legitimacy of the wealth is in question?

Using the Bill Gates example a little more, at one point there was the possibility that he could lose his money if he had gotten nailed by the anti-trust suits. And yet they listed him anyways, because he was in possession of the money at the time.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 04:30 PM

And why not when the legitimacy of the wealth is in question?
Because this list isn't called "The list of the world's billionaires with money made legitimately".

Noir

03-15-2009, 06:12 PM

Because this list isn't called "The list of the world's billionaires with money made legitimately".

You're just arguing pure semantics now. Making the list is all about recognition.

Using the Bill Gates example a little more, at one point there was the possibility that he could lose his money if he had gotten nailed by the anti-trust suits. And yet they listed him anyways, because he was in possession of the money at the time.

But the heart of Gate's industry is still computers and was guilty of trying to monopolize the industry. A guy who's worst capability is buying out the opposing company or shares, termination of employment or lawsuits.

Drug Kingpins however :rolleyes:

If that industry does deserve recognition, then I'll just leave it that I'm glad my criterias differ than the rest

chun

03-15-2009, 06:20 PM

You want a counter example?

Here's mine.

What if we were talking about a list of the world's tallest men ever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_woman#Tallest_male

Many of these men had glandular disorders that increased their growth hormones. Should they be excluded from the list because they didn't grow to their height normally?

You're saying his counter example was irrelevant, and you retort by comparing human growth (which isn't really under anyones control) with peoples' means of attaining wealth (completely under peoples control)?

This is why I stopped responding.

chun

03-15-2009, 06:27 PM

You dont have to listen to shitty rap music to know that its a business. What else is it? Selling lemonade? This man made possibly a BILLION from his business. Within what he does, there are many risks and its amazing to see that he's still alive with that much money made. HA's, I.S. and all them are not in the business page of the newspaper because they're small time compared to this guy. Many of them make millions, but we're talking billions here.

Yes, it's business ACTIVITIES, but can you call it a legitimate business? I don't really care for how risky it is, or what adversities he had to overcome to become the biggest drug lord in the region. What I do care for, however, is that when I pick up a Forbes, I know that I'm reading content that is legitimate to what a "business magazine" is supposed to offer -- not advertising drug pushing would probably be a start. And yes, I think Forbes has an obligation to be publishing LEGITIMATE business considering what kind of print they are supposed to be.

Just tell me why HA's and I.S. are not on the business section of our LOCAL newspaper if you're talking about big time/small time. The point is, they won't be, because it's not a legitimate business. Same goes for any other print that considers itself to be trustworthy.

trollguy

03-15-2009, 06:35 PM

care to join us?

yes

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 06:51 PM

You're just arguing pure semantics now. Making the list is all about recognition.
Not it isn't. You might get recognition from being on it, but the list is all about FACT.

It's a FACT that the guy is a billionaire.

That's all there is to it.

Why is that so hard to understand?

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 06:53 PM

You're saying his counter example was irrelevant, and you retort by comparing human growth (which isn't really under anyones control) with peoples' means of attaining wealth (completely under peoples control)?
Why is it important whether it's under someone's control or not? Yes, that could be a difference between my example and the billionaire list, but you haven't explained why that is a factor.

So what if the example was the world's largest biceps? I bet some on the list would have used steroids to achieve it.

Would they be excluded from that list?

ajax

03-15-2009, 07:01 PM

This is a list of people who are rich as fuck, this man is in fact rich as fuck. It's as simple as that.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 07:06 PM

What I do care for, however, is that when I pick up a Forbes, I know that I'm reading content that is legitimate to what a "business magazine" is supposed to offer
Here, you'd be reading about a list of the world's billionaires.

So you would rather them publish incomplete lists that omit certain elements for arbitrary reasons?

not advertising drug pushing would probably be a start.
Nowhere in the article was there any mention of drugs or anything to do with that guy except for his NAME. You call that advertising drug pushing? That's quite the stretch there. Can you tell me that you know the full business activities of each and every single one of the hundreds of people listed there? No? Then maybe you should research them to find out if there should be any other names that should be excluded. Why is this person in particular such a concern for you?

And yes, I think Forbes has an obligation to be publishing LEGITIMATE business considering what kind of print they are supposed to be.
They have an obligation to publish unbiased factual information. Making a list of the world's billionaires and excluding an individual because of HOW he made his money would put the magazine into serious doubts of credibility.

So here's another counter example.

What if there was a list of the world's longest bridges, and one of the bridges was built using drug money?

Should that bridge be disqualified from such a list?

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 07:06 PM

This is a list of people who are rich as fuck, this man is in fact rich as fuck. It's as simple as that.
EXACTLY.

How fucking hard is it to understand this?

chun

03-15-2009, 07:17 PM

Why is it important whether it's under someone's control or not? Yes, that could be a difference between my example and the billionaire list, but you haven't explained why that is a factor.

So what if the example was the world's largest biceps? I bet some on the list would have used steroids to achieve it.

Would they be excluded from that list?

If it was published by a bodybuilding magazine, yes, it would be.

Backfire much?

chun

03-15-2009, 07:20 PM

Here, you'd be reading about a list of the world's billionaires.

So you would rather them publish incomplete lists that omit certain elements for arbitrary reasons?

Nowhere in the article was there any mention of drugs or anything to do with that guy except for his NAME. You call that advertising drug pushing? That's quite the stretch there. Can you tell me that you know the full business activities of each and every single one of the hundreds of people listed there? No? Then maybe you should research them to find out if there should be any other names that should be excluded. Why is this person in particular such a concern for you?

They have an obligation to publish unbiased factual information. Making a list of the world's billionaires and excluding an individual because of HOW he made his money would put the magazine into serious doubts of credibility.
What's quite a stretch is how you're justifying how they're publishing "facts", denying the fact that they're publicizing a drug pusher, and the fact that you deny that you're arguing semantics.

chun

03-15-2009, 07:30 PM

EXACTLY.

How fucking hard is it to understand this?

Things aren't black and white; you guys aren't even looking at WHO posted the "facts" as it's pretty important if you're going to make a point that it's "correct".

It's okay, you both are obviously not going to start taking to account other factors in this debate so there's not really any point to continue. As you were, ladies.

:thumbsup:

Noir

03-15-2009, 07:47 PM

the list is all about FACT.

It's a FACT that the guy is a billionaire.

That's all there is to it.

Why is that so hard to understand?

No it's not. But you've already made the point for opposition which is as follows.

Here, you'd be reading about a list of the world's billionaires.

So you would rather them publish incomplete lists that omit certain elements for arbitrary reasons?

Yes. Because Forbes is a magazine for legitimate business.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 07:49 PM

If it was published by a bodybuilding magazine, yes, it would be.

Backfire much?
Nope, don't think so.

And you think the bodybuilding magazine can guarantee that everyone on the list they published has never ever taken steroids?

Can Forbes guarantee that every dollar earned by the hundreds of people they listed were made legitimately? What if one guy earned one dollar illegally? How about one thousand dollars? One million dollars? At what point should he be excluded from the list?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to verify this information, and as such, you can and SHOULD NOT exclude certain people because of it.

You don't even KNOW where the billion dollars listed for this drug guy was made from. For all you know, maybe most of it was made legitimately, despite the fact he's a drug dealer.

Jason00S2000

03-15-2009, 07:51 PM

Yes. Because Forbes is a magazine for legitimate business.

:rolleyes:

Does not matter in my opinion.

Just the fact that he is on that list goes to show just how absolutely laughable our views on drugs are.

Drugs must be legalized, regulated, and taxes from it used to treat addicts like any other disease.

Drug addicts don't all use drugs for fun, they use it to escape from shitty lives that they can't fix on their own.

Noir

03-15-2009, 07:51 PM

And you think the bodybuilding magazine can guarantee that everyone on the list they published has never ever taken steroids?

Nope. But they wouldn't knowingly endorse a guy who abuses it.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 07:52 PM

What's quite a stretch is how you're justifying how they're publishing "facts", denying the fact that they're publicizing a drug pusher, and the fact that you deny that you're arguing semantics.
What's idiotic is that you claim they're "publicizing" a drug pusher just by including his name on a list.

And why is the term "facts" in quotations? A fact is a fact. He is a billionaire. Therefore he should be included in a list of billionaires.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 07:55 PM

Things aren't black and white; you guys aren't even looking at WHO posted the "facts" as it's pretty important if you're going to make a point that it's "correct".
Is this an opinion or fact? I think it's the former.

I think if they're going to publish a list such as this, it is MUCH more important to be complete and unbiased... and CORRECT.

They can NOT say it is a complete list of the world's billionaires if they do not include him.

It's okay, you both are obviously not going to start taking to account other factors in this debate so there's not really any point to continue. As you were, ladies.

:thumbsup:
I see how you conveniently glossed over and omitted my example of the bridge.

As you were, logically challenged. :thumbsup:

antonito

03-15-2009, 08:04 PM

Nope. But they wouldn't knowingly endorse a guy who abuses it.

:haha::haha::haha:

Yes they would, and yes they do

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 08:50 PM

Things aren't black and white; you guys aren't even looking at WHO posted the "facts" as it's pretty important if you're going to make a point that it's "correct"
Let's take this one step further.

You guys are arguing that because this is a business magazine, it should only include those that made their fortune through legitimate business.

I think this is no different than if this same list of billionaires were to be published in a pro-life magazine (money is pretty universal, and such a list could be included anywhere), and that there is someone there who is known to be pro-choice, they should remove him from the list.

After all, a pro-life magazine shouldn't "endorse" or "publicize" someone who is pro-choice.

Is that correct?

That is some pretty shitty biased publishing you guys would be doing, and I think the publication would lose huge credibility for being a reliable source of information.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 09:03 PM

Oh, by the way, one of your arguments is completely invalid.

This list and accompanying articles aren't even IN the business section of Forbes.

It's in the LIST section of Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/worlds-richest-people-billionaires-2009-billionaires_land.html

See the tab that's highlighted? LISTS, not BUSINESS.

So does any of your argument change because of this? "But, but, but..."

Are you going to say "But it's still a legitimate business magazine so only legitimate business should be covered."

But then what you said when I brought up there are sections for STYLE, FOOD, SPORTS, etc. just became invalid.

So what's it going to be?

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 09:06 PM

Oh, what do you know... they actually did do a feature article on just him.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0330/102-cocaine-king.html

Oh noes... a criminal with his own article on a legitimate business magazine website. :willnill:

In 2008 Mexican and Colombian traffickers laundered between $18 billion and $39 billion in proceeds from wholesale shipments to the U.S., according to the U.S. government. Guzmán and his operation likely grossed 20% of that--enough for him to have pocketed $1 billion over his career and earn a spot on the billionaires list for the first time.
So as I suspected, the listed $1 billion fortune he has is the amount that has been washed or that he otherwise DOES have legal rights to.

ajax

03-15-2009, 09:37 PM

He is also at #701. The number of people who would have noticed him would have been very minimal had the Mexican government not made a fuss about it.

InvisibleSoul

03-15-2009, 10:16 PM

He is also at #701. The number of people who would have noticed him would have been very minimal had the Mexican government not made a fuss about it.
Yeah, I made that point earlier too... but that was before they put the whole article up on him, or at least before I knew about it...

BoneThug

03-16-2009, 04:33 PM

Edit: I see your play on words there. Suspect vs known. What's the difference? Time, really. If everyone knows that he's a drug lord..etc all that junk, why doesn't someone just sweep in and take him down?

like you said, you see what im talking about so i wont argue it further. as to why doesnt someone do something about a drug lord...im pretty sure mexico is trying its hardest. so did columbia, and they've been at it for how long? its not exactly easy to take down an org with that much money.