Talk:Underground economy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-
- Black market was merged here, there is outdated discussion at Talk:Black market
[edit] Please edit the paragraph about copyright goods
Why does it say "In third world countries, particularly the United States of America, where copyright laws are loosely enforced....?? It is true street vendors sell bootlegs on street corners in large cities in the USA, but to imply that the USA is third world and also to imply that copyright laws are not enforced in the USA is far from the truth. Perhaps the laws of intellectual property/copyrights are enforced more so in the USA than in any other country. Please review and edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.110.36 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Offensive
I find the term "black market" offensive and believe it should be changed to "African American market".
- Seconded. --Anonman 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Black in Black market has noting to do with skin colour, Black is seedy, dark shadowy, you wouldnt expect to buy weapons from a yellow or sparkly coloured market. 212.50.191.54 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
in the black market we also sell roby pots hw papers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.127.26 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Term
I submit that it is not illegal to "avoid" lawful taxes but is illegal to "evade" lawful taxes. Suggest clarification of wording in article. 0201Reader 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)0201Reader
-
- Good point. Changes made. Famspear 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with The Black Economy
The Black Economy has a lot of redundant content. I propose we merge and redirect it here. Any objections? --Selket Talk 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Zero objections sir! Tazmaniacs
- Yeah, go ahead & merge them. Kendanielone 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for assessment
I noticed the post in the Economics WikiProjects for re-assessment. I think this is really close to a B-class as it has a good amount of information. Things that held it back for me... Refs. You need more references and use the same format on all of them. There is a mix of footnote and embedded hyperlink - go with the footnote format - see (WP:FOOT). Consider using the Citation templates which will format and link them. Review WP:GTL and WP:HEAD - Things are out of order and could be titled better (article title is in headers...). See if there are any WikiMedia sister projects that discuss the underground economy and add the appropriate tag. Would be nice to have some numbers about the size of these markets from countries around the world. Maybe something like... Economists estimate the underground economy in the United States to be between one and three trillion dollars annually.[1][2][3] Clean up the lead - it seems too large for this article and should provide a good summary. The entire bit from the Clearstream scandal down should probably be in a sub-section and not in the lead but for summary (see WP:LEAD). I'd probably merge the talk from the Black Market as appose to providing a link (create an archive off of this article and put it in there). I'll copyedit when I have a chance. Morphh (talk) 14:42, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] comment
Seriously, how is the link to www.blackmarketdata.com not relavent to the content of Underground economy? You have other links that provide less of a service than this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmarketdata (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 May 2007. — Blackmarketdata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- moved preceding comment from top to bottom of talk page -Angelbo Talk / Contribs 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Underground Market Price
I removed the follow from the "Underground Market Price" section.
"Alternatively, the government could attempt to decrease demand. However, this is economically out of fashion and not as simple a process as decreasing supply.
The term "Underground Market" also applies to illegal monetary exchange outside the authorized institutes (Banks or Legal Exchange Offices)."
The first is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the topic.
The second doesn't apply to this section in particular, someone can move to a more appropriate one if they wish. Harley peters 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spiv
It is not very useful having links from the word 'Spiv' which just redirect to this page. The origin and use of the word Spiv is itself interesting. Chemical Engineer 05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree with you, "spiv" should have its own article. Spivs were a notable aspect of British society during the rationing years after the second world war. There was a recent BBC programme about this, I think it was a BBC4 programme. LDHan 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Total estimate of shadow economy?
I'd like to see good estimates of the degree to which the total underground economy has grown plus predictions for further growth. Brian Pearson 13:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are cites in the FairTax article giving estimates at $3 trillion. If somebody has the time, I think it would improve the article. Brian Pearson 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs serious work.
This article in general is low-quality, uncited, original research, and pushes a libertarian/sympathetic viewpoint. Additionally, no less than 10 out of 11 external references refer to "smoke-easies" or bars and establishments that flout smoking bans, which is at best very tenuously related to the topic of the article. This is ridiculous. NTK (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please tag the parts that are POV? --Explodicle (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving a comment, in italics below, about the article that was embedded in the "edit" page to this page so we can all best discuss it. My comments are below:
-
- Sorry, but this is scarcely intelligable; for example, category three: how is that (seemingly) anti-welfare State claim(?) related to Underground Economy? The fact that the section title does not use lower case, is indicative that this was added by an inexperienced editor. Remember: aim at readability and accessibility for the average reader. Try to avoid obscure and otherwise eclectic exposition. Aim at lucid prose that clearly establishes relationship with the topic
My take: I'm for keeping the categories, although they need not be under their own heading. The categories are referenced to a well known, respected institution and the particular publication been widely cited in academia. Given the article has been tagged for a dearth of references, I'd say let's keep the good ones. As for the "anti-welfare state claim", in the US, persons accepting transfer payments such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families must meet income and other guidelines. Accepting aboveboard, paid employment can render one ineligible for government assistance, thus many recepients supplement their income in the underground economy. This phenomenon was widely cited in 1980's and early 1990's welfare studies (see, for instance, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1071 and still applies to some extent today, although the welfare reform act of 1996 changed things. SONORAMA (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I too find it rather libertarian. Personally I am a libertarian, but I think the section on "Appearance and Disappearance" particlarly biased-- this is covered by the linked article to drug liberalization; pro points should not be made here (or indeed anti points). Similarly the "--justifiably--" in the first sentence of the article is POV-- I think-- I suppose is justifiable but not sure a NPOV would agree with the justification.
- I will make some minor clean-up to grammar etc; I am UK english so have to tread warily altering the English but some really threw me. SimonTrew (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Remove example
- In other cases, illegal transportation providers have effected change in mainstream transportation. For example, "Chinatown" bus companies, which introduced low-cost bus or van service between major American cities without using existing bus terminals, have thrived while traditional bus companies declined. Many Chinatown bus companies are now operate legitimately, although without the high capital costs of maintaining public bus terminals.
But was this illegal?
Roadrunner (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Etymology
Is it worth adding a section on how/where the terms originate? Why is it the "black market" or the "underground market" as apposed to, say, "private market" or similar... -- ratarsed (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More reasons for prece differences
"Alternatively, illegally supplied goods may be more expensive than normal prices, as the product in question is..." scarce? Could you please add that? --190.135.36.211 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Clearstream
Suggest delete this section, I don't see how it warrants being put on a general topic discussion. SimonTrew (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Cash in Hand
Why does Cash in Hand redirect here? I've always understood Cash in Hand to mean payment for employment via cash rather than electronic means. 115.69.13.166 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it means (at least in the UK) payment without accounting to taxes and other deductions that the employer is supposed to make- the employment is "off the books". This generally implies that the work is done by someone not why receives no employment right. Strictly it is not illegal, since if the worker then goes on to declare the earnings etc it is all perfectly legal (they are simply a self-employed sole trader) but in practice of course that rarely happens. The employment is thus untraced and well falls within the topic "Underground Economy".
- People who receive their money in cash but are "on the books", that would not be described as being "cash in hand". The actual medium of payment is irrelevant-- an electronic transfer, or payment in kind, would still be described as "cash in hand".
[edit] List of cities?
Someone has added a list of 55 (now 57) "locations identified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as epicenters of illegal activity". Whoa. This screams out for a citation, where is it? Furthermore, I've been to many of the cities on this list and find them to be peaceful, attractive places - not denizens of criminality. If the US ICE actually puts out such as list, what is it really rating? Criminal activity? Unreported economic activity? Epicenters of economic crimes? Or what? Unless someone can produce a legitimate citation source and fix up the definition, I'll delete the entire list by the end of this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Organ Trade?
Isn't there a big black market for organs? --MosheA (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
How came poeple do drugs and go to jail if you say that smoking it is not illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.71.237 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Endangered wildlife?
This article has a glaring flaw in that it does not mention at all any illegal trade in bushmeat, animal parts, or skins, or the illegal pet trade, or illegal logging, all of which are enormous black market industries today. --APV8837 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
