Comment on Makes sense
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoWhat’s hilarious is you constantly arguing against a point that was never made. To think the existence of pirate cities completely removes any need to launder money is both hilarious and pathetic of you.
Dasus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’ve never explained any need for any “money laundering”.
It’s as if you’re arguing that because roads were muddy in the 1600’s, there had to have been car washing places. Equally silly.
If there was even a whiff of piracy about you, you could be hanged. So you’d probably avoid living in places that would do that to pirates. You have to launder your entire life, not just your money. And then that would mean you couldn’t have your pirate life.
So no, pirates didn’t “launder money.” Hell, bank notes didn’t even exist. Weirdly the fall of piracy coincides with the rise of large colonial powers with central banks. What a weird coincidink, huh? Except it’s not. There’s heavy causation, as bank notes — unlike gold or silver or wares — would be practically worthless to pirates.
However, money laundering as a concept as such is from the 1920s or thereabouts. You know how Al Capone going to prison for tax fraud was a big thing at the time? They couldn’t catch him on anything, so they caught him on taxes. And specific anti-money laundering legislation didn’t arrive until like the 80’s,
You’re just simply pushing a notion you have to historic frameworks that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Do explain to me, what would they “launder” their “money” for, and how? Give me specifics, please. (This is rhetorical, because you’re full of bullshit and those reasons don’t exist you silly monkey.)