Talk:Proposition Joe

Untitled
This page has a mistake about Joe's season 4 exploits, where Omar steals the Co-Op's drug shipment and sells it back to Joe. If it was sold back to Joe at 20% of the original value, this is a steep discount, the correct value is 120%, and Joe sells it for 130% in order to make a profit. I edited it once, but someone reverted it and it's incorrect. So I'm going to keep editing it until someone looks at the discussion page and can understand that less than 100 percent of value is a discount, and more than 100 percent is a mark-up. 67.181.212.109 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in and say that I forgot to sign in on the preceding edits, whoops. LoganRage (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference between a mark-up and a discount. I think Omar is forced to sell the drugs at a discount of their original cost. Proposition Joe can just buy more narcotics from The Greek's at the same cost as their original value to replace what was stolen. In order for Omar's proposition to be viable the price has to be lower than the alternative of replacing the shipment with The Greeks so he must offer a discount on the value. Everything Omar nets is profit anyway because he stole the narcotics. Does this make any sense?--Opark 77 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would make sense if Omar had done the theft to benefit Joe, but because the term Omar uses is "20 cents on the dollar" and not "20 cents of the dollar" then it's a 120 percent mark-up, which Prop Joe turns around and sells to the co-op for 30 cents on the dollar, which is 130 percent. And Joe wouldn't have been able to just buy more drugs, that was the re-up for every dealer in the co-op, meaning that their supply would have long run out before getting another shipment, putting Joe at a serious disadvantage in the situation with Omar, which allows Omar to make the money that sends him into retirement.  It's either 120 percent and 130 percent, or mention that he buys the drugs back for 20 cents on the dollar, which implies at a steep markup, and that he sells it to the co-op for 30 cents on the dollar, which is an even steeper mark up. LoganRage (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The theft by Omar itself in no way benefits Joe - even if the drugs are sold back at a discounted rate Joe is making a loss on the theft because he has already paid The Greeks' for them once. Joe spins it to his advantage somewhat by lying about the cost of buying back the drugs to the other co-op members. Of course the article might not be correct about Joe netting a profit - if his share of the shipment is less than 1/3 he will profit, if it is 1/3 he breaks even by duping the other co-op members and if it is more than 1/3 he still makes a loss overall. I will re-watch the episode to clarify but I recall Joe mentioning an actual figure that did not seem to imply paying 120% of the cost of multiple kilos at $75000 a kilo.--Opark 77 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that the theft doesn't benefit Joe, in fact that's what I said. Either way, I'm about 95 percent sure that the exact words from Omar were "20 cents on the dollar" and then from Joe, "30 cents on the dollar.  He had to buy the entire shipment from Omar again, and to recoup the money he lost in doing that, he marked the price up for the rest of the co-op. LoganRage (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Waiting a few months then editing the passage back?  Quite simply, the series of events went in this order.  Co-op orders drugs, Omar steals shipment, co-op is upset, Joe buys it back (at a markup due to his disadvantage with Omar) with the Co-op's money (he told them it was 30 cents on the dollar, which implies more than the dollar amount that Omar offered).  I think instead of using the percent (which would be imprecise and not equivalent), we should just stick to what was actually said, which is the 20 cents on the dollar and 30 cents on the dollar.--LoganRage (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Note that it was a different editor who changed the figures back - I did not wait months and then alter anything.--Opark 77 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually glad it wasn't you, I'll fully admit how frustrated I was at seeing it back the way it was before, and for that frustration in my previous message I apologize.LoganRage (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the 20 cents on the dollar issue was kind of sorted out, but this phrase in the current article still shows a lack of full understanding: "... effectively negating his out-of-pocket loss." First, since the coop agreed that Joe was not solely responsible for the loss of the shipment, the entire coop had an (effective) out-of pocket loss, and Joe had some undisclosed share of that. Secondly, Joe charged the cooop 30 cents on the dollar, netting a profit on that particular transaction of 10 cents on the dollar, but it was still unclear whether that made up for the original loss (so, at the very least, the sentence in question should be struck). Thirdly, if there is any remaining doubt as to whether the original "20 cents on the dollar" meant 20 percent vs. 120 percent, a re-watch of the episode will hopefully make clear that Omar was willing to take a significant loss on the transaction because he would be unable to unload that much heroin in his lifetime, and 120 percent is not a loss. Michael.Urban (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, how would Omar have any loss on product that he stole in the first place? Just a funny idea to me.  Overall though, I do agree that the mark-up is relative, and in no way negates his original loss.  He had to buy the same shipment twice, even at a steep discount (from Omar), he's still out of pocket that same amount.  That he marked that price up to the co-op is irrelevant, as he's still out of pocket.  A more truthful statement and end to that sentence is: "...allowing Joe to recoup some of his losses from the theft."  Perhaps that could be an amicable and final end to this. LoganRage (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should anybody still be in doubt - "cents on the dollar" effectively means the same as percentage i.e. 20 would be 20% and not 120%. It's a normal way of referring to payments UNDER full value, such as settlements of a bankrupt's debts. The same expression is used in negotiations over stolen goods in series 2 78.53.228.171 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be some disagreement about who tricked Omar into shooting the bow tie from NYC. Was it Prop Joe or Stringer Bell? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.197.33 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was Stringer, it was one of the things that got him into trouble with Avon outside of the whole D'Angelo thing. Stringer crossed Avon by getting Omar to shoot Mouzone.LoganRage (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is stated that Prop Joe, Poot and Wee-Bay are the only 3 members of the drug trade to appear in all 5 seasons. Why is Omar not included? or for that matter, drug Attorney Levy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.21.181 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points.. those two weren't directly involved in the dealing, so maybe that has to do with it. The statement should probably be removed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Stewart"
This is a fictional character biography, not a police report. When was he ever referred to as "Stewart" on the show? It was almost always "Joe" or "Prop Joe" or "Proposition Joe". I'm changing all references to "Stewart" into "Joe". MultipleTom (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)