How would Sherdog fix the economy?

[Jack V Savage]

So you just like the idea for intrinsic value, not because you can point to any positive economical impact?

Is there an idea you've supported that you can quantify the impact of?

The question is how to fix the economy. One area where I think you can say it is broken is that it does a terrible job distributing income to children (and non-workers generally). About a fifth of American children in any given year are in poverty. So that's something I'd fix, and I wouldn't expect it to lead to GDP growth (except possible in the very long term in the form of a more-productive workforce as fewer kids grow up in poverty--also could lead to higher workforce participation).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The question is how to fix the economy. One area where I think you can say it is broken is that it does a terrible job distributing income to children (and non-workers generally). About a fifth of American children in any given year are in poverty. So that's something I'd fix, and I wouldn't expect it to lead to GDP growth (except possible in the very long term in the form of a more-productive workforce as fewer kids grow up in poverty--also could lead to higher workforce participation).

So you're not concerned with growing any industries and your focus is on redistributing what's already there? Ok. Clearly I'm thinking less about government control and more about empowering the marketplace.

Interestingly, a similar benefit (albeit much smaller) can be gained from abandoning the prohibition model. At least in Colorado they are putting some of the sin tax towards schools. I'm highly in favor of that and it enriches children even though it's not cash in their pockets. Also, probably some of the people who get locked up have kids. Not pulling parents from homes is of economic benefit to the child. It'll probably help adults too, presuming people are correct when they say a criminal record hurts your job prospects.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you're not concerned with growing any industries and your focus is on redistributing what's already there? Ok.

I don't see how one precludes the other. I also supported more gov't investment in R&D and improved infrastructure, though the benefits there would be broad. But generally, the economy is in pretty good shape at the moment, and the possible short-term gains for overall growth from gov't policy are minimal.

Clearly I'm thinking less about government control and more about empowering the marketplace.

Gov't control? WTF?

Interestingly, a similar benefit (albeit much smaller) can be gained from abandoning the prohibition model. At least in Colorado they are putting some of the sin tax towards schools. I'm highly in favor of that and it enriches children even though it's not cash in their pockets. Also, probably some of the people who get locked up have kids. Not pulling parents from homes is of economic benefit to the child. It'll probably help adults too, presuming people are correct when they say a criminal record hurts your job prospects.

The tax changes are minimal. If we want more funding for schools, we can always redirect current spending in that area or raise taxes. And sure on the last point. There are 15 million American children in poverty, though. How many people are behind bars for petty drug crimes?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't see how one precludes the other. I also supported more gov't investment in R&D and improved infrastructure, though the benefits there would be broad. But generally, the economy is in pretty good shape at the moment, and the possible short-term gains for overall growth from gov't policy are minimal.



Gov't control? WTF?



The tax changes are minimal. If we want more funding for schools, we can always redirect current spending in that area or raise taxes. And sure on the last point. There are 15 million American children in poverty, though. How many people are behind bars for petty drug crimes?

R&D of what? Glad we agree on infrastructure.

Is it that hard for you to discern the difference between public and private? Who is controlling the money given to the kiddies if it's not the government? Even these other two things you support are government funded (i.e. controlled). You should worry less about debating the word choice and just focus on what's clearly the concept I'm touching on.

Redirect spending from where? Are we wasting it somewhere (other than marijuana prohibition)? Why raise existing taxes as opposed to increasing receipts via emerging industry?

I'm sorry I don't have one magic bullet that makes whatever impact you feel sufficient. I do know that regardless of your dismissals there are plenty of people reaping benefits on the community level.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/26/marijuana-sales-tax-revenue-huge-boon-for-colorado-cities/

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You might like the idea of legalizing marijuana, but it is completely irrelevant to this thread. Just funny how people think that whatever their personal hobbyhorses are are what's needed to help the economy.

How is opening up a mult-billion dollar industry coast-to-coast irrelevant to a thread asking us to spitball ideas that would help the economy?

Yeah, I thought the point was pretty obvious. And "commerce" in a general sense certainly relates to the economy. Does the legal status of a very small industry relate to the economy?

Lots of small industries are unrelated to a discussion on "fixing" the economy. What's the total marijuana market? Around $15B annually, right? The total economy in the U.S. is around $18,000B. If you think that full legalization would double the size of the market (which, hint, it wouldn't come close to doing), that means it would add 0.08% (if we unrealistically assume that it's a pure value add rather than just a shifting of entertainment dollars). We can't even estimate the size reliably enough to measure an impact that small, and again, that's making wildly implausible estimates. There's no way a reasonable person would expect to see any measurable effect on the economy from full, national legalization of marijuana. Again, you might like it for other reasons, but that's a different discussion.

Its small now because it was illegal for 95% of the population as recently as 11/8.
Colorado saw a $2.9B boost to its economy and created 18,000 jobs due to the legalization of MJ.
Washington saw $70M in tax revenue and is expecting $1B in the next 4 years.
And if its $15B annually and its only legal in 5% of the country (prior to 11/8).... then obviously has a ton of potential.

I find it odd that you would shit on this idea when you are pro-TPP, which wouldn't have had any effect on our economy at all.
Its also odd that a guy who touts full-employment as a positive indicator of our health economy but shit on an industry that could potentially create 360,000+ jobs.

And lol @ pretending that you or @kpt018 (not a dig @kpt018) ended child poverty or boosted the economy with a single generalized sentence. I bet it would be nice to have that tax revenue to help rebuild our infrastructure, help w/ childhood poverty, forgive student loan debt, etc.
Your arrogance is rivaled only by your pettiness.

 

[Jack V Savage]

R&D of what? Glad we agree on infrastructure.

I'm more broadly for supporting R&D (both through the tax code and directly). Clean energy is the most obvious industry that could use it.

Is it that hard for you to discern the difference between public and private?

The difference is actually much more complicated than you appear to realize.

Who is controlling the money given to the kiddies if it's not the government?

See, what you don't appreciate is that the gov't is directing resources away from families at the moment. All income that goes to capital owners is directed away from workers by the gov't. Or it might be more accurate to say that there's no baseline--whatever distribution system we have, as long as we're not communists, is gov't directed.

Even these other two things you support are government funded (i.e. controlled). You should worry less about debating the word choice and just focus on what's clearly the concept I'm touching on.

I am focusing on the concept. Your authoritarianism is infecting your argument style.

Redirect spending from where? Are we wasting it somewhere (other than marijuana prohibition)? Why raise existing taxes as opposed to increasing receipts via emerging industry?

From places that are not marijuana to marijuana. Really?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm more broadly for supporting R&D (both through the tax code and directly). Clean energy is the most obvious industry that could use it.

From places that are not marijuana to marijuana. Really?

Clean energy was something I forgot to add to my initial list. Just like self-driving vehicles, clean energy will be revolutionary. Not sure why you would consider one important/useful/relevant but not the other.

Not understanding your last sentence here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How is opening up a mult-billion dollar industry coast-to-coast irrelevant to a thread asking us to spitball ideas that would help the economy?

The other guy failed miserably, but maybe you can explain how this would have any noticeable economic impact.

Again, it just looks like someone pushing a hobbyhorse in an unrelated discussion. Like if Blackened said that the way to "fix" the economy was to exile Muslims, IDL said the way was to fix the economy was to do something about the grand chessboard, or RIPwarrior said segregation was the key.

I find it odd that you would shit on this idea when you are pro-TPP, which wouldn't have had any effect on our economy at all.

Wait, I'm pro-TPP now? And did I bring up the TPP here? I obviously don't think that one should never discuss non-economic subjects; I just think it's odd to bring them up in a thread about ideas to improve the economy.

Its also odd that a guy who touts full-employment as a positive indicator of our health economy but shit on an industry that could potentially create 360,000+ jobs.

Not sure what your thought process is there. Full employment means that if you add new job openings, you don't add new jobs (could put upward pressure on wages or it could cause the Fed to raise interest rates). And I don't "shit on" any industries. I "shit on" the idea that national marijuana legalization would have any impact on the economy.

And lol @ pretending that you or @kpt018 (not a dig @kpt018) ended child poverty or boosted the economy with a single generalized sentence.

I pretend what now? You realize that the plan is not actually in place, right? We could eliminate child poverty but we have to actually do it to make it happen.

I bet it would be nice to have that tax revenue to help rebuild our infrastructure, help w/ childhood poverty, forgive student loan debt, etc.
Your arrogance is rivaled only by your pettiness.

I don't support forgiving student-loan debt. Infrastructure builds, if timed properly, could more than pay for themselves. And it wouldn't require a big tax increase to eliminate child poverty. I'm not sure where you see any arrogance or pettiness (WTF?). I guess disagreeing with Anung is arrogance? How dare I.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Creating jobs leads to actual full employment which leads to an increase in wages which leads to more spending and taxes.
Taxing the industry itself leads to more revenue.
Legalizing a currently illegal (mostly) industry frees up local and federal spending on policing this industry. Any money loosened up by that can be repurposed to a bigger idea.

I bring up TPP because you are pro-TPP. Free Trade is promoted as a job creator/ economy booster. TPP has been shown to not do that, or marginally at best. But you supported it and you shit on this idea as a means to help the economy. And you shit on it for no reason other than you're a petty human being.

Funny that you don't support forgiving student debt. That debt has a negative effect on the economy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Creating jobs leads to actual full employment which leads to an increase in wages which leads to more spending and taxes.
Taxing the industry itself leads to more revenue.
Legalizing a currently illegal (mostly) industry frees up local and federal spending on policing this industry. Any money loosened up by that can be repurposed to a bigger idea.

I bring up TPP because you are pro-TPP. Free Trade is promoted as a job creator/ economy booster. TPP has been shown to not do that, or marginally at best. But you supported it and you shit on this idea as a means to help the economy. And you shit on it for no reason other than you're a petty human being.

Funny that you don't support forgiving student debt. That debt has a negative effect on the economy.

Did you also read him say that my idea to facilitate self-driving tech was stupid but that he's for R&D for clean energy? Coupled with his complaint that some unspecified amount of dollars needs to be involved to be a needle mover, how does helping clean energy make more sense than driverless tech when (near as I can tell) the automotive industry is more than double the size in America.

As for weed, who knows how big it will get. It's growth potential is enormous and the economic impact far-reaching beyond just agriculture. There will be a ton or research driving science and medicine investments. Manufacturing of paraphernalia (like pens) is rapidly advancing in sophistication. Tons of opportunity for small business as well as big business. It may not put us all on easy street, but if bringing this all out of the dark and allowing it to expand isn't worth it then how much shit really is?

EDIT: Is $200 billion a needle-mover?

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nathan...200-billion-global-market-135-trillion-thanks

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Did you also read him say that my idea to facilitate self-driving tech was stupid but that he's for R&D for clean energy? Coupled with his complaint that some unspecified amount of dollars needs to be involved to be a needle mover, how does helping clean energy make more sense than driverless tech when (near as I can tell) the automotive industry is more than double the size in America.

As for weed, who knows how big it will get. It's growth potential is enormous and the economic impact far-reaching beyond just agriculture. There will be a ton or research driving science and medicine investments. Manufacturing of paraphernalia (like pens) is rapidly advancing in sophistication. Tons of opportunity for small business as well as big business. It may not put us all on easy street, but if bringing this all out of the dark and allowing it to expand isn't worth it then how much shit really is?

EDIT: Is $200 billion a needle-mover?

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nathan...200-billion-global-market-135-trillion-thanks

His overall position is rubbish and he knows it.
This is a guy who poses as some kind of economist and fails to recognized that there are layers to an economy. It would be one thing if he said, "I was thinking on a bigger scale policy wise defined as $x to $xx over x years, but that is a valid proposal. How do you see it fitting into the grand scheme; show me some numbers", but that would require social skills.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Fwiw, I think the impact of legalizing MJ certainly fits into any discussion about policy changes that might improve the economy. I'm waiting for fully legalized cannabis to be traded like pork bellies ("which are used to make bacon, which you might find on a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich").

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

His overall position is rubbish and he knows it.
This is a guy who poses as some kind of economist and fails to recognized that there are layers to an economy. It would be one thing if he said, "I was thinking on a bigger scale policy wise defined as $x to $xx over x years, but that is a valid proposal. How do you see it fitting into the grand scheme; show me some numbers", but that would require social skills.

You're right about the pettiness. He saw my critique of Pan in the awards thread and is trying to feed the narrative of Pan's rebuttal. Pan tries to distract from substance by calling me emotional so Jack is trying to fuel that narrative. He also, tip-toed around me asking for a $ amount to his "threshold" of significance. He was trying to bait me into looking like what Pan tried to sell, which was that I'm really getting answers, just not the answer I wanted to hear. In this case the only answer I wanted to hear, after Jack broke shit down into a % based on an 18 trillion economy, was what % meets this standard of measure-ability he refereed to. The guy introduces the concept, says my idea isn't good enough, then refuses to offer up a number that suffices. Not even a range. Nothing.

It's a shame he's so insecure that he has to posture this hard.

 

[Jack V Savage]

His overall position is rubbish and he knows it.

My overall position is correct, and I demonstrated that pretty clearly, which is why you two have decided to retreat into gossip mode.

You're right about the pettiness. He saw my critique of Pan in the awards thread and is trying to feed the narrative of Pan's rebuttal. Pan tries to distract from substance by calling me emotional so Jack is trying to fuel that narrative.

This is actually crazy. I didn't think of your "critique" of Pan in any other thread when I noted your emotional reaction. It's funny how it doesn't occur to you that multiple people would comment on how emotional you get when your positions are challenged because ... you get super emotional when your positions are challenged. Must be a conspiracy.

He also, tip-toed around me asking for a $ amount to his "threshold" of significance.

I confronted it directly (something you girls don't seem to be able to do) by saying it was a dumb request.

Fwiw, I think the impact of legalizing MJ certainly fits into any discussion about policy changes that might improve the economy. I'm waiting for fully legalized cannabis to be traded like pork bellies ("which are used to make bacon, which you might find on a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich").

How? The only argument I can see is that it makes Anung and Cubo mad if anyone disagrees. Did you see my breakdown of the numbers?

Creating jobs leads to actual full employment which leads to an increase in wages which leads to more spending and taxes.

Doesn't work that way. Full employment is full employment. If we're pushing past that limit (not that anything you've proposed would do that), it just drives prices up and doesn't help real wages.

Taxing the industry itself leads to more revenue.

Taxing the industry leads to less activity which leads to slower economic growth. Remember to think in terms of value rather than money.

I bring up TPP because you are pro-TPP.

You bring up the TPP even though I haven't mentioned in the thread because you're trying to troll me by falsely attributing a position to me--your usual tactic when you have no argument.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

yeah, i'm not reading that, sorry.

 

[Jack V Savage]

yeah, i'm not reading that, sorry.

You're lying, but I didn't expect an intelligent response from you, so no worries.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You're lying, but I didn't expect an intelligent response from you, so no worries.

I read this one. Glad you're still using your same meaningless catch phrase insults. Inspiring.

 

[sickc0d3r]

How? The only argument I can see is that it makes Anung and Cubo mad if anyone disagrees. Did you see my breakdown of the numbers?

In my simple mind, MJ is very much like tobacco and alcohol and could have a similar footprint on the economy, which would be substantial. And unlike those other recreational drugs there are substantial medical benefits to be leveraged.

In CO we saw $1 billion in sales and 18k new jobs in 2015, which I think would be enough draw immediate attention to any fledgling industry.

But, I am mostly interested in its impact on the failed drug war. Legalization potentially ends that abortion of a policy and could end up being a real game changer culturally and economically.

Is it the invention of internet? No. But it's a worthy topic in this thread.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

yeah, i'm not reading that, sorry.

Arguing every point is a good sign someone is being purposely difficult. Posts like that and ones that start with "meh" or hard for me to read.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is it the invention of internet? No. But it's a worthy topic in this thread.

But a smug asshole stock analyst disagrees with you. Surely you're just emotional over the topic and not thinking clearly.