- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,197
- Reaction score
- 27,492
Looks like @Cubo de Sangre really doused you with that salt...
???
Looks like @Cubo de Sangre really doused you with that salt...
Looks like @Cubo de Sangre really doused you with that salt...
Was I the only guy who mentioned weed in this thread?
I think so? Nothing wrong with your hobbies being on your mind though.
My "hobby" is a national issue and states I don't live in are using common sense in defiance of federal law. Legalization is hardly an obscure notion that me and a couple kooks are peddling.
Maybe though I'm misunderstanding how bringing this multi-billion dollar industry out of the dark hurts the economy. Sure seems like it helped Colorado when they pulled in so much in taxation that had to issue refunds.
Right with you. When I mentioned "hobby" that wasn't meant to demean its significance as an issue.
I know. Just taking the opportunity to point out it's one of the biggest ongoing stories of the decade and a historical grassroots movement. Bringing it up is hardly written off as a personal interest. Now if I said something about facilitating the firearms industry then that would be different. Lots of articles on the net speculating how a legalization boom would effect economics.
As an economics student, I'm curious what my fellow sherdoggers would do to fix the current economy if they were placed in a "benevolent dictator" type of position. What would your top priority (don't say "jobs") be for getting the economy back on track?
Responses need not be in-depth, just clear enough to encourage discussion.
Here's mine. I'm kind of into urban/labor econ, so my policies revolve around what economists in these fields generally support. By no means is this supposed to be exhaustive:
1) Decouple healthcare and labor markets (there is a lot to unpack here, and it doesn't necessarily mean a single-payer system).
2) Modest minimum wage increases in major cities, generous expansion of EITC (alternatively wage subsidies, direct cash transfers could be used)
3) Encourage mixed-use development in major cities, discourage driving to reasonable extents (either through gas taxes, toll roads); couple with public transit where population density is high enough
4) Open the US to trade, but as this is done, implement worker retraining programs so that people are able to continue supporting themselves
Anyway, apologies for disappearing for a bit there. Finals were kicking my butt (calculus 2 brutalized me).
With that in mind, I'm not of the solution, like many people, to legalize and tax/regulate though. I'm just of the opinion to legalize.
What does the capitalist class do with profits?
They buy up everything around them.
The argument here is that the production base is static?
What?
The resources they're buying up in the market now... is there just a set amount of those?
I dont know.
My "hobby" is a national issue and states I don't live in are using common sense in defiance of federal law. Legalization is hardly an obscure notion that me and a couple kooks are peddling.
Maybe though I'm misunderstanding how bringing this multi-billion dollar industry out of the dark hurts the economy. Sure seems like it helped Colorado when they pulled in so much in taxation that had to issue refunds.
Well frankly you're the only one that's been asking the questions mate, and I've already been answering them. Also the peer review has nowhere near the weight in macro as it does in the hard sciences. It's a simple constraint of only having one sample size in econ, no control, and no other experimental group.
Also you're conflating some of what I wrote. The stagnation of the 70s was the result of shitty monetary policy, and yes. Volker's rate hikes were extraordinarily important. In fact, the reality of stagflation should have put a nail in the coffin of the Keynesian theory.
Gross speculation in modern cycles (post CB est.) to the extent we've seen are a product of the monetary policy, not the initial cause. The distortions speculation can promote, affect an over reaction by monetary policy, because the price of credit wasn't initially allowed to be discovered in the first place.
Now just to cross our "t's", absent that occlusion of appropriate price discovery (central banks fixing the interest rate arbitrarily), you'll still have speculation that can produce misallocations. The difference is that they're not as pervasive or significant (i.e. the depression of 1921).
We see deflationary pressure during recessions because the prices were raised during the boom. The recession is when any given bid-up sector can't find anymore buyers to continue the price increase, thus the bubble pops as people exit and prices fall.
The idea that demand is simply a consequence of supply is a foundational principle within classical economics. And the Laffer curve is a touchstone of supply siders.
It seems like you're trying to make the acceptance of supply-side economic theory among "real" economists equivalent to the level of respect shown creationism among biologists. And I think that's a huge distortion.