How would Sherdog fix the economy?

[Prutfis]

I didn't expect a moron like you to understand

 

[Greoric]

Which is why we are so much better of than you? Actually have a solid middle class and worker rights Americans can only dream of? You are a clueless idiot but I should have expected that from someone to fucking dumb to grasp the political spectrum

Not. An. Argument.

By the way, you can't legislate into existence a higher standard of living dummy. You only get that through under-consumption, capex, and by consequence productivity. Arbitrarily adding in vacations doesn't contribute.

I am wondering when you'll discover you're opining on a subject way outside your depth to actually discuss intelligently though.

 

[Prutfis]

Not. An. Argument.

By the way, you can't legislate into existence a higher standard of living dummy. You only get that through under-consumption, capex, and by consequence productivity. Arbitrarily adding in vacations doesn't contribute.

I am wondering when you'll discover you're opining on a subject way outside your depth to actually discuss intelligently though.

Wtf are you on about? Of course quality of life can be improved through legislation. And everyone has 6 weeks paid vacation here. Even McDonald scrubs like you.
Well also have much better social mobility.
Read up on that spectrum yet dumbass?

 

[Taco Loco]

I would raise minimum wage to $5.00 an hour and do away with food stamps.

TacoLocoBless!

 

[Greoric]

Well also have much better social mobility.
Read up on that spectrum yet dumbass?

You keep regurgitating "dumbass", "moron", and "idiot". But you're not making any arguments per usual.

Just tell me this, if mandatory paid vacations and MW laws benefit economic growth could you apply those same laws in a place like Africa and expect an increase in growth?

Or would you starve off half the continent, because you're a twat that doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about, or where wealth actually comes from?

 

[Prutfis]

You keep regurgitating "dumbass", "moron", and "idiot". But you're not making any arguments per usual.

Just tell me this, if mandatory paid vacations and MW laws benefit economic growth could you apply those same laws in a place like Africa and expect an increase in growth?

Or would you starve off half the continent, because you're a twat that doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about, or where wealth actually comes from?

You really have a simplistic world view don't you.

 

[Greoric]

You really have a simplistic world view don't you.

Just answer the question. Apply those same labor laws in a place like Africa. Assuming they're enforceable, what happens? Are they better off or not? Why?

 

[Prutfis]

Just answer the question. Apply those same labor laws in a place like Africa. Assuming they're enforceable, what happens? Are they better off or not? Why?

Are labor laws the only part of the equation dumbass

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll just reiterate it here. Supply-side economics refers to a set of prescriptions, relevant at a particular time when policy advocates were trying to figure out solution to a particular problem our economy was facing. It is (was) by no means a research paradigm, which is something totally separate from a set of prescriptions advocated for by a particular group of people. Look up RBCT, New Keynesianism, Market Monetarists...even heterodox schools of thought like MMT or Marxians. You know the difference between a particular school of thought versus the policies someone keen to one of those perspectives might advocate for, yeah?

I'm not trying to deny that economists have used their authority as economists to advocate for shitty policies. As an old-school social democrat, some of the most prominent macroeconomsits (Friedman, Prescott, Mankiw) have fucking awful politics! However, there is a difference between saying "I agree with Mankiw on all of his politics" and "I believe the IS-LM model is useful for XYZ".

It's funny you brought up the Laffer curve, though. Most economists I know think we can raise taxes and be totally fine, it just isn't a political reality.

I understand your position now. Thanks for taking the time to further explain it. Sorry about the miscommunication on my end.

 

[RockstarChris]

We will fix the economy by doing what the liberals wanted. Take all of the money from the wealthy elite aka hollywood celebrities and redistribute it to me. Oh I forgot....the hollywood liberals only wanted to redistribute MY wealth. Not theirs.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You might like the idea of legalizing marijuana, but it is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Go ahead and articulate why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Go ahead and articulate why.

The question of the thread is how would Sherdog (posters) fix the economy. Marijuana legalization is unrelated to that issue, as there's no plausible impact on the economy from it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The question of the thread is how would Sherdog (posters) fix the economy. Marijuana legalization is unrelated to that issue, as there's no plausible impact on the economy from it.

I'm a Sherdog poster and commerce relates to the economy. All you've really done is repeat yourself here. Unless there's some distinction between "irrelevant" and "no plausible impact"? What other billion dollar industries are unrelated to the economy?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm a Sherdog poster and commerce relates to the economy. All you've really done is repeat yourself here.

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?

Unless there's some distinction between "irrelevant" and "no plausible impact"? What other billion dollar industries are unrelated 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.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

There you go!

What's the threshold to qualify as impactful for the purposes of the thread, and what ideas have been presented so far that meet it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-to-expand-to-50-billion-by-2026-analysts-say

The legal cannabis industry in the U.S. may grow to $50 billion in the next decade, expanding to more than eight times its current size, as lawful pot purveyors gain new customers and win over users from the illicit market, according to a new report.

Then there's redirecting this estimated $8 billion annual prohibition costs towards something useful/productive.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

 

[Jack V Savage]

There you go!

What's the threshold to qualify as impactful for the purposes of the thread, and what ideas have been presented so far that meet it?

If there's no plausible mechanism for the change you support to be large enough to even be measured (either in terms of growth or distribution), it's not relevant to a discussion on economic fixes.

@kpt018 suggested something that could completely eliminate child poverty--wouldn't have a noticeable impact on growth, but that means a lot in terms of distribution. My suggestions would have significant long-run effects on growth, most likely. Some nut wanted *higher* interest rates, which I suppose makes sense if he thinks that what needs fixing is that the economy is growing too fast.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/cannabis-industry-to-expand-to-50-billion-by-2026-analysts-say

Then there's redirecting this estimated $8 billion annual prohibition costs towards something useful/productive.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

I don't put a ton of faith in those kinds of predictions, but even if so, I'm not seeing how it matters. Again, the economy is currently $18,000B annually, and it will be even bigger by then. And you don't show how a change in the legal status of the industry is supposed to do anything for anyone economically. $8B is nothing to the U.S. economy. We can raise taxes by a quarter on every hundred dollars collected to raise that.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If there's no plausible mechanism for the change you support to be large enough to even be measured (either in terms of growth or distribution), it's not relevant to a discussion on economic fixes.

@kpt018 suggested something that could completely eliminate child poverty--wouldn't have a noticeable impact on growth, but that means a lot in terms of distribution. My suggestions would have significant long-run effects on growth, most likely. Some nut wanted *higher* interest rates, which I suppose makes sense if he thinks that what needs fixing is that the economy is growing too fast.

So you can't say what the actual suggestions are and no emerging industries would reach the impact threshold (that you're failing to pinpoint)? Strange you didn't criticize the self-driving technology idea, unless that's making money and creating jobs hand over fist and I'm unaware?

Looks impactful to me in places that are progressing the industry.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/10/26/colorado-marijuana-economic-impact-billion-2015/66105/

Colorado’s burgeoning legal marijuana industry has quickly made gains on the state’s largest industries — including the mighty oil-and-gas sector — and contributed an economic impact of $2.39 billion in 2015, according to research released Tuesday.

The cannabis industry, the fastest-growing business sector in the state, also is credited with funding 18,005 direct and ancillary full-time jobs in 2015, according to the report from the Marijuana Policy Group, a Denver-based economic and market research firm that consults with businesses and governments on marijuana policy.

Applying the marijuana impact model to Colorado, it was found that each dollar spent on retail marijuana generates $2.40 in state output. This compares favorably with general retail trade, which yields $1.88 per dollar. The more traditional (and sometimes subsidized) mining sector generates $1.79 per dollar. General manufacturing generates $1.94 per dollar, and casinos generate just $1.73 per dollar of spending.

he nearly $700 million in marijuana sales in 2014 were greater than those of Colorado’s gold ore mining industry. If comparing the nearly $1 billion in 2015 marijuana sales to 2014 economic data — the most recent data available to MPG for these sectors — cannabis’ would leapfrog above that of bakeries, multifamily residential construction and performing arts and sports venues, and sit at half the size of the oil and gas industry’s $1.9 billion sales in 2014, according to MPG.

“If it’s done right, this industry can be economically beneficial to a state or a community,” Orens said.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you can't say what the actual suggestions are and no emerging industries would reach the impact threshold (that you're failing to pinpoint)? Strange you didn't criticize the self-driving technology idea, unless that's making money and creating jobs hand over fist and I'm unaware?

Weird that you say that given my response.

And, yeah, the self-driving technology idea was bad too. As a kind of stand-in for "investing more in technology," though, it's better. My comment wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of all bad ideas in the thread. I was just commenting on how the thread went south--with standard nuttery and people just pushing their usual hobbyhorses.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Weird that you say that given my response.

And, yeah, the self-driving technology idea was bad too. As a kind of stand-in for "investing more in technology," though, it's better. My comment wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of all bad ideas in the thread. I was just commenting on how the thread went south--with standard nuttery and people just pushing their usual hobbyhorses.

1. What's your threshold for economic impact that makes something relevant to the thread? A simple dollar amount is fine.
2. Which exact ideas have been presented that reach that threshold?

 

[Blackened]

Are labor laws the only part of the equation dumbass

You are avoiding his argument entirely.