PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

Politics and propaganda mix like marijuana and margaritas.

And, it seems, libertarians know when they’re wrong, but that won’t stop them.

******

“…legalize, tax and regulate marijuana…”

That’s right, addicting people to taxes and regulations is better than imposing them.

******

Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth the Costs
CNBC
20 Apr 2010

“State governments are exploring convenient fixes for overcoming massive debts burdening their states… some legislators are proposing the legalization of marijuana to boost tax revenue.

…findings from a white paper by the California Police Chiefs Association’s Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries: California legalized “medical” marijuana in 1996, and dispensaries where the drug is handed out – to pretty much whoever comes in with a doctor’s note – have become catalysts for serious crime.

According to the white paper, dispensary operators have been attacked, robbed and murdered. Also, “drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries” are all criminal byproducts resulting from California’s medical marijuana distribution. We can expect similar problems—but on a far grander scale—from full legalization.”

******

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement (NOBLE)
September 2, 2010

“…the movement in California as outlined in Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana is not in line with NOBLE’s mission, history or stance on drugs in our communities.

As an organization, NOBLE does not support the legalization of marijuana. The true social and community impact that this type of legislation will have is speculative, however, history has shown that the impact of similar actions can be devastating.”

“NOBLE has and continues to be concerned about disparities in sentencing and treatment in the criminal justice system, however, this legislation will not eradicate that issue.”

NOBLE joins a growing list of law enforcement organizations legal professionals who recognize the flaws in the measure and the harmful effects it will have on California and are opposed to Proposition 19, including: the California Police Chiefs’ Association, the California Narcotic Officers’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the California District Attorney Investigators’ Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County, as well as 40 County sheriffs, 32 police chiefs and 31 district attorneys.

Other groups opposed to the initiative include: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Association of California School Administrators, the League of California Cities, the California State Firefighters’ Association, Californians for a Drug-Free Youth, Crime Victims United, gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, Attorney General candidates Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris, and many more.”

******

Morganovich, actually, your entire statement has been proven false. You can have liberty and justice with laws, and good sense, particularly with drug laws. Lawbreakers aren’t innocent and drug laws saved society trillions of dollars in social costs. Legalizing drugs won’t eliminate the black market and “perverse incentives.” Furthermore, there’s a positive correlation between drug use and crime. Your statement represents much of the pro-legalization propaganda.

******

Morganovich, obviously, you’re in complete denial. I answered your question about 20 times before, in 20 different ways.

For example, the millions of irresponsible drug users you want to create will spoil it for the millions of responsible drug users you want to create.

And, I stated before, unlike drugs, guns tend to prevent crime.

You have no economic, legal, or moral basis in your statements. It’s all political.

For example, you imply anyone against drug legalization is a racist, and yet you want to pour gasoline on the fires in poor black neighborhoods.

You need to get your head out of the sand or look beyond the pot smoke.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/u-s-conference-of-mayors-tells-feds-to-respect-local-weed-laws-and-urges-obama-to-stop-medical-marijuana-crackdown/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

Che is dead, what a surprise! Hollywood approves of drugs!

I heard the second feature is Michael Moore’s new documentary: “Marijuana, Munchies, and Me: How to be a Successful Untalented Fat Slob.”

******

"John Stossel: 100 things I hate about government"

There’s one thing I hate about biased and shallow reporters. Well, two things

******

We can close some prisons if we spend more on education (just to combat the active pro-legalization propaganda) and rehabilitation.

******

Driving 70 MPH on the sidewalk in a school zone with lots of children around can be a victimless crime too.

As someone here said before, people shouldn’t be thrown in jail for what they might do, right?

What about tax evasion or selling a nuclear weapon?

******

So, if you own your house, in a housing tract, you can burn it down as long as there are no victims.

As long as you own the nuclear weapon and don’t harm anyone, why can’t you be allowed to buy them?

******

Vangel says: “No, you can’t because you will ruin the views for neighbours and will lower the value of their homes. It is the same thing as deciding to let garbage pile up on your front lawn.”

Exactly.

Nicolas says: “Anyone who believes that smoking marijuana is tantamount to holding nuclear weapons needs no cannabinoids to transport him to Haight land.”

So, what’s your point? Should we throw people in jail for what they might do, including owning nuclear weapons?

******

“The Obama administration closed more state-legal medical marijuana providers in one term than the Bush administration closed in two terms.”

Marijuana may be mushrooming.

******

PeakTrader:

Paul Krugman makes an interesting case how a combination of efficiency and regulation led to lower wages and weaker demand:

Profits Without Production
June 20, 2013

“Economies do change over time, and sometimes in fundamental ways.

“…the growing importance of monopoly rents: profits that don’t represent returns on investment, but instead reflect the value of market dominance.

…consider the differences between the iconic companies of two different eras: General Motors in the 1950s and 1960s, and Apple today.

G.M. in its heyday had a lot of market power. Nonetheless, the company’s value came largely from its productive capacity: it owned hundreds of factories and employed around 1 percent of the total nonfarm work force.

Apple, by contrast…employs less than 0.05 percent of our workers. To some extent, that’s because it has outsourced almost all its production overseas. But the truth is that the Chinese aren’t making that much money from Apple sales either. To a large extent, the price you pay for an iWhatever is disconnected from the cost of producing the gadget. Apple simply charges what the traffic will bear, and given the strength of its market position, the traffic will bear a lot.

…the economy is affected…when profits increasingly reflect market power rather than production.

Since around 2000, the big story has been one of a sharp shift in the distribution of income away from wages in general, and toward profits. But here’s the puzzle: Since profits are high while borrowing costs are low, why aren’t we seeing a boom in business investment?

Well, there’s no puzzle here if rising profits reflect rents, not returns on investment. A monopolist can, after all, be highly profitable yet see no good reason to expand its productive capacity.

And Apple again provides a case in point: It is hugely profitable, yet it’s sitting on a giant pile of cash, which it evidently sees no need to reinvest in its business.

Or to put it differently, rising monopoly rents can and arguably have had the effect of simultaneously depressing both wages and the perceived return on investment.

If household income and hence household spending is held down because labor gets an ever-smaller share of national income, while corporations, despite soaring profits, have little incentive to invest, you have a recipe for persistently depressed demand. I don’t think this is the only reason our recovery has been so weak — but it’s probably a contributory factor.”

******

Krugman’s point is there’s a disconnect between U.S. consumption and production, unlike the 1950s and 1960s.

When less capital and labor are needed for production, there’s less income for consumption.

Capital is saved, because less can be invested in capital equipment, labor, wages, etc., compared to the 1950s and 1960s.

******

Of course, efficiency in production frees-up (limited) resources, to expand the economy. However, too much of those resources, e.g. capital and labor, are idle, rather than employed.

---

Ron:

“When less capital and labor are needed for production, there’s less income for consumption.”

Which means prices of goods can be lower so that less income can provide the same level of consumption.

“Capital is saved, because less can be invested in capital equipment, labor, wages, etc., compared to the 1950s and 1960s.”

Which means our standard of living is higher than it was in the ’50s and ’60s.

---

PeakTrader:

Firms like Apple have market power.

So, they raise profits rather than reduce prices.

Underproduction slows rising living standards.

---

PeakTrader:

If Americans knew what they pay for regulations, e.g. through lower wages and higher prices, they wouldn’t buy that much.

I’m sure, the vast majority of Americans would buy less than half of the $2 trillion a year in federal regulations, along with less state regulations, because of ridiculously expensive opportunity costs.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/federal-regulations-have-lowered-gdp-growth-by-2-per-year/#comments

---

PeakTrader:

"Carbon Pollution"

What's polluting carbon?

---

PeakTrader:

The reality is U.S. Information-Age firms not only lead the world in both revenues and profits, since 2000, they together lead the rest of the world combined.

Many of them are monopolies or oligopolies, or have market power, to raise profits rather than reduce prices.

There’s no reason for them to employ idle resources, e.g. capital and labor, to expand production and raise consumption, because that would reduce profits.

The dominance of U.S. Information Revolution firms, along with U.S. overregulation, which makes it harder for businesses to start-up or expand, caused a disconnect between U.S. consumption and production.

******

The Cost Of Apple’s High Price, High Margin Strategy
Forbes
5/06/2013

“There is of course a cost to Apple‘s high price and high margin strategy: it sells fewer phones than it would if they were cheaper. This is not a revelation of course. But where it all becomes more complex is when we discuss profits: and making profit is of course the name of the business game.

Profit is what it’s all about, not volume. The thing is though, when the iPhone first came out Apple had a great deal more market power than it does now. Yet it’s still, to some extent, using the structures and tactics it was when it had that greater market power. It’s possible, but only possible not certain, that relaxing some of those conditions could increase Apple’s sales and thus profits.”

******

Austrian economics isn’t mainstream economics. It shouldn’t go beyond the 10% it’s right about.

And, Peter Schiff is a broken clock:

12 Ways Schiff Was Wrong in 2008

•Wrong about hyperinflation
•Wrong about the dollar
•Wrong about commodities except for gold
•Wrong about foreign currencies except for the Yen
•Wrong about foreign equities
•Wrong in timing
•Wrong in risk management
•Wrong in buy and hold thesis
•Wrong on decoupling
•Wrong on China
•Wrong on US treasuries
•Wrong on interest rates, both foreign and domestic

******

No, what I mean is Austrian economics should focus on the 10% it’s right about and discard the other 90%, which is a big pile of trash. It shouldn’t even go there, to subjects like the minimum wage, drug laws, natural gas exports, etc..

And Peter Schiff predicted the S&P 500 would fall to 500 when a new cyclical bull market was underway, and also predicted a housing crash many years too early.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/06/environmentalists-liberals-and-former-economist-krugman-routinely-advocate-policies-that-uniformly-hurt-poor-people/comment-page-1/#comment-292740

---

“Supporters of the Drug War unwittingly endorse censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and persecution of dissenters.”

Why not call them communists too?:

Controlled Substances Act of 1970

Passed U.S. House 392-16
Passed U.S. Senate 97-2

“Every President since Nixon supported it…Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors… Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss…Clinton, Bush and Obama continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs.”

---

More Comments:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/ludwig-von-mises-supporters-of-the-drug-war-unwittingly-endorse-censorship-inquisition-religious-intolerance-and-persecution-of-dissenters/#comments

---