Found these conversations rather interesting, thought I'd post them for all to read.
Person #1 -
"Everyone by now should know that our current war on drugs makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s." — Ron Paul, Liberty Defined
Corey Wright -
Best book ever. Here's a good little addendum to that point:
Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal
http://breakthematrix.com/health/ten-years-decriminalization-drug-abuse-portugal/ #1 -
Haha it was his status for his web page today (although I do have the book and it's amazing)... And I think a perfectly relevant topic, could you imagine the tax money we'd rake in from weed alone?!
Corey Wright
Mehhh, I'd rather they just cut back to '02-'03 and beyond spending levels than rely on taxing drugs (I'm sure that's not what you were saying though, haha). It'd be a better play (definitely economically, probably not politically) for the...m to just sell off a bunch of assets, financial holdings, land holdings, etc. rather than try to raise more revenue from the voluntary sector (hurting an already declining economy), if they really can't make the necessary spending reductions. Here's good little 5-minute bit on that:
Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-51rFiljBo Person #2
but now they've created a monster. if they decriminalized a lot of stuff, how are the super rich, armed & powerful cartels and big dealers going to react? their source of income will take a big hit, and it won't be pretty.
Corey Wright
Well, aside from the point that I can't think of a better way to take their feet out from under them than taking away their funding, there's the point that it isn't exactly pretty given the billions spent and millions incarcerated. Just ask Mexico.
#2 -
it's going to be a violent transition while the dealers and growers try to find ways to continue making as much as they're making now. will they continue selling what they're selling, but at cheaper prices? will they just switch to robberies, hooking, or selling some other vice like weapons? or are they going to apply to straight jobs that pay 8/hr? obviously not the third choice, so one can only hope that they go with the first option. cuz they're not going to go away without a violent fight
#1
So your saying we should continue to keep drugs illegal because the gangs in Mexico and South America would no longer have an income? I'm not sure I agree with your principles. @Corey, Just watched your video- It's too bad that kind of information isn't infiltrating the general public more.. Or maybe that guy and Ron Paul should just completely take over for Obama and his entire administration until our debt is secure.. It almost sounds like their are too many cooks in the kitchen sometimes.. Someone needs to take control and get this shit figured out!See More
#2
um, no i didn't say that. anyhere. i was pointing out that the transition's going to be violent so we should be preparing and anticipating it.
Corey Wright
I guess my point is more that it's extremely violent right now, and I really can't see it getting a whole lot worse if you cut off all of their future income streams. They can't print money, and I'm assuming, probably more than any other business, they rely on their next dollar coming in to sustain their operations, meaning that they probably need more money coming in to be able to sustain any kind of fight. You also have to understand that it is for the enormous potential profits that accompany a black market that people will risk their lives. If you remove that potential, then what do they have to fight for? Also, to the best of my knowledge, alcohol prohibition was similarly violent (given the weaponry of the times), and the transition period away from that wasn't as bad as you're describing.See More
Corey Wright
@Katie, that's the idea! I'm doing my damnedest to educate as many folks as possible for that very reason. I need as much help as I can get!
Corey Wright
Here is an excellent summation of the arguments, with a whole lot of really conclusive citations containing answers to the minutia:
Why Legalize Now?
http://mises.org/daily/5427/Why-Legalize-Nowu Person #3
Herman Cain
Corey Wright
Cain is a bit too Bush, McCain, Boehner, and Cheney-esque for my tastes, although he may understand economics more than those tards (even though he believes in a corporate tax rate). Gary Johnson or Ronny for me.
#3
Listen to Herman Cain and you will be sold trust me
Corey Wright
http://www.ontheissues.org/herman_cain.htmHow can anyone like the FairTax and think that China's economic growth is a national security threat?
#3
Unfortunately that website isn't quite accurate
#4
you're kidding, right? it's published on the internet -- it must be true
Corey Wright
So he didn't write this?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=293661I agree with his sentiment that we want to outgrow them, and about doing away with capital gains taxes and lowering corporate taxes (IMO completely), but I really don't find ...these mildly xenophobic comments to be the best or most ethical way to convince people towards his point of view.
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9fesMAvwA The fair tax is an absolute joke, you guys. How anyone who considers themselves conservatives could understand it and subsequently endorse it is beyond me. Here's a good perspective, I can provide more info on it if need be.
http://mises.org/daily/1814---That one is still ongoing, I'll update it if anyone has the balls to take me on. Here's another:
Person #1
The first part is normal Friedman jargon but the very beginning and ending is pretty awesome....
The Start-Up of You
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=2&hpThis is not your parents’ job market. Workers need to be able to invent, adapt and reinvent their jobs every day.
Corey Wright
While he's right to a certain extent, I think that he's kind of missing the underlying problem. It's a lack of jobs that's creating the massive competition and employee uncertainty, we're not in some kind of new economy or something like that. It's just his attempt to explain the cognitive dissonance (Z, if you see this, TWICE IN ONE DAY!!!) he and other economic illiterates feel when an economy progresses in some terms (tech, most specifically), yet because of the rampant capital depletion that has taken place during our various business cycles and massive inflation, peoples' standards of living regress. Meaning, they have to be even more productive than they otherwise would in order to make up for the destruction of capital stock and various barriers of employment brought on by government policy.
I could be completely misconstruing his point, but it sounds like he's implying that this is all a natural occurrence and, by extension, excusing the reasons we got here.
Person #2
Corey, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I also think you're misconstruing his point. When recessions occur, and we look at historic trends in post-recession eras, the underlying issue is businesses tend to learn to do more with less. that is what's occuring now. with the evolution of technology, and the fear of an uncertain market, there are fewer jobs because people are afraid to waste money on employees to do work that can be added to a current employee's work load. the scariest part of these historic trends is the failure for unemployment to rebound since businesses get comfortable asking more of their employees and relying on techonology that is cheaper in the long run. also, Friedman may be a whiney liberal at time, but he's not an economic illiterate. if you really believe that, read "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," then slap yourself in the face.
Corey Wright
Alright, I think I might have been unclear. I am saying that what Friedman is describing is a set of symptoms for an underlying disorder. I call him an economic illiterate, and mean the shit out of it, because he doesn't understand what is very well explained and expounded upon in this article:
http://mises.org/daily/4890 This quote from Say in that article is very relevant to your argument:
"And vice versa, whenever, by reasons of the blunders of a nation or its government, production is stationary, or does not keep pace with consumption, the demand generally declines, the value of the product is less than the charges of its production; no productive exertion is rewarded; profits and wages decrease; the employment of capital becomes less advantageous and more hazardous; *it is consumed piecemeal, not through extravagance, but through necessity*, and because the sources of capital have dried up."
See, what you and Friedman are referring to is business's posture of caution in the short and long-runs because of uncertainty, as opposed to posturing for robust long-term growth and its effects on labor markets. What I think Friedman is ignorant of, is the cause of all of this. I suggest you read that article, all of his citations, and this next article, and you will know far more about the global economy than Friedman ever will. It's pretty handy for investment purposes as well. Cheers.
http://mises.org/daily/4896/Hoover-Bush-and-Great-Depressions Person #2
I don't think Friedman is ignornant of it so much as he chose not to focus his piece on it.
that being said, don't slap yourself in the face, as you seem like a reasonable guy, and these two articles are fascinating.
Corey Wright
Yeah, I guess I came off a little strong. It was just the tenor of the article came off like he felt the situation was natural and that an economy and its policy can persist in the manner ours has in recent history. A concept which I couldn't disagree with more, and I think kind of sets people up for a big surprise when the dollar crisis hits.
That and I'm not a fan of his other work, especially his endorsement of and contributions to the insanity of the Green movement, but that's neither here nor there. I'm glad you liked those articles, that website is the shit. The most free, scholarly material anywhere on the web by a long shot.
#2
the insanity of the green movement? hahaha. oil won't last forever, Corey.
Corey Wright
It's mostly that he, and the vast majority of the Greens are varying degrees of socialist, communist, and fascist. It's the means I disagree with, not necessarily the ends (if they truly are benefiting the environment). Here's a pretty good summation of my view, more information available if requested.
http://mises.org/daily/3930 #2
do you even know what socialists, communists, or fascists are? you seem to lump them all together. and I'm sorry, but recognizing that an economy that focuses solely on quarterly reports as opposed to long-term growth and sustainability requires a government that can look at the bigger picture and subsidize meaningful research to one day create an industry that provides renewable energy that does not adversely affect the environment is not that radical, Corey. and to just jump the Republican talkings points about communists, socialists, and fascists is, with all due respect, cutting at your credibility.
Corey Wright
Maybe I should have specified that I was referring to the economic definitions of fascism (the private ownership and operation, but government regulation and taxation of business firms) and communism (the government ownership, operation and regulation of firms), not the Hitler or Stalin contexts that accompany the terms and, I agree, misrepresent my point. But you just brought up some huge topics, and I'm about debated-out for the day haha, so I'll provide some reading for you in the meantime.
On "oil won't last forever"
http://mises.org/daily/3886 These will be in reference to this general point: "recognizing that an economy that focuses solely on quarterly reports as opposed to long-term growth and sustainability requires a government that can look at the bigger picture and subsidize meaningful research to one day create an industry that provides renewable energy that does not adversely affect the environment"
https://www.mises.org/rothbard/science.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf http://mises.org/daily/3473 http://mises.org/daily/2795 https://mises.org/daily/5016/media.aspx?action=author&ID=288 https://www.mises.org/daily/4673 I could go on. My gripes are mostly economics-based, and are NOT based on the "fuck the environment, let's pollute as much as possible" argument. If you think that, you need to read that privatizing climate policy article again.
P.S. I'm not a Republican
#2
these are terrible articles. sorry. nothing scholarly about them.
Person #1...sorry to poison your wall. Corey, you haven't convinced me that you don't vote Republican.
Corey Wright
Lol. As far as I knew, scholarly meant properly cited and concerned with academic learning and research. Which those are, so...
I have voted for Republicans, but I've also voted for Democrats and Libertarians. I don't get into the Red vs. Blue game, the ones that end up in positions of power get more similar every election. I just focus on sound economic policy and maximization of freedom, which isn't helped by declaring oneself a member of one party or another.
#1
alright gentleman... good to see a nice discussion on my wall... I read through all of your comments and the first article that Corey posted... so basically all the article said was yadda yadda production is key not consumption... But what are we to produce and how are we to pay for labor costs... I think that is where that article might be in line with Friedman... due to automation not everything has to be produced by humans and due to the fact that we, the US economy, have in many ways (by no means all) moved away from production of material consumer products, the evolution of what it is that our economy produces by in large is dependent upon an individuals ability to create and recreate the output of his/her production. Compared to 100 and even 50 years ago, an individual didn't really have the capacity to produce on a large scale, it truly required an immense investment in PPE and labor, today however that is not the always the case. I think that is absolutely notable. I can go out there and create a multi-billion dollar company, with no plant, minimal property and equipment and fewer laborers per $ of revenue than has even been previously experienced. Alright I have to get back to work.... those were some of my initial thoughts and what turned me onto the article in the first place...
I think the fewer laborers per $ of revenue too is a huge factor in unemployment....
f it took 1,000 employees to create a $10 billion dollar company $50 years ago, it may only take 150 employees to create the same size company. Has production or output changed, no, but the correlation between that and employment certainly has.
dammit this totally distracted me.... "Hoffman adds: “You can’t just say, ‘I have a college degree, I have a right to a job, now someone else should figure out how to hire and train me.’ ” You have to know which industries are working and what is happening inside them and then “find a way to add value in a way no one else can. For entrepreneurs it’s differentiate or die — that now goes for all of us.”".... this is exactly in line with production... what does one produce... it is no longer directly given to a person from above but rather the responsibility has been transfered much more to the individual level... it is still production though....
Corey Wright
Wow sorry, I put this off a little bit and completely forgot about it. But my response to everything you just said is extremely simple. Think about what you're saying about how much more productive everybody is than 50 years ago. Then think about how much more productive a person is with a horse-drawn plow than with his bare hands, then think of how much more productive a steamboat is than a sailboat, etc. etc. I would argue that you could take any period of time in the progression of human history and try to make your points, but the fact is, supply precedes demand. Demand always exists, everybody would like a greater standard of living, but not everybody is productive enough (obviously there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle) to be able to warrant the purchasing power to achieve it. When they are more productive (through experience, yes, but primarily through capital investment), they then have the ability to command more goods, in other words, demand.
I'm just saying the cutthroat nature of the business world is due more to a lack of jobs than structural differences in the economy. Is the dynamic different with the new technology and communication? Absolutely, but I would argue it has progressed just as quickly, if not more so, in history previous to computers (as in, the difference in standard of living between life without factories vs. life with factories being greater than the difference in SoL between life without computers vs. life with computers). That and there's still people with a high level of demand for food in Africa on one side of the spectrum, and I don't think I speak out of turn when I say that if anyone had the ability to demand their own Porsche that they wouldn't turn it down.
And the ability to go public in today's stock market and get the kind of valuations that some IPOs get is just insane, and is a product of shit-ass monetary policy, among other things.
PWNAGE
