obamaconomics

[maladroit]

WOW! that was a great party...now that the celebrations are over, it is time to get back to reality

how the hell is obama going to manage the fiscal emergencies facing the usa?

on the revenue side:
- increased taxes on people making over $250,000 doesn't kick in until the bush tax cuts expire in 2011(?)
- the recession is going to cause a general decrease in tax revenues

on the expense side:
- obama is stuck with the $700 billion bailout package he supported but will have limited control over when he is president
- his health care plan is going to cost $?? billion
- his early childhood education and post-secondary education plans are going to cost $?? billion
- his green investment program is going to cost $?? billion
- 2008 interest payments on the national debt were $450 billion, and the national debt will grow by at least $1 trillion by 2009 fiscal year end (sept 30)
- medicare and social security are financial timebombs that could bankrupt the US government within 20 years

meanwhile, government resources around the country are being swamped by increasing levels of unemployment and homelessness

it will be extremely difficult to accomplish much with that baggage

[killerweed420]

We'll see. It will be an interesting 4 years.

[dragonrider]

You didn't hear? He announced that because of the economic crisis, he's nationalizing all the industries and imposing an across-the-board 90% tax rate on overyone! My God, they were right! He is a communist!

Ha ha! Just Joking.

It is going to be a difficult agenda to move and to fund with the way the economy is right now. I'd say the first priority will be getting the economy on track. Any tax INCREASE will probably have to wait, even the one we wanted to bankrupt Joe the Plumber. I kind of hope the Democrats resist the same cash giveaway kinds of stimulous packages Bush liked. If the economy needs stimulous, it should come in the form of the investments in infrastructure and alternative energy that Obama also wants to do. It's a way to get the money inti the economy, but actually get something of value for it as well.

[maladroit]

those tax increases were going to have to wait anyway because bush's tax cuts don't expire for another 2 or 3 years...by then, the economic crisis will be over and rich people will be wondering why they have to make sacrifices when things are good

[Revanche21]

legalize marijuana and make it our #1 export lol jk idk

[IAmKowalski]

legalize marijuana and make it our #1 export lol jk idk

I believe that the 'jk' above is supposed to stand for "Just Kidding"? Maybe?

Given that marijuana is our number one domestic cash crop as is, and given further that a good portion of the marijuana purchased and consumed in our nation is not grown domestically but imported from Canada and Mexico, then what effect would legalization in the U.S. have on our economy?

The net positives for our economy of keeping money current going to growers and smugglers over the boarder at home are impossible to deny. Frankly, legalization as a means of economic stimulation is good and sound policy, so I don't quite see why "Just Kidding" was added to the end of that sentence.

Of course, I'm not entirely sure that I guessed right when translating that sentence to English, so I could be wrong.

[JaySin]

Legalize it and let anyone that want to grow obtain a license and be monitored. That way it can be sold legally to vendors with lower possibility of underage users getting there hands on it. If that were the case, I'd probably dedicate my entire basement to growing. :jointsmile:

[marijuanaisgr8]

legalizing marijuana would in actuality keep billions of dollars in our country but it would hardly solve the situation.

I personally dont feel like obamanomics will work. Tax relief and increasing taxes on the rich doesnt get to the root of the problem which from what I've learned is inflation, very loose credit policies such as fractional reserve banking, & incredibly fraudulent stock market, bond, and derivitive policies. If we want to solve the situation we have to get money back in the hands of the working class and out of the hands of the ppl who sit behind desks all day doing nothing. Money needs to be pegged to skilled labor that produces real wealth and commodoties. Most of our money is floating around in stocks, bonds, derivitives, and fraudulent mortgages and trying to patch up a system that needs REFORM wont work.

[flyingimam]

in fact legalization of ONLY marijuana, regulation of it and legal production and sale of it and its by-products (count in all hemp-derived products as well) can do much good for the nation

1. Save up a gigantic amount of money used on war on marijuana
2. Focus on other crimes better
3. reverse convictions of simple possession marijuana offenders, currently costing federal and state govts and taxpayers money whether in programs or in jails
4. Quit focusing on corn-ethanol, make fuel alternatives from hemp >>> this will lead to a drop in food prices overall and also gasoline (currently benefiting only a few states and a few bunch of lobbying farmers, they can simply switch the crop)

just imagine if in the current situation, we can pioneer in hemp-derived fuels and impose a worldwide monopoly for a while, saving money by avoiding buying foreign oil, creating jobs here at home and going for exporting as well

this wont "solve" the problem, but it will be of much help

[marijuanaisgr8]

as a matter of fact that would damn near solve the whole problem but I never mention because I just dont think it will happen. Hemp is just so easily grown and easily renewed that I dont see why we cant just go for it...

[Psycho4Bud]

It is going to be a difficult agenda to move and to fund with the way the economy is right now. I'd say the first priority will be getting the economy on track. Any tax INCREASE will probably have to wait, even the one we wanted to bankrupt Joe the Plumber.

No tax increase to the wealthy means no welfare to the middle class and poor. Hmmmmmm


I doubt it will be a priority for him at all, and I actually HOPE Obama doesn't get sucked into this issue early on. There are a lot more important and less controversial things he should have at the top of the list, and this is not one of them.

I guess Obama will get a pass an all his promises. LOL, this dude hasn't even taken office yet and your giving him excuses for not living up to his word?;)

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

I guess Obama will get a pass an all his promises. LOL, this dude hasn't even taken office yet and your giving him excuses for not living up to his word?;)

Have a good one!:s4:

I wasn't aware he actually made any campaign promises regarding decriminalizing weed. He didn't, did he?

[maladroit]

canada has inflation, very loose credit policies such as fractional reserve banking, & incredibly fraudulent stock market, bond, and derivitive policies and the subprime crisis only nicked our banking system...our economy wasn't affected much either: we're losing some growth due to the recession in the usa (our biggest trading partner) but our economy probably won't go into a recession...canada has more bank regulation and as a result, the best banking system in the world:
Canada rated world's soundest bank system: survey | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4981X220081009)

bad lending practices on the part of the banks caused the current economic crisis: bad mortgages and bad mortgage back securities...regulation will reduce that risk significantly

the economy will rebound with or without government intervention, but the government has a role to play in mitigating the effects on poor people, and rebuilding a strong middle class...up here in soviet canuckistan, almost two thirds of the social programs go to the middle class...even millionaires get handouts from the government...i know that is considered evil socialism in some parts of the usa, but without government programs, the canadian middle class would have shrunk by about 6 percentage points between 1980 - 2000...instead, our middle class grew by 4 percentage points during the same period


Canada: The rise of the middle class
The secrets of Canada's world-leading middle-class success
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
August 4, 2007 at 12:00 AM EDT

LONDON â?? This long weekend, as Canadian highways fill with lakeside-bound cars and airports with resort-bound families, it is hard to believe that we are anything but a middle-class nation.

After years of full employment and impressive economic growth, you'd think the entire country had been elevated into the secure world of home ownership, retirement savings and weekends on the dock. There's some truth to this vision â?? but it's a lot stranger than you'd think.

The middle class, around the world, is in trouble. As my articles from India in the past two weeks have shown, poor countries are seeing stunning growth without producing the sort of big, sustainable middle class that leads to peace and long-term stability. There are too many barriers to prevent people from leaving poverty.

But what about countries such as ours, which have had big middle classes for decades? Here, we see a surprising version of the same effect â?? with notable exceptions. A comprehensive look at the workings of the world's middle class has just been published by Steven Pressman, an economist at Monmouth University in New Jersey. In his The Decline of the Middle Class: An International Perspective, Canada plays a fascinating role.

From 1980 to 2000, a period of explosive economic growth and expanding wealth, most major Western nations actually saw their middle classes shrink in size. The middle-income ranks (earning 75 to 125 per cent of the median income) in Britain shrank by 4.5 percentage points; in Sweden by 7.1 points; and in the U.S. by 2.4 points. These numbers represent tens of millions of people.

Were all these people disappearing from the middle class because they got rich? Or had they failed to find a place on the economic escalator and slipped to the ground floor?

â??There was both upward and downward mobility,â?� Mr. Pressman told me, â??but downward mobility exceeded upward mobility by around two to one.â?�

But there are exceptions to this trend. Switzerland's and Germany's middle classes stayed roughly the same size. And two countries â?? Norway and Canada â?? saw their middle classes grow substantially. In Canada, it grew to 37 per cent of the population from 33 per cent, the equivalent of a whole mid-sized province joining the station-wagon brigade, moving Canada into the league of Scandinavian nations in the size of its middle class.

Some of this came from wealthier Canadians being humbled: During the same 20 years, the upper class shrank by 1.9 percentage points, to 33.3 per cent of the population. But more came from poor families moving up. Canada is a middle-class success story, especially compared with the slouching United States. But the story doesn't end there.

Mr. Pressman set out to learn what is making the middle class collapse in many countries but expand in others. Some have attributed these changes to an aging population, the number of working women or divorce rates. He used statistical methods to remove age and gender from the picture, but the patterns remained the same.

Then he looked at unemployment: Were countries with rising employment rates experiencing a growing middle class? Nope. Britain has far lower unemployment than Canada, but a shrinking middle class: â??While jobs were being added, households were not moving into the middle class.â?� In the Netherlands, unemployment fell dramatically, but the middle class declined.

Then Mr. Pressman took his data and subtracted everything except salary and wage earnings. That is, he looked at what would be happening if people lived off only the money paid by their employers.

Suddenly, everything changed. Canada's great middle-class boom turned into an enormous decline: If people were forced to live off their earnings alone, our middle class would have shrunk by a staggering six percentage points. The same was true in Germany. In Britain, the middle class would have contracted even more dramatically.

What had Mr. Pressman subtracted? In short, government: All the handouts, tax benefits, subsidies and rebates that transfer money into middle-class pockets (not including pensions). Without government help, Canada's middle class would be endangered.

In a modern economy, Mr. Pressman told me, â??I am not sure that the middle class can be self-sustaining. It seems to require active government policies. The market tends to produce great inequalities in income; these inequalities seem greater in a global economy.â?� Contrary to earlier economic belief, the countries that are most competitive in a globalized economy are those with the most robust tax-and-spend programs. But they have to be aimed at the right places.

Many Canadian families wouldn't be middle-class if it weren't for government handouts. One key example is the thousands of dollars that Ottawa reimburses parents for child-care expenses each year: Without it, many women wouldn't be able to work, so their families would be deprived of one income and may slide into the lower-class bracket. Tax-funded aid for education savings, first-time home buying, retirement savings plans and medical coverage add up: If you gave up all these breaks, would you still be in the middle class?

I compared these findings to information on the money governments actually spend on different classes and got a surprising result: The countries doing well are the ones that don't just help out the middle class, but do so at the expense of the poor.

Canada hands a comparatively paltry 22 per cent of its spending to the poorest three-10ths of the population and a generous 64 per cent to the middle four-10ths, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Germany, one of the few other countries with a non-shrinking middle, gives only 22.3 per cent to the poor.

Compare that with Britain, whose Labour government spent the 1990s changing social programs so that the money went to the poor rather than the middle class; in Britain today, 34.7 per cent of social spending goes to the lowest-income third â?? and yet the British middle class has shrunk. In Sweden, where almost 30 per cent of spending goes to the poor, the middle class was clobbered.

It may be that traditional welfare-state programs do more to keep people in poverty than to guide them out â?? a criticism that has been levelled from both the left and the right. Or perhaps there's a new sub-class of â??precariousâ?� casual workers, who never are quite poor enough to qualify for welfare or prosperous enough to earn the state benefits of the comfortable middle. Such workers, key to our new national wealth, could be in serious trouble.

Herein lies the paradox of the modern middle class: Its existence is reliant on a thriving and open market economy, but its size and sustainability are equally dependent on the tax-and-spend mechanisms of the modern welfare state â?? which, it turns out, are even more important in globalized, high-competition economies.

The countries that are doing best are those that spend serious money on cultivating and maintaining a middle class. Many poor countries, despite having developed booming economies during the past 15 years, fail to join the middle-class club because they can't afford to erect government-supported stepladders to success. And countries such as Canada, which can and do spend that money, have done the best at surviving the social turmoil of our age.

[Psycho4Bud]

I wasn't aware he actually made any campaign promises regarding decriminalizing weed. He didn't, did he?

For the first time since his presidential bid began, the Obama Campaign has clarified the Senator's position on marijuana: stop arresting people for it.

The announcement comes as a bit of a surprise after Obama recently raised his hand in opposition to marijuana decrim at a recent democratic debate. Seeking to paint him as a flip-flopper, The Washington Times dug up footage of a 2004 appearance in which Obama said this:


"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004.
Barack Obama Comes Out in Favor of Marijuana Decriminalization [Updated] | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet) (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2008/jan/31/barack_obama_comes_out_in_favor_)

He is all things to everyone with a need....now it's time to walk the walk.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

[maladroit]

great news!

thats what bill clinton said AFTER he moved out of the white house...at least obama got the timing right

obama must be talking about federal arrests only...how many people get popped by the feds for pot? is it a lot?

[Psycho4Bud]

great news!

thats what bill clinton said AFTER he moved out of the white house...at least obama got the timing right

obama must be talking about federal arrests only...how many people get popped by the feds for pot? is it a lot?

He's NOW responsible for the federal law aspect of it. Laws here after arrest are broken down into City, State, and Federal offenses. Doesn't matter who does the bust, it's under what statute your prosecuted due to amount.

As for Clinton, we saw one of the largest increases on the war on drugs during his terms.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gatekeeper777]

If MJ was made leagle and sold in stores run by the state or the federal government I believe the United States could indeed pay off it's debt within ten years mabe sooner.
Say a 25% tax even. So if an 1/8 cost you 40 in the federal store afetr taxes you would be paying 50 for the 1/8.
plus the government would be better able to handle distribution and access.
While states would still benifit from fines due to neglegent use such as DUID.
Just like they do for Alcohol, public intox....driving under influance ect.
Now both sides win.

[marijuanaisgr8]

maladroit youre contradicting yourself.. how do they have loose credit policies, fraudulent stock, bond, and derivitive pol. but you're saying that here in the US bad mortgage and bad mortgage back securities hurt us.. loose credit policies cause bad mortgages.. stocks, bonds and derivitives are the securities so that means that it has bad mortgage backed securities also.

anyway the reason it probably didnt hit yall as bad is because you all have a strong middle class but I dont care how much regulation you have.. if Canada has everything you named, your system will be hit to it will just take longer....

[Gatekeeper777]

legalizing marijuana would in actuality keep billions of dollars in our country but it would hardly solve the situation.

I personally dont feel like obamanomics will work. Tax relief and increasing taxes on the rich doesnt get to the root of the problem which from what I've learned is inflation, very loose credit policies such as fractional reserve banking, & incredibly fraudulent stock market, bond, and derivitive policies. If we want to solve the situation we have to get money back in the hands of the working class and out of the hands of the ppl who sit behind desks all day doing nothing. Money needs to be pegged to skilled labor that produces real wealth and commodoties. Most of our money is floating around in stocks, bonds, derivitives, and fraudulent mortgages and trying to patch up a system that needs REFORM wont work.

When they gave up the last bail out of 700 billion to the banks they exec's sqandered it and horded it. If he or they wanted to really pump up the ecconomy they should ofdevided it equilly and given every tax paying american $250,000. Hell Thats enough to pay off my house, pay off all those bad credit accounts, buy a truck, puchase land in the mountains go on vacation.
You know why they didnt do that...... Because they wanted to line their fat cat friends wallets and PHUC the working man!
And If obama wanted to kick the ecconomy in the ass he would do the same and have this countries ecconomy back on track in 4 months.
Hell I might even open a business and create a few jobs!
What he will do iscrash the old monitary system then usher in the one allready designed.......called the Amero for the North American Union.
Google it.

[marijuanaisgr8]

I already know about the Amero it's no secret... and the fact of the matter is that you cant fix economic problems with more inflation.. you can only plug up the leaks until the water overflows has no where to go and pops the leaks out again. So there is no type of economic stimilus that will work no matter how much it is. But yea Im a firm believer that the dollar is going to crash so Im just waiting!!!

[Gatekeeper777]

From what I am told Obama has a BIG announcement to make in January. Is that announcement about invading Afganistan or is it about crashing the dollar and starting over?
Welcome to camp fema peeps!
he said he wanted change...... No one was smart enough or had the balls to ask "WHAT CHANGE??????" His change is going to be crash the dollar merge with Canada and Mexico and form the North American Union.
People were so tired of dumb ass they would have elected Hitler.
So now he is the savior......... He is the one that will usher in the SPP/ NAU
and everyones goona love him for it.
Bush allready put forward HSPD51.
google it or youtube search.
yep the dollar is going down......... Time to grow your own money! lol

[maladroit]

i'm not contradicting myself...canadian banks had loose credit policies, like instant loans where you only had to declare your income and it wasn't checked...but we also had bank regulations requiring a minimum downpayment, and required mortgage insurance on any mortgages that have less than a 25% downpayment...regulations like that that prevented canadian banking from getting too deep into bad mortgages...at the height of the subprime crisis, US subprime mortgages accounted for more than 20% of the total mortgage market...in canada, subprime mortgages accounted for only 5% of the market...canadian banks and financial institutions had some mortgage back securities but they weren't as toxic to their balance sheets

[IAmKowalski]

I wasn't aware he actually made any campaign promises regarding decriminalizing weed. He didn't, did he?


If MJ was made leagle and sold in stores run by the state or the federal government I believe the United States could indeed pay off it's debt within ten years mabe sooner.
Say a 25% tax even. So if an 1/8 cost you 40 in the federal store afetr taxes you would be paying 50 for the 1/8.
plus the government would be better able to handle distribution and access.
While states would still benifit from fines due to neglegent use such as DUID.
Just like they do for Alcohol, public intox....driving under influance ect.
Now both sides win.

Ehh no. it wouldn't be THAT big of an industry - the current national debt is (last I checked) around $35,000.00 per person.... So no, taxes on pot smokers isn't going to rack up that much any time soon :) No, absolutely not, but it is one of many things which can help us in the right direction - yes.

[dragonrider]

For the first time since his presidential bid began, the Obama Campaign has clarified the Senator's position on marijuana: stop arresting people for it.

The announcement comes as a bit of a surprise after Obama recently raised his hand in opposition to marijuana decrim at a recent democratic debate. Seeking to paint him as a flip-flopper, The Washington Times dug up footage of a 2004 appearance in which Obama said this:


"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004.
Barack Obama Comes Out in Favor of Marijuana Decriminalization [Updated] | Stop the Drug War (DRCNet) (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2008/jan/31/barack_obama_comes_out_in_favor_)

He is all things to everyone with a need....now it's time to walk the walk.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

I don't think something he said in 2004 counts as a campaign promise for THIS election, especially since it never came up in his platorm statements, speaches or the debates. He might believe this, and I certainly do agree with it. But you were saying I was giving him excuses for not living up to his word, and I do not agree that he ever promised this. If he had, we would definitely have heard more about it.

[dragonrider]

When they gave up the last bail out of 700 billion to the banks they exec's sqandered it and horded it. If he or they wanted to really pump up the ecconomy they should ofdevided it equilly and given every tax paying american $250,000. Hell Thats enough to pay off my house, pay off all those bad credit accounts, buy a truck, puchase land in the mountains go on vacation.
You know why they didnt do that...... Because they wanted to line their fat cat friends wallets and PHUC the working man!
And If obama wanted to kick the ecconomy in the ass he would do the same and have this countries ecconomy back on track in 4 months.
Hell I might even open a business and create a few jobs!
What he will do iscrash the old monitary system then usher in the one allready designed.......called the Amero for the North American Union.
Google it.

I think maybe your math is off by a few zeros. $700 billion does not equal $250,000 for every American, more like $2,000, which is a nice chunk of change, but not enough to pay off your house, pay off all those bad credit accounts, buy a truck, purchase land in the mountains, and go on vacation. Also, most of the $700 billion is expected to be paid back, which would not happen if you just gave it away.

[Gatekeeper777]

not every american.. Every american OVER the age of 18 that pays taxes.

[maladroit]

Obama flip-flops on pot
Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact)
Thursday, January 31, 2008


Barack Obama, the senatorial candidate of 2004, might have a bone to pick with Barack Obama, the presidential candidate of 2008.

Videotapes of debates and speeches that were obtained by The Washington Times show Mr. Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half dozen issues, ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal immigrants, that conflict with statements he has made during his run for the White House.

For instance, in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.

[dragonrider]

not every american.. Every american OVER the age of 18 that pays taxes.

It still doesn't work out to $250,000 each, not even close. If you take $700 billion and divide it into $250,000 shares, you only get 2.8 million shares --- there are a whole lot more taxpayers over 18 than that in this country. If you are talking about spreading this cash out fairly, you'd have a little trouble giving a quarter million bucks each to less than 1 percent of the country, and nothing to everyone else. Sounds like something Bush would have done.

[maladroit]

according to the us treasury website, the national debt increased by $1 trillion in less than 8 weeks...the fed reserve is planning to borrow another half trillion dollars before christmas...there is no way obama can solve that problem

[dragonrider]

not every american.. Every american OVER the age of 18 that pays taxes.

I guess my point with this was not to over-analyze it, but just to point out that each taxpayer's share is not really enough to pay off your house, pay off all those bad credit accounts, buy a truck, purchase land in the mountains, and go on vacation. It's more than each of us might want to put up for some Wall Streeters who got themselves in trouble, but it's not enough to totally remake your life.

[wolfgar]

I just wanted to say that legalizing pot could not have much of an impact on our economy. if it was legal it would be almost free being that anyone who wanted some would just have a crop in their yard. Using hemp could have some positive economic effects though. I think the short answer to fix the US economic troubles is to stop acting like protectionism is a bad word, because that's what Americans need right now lots and lots of protection. Do we really need china to make everything for us? Do we really need Mideastern oil? If we need wall street so bad that we have to pay for all their greedy actions then where is the out cry to decouple our economy from being so dependent on it. IMO if we want a strong county we have to get back to the idea that an economy needs to be centered around small business. ok im ranting now...

[marijuanaisgr8]

ranting the truth however!!

[maladroit]

tobacco isn't almost free even though anyone can grow it in their backyard

growing pot is fun but only a tiny minority of potsmokers use enough cannabis to make it worth the trouble of growing

[wolfgar]

sorry about helping your thread to get off topic btw

maladroit you might be right there. but i think if tobacco was the same price as pot no one would buy it. cannabis is just so much more rewarding of a plant it seems to me if you like it you would grow it. 1 plant outdoors can give a heavy user months of use.Only my opinion and like they say opinions are like...nvm:)

obama(to get back on topic) is going to backpedal like everyone who was ever made to be president because if you didn't make tons and tons of impossible to keep promises you cant be president. Kind of a funny way our politics work i guess. the president does not run the government he is a figurehead only if he makes something happen it is only because the rest of government is behind him or too divided to stand against him(which seems the only explanation of why bush seemed to always get his way). If a bill he writes gets passed it because he made enough deals with congress to get it done. Change lol thats mostly what he promised did he really in plain English promise anything more than that?

Do you think if the DEA wants to raid mmj growers the president will make a public decision to stop them? i wish he would but i don't think he will do anything more than a private phone conversation with his fingers crossed that they will listen. ok i know most ppl could not of had the patients to read all the way through this one :) lol

[maladroit]

i thought about this topic a lot because i had planned to invest in a pot cafe when the canadian prime minister announced the government was going to decriminalize cannabis a few years back...that got shitcanned behind closed doors

i know a heavy medical user who has to grow 10 plants once a year to supply herself...it's a lot of work while the plants are growing and it's a lot of work when the plants are being trimmed and it's a lot of work to dry and package them...her health isn't good and she'd much rather pay a reasonable non-blackmarket price than go through all that work and stink up her home

1 plant could supply the average potsmoker for a whole year with two joints a week...it would be more convenient for them to buy fresh pre-rolled joints than to dig around in some dried out plant material that's been sitting in his sock drawer for 11 months

that's why my opinion is that most tobacco smokers, alcohol drinkers, and pot smokers prefer to buy someone else's product...there will always be people who want to make their own stuff but it's not convenient for most consumers

here's the tricky bit:
if pot were legalized completely, the corporations would move in and take over the market with mass production and existing distribution networks...it would be harder for the average mom and pop operation to make a profit...if pot were merely decriminalized, the corporations wouldn't be able to participate, and the little privately owned neighbourhood cafes would dominate the market...i'm hoping for dutch-style decriminalization/tolerance



back to obama:
it does seem like every politician has to promise to cut taxes and increase spending to bribe their way into power...at least obama was honest about raising taxes on rich people, but he's still going to add trillions to the national debt in his first term of office...the president might not run the country but he's more than a figurehead...he prepares the annual budget and makes executive decisions that can cost the taxpayers a LOT of money...i doubt very much that the national debt would have doubled over the past 8 years under a different fiscally responsible president even with the same congress...in george bush's first state of the union speech, he promised to pay off all the national debt that is available to retire over the coming decade, and the congressional budget office projected an annual federal government $500 billion surplus (serious real true events - no joke!)...that's going to go down as the most expensive broken promise in history...whatever fiscal damage obama does after that performance is going to look like a dog and pony show!

i think the president can stop the DEA from busting mmj growers/dispensaries because the president appoints the head of the DEA who reports to the president's administration via the attorney general...the president can tell the attorney general to tell the DEA chief to back off medical marijuana...but if the president does that, people will lose their minds thanks to decades of hysterical drugwar propaganda brainwashing...even so, the medical marijuana movement has a much better chance of seeing reform by obama than the recreational movement (and so they should), but that reform could happen at the expense of the rest of the potsmokers in the form of a crackdown on dealers and growers

whadya think?

[GoldenBoy812]

here's the tricky bit:
if pot were legalized completely, the corporations would move in and take over the market with mass production and existing distribution networks...

Big business would undoubtedly reduce the price. What is more important in your eyes??? Mom and Pop shops making profits, or overall lower prices to the consumer?



it would be harder for the average mom and pop operation to make a profit...if pot were merely decriminalized, the corporations wouldn't be able to participate, and the little privately owned neighbourhood cafes would dominate the market...i'm hoping for dutch-style decriminalization/tolerance

Mass production was a tool for dominance in the past. Now everything is different, as communication has taken great leaps forward. If a company produces a bad product early in its existence, unless they sell it at next to nothing (which does much more good for all consumers of that type good) there will be very low demand in the future until competition brings the appropriate balance of price and quality.




back to obama:
it does seem like every politician has to promise to cut taxes and increase spending to bribe their way into power...at least obama was honest about raising taxes on rich people, but he's still going to add trillions to the national debt in his first term of office...the president might not run the country but he's more than a figurehead...he prepares the annual budget and makes executive decisions that can cost the taxpayers a LOT of money...i doubt very much that the national debt would have doubled over the past 8 years under a different fiscally responsible president even with the same congress...in george bush's first state of the union speech, he promised to pay off all the national debt that is available to retire over the coming decade, and the congressional budget office projected an annual federal government $500 billion surplus (serious real true events - no joke!)...that's going to go down as the most expensive broken promise in history...whatever fiscal damage obama does after that performance is going to look like a dog and pony show!

You are aware of the possibility for an even larger deficit to exist during the first year of Obama's presidency? Lower GDP will produce lower tax revenue, as in-discretionary spending will rise on its own due to other market factors (inflation, population increase), and cyciclal spending will increase due to higher unemployment etc....

We are prime for a quality stimulus to boost the economy.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Big business would undoubtedly reduce the price. What is more important in your eyes??? Mom and Pop shops making profits, or overall lower prices to the consumer?

Mom & pop stores, definitely. the reason being, it would create more jobs. what's more important, lower prices where no one has a job to make the money to afford it, or higher prices, but at least everyone has a job and CAN afford it?


We are prime for a quality stimulus to boost the economy.


What better way than to finally utilize hemp? it can be used for just about everything anyone would ever need in order to survive, and the best part is, ANYONE can grow it!

It would effectively bring a giant surplus of commodities at a drastically cheap price, because EVERYONE could grow it.

[GoldenBoy812]

Mom & pop stores, definitely. the reason being, it would create more jobs. what's more important, lower prices where no one has a job to make the money to afford it, or higher prices, but at least everyone has a job and CAN afford it?

How can you be sure it will create more jobs? Secondly, your premise is a tad flawed. In order to assume what you are stating is sound, it would have to be true that the only people who would consume cannabis are those who would work in mom and pop shops if they did exist and no other jobs would exist in cannabis cultivation if it is not mom and pop shops. The reality is that many people who work in other industries would purchase cannabis, and the big companies would need to hire people (jobs) in order to actually produce it. :jointsmile:

[maladroit]

"What is more important in your eyes??? Mom and Pop shops making profits, or overall lower prices to the consumer?"

- what is more important in your eyes? keeping jobs and profit in the community, or overall lower prices to the consumer by selling chinese pot?

[GoldenBoy812]

"What is more important in your eyes??? Mom and Pop shops making profits, or overall lower prices to the consumer?"

- what is more important in your eyes? keeping jobs and profit in the community, or overall lower prices to the consumer by selling chinese pot?

LOL, you are assuming too much.

First off, if you had a blindfold and were given two types of quality skunk (one from the US and one from China), would you know the difference? Would you really care if it was of lower cost?

You do not see Chinese tobacco or alcohol commanding a heavy portion of US market share do you? Why on earth you assume it would work this way for cannabis is beyond me.

[maladroit]

"if you had a blindfold"

- why would you assume a consumer is blindfolded? the free markets demand free information



"You do not see Chinese tobacco or alcohol commanding a heavy portion of US market share do you?"

- i see chinese lots-of-things commanding a heavy portion of the US market, including chinese hemp...thanks to the war on drugs, china and eastern europe are in a position to dominate the legal cannabis market...if obama legalized cannabis on january 21, vast segments of the brainwashed US population would be opposed to cannabis cultivation...canada 'legalized' medical marijuana and the only government sponsored grow operation was located in an abandoned mine deep underground...legalization doesn't mean true freedom - it means incorporation and government sponsored profit protection rackets

[GoldenBoy812]

why would you assume a consumer is blindfolded? the free markets demand free information

There is no need to beg the question, just answer it honestly.


i see chinese lots-of-things commanding a heavy portion of the US market, including chinese hemp

But that was not my question...


thanks to the war on drugs, china and eastern europe are in a position to dominate the legal cannabis market...

US productivity in farming trumps that of any nation, due to vast subsidies, available technology, and abundant capital. I have serious doubts about your previous comment.


if obama legalized cannabis on january 21, vast segments of the brainwashed US population would be opposed to cannabis cultivation...

Vast segments meaning half??? There are vast segments opposed to an Obama Presidency. Opposed or not, legal cannabis in the US will generate tens of billions of dollars within a year. The segment of the population that is most troubled with the thought of legal cannabis are black market growers...


canada 'legalized' medical marijuana and the only government sponsored grow operation was located in an abandoned mine deep underground...legalization doesn't mean true freedom - it means incorporation and government sponsored profit protection rackets

How does a government sponsored grow equate to freedom? Your problem lies with your government, as they are allowing a government sponsored monopoly...

[maladroit]

"There is no need to beg the question, just answer it honestly."

- fair enough:
if i had a blindfold and were given two types of quality skunk (one from the US and one from China), i couldn't tell the difference, but i would still know the difference between domestic jobs and outsourced labour, and i would really care if it was of lower cost but grown with lead based fertilizer and melamine pesticides...i don't shop with a blindfold or blindly choose the cheapest thing...i read labels and try to buy canadian or washington produce that is grown nearby, instead of shipped over on a slow boat from china...honestly!



"US productivity in farming trumps that of any nation, due to vast subsidies, available technology, and abundant capital. I have serious doubts about your previous comment."

- perhaps that's because you are substituting your productivity premise for my psychology premise in my following sentence...productivity isn't everything

[GoldenBoy812]

"
if i had a blindfold and were given two types of quality skunk (one from the US and one from China), i couldn't tell the difference, but i would still know the difference between domestic jobs and outsourced labour, and i would really care if it was of lower cost but grown with lead based fertilizer and melamine pesticides...i don't shop with a blindfold or blindly choose the cheapest thing...i read labels and try to buy canadian or washington produce that is grown nearby, instead of shipped over on a slow boat from china...honestly!

Then domestic cannabis has nothing to worry about:jointsmile:


perhaps that's because you are substituting your productivity premise for my psychology premise in my following sentence...productivity isn't everything

No... What would be the reason for outsourcing cannabis production to China unless US companies were going to try and market it there? Answer: Lower input cost!

Productivity is everything in the corporate world. A farmer who can produce 100 tons of high quality cannabis for $1,000,000 will destroy another farmer who produces 10 tons of high quality cannabis for $250,000. It is a simple concept really.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

How can you be sure it will create more jobs? Secondly, your premise is a tad flawed. In order to assume what you are stating is sound, it would have to be true that the only people who would consume cannabis are those who would work in mom and pop shops if they did exist and no other jobs would exist in cannabis cultivation if it is not mom and pop shops. The reality is that many people who work in other industries would purchase cannabis, and the big companies would need to hire people (jobs) in order to actually produce it. :jointsmile:


Flaw in your logic: Absolute dependence on currency.


my logic is based in that we do, not for payment, but for the sake of getting done [what needs to be done].


mom & pop shops are PEOPLE creating businesses, not businesses creating work. the more people who own businesses, the more people that will be working as a whole. the less monopoly on business, the more empty slots to be filled by PEOPLE making businesses.

instead of Mc Donnalds, we'd have 150 other different burger joints:::instead of all our money going to one corporation, it's being evenly spread about the community through mom & pop businesses.

[GoldenBoy812]

Flaw in your logic: Absolute dependence on currency.

What do you mean?



my logic is based in that we do, not for payment, but for the sake of getting done [what needs to be done].

I can agree with that.


mom & pop shops are PEOPLE creating businesses, not businesses creating work. the more people who own businesses, the more people that will be working as a whole. the less monopoly on business, the more empty slots to be filled by PEOPLE making businesses.

Perfect competition can exist after the creative destruction of blackmarket farming. Once this is achieved, there will be many many many entrepreneurs in the cannabis field. But, once they are forced to compete against eachother (its not personal, just business), the weaker firms will phase out as the stronger ones continue to grab more market share.



instead of Mc Donnalds, we'd have 150 other different burger joints:::instead of all our money going to one corporation, it's being evenly spread about the community through mom & pop businesses.

McDonalds is not the only burger company, only the "largest large scale" burger company. Instead, there are now probably 10 different burger joints on a large scale. It would be impossible for there to be 150 large scale "burger joints" operating at once.

You do understand that there are literally hundreds of different burger joints in Chicago alone, they are only smaller. Also, McDonald's has open competition between themselves, although their primary goal is to gain market share over Wendy's and BK.

[maladroit]

"Productivity is everything in the corporate world."

- it isn't everything...productivity doesn't create demand, and demand is everything in the corporate world *grin*

[GoldenBoy812]

"Productivity is everything in the corporate world."

- it isn't everything...productivity doesn't create demand, and demand is everything in the corporate world *grin*

Ok, than answer this...

Why is China's economy so much smaller than ours even though they have about 4 times the population?

[wolfgar]

ah easy question to answer :) democracy is a crappy form of government,,,,
it is just better than all others

[wolfgar]

oh and by the way...china's economy will be bigger than ours soon enough

[GoldenBoy812]

You are absolutely correct:thumbsup: Most analysts project the the torch to be passed somewhere between 2015-2025 at the latest.

There are only two possible ways, one being to more than double their population, the other by merely improving their production efficiency by about 20%.

China has just unleashed a stimulus package, in terms of % of GDP, would be roughly equivalent to the initial US bailout package.

China: ($586 billion) / ($10.7 trillion) = approximately 5.5% of GDP

US: ($13.3 trillion) * (.055) = approximately $732 billion

What this suggest is that China, in the upcoming years, will greatly improve production efficiency, by upgrading their infrastructure, and providing more growth opportunities for their citizens with this stimulus.

[wolfgar]

in your responses goldenboy you seem to really think a lot about efficiency, total cost of material goods. It makes me want to tell you about my point of view in which efficiency is not such a good thing, where just because something can be made cheaper does not make it better. I really dont think mankind is alive on this planet to be slaves to material goods, in fact i dont think anyone will tell you they think they should be. It seems to me that is exactly where we are headed(some would say where we are). Economic models that dont take into account their impact on society have become the norm. Should people have to work so much? I often wonder how long it will take before efficiency is measured in how much time one man has to work at production to have a quality life.

If your rich or aspiring to be so, my words will sound like total retardation, if you are looking at spending the rest of your life working just to survive you might have a similar outlook. i know that my words were all over the place but you prolly have the basic idea of what i am saying. It would take hundreds of pages of text to explain everything that's in my head about this being that i have spent alot of my years thinking about this very thing. If someone wanted to pick apart my words and find holes ...well there is a lot of those i know :)

[maladroit]

efficiency via automation doesn't just make things cheaper (while reducing employment), it makes retooling to adjust for product changes more expensive too...the benefits of efficiency on a production line are limited if they are making something that isn't in demand

[GoldenBoy812]

efficiency via automation doesn't just make things cheaper (while reducing employment), it makes retooling to adjust for product changes more expensive too...the benefits of efficiency on a production line are limited if they are making something that isn't in demand

That really is the trick you see. The demand of a product is essentially reliant on two factors. The first being the availability of the product (supply), and the second is price.

Say's Law: "Supply creates its own demand"

Regardless of whether it is a machine producing, or human labor producing; it is extremely inefficient to produce a good or service that lacks overall utility.

Take the auto industry for example:thumbsup:... Auto's are in demand, even though it is slumping at the moment. The only rational thing to do is lay off workers and curb production until real demand increases. Lowering the price would definitely increase the demand for any car or truck on the market.

[maladroit]

us automakers have been handing out price incentives to the point of bankrupting themselves and they still haven't been able to reverse declining US auto sales since 2004...during the same period US and foreign built japanese car sales increased even though they're more expensive to buy...the higher price should dictate lower sales but the reverse is happening because japanese cars offer better quality, and better choices

GM, Ford fall; Asian sales rise | Autonet.ca (http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/2005/03/01/4818249.html)

[GoldenBoy812]

us automakers have been handing out price incentives to the point of bankrupting themselves and they still haven't been able to reverse declining US auto sales since 2004...during the same period US and foreign built japanese car sales increased even though they're more expensive to buy...the higher price should dictate lower sales but the reverse is happening because japanese cars offer better quality, and better choices

That article is from 2005...

Something a little more recent:Thomas: Unions the reason Big 3 automakers teetering | CARS AND SOCIALISM (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/fromcomments/102309.php)