Go ahead Barack, choom one for old times’ sake
There wasn’t much good news last night, although I guess we can applaud the public employee unions in Wisconsin getting spanked for the third consecutive time. And I’d love to see the look on the faces of all those anti-supply-side economics reporters as Brownback won by 4 points after “wrecking” the Kansas economy. But there was one clear bright spot–pot was legalized in Oregon, Alaska and DC, all three of the locations where the referendum was on the ballot. (The failure of medical marijuana in Florida indicates that full success will require the dying off of a few more old people. “One funeral at a time . . . “)
After last night Barack could probably use a joint. Now that it’s legal in DC, I see no reason for him to abstain. (Actually DC only partially legalized pot, selling it is still illegal.)
As is often the case, the public is way ahead of the politicians on pot legalization.
(And don’t spoil the fun by telling me the law has yet to be implemented.)
Update: I missed the big story; California voters downgraded all types of drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor, which will free thousands of innocent people who are currently imprisoned in America. Great news! (The effort received funding from both liberal and conservative business tycoons.)
PS. My own state legalized casino gambling last night. Over the last few decades Massachusetts voters have repealed rent control statewide, rejected progressive income taxes, decriminalized marijuana and legalized casino gambling. Also the first state with gay marriage. Not yet a libertarian paradise, but moving in the right direction. Now if only Kansas would catch up to Massachusetts, and reject progressive income taxes.
PPS. FWIW I favored a GOP Senate and Democratic House for immigration reform reasons. Obviously I didn’t get my wish.
PPPS. Conservative Alaska legalized pot in an off year dominated by GOP voters. But lawmakers in very liberal Hawaii have rejected even the milder decriminalization. Otherwise pot is effectively legal for users on the entire West Coast, as anyone can get a medical marijuana license in California.
Tags:
5. November 2014 at 06:25
“There wasn’t much good news last night…”
But, judging from those stock futures, there is good news in the USA this morning. S&P at an all-time high. And, that’s just confirming what was already predicted. Just look at all the “wealth” the Republicans created with their victory! (:
5. November 2014 at 06:29
The old might be dying off but they’re regrouping in Florida. Might be a long wait.
5. November 2014 at 06:31
The WSJ is predicting that monetary policy will get even worse. They did not put it that way, but that is the way it will be.
5. November 2014 at 07:12
Vivian, I suppose you are just joking, but for the record the sweep was obvious by midnight, and stock futures were only up a tiny bit. But yes, studies show that GOP wins are good for stocks. That doesn’t mean it’s good for the macroeconomy. Maybe the market simply expects lower taxes on capital.
Left, I meant old in the sense of the generation older than boomers. A cohort effect.
5. November 2014 at 07:25
Scott,
Of course I was joking. The smiley face didn’t come through. But, more seriously, are you now saying that increases in stock prices are not good (or bad) for the macro economy? You’ve got me confused because I thought your view was that the Fed-induced an increase of $4.5 trillion in stock prices which also increased “wealth” by that amount. Surely, this was good for the macro economy?
5. November 2014 at 07:49
Well I agree pot legalization was good news. What I find interesting is that while all these GOPers are declaring a ‘wave’ there was no wave against liberal ideas.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/every-time-gop-wins-election-its-wave.html
The minimum wage passed in 4 red states and ‘personhood’ amendments were defeated. Meanwhile, while I agree with you on pot legalization-we of course disagree on the MW-we’ll see if the GOP Congress lets legalization stay on the west coast.
5. November 2014 at 07:51
On immigration the best hope for now is that Obama just does the executive stuff he’s wanted to do but waited for because of the election.
You here GOPers on CNBC worrying that if he does that he’ll turn Congressional Republicans against him. Yeah, they’ve been in love with him till now.
5. November 2014 at 07:53
Ironically, Gordon Tullock died on election day. A little known fact, apparently, is that he wasn’t an economist, but a lawyer who started a career as a diplomat. He wrote a couple of books about those experiences. This is from ‘Open Secrets of American Foreign Policy’;
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6382
‘Like most people, I have been reading about the abysmal historic ignorance of the products of our educational system. Indeed, I have a good example. I wanted to send a letter to Lord Bauer and told my secretary she could send it to the House of Lords. She asked for its address, and somewhat surprised, I said “London” would do. She wanted a Zip and a little further conversation revealed that she had never heard of the institution. Still, the fact that newspapers carry stories in which they report ignorant answers to historical questions under the apparent impression that most, or at least many, of their readers will know the correct answer is good evidence that the history of our country is not totally a closed book to many citizens.’
5. November 2014 at 08:07
Vivian, Never reason from a stock price change. It depends why stock prices changed. And it also depends whether they changed in real terms. I’m sure stock prices in nominal terms did quite well in Zimbabwe.
All of these issues are quite complex, and I don’t have time to explain all of the underlying assumptions in each and every blog post.
But if you read all of my blog posts . . . 🙂
Mike, Your guy Obama opposes pot legalization. He’s the executive, and hence he’s the problem. Congress doesn’t matter in this area, they don’t enforce the laws.
5. November 2014 at 08:36
If we can take away one thing tonight from Tuesday’s republican wave it is that pragmatism wins. Look at the brand of GOP winners. Social moderates and fiscal conservatives. It’s a lesson libertarians can learn well, if they ignore “principled” fanatics like major freedom and listen to people like Scott Sumner. are you listening major? Or are you just going to deny empirical reality like an ostrich with his head in the sand like you usually do?
5. November 2014 at 08:41
(The failure of medical marijuana in Florida indicates that full success will require the dying off of a few more old people. “One funeral at a time . . . “)
Frustrating but “yes” did get 57%, they needed 60%.
Who is it that votes against medical Marijuana?
5. November 2014 at 08:43
Also seeing that republican party is so much more male could they take the lead of legalizing drugs?
5. November 2014 at 08:45
Here is a link:
http://wordpress.vermontlaw.edu/narcolaw/2012/12/05/the-pot-gender-gap-men-favor-women-oppose-marijuana-legalization/
While men surveyed strongly favor legalization by a margin of 59 to 36 percent, women oppose it by a clear majority of 52-44 percent.
5. November 2014 at 09:01
Can’t tell if sarcastic or not about Kansas <_<
Your previous post on Brownback's tax policy perfectly explains why it failed. Point is, it failed – utterly. I would have a more favorable attitude to the Right if they actually understood supply side economics.
Kudos to Massachusetts.
I'm curious to know what you think of the seeming contradiction in Illinois – elected an R on a low-taxes, low-min wage platform, but passed ballot initiatives to raise taxes and raise minimum wage.
5. November 2014 at 09:25
Of course Obama is the problem he always is. I really miss 2008 before he was elected. What a utopia we had then. I mean if it weren’t for him there’d be no Ebola.
Actually he and Holder have not enforced federal laws on the books against states like Colorado who have already done legalization.
Polls show that two thirds of Democrats favor legalization and two thirds of GOPers oppose it, ergo, they’re the problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/colorado-marijuana-legalization_n_5638758.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/15/1321976/-Election-2016-Why-is-the-Republican-Party-opposed-to-Marijuana-Legalization
Obama is not the reason pot is illegal nationally. He didn’t pass the law and if you think Republicans agree with you, we’ll see how quick they are to get a legalization bill to Obama’s desk as they control all of Congress now.
5. November 2014 at 09:36
Off the topic I think Noah Smith had a great comment about you:
“Scott Sumner lavishes praise on Matt Yglesias. Sumner is a passionate man – he loves as he hates, without reservation.”
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/thursday-roundup-10302014.html#comment-form
5. November 2014 at 09:51
I predict that the Supreme Court will follow the election returns; they’ll now accept the challenges to Obamacare–actually the IRS regulations that violate that law–that are pending. John Roberts will get a do-over, and probably will realize that a majority of American voters don’t want it, now that they have seen what it means for them.
5. November 2014 at 10:30
Sort of ridiculous that FL reeferendum (sorry!) got 57% but still “failed.” It will be really interesting to see how this issue plays in 2016.
5. November 2014 at 10:30
Mike Sax-
Except that the GOP House voted – in a Democrat libertarian GOP coalition, to block the federal pot raids in a series of pro pot votes. Harry Reid didn’t let that get to a vote in the Senate, just like everything else, and of course the President continued the raids.
The average Democrat is better on pot sure, but in the short term Harry Reid and Barack Obama have been the biggest problem on Marijuana reform. Obama could reschedule marijuana tomorrow, for example, and Congress would not block him, thanks to the Democrat libertarians coalition.
5. November 2014 at 10:34
And Obama, while having promised to not enforce laws, has overseen more US Attorney prosecutions and DEA raids of state legal pot than GWB ever did. He talks a good game, but in practice is no different or even worse.
5. November 2014 at 10:55
1. Re: Obama and chooch. This would be a funny political cartoon. Well played.
2. Clearly, the American people are as obsessed with inequality as the cognoscenti, right?
3. Vivian, remember that, when it comes to monetary policy, Republicans remain the Stupid Party.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-05/scrutiny-of-fed-seen-intensifying-in-republican-senate.html
4. Scott Walker is a THING!
5. November 2014 at 11:25
Jeff, As you probably know Illinois has a massive debt problem, perhaps the worst of any state. This is pure speculation, but I’d guess that voters thought they needed more taxes to pay their bills, but thought a GOP governor would reduce the future bills incurred from excessive spending. (I’m skeptical of that assumption, but I suppose they had nothing to lose, given what the Dems had done to their state.)
Floccina, That’s a really big gender gap. Someone should study that gap.
Mike, More idiocy on your part (and Noah’s), I don’t “hate” Obama. He’s an average president. Who does Noah think I hate? And I certainly don’t praise Yglesias without reservation, that’s idiotic.
And you are wrong about the Obama adminstration on pot, they have tried to override state efforts at decriminalization. You might try getting out of your liberal cocoon, and read some libertarian stuff on what’s actually been going on.
John Thacker, Good points, but don’t tell Mike Sax–it might disturb his happy fantasies about Obama.
5. November 2014 at 11:52
Scott, I live in Illinois, and I voted for Rauner.
You have to remember that Illinois is one of the bluest states in the union so it makes sense for voters to send weird mixed messages.
5. November 2014 at 11:53
TallDave, as a Floridian, I must say I quite appreciate the 60% threshold as a general rule, and don’t find it ridiculous at all. It makes it more difficult for a bare majority to override the wishes of nearly half the population.
Edward, how convenient, like everyone else, the message you see in the election is exactly the one you would want to see.
I am unabashedly much more pleased than Scott is with the general result, but then, I too see in the election exactly the message I want to see. It’s just very, very different from yours.
5. November 2014 at 12:33
Here in Maryland, a very democrat state (2-1), a Republican governor won.
It was taxes.
O’Malley raised taxes on the working class at every turn and during the period when the great recession was in progress. Higher income, sales, booze, tobacco and gas taxes.
Funny part is that O’Malley is getting ready for his presidential run. If the economy is shaky when he does, he will get killed nationally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/taxes-emerging-as-dominant-issue-in-md-gubernatorial-race/2014/10/11/7266cba0-5075-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html
http://www.changemaryland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Tax-Fee-v.2-3.21.13.pdf
Note – I subscribe to neither party. I think most of them are completely out of touch with reality.
5. November 2014 at 15:24
It is too bad that Sumner is willing to advocate for increasing liberty in [drugs] which 30 years ago would have been considered “impractical”, so he free rides off of the “ideologues” for the last 30 years and lets them change people’s minds, while being attacked and belittled, and then once the public catches up, it is then “safe” to advocate for increasing liberty in [drugs] on a public blog.
If only that same passion for liberty for [drugs] existed for [money production and distribution].
Don’t worry Sumner, us libertarian impractical ideologues will do what is necessary but you refuse to do, which is advocate for “impractical” movements towards liberty, and convince people slowly but surely, and then once it is “safe” for you to be anti-Fed, after getting a PhD at Chicago no less!, then we hardcore libertarians will welcome you to enlightenment.
You’ll just have to live free knowing you weren’t responsible for it.
5. November 2014 at 15:46
Gender gap on pot:
I think it was the same for Prohibition too. Very much a women’s issue. Even if the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was passed before the 19th (women’s right to vote).
5. November 2014 at 16:06
So Massachusetts legalized casinos yesterday? I thought they/we simply failed to repeal the grant of a few casino licenses to a few politically-connected groups who spent millions on ex-legislator and other crony lobbyists.
But perhaps you see it differently Scott?
5. November 2014 at 16:12
Scott, Noah wasn’t talking about Obama at all it was a more general comment. I don’t think I have any fantasies about Obama. I just don’t think he’s the anti Christ-and many on the Right-not necessarily talking about you-do.
I’m not afraid to read libertarian stuff-have done, but mostly I’m unimpressed. I don’t agree that ‘taxation is theft’, so sue me.
What libertarians would you recommend? If you name someone I haven’t yet read I have no trouble checking them out.
5. November 2014 at 16:19
I must take issue with the idea that I only seek ‘confirmation bias’ in what I read. If I only wanted to get the views of those I agree with why do I read you regularly for starters?
5. November 2014 at 16:44
Mike, Start by reading the comments to this post.
And who do I “hate?” You said you loved that comment. If it wasn’t Obama, who is it?
5. November 2014 at 16:45
Jim, I’m happy if people or corporations spend “millions” getting laws passed that increase our freedom to live our lives as we wish.
5. November 2014 at 17:02
“not necessarily talking about you”
Oh, come on!
5. November 2014 at 17:06
MF,
Oh so thats how you wanna spin it. I don’t think theres anyone on this blog who wouldn’t favor NATIONwide legalization of marijuana and ending the drug war completely. The difference between us and you is that we’re willing to accept half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. Marijuana legalization in several states is good news. Even with red states voting yes on the MW increases. But nooo! You have to have EVERYTHING or NOTHING!
And by the way, you’re a terrible salesman for libertarians. In fact I sometimes suspect you’re the opposite. That secretly, you’re a stealth social democrat, and created “Major Freedom” as a parody against libertarians, to because you’re such an awful annoying, rude, salesman, thats the only thing that would make sense. It’s like when Democrats or Republicans BEG of the other party, PLEASE run X, we’d so love it!.
5. November 2014 at 17:08
Scott, the thing I’m concerned about is monetary policy. Republicans are still a clueless MF nightmare. like Brian Donahue says
5. November 2014 at 17:41
Why do so many here object to a 60% threshold for a referendum? That’s nothing compared to the threshold for a constitutional amendment.
Seriously, do we want referenda being passed, then repealed, then passed again, all by 51-49 margins?
And what about the will of the 2/3 who didn’t vote?
Speaking of the 2/3 who didn’t vote, why did Obama insist that he had a mandate in 2012 (We had an election and you lost!), but now in 2014 he is going to govern on behalf of the 2/3 who didn’t vote?
5. November 2014 at 17:45
As for the Mary Jane gender gap, it’s mostly because women see themselves as Moms protecting their children and family members from the scourge of addiction.
A more cynical reason is that stoners tend not to pay income tax (due to lack of income), and therefore there is no one to pay for all the women’s welfare programs.
But really, it’s all about Motherhood.
5. November 2014 at 17:53
Ben Bernanke: Quantitative easing will be difficult for the ECB
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102156211
5. November 2014 at 18:34
Prof. Sumner,
You might be interested in the debate Krugman is having about Japan here:
http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/11/05/evening-must-read-paul-krugman-japan-brink
5. November 2014 at 18:39
“Ironically, Gordon Tullock died on election day. A little known fact, apparently, is that he wasn’t an economist”
Gordon most certainly was an economist. What he wasn’t was the holder of a PhD in economics. The last is neither a necessary, nor (as a zillion econ PhD’s attest) a sufficient, condition for being an economic thinker of the first water.
5. November 2014 at 19:08
W. Peden come on what? If you’re just going to name call then fine: ‘no, you come on.’ There are plenty of people that hate Obama, the whole campaign was about Obama hatred, it doesn’t say much for anyone that it worked.
I wasn’t talking about Scott there.
Scott, I told you the Noah comment was off topic-it had nothing to do with Obama.
It was a tongue in cheek comment that has gone over your head. It happens, no shame in it.
The Republicans already plan to kill pot legalization.
“Among the first in line to make a federal case out of D.C.’s marijuana initiative will be Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a congressman ranked by Drug Policy Action as one of three “2014 Drug Policy Extremists,” who warned even before the ballot initiative’s passage that, “If legalization passes, I will consider using all resources available to a member of Congress to stop this action.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/05/3588776/what-you-need-to-know-before-you-light-up/
The idea that Obama is the main problem on drug legalization is just not accurate. The executive power doesn’t make the laws, but merely enforces them. Obama is criticized for overstepping his bounds here when he uses executive action though it is perfectly legal.
Now you want him to unilaterally decide for legalization? Darrell Issa would have a field day.
If the House wants this to change draft a bill that makes it legal, there’ll be no bad old Harry Reid to stop it now.
5. November 2014 at 20:32
Scott, I’d be fine if the law said anyone could open a casino, presumably subject to local zoning approval. That’s nothing like what they did, which looks much more like crony capitalism than increased freedom to me.
5. November 2014 at 21:14
Andrew — hey, I fully support a 60% threshold to make pot illegal. 🙂
Mike Sax — It’s really more of a regional question, I think northwestern Republicans actually support legalization more than Southern Dems. While Democrats are better on average, Republicans do have people like Gary Johnson (who eventually went full Libertarian) and Rand Paul.
5. November 2014 at 21:22
Steve — Funny, Prohibition, income tax, and women’s suffrage arrived all hand in hand. One of the great early Progressive successes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Development_of_the_prohibition_movement
5. November 2014 at 22:06
TallDave — Awesome Wiki link, some of the best quotes:
“Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) advocated the prohibition of alcohol as a method for preventing abuse from alcoholic husbands”
“Two other amendments to the Constitution were championed by dry crusaders to help their cause. One was granted in the Sixteenth Amendment (1913), which replaced alcohol taxes that funded the federal government with a federal income tax.[34] The other was women’s suffrage, which was granted after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920; since women tended to support prohibition, temperance organizations tended to support women’s suffrage.[”
“As the prohibition years continued, more of the country’s populace came to see prohibition as illustrative of class distinctions,”
“A rich family could have a cellar-full of liquor and get by, it seemed, but if a poor family had one bottle of home-brew, there would be trouble.”
5. November 2014 at 22:14
On a vaguely related note (gender gap, gender baiting), this is the ad that kept Scott Brown from winning a Senate seat in NH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtI9pOHK5rI
5. November 2014 at 23:50
Sax: “a great comment”
Sumner: “who do I ‘hate’?”
Sax: “a tongue in cheek comment that has gone over your head”
It’s not easy to pull off the “weaselly/snippy” thing (assuming you’re not, say, a campy TV villain), it takes a peculiar genius. Props to Sax.
6. November 2014 at 02:53
And George Selgin wins the Internetz today 🙂
6. November 2014 at 02:57
On which point, it is favourite line of David Friedman (son of Milton) that he teaches Economics in a Law faculty and has never taken a course for credit in either 🙂
I will count him as an economist, though.
6. November 2014 at 05:39
Benjamin Cole reports some unfortunate news:
“GOP Wins; Bad Monetary Policy Will Get Worse?”
http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/gop-wins-bad-monetary-policy-will-get-worse
6. November 2014 at 05:48
Wooooo!! Euro has tanked on the news….
“European Central Bank president Mario Draghi said ECB official are unanimous in their commitment to unleash more monetary stimulus if needed.”
6. November 2014 at 06:35
George, Good point.
Mike, The President enforces the laws. He can defer to state legalization if he wants to, he simply doesn’t want to. He’s a drug warrior.
If you read anon/portly’s comment, you might learn something about your character—but I’m afraid it would go right over your head.
Jim, I’d say it’s both.
Travis, Fortunately, this Congress will have no say in monetary policy.
6. November 2014 at 07:37
Mike Sax,
“I wasn’t talking about Scott there.”
Then you weren’t talking about Scott, rather than only “not necessarily” talking about Scott.
6. November 2014 at 08:45
With the implicit approval of George Selgin and Scott Sumner, I declare myself an economist. I trust I can use you as a reference? It’ll save me a fortune in opportunity cost.
6. November 2014 at 08:58
cthorm,
George Selgin made a lot of us feel better today! Perhaps one could say when the “economist bug” bites (i.e. thinking as an economist might), it doesn’t care whether the one who gets bit has the “proper” degrees or not.
6. November 2014 at 09:15
‘I will count him [David Friedman] as an economist, though.’
As I’ve told David himself, I consider him the poster child for home schooling.
6. November 2014 at 09:16
Btw, I didn’t say Tullock wasn’t a fine economic thinker. Any more than I’d say David Hume, Ricardo, Adam Smith et al weren’t.
6. November 2014 at 12:11
I think your next post answered the question of this post. Alaska probably voted for legalization because Alaska’s population is overwhelmingly male.
6. November 2014 at 13:22
Alaska marijuana exit poll
Legalizing marijuana
Married men
Total Yes No
30% 47% 53%
Married women
Total Yes No
28% 49% 51%
Non-married men
Total Yes No
20% 70% 30%
Non-married women
Total Yes No
22% 58% 42%
6. November 2014 at 13:31
Oregon Marijuana Exit Poll
Total Yes No
Married men 29% 51% 49%
Married women 32% 47% 53%
Non-married men 18% 68% 32%
Non-married women 22% 62% 38%
————————-
Total Yes No
High school grad 19% 52% 48%
Some college/assoc. 32% 54% 46%
College graduate 30% 54% 46%
Postgraduate study 19% 67% 33%
————————-
2013 total family income:
Total Yes No
Under $30,000 22% 67% 33%
$30,000 – $49,999 23% 58% 42%
$50,000 – $99,999 32% 53% 47%
$100,000 – $199,999 17% 56% 44%
$200,000 or more 6% – –
6. November 2014 at 13:33
So apparently the typical pro-marijuana voter in OR was:
Single man, graduate degree, low-income
6. November 2014 at 15:15
Vaguely on topic: I may be invoking one of a certain econblogger’s favourite phrases in warning about predicting future election prospects from demographic trends.
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/never-reason-from-static-coalition.html
6. November 2014 at 17:49
Steve: a comment I made on the next thread gets extra oomph from your data.
Women have some history (e.g. Prohibition) of tending to be against consumables that change the behaviour of men in undesirable ways.
I doubt that men have the reverse concern. If anything, said changes in behaviour for women might be regarded as desirable.
So, married men “know” their husbands, so have less concern. Unmarried women are much more worried about random men, so are against legalisation.
Conversely, unmarried men might want women to become less “inhibited”.
7. November 2014 at 11:39
Well, Patrick R. Sullivan, the SCt did agree to hear King v Burwell (I doubt this was because of the election, but good call anyway):
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/