Is the GOP implosion helping libertarians?
Here’s ABC News:
For years, supporters of marijuana legalization have pointed to polls trending their way, claiming the issue was about to tip as favorable to a majority of Americans.
Now, their prediction has finally come true.
For the first time, a major U.S. poll shows a majority of nationwide support for legalizing marijuana: 52 percent now back legalized pot, compared with 45 percent who oppose it, according to a new survey from the Pew Research Center. Pew has been asking about marijuana since 1969, when only 12 percent thought it should be legal, and 84 percent said it shouldn’t be.
. . .
The legalization charge is being led by young people: Support ranked highest among 18-29-year-old respondents, 64 percent of whom think pot should be legal. Politically, liberal Democrats overwhelmingly think marijuana should be legal, at 73 percent.
But the idea of legalization has grown by making inroads among Republicans. Since 2010, the demographic that has shifted more support than any other-including groups broken down by age, political leaning, race, gender, and education-is liberal and moderate Republicans. Among them, support has jumped 17 percentage points in the last three years, from 36 percent in 2010 to 53 percent today.
And how about this:
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found record high support “” 58 percent “” for gay marriage.
In a new survey released Monday, only 36 percent of those polled thought marriage for gay and lesbian couples should be illegal and 6 percent had no opinion.
Gay marriage has been one of the country’s fastest-shifting political issues of the decade. Just three years ago, the same poll found 47 percent of respondents favored legal gay marriage and 50 percent were against it.
. . .
The new poll also found strong support for gay marriage among young people, Democrats and independents. A whopping 81 percent of 18-29 year olds surveyed supported legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Thank God for the younger generation!
And how about this:
With more movement on the immigration reform issue in Washington than ever before, it appears that attitudes are softening among Americans when it comes to allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally.
A new survey released by the Pew Research Center Thursday revealed that 71 percent of Americans–that’s seven in 10–believe there should be a way for undocumented immigrants who cam illegally into the country to stay, provided they meet certain criteria.
And how about this:
In a hypothetical election match-up between a Republican candidate who supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants against a Democrat who opposes citizenship, 61 percent of Latinos who voted for President Barack Obama in 2012 said they would would choose the Republican, according to the poll. Another 43 percent of Latino Obama supporters said they would become more likely to consider or vote for a Republican if the party plays a major role in comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, 41 percent of Obama’s Latino voters have already cast a ballot in favor of a down-ticket Republican seeking federal, state or local office, the poll found.
Meanwhile, the few holdouts like Jim Geraghty of the National Review have defenses of the War on Drug Using Americans that are almost embarrassingly weak:
I realize public opinion on marijuana legalization is shifting quickly, but count me among those who are skeptical that legalization of marijuana would really make the United States a better place to live. If I thought legalization of this or any other drug would mean less addiction, I would be on board with it. But I suspect legalization would probably increase addiction slightly.
That’s right, launch a war that does untold damage to millions of lives throughout America and the entire Western hemisphere, because pot “probably” increases addiction “slightly.” Meanwhile Jim’s addictions of choice are:
I am in fact one of those straight-laced geeks who has not partaken of marijuana, or any other illegal drug. While I could say that’s because I’m as pure as driven snow, it would be more accurate to state that the legal thrills of wine, women, and song have been my vices of choice.
Good to know the legalization of alcohol didn’t “slightly” increase alcoholism.
Oh wait . . .
PS. Tyler Cowen’s recent post on guns and booze gets my vote for post of the year (so far.) And I don’t even agree with his proposal. Maybe that’s because I grew up in Wisconsin, where alcohol is a big part of the culture.
When I read a Cowen post where he’s at the top of his game, and then switch over to another blogger (including me), it’s like switching channels from the Miami Heat to a high school basketball game.
Tags:
5. April 2013 at 07:42
The Republican Party is doomed — Libertarianism is the new conservative movement — more at: http://www.lp.org
5. April 2013 at 07:48
I am too stoned to have an opinion. 😉
5. April 2013 at 07:50
But I thought public opinion polls are unreliable? 🙂
5. April 2013 at 08:08
I was going to suggest a Utah version of marijuana legalization — low potency only.
Then I read the Cowen comment: “The people who get this right “” it seems to me “” are the Mormons.”
5. April 2013 at 08:18
Jeff, For complex economic questions, such as health care reform, taxes, etc, they are unreliable. They are reliable for clear yes/no questions such as pot and gay marriage legalization. Immigration is somewhere in between, but the swing in support for a more lenient attitude is significant.
5. April 2013 at 09:09
I don’t know that I would call polls “unreliable”. But the subject matter does make a huge difference as far as interpreting the results.
Abortion polls are the prime example. Because of the nature of the subject, it is almost impossible to design question without a “PUSH poll” effect. But that does not mean they are unreliable. They show how the population’s feelings change depending on how the question is asked. Comparing the different results based on the subtleties of the questions, actually does give us a good picture of America’s views… Conflicted.
One poll should never be taken as the truth on its own. Individual Polls should always be seen as only one way to look at a topic. Taken altogether, polls are very useful on every topic.
5. April 2013 at 09:22
‘Thank God for the younger generation!’
Because it’s useful as a bad example? I know I was when I was part of the younger generation.
5. April 2013 at 09:27
There is *no* “GOP implosion”. The Republicans just had one of their greatest state-level elections ever, winning control of more states than they’ve had since 1952! They now have full control of 24 state capitals versus only 11 for the Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/23/us/state-government-control-since-1938.html
That’s hardly “implosion”, eh?
Losing a presidential race to an incumbent and bungling a small handfull of senate races is hardly the death of a party.
All reports to the contrary simply demonstrate the media’s fixation on the blindingly superficial.
The events described are all just demographics, the opinions of the younger generations gaining weight as they grow in numbers and political influence, the opinions of the older receding. Those of us who are old enough to remember the ‘VietNam/civil rights/sex, drugs and rock & roll years’ are very familiar with the process.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with it. The average American voter is a long, long, long, way from libertarianism and not visibly getting any closer. (Name one issue where either party is trying to get the “libertarian vote”. Just one.)
It may also be just a bit of common sense and decent policy slowly seeping into politics. That happens too occasionally. Perhaps so rarely that when it does we think there must be some dramatic explanation … but there really doesn’t need to be.
5. April 2013 at 09:28
Dr. Sumner,
Speaking of alcohol and marijuana, you’ll appreciate this if you haven’t seen it already:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
5. April 2013 at 10:20
Jim Glass,
You have a good point. Gerrymandering is keeping the imploding Repub party in power.
Al long as the gerrymandering is effective do the repubs have the incentive to change ? NO.
If you are hopeful that the repubs will be forced to be more libertarian, then you should realize that Gerrymandering is working against you.
Just one more example of how the Libertarians are in the wrong party. Too bad tribalism will keep libertarians in an incoherent alliance with Neo cons and the “Moral” “Majority”.
5. April 2013 at 10:30
Is it uncool to cut and paste a post one did on an other blog on to other blogs ? If so My bad. Here it goes.
Tyler says…” I favor a kind of voluntary prohibition on alcohol. It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me. It remains one of the great undervalued social movements. “
Well, I don’t understand how anyone could disagree with this sentiment… But I don’t see this sentiment having any real effects. As my Mom used to say: “Wish in one hand, spit in the other… It will get you the same results.”
Why not actually REGULATE alcohol better ?
Why do we allow people to drink at a bar, and then dive drunk. We all know that people are regularly over served in bars and restaurants… and at Some bars, at some times, almost everyone is over served. Yet penalizing bars for letting people dive away drunk is very rare. Sure we make a big deal about drunk diving. We set up check points on the holidays… But we could easily just stop most of drunk driving at its source. Put a cop right out side… And then penalize the bar as well as the drunk. Heck, put a volunteer deputy IN every bar… MADD members would jump at it.
Also We SHould…ban alcohol advertisement in all but exclusively ADULT media. There is no reason we should be letting these PUSHERS get into the minds of our children. Our society is so twisted on this that, alcohol is regularly advertised on what we consider to be our most wholesome programing. Alcohol ads are seen on every sports broadcast and in every sports mag. They are common on CHRISTMAS SPECIALS.
Alcohol ads are commonly amid at youth. I am all for legalizing weed, but I would be appalled if I saw an ad for weed during the super bowl that used cute animated frogs to place a positive association with weed in my kids head… wouldn’t you ?
Remember the Budwiser frogs ? When that commercial first hit, my son was 3. We were watching the super bowl as a family. We all loved the commercial. We made a big deal about.
A few days later I was shopping. My son was sitting in the cart. He saw an unadorned stack of Bud twelve packs on the end of an isle. He got a big smile on his face, he pointed and said… “Froggy Beer !”
I died a bit inside.
Before I even had a chance to warn my baby about the dangers of Alcohol… he already had a positive association with it.
We should be keeping pushers away from our kids… legal drug or not.
(If reposting this was uncool let me know.)
5. April 2013 at 10:43
Bill Ellis,
“Too bad tribalism will keep libertarians in an incoherent alliance with Neo cons and the “Moral” “Majority”.”
If it was coherent, it wouldn’t be an alliance; it would be an identity.
Neither the Republican party nor the Democrat party is worthy of one dime from a libertarian.
5. April 2013 at 10:57
Jim Glass, You said;
“The average American voter is a long, long, long, way from libertarianism and not visibly getting any closer.”
Umm, I think you forgot to read my post before commenting. Libertarian views are rapidly gaining ground.
You said;
“The events described are all just demographics, the opinions of the younger generations gaining weight as they grow in numbers and political influence, the opinions of the older receding.”
Actually just the opposite is occurring. The share of old people is rising, and the young are less numerous. It’s all about the cohorts, not a population getting younger.
Bill, I’m appalled by your puritanical views on alcohol. Why penalize bars for the behavior of drunks? Why not blame the drunk drivers themselves?
I’d be proud if my son recognized “froggy beer.”
5. April 2013 at 11:23
W. Peden,
No. The alliance between the UK, America and France in WWII (or today ) could not be described as incoherent or as a single identity… for example.
5. April 2013 at 11:51
Scott says…”Why penalize bars for the behavior of drunks?”
Think of the drunks as a negative externality created by the bar owners. Should negative externalities go unaddressed ?
Are you familiar with the legal concept of “depraved indifference”…
From wiki…“an action that demonstrates a “callous disregard for human life” and results in death. In most states, depraved heart killings (depraved indifference) constitute second-degree murder.[1]
If no death results, such acts would generally be defined as reckless endangerment and possibly other crimes, such as assault.”
How is supplying alcohol to people that are obviously out of control… who you a know % are going to get behind the wheel… not fit the definition of depraved indifference ?
Depraved indifference is OK if it is a business ?
Also, Trust me I am not very puritanical…I don’t care how much anyone drinks. I like.. no, make that love to drink. My concerns (on this) are not that kind of moral. They are based on wanting to decrease the cause of a costly behavior.
5. April 2013 at 12:34
I guess … Bars don’t cause drunk driving… People do ?
If so it follows that, knowingly enabling and encouraging ( yes encouraging ) people to drive drunk is OK.
5. April 2013 at 13:11
Well,as a libertarian I certainly welcome the trend, but OTOH the GOP isn’t doing that badly — they have their best-ever state representation and they’ve carried the House of Reps in all but two cycles since 1994.
5. April 2013 at 13:14
Think of the drunks as a negative externality created by the bar owners.
Think of people killed with hammers as a negative externality created by carpenters. Or, maybe consider that people making bad choices isn’t an externality.
5. April 2013 at 13:20
Yet penalizing bars for letting people dive away drunk is very rare. Sure we make a big deal about drunk diving.
Well, to be fair, most bars aren’t located on the water 🙂
Anyways, “letting” assumes the bar/restaurant owner must forcibly stop them (how? at gunpoint?). That creates a whole host of other problems. The state already takes away people’s licenses for drunk driving, I don’t see how involuntarily deputizing bar/restaurant owners will improve the situation any.
5. April 2013 at 14:13
Bill Ellis,
(1) It most certainly was incoherent: by the time that the US was involved in the war, mainland France had already fallen.
(2) Those nations (and let’s not forget the USSR) disagreed on many matters, but agreed on key matters of substance. Many liberarians feel the same way regarding conservative Republicans, so if the Allies of World War II count as a “coherent alliance” in your book, then the libertarian-conservative alliance in the Republican party should as well.
5. April 2013 at 15:03
Tall Dave says…Think of people killed with hammers as a negative externality created by carpenters. Or, maybe consider that people making bad choices isn’t an externality
Encouraging and enabling people to use hammers is not the same as encouraging and enabling people to drive drunk.
If using hammers had the Certain effect of intoxicating people, rendering them unable to make rational decisions that lead to death and destruction I would consider that a significant negative externality that should be addressed too. As it is, Hammer related deaths are not a big problem.
Maybe you want to try a better metaphor ? I can’t think of one.
And …I have considered “that people making bad choices isn’t an externality”
Why else would I have asked: “I guess… Bars don’t cause drunk driving… People do ?”
And I still got to say that line of thinking says it is OK to promote drunk driving… That promoting drunk diving does not make you responsible for drunk driving.
Manson never killed any one… He only got others to do it. By your reasoning he should be a free man.
Tall Dave also says… Anyways, “letting” assumes the bar/restaurant owner must forcibly stop them (how? at gunpoint?). That creates a whole host of other problems. The state already takes away people’s licenses for drunk driving, I don’t see how involuntarily deputizing bar/restaurant owners will improve the situation any.
First…I meant that deputizing MADD moms as a joke. (I should have put it in brackets with a winking guy 😉 ) I thought it was a funny image.
And “letting them” may not be the best phrase… Bars should be responsible for over serving in the first place. And the Police should do a better job of enforcing the law. Lets not forget, their ARE laws against over serving.
Imagine a place where tons of people were being primed to do something dangerous and illegal the minute they walked out the door… every day… For decades. Would you say the police were falling down on the job If they were not there to stop them ? I would. Why is drunk driving special ?
If you don’t like the Negative Externality description (Not that I am saying it is wrong ) how about looking at it as a Moral hazard problem ?
In this case an asymmetry of information, sets up a situation in which The Bar owner has a better command of info than the drunk. The owner has a better expectation about the actions of a drunk driver than the drunk driver. (People who drive drunk tend to think they can handle it. Sober people know that is bull shit. Heck the drunk driver knows it is bull shit when he is sober. ) The Bar owner is insulated from risk… leading him to over serve. Moral hazards should be eliminated when possible. Right ?
Best regards, Short Bill.
5. April 2013 at 15:38
If we were to commit to making bar owners responsible for their part in creating drunk drivers. It would actually be very simple to enforce. Alcohol sales are Licensed .
Police could be committed to regularly and randomly target bars for over-serving. It would only take a few bars temporarily losing their license to get the others in line and good compliance.
I know there is no way in hell any of this is gonna change… Just so y’all know.
5. April 2013 at 16:20
W. Peden,
Semantics…zzzz
Let’s simplify. All I am saying is it makes more sense for Libertarians to be allied with Dems than reubs… if you want to pick one, as many Libertarian do.
Face it. They are both big government. The dems are indeed Bigger government in that they want to preserve the welfare state for the common man. The repubs on the other hand are of and support the elite. They have no problem making the state the instrument of the elite. No one wants that… Right ?
Killing the welfare state for the common man will not shrink government to the point where the elite will no longer be able to make the government its instrument …
I always say…If libertarians want to shrink the government start with the “rent seeking” of the elite. Then get back to us.
(I hate that phrase “rent seeking”, why not just call institutional privilege..cuz that is what it is. )
Let me put it this way… If Libertarians would realize that big government is something that will not go away, that it is a condition of modern society, then you would be on our side of the “tug of war”. Other things would become a priority.
We have far more agreement on civil liberties… We have far more agreement on military spending and our overseas actions. Was there a more detrimental action in recent history than going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan ? President Gore would not of done that.
We waste trillions “policing” the world. We should be drawing back. You find far more support in the dem party for this than the reb.
5. April 2013 at 16:35
I like this trend toward the good kind of libertariansm – the kind that has a presumption to leave people alone unless they bother someone else. Free markets and free personal behavior, with restrictions against force and fraud. Milton Friedman type stuff. (As opposed to the weird cultish gold-worshipping anarchists.)
But I’ve always thought libertarianism is incomplete, because it doesn’t tell you anything about what to do when actions affect others.
Bill Ellis’s point illustrates this. I can see how a libertarian can agree with his point, because drunk driving affects others, and selling alcohol at a bar with a parking lot,next to a public road, obviously aids and abets the crime of drunk driving. Therefore the bar owner is an intentional accesory. But I also see how a libertarian would take the opposite view.
That’s why I’ve always avoided the label for myself even though I usually agree with most of what people who call themselves libertarians think. The more interesting debate, to me, is what actions affect others(what constitutes fraud, etc.) and what the rest of us should do about it when people do hurt others.
5. April 2013 at 16:48
Prof. Sumner,
You will LOVE the discussion provided in the following links:
“The Long Mystery of Low Interest Rates”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/global-savings-glut-global-risk-tolerance-shortage.html
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-are-long-term-interest-rates-so-low-by-kenneth-rogoff
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/04/interest-rates
5. April 2013 at 16:52
Dear Commenters,
Could someone please explain why there is such a huge gap in returns between U.S. bonds and U.S. equities? The following quote below doesn’t seem like a sufficient explanation:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/global-savings-glut-global-risk-tolerance-shortage.html
“Current earnings yields on the S&P Composite are on the order of 6%/year. The way to bet is that profits right now are not cyclically elevated but rather cyclically depressed–as the economy gradually recovers to normal levels of activity relative to potential volumes will rise at least as fast as real wages, and profits will grow. Figure a cyclically-adjusted earnings yield of 7%/year at current stock market valuations, compares that to the -2%/year of current real short-term debt returns, and it looks like not a global savings glut but rather a global risk-tolerance shortage.”
5. April 2013 at 17:08
Bill Ellis,
In all of your examples, you compare what the Republicans do in practice to what the Democrats support in theory. We could multiply such cases e.g. the Republicans, in practice, support entitlement spending, while the Democrats, in theory, oppose the Patriot Act.
Still, as I say, I think that both parties are unworthy of liberarians’ time and money. The Republican party isn’t fiscally conservative and the Democrat party isn’t socially liberal; Bush expanded the welfare state dramatically and Obama expanded the scope of the security state dramatically. I don’t think libertarians should ally with either party, but rather work on subverting the ideological bases and narratives of both parties, such that both the Republicans and the Democrats have to change to win support.
Negation of Ideology,
“But I’ve always thought libertarianism is incomplete, because it doesn’t tell you anything about what to do when actions affect others.”
Isn’t that ALL that libertarianism tells one to do, positively, i.e. respect the property rights of others and frame laws to define them? On issues beyond that (charity, personal behaviour, personal relationships etc.) you get a huge range from someone like Gary North to the people at Reason.com.
“The more interesting debate, to me, is what actions affect others(what constitutes fraud, etc.) and what the rest of us should do about it when people do hurt others.”
I fully agree. In fact, I think that the worst thing about the movement away from the classical idea of a law as a general rule concerning action, to the modern idea of a law as a provisional command of a legislature with the aim of fashioning society in a particular image, is precisely that a proper debate of issues like fraud and the boundaries of property rights (e.g. are there intellectual property rights?) is made impossible by the modern conception of the law.
“Are there intellectual property rights?” “Yes, insofar as they help national economic efficiency and insofar as they don’t harm trade relations with China.”
What I would love is that we could get back to the idea of a legislature as a place where laws are passed, rather than laws as things passed by legislatures. That would be a good bit of ideological undermining that would mess up both the neo-conservatives and the American liberals.
5. April 2013 at 17:12
TravisV,
It’s not generally agreed why anyone values government bonds or at least why they value government bonds to the extent that they do-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_premium_paradox
5. April 2013 at 17:30
Here in Washington State, the voters passed ballot measures legalizing recreational pot and same sex marriage. Of course, Washington is a blue state. Come to think of it, Colorado also voted for Obama and the legalization of recreational pot. Oh, and Blue State Senators are more likely to vote for immigration reform than their Red State counterparts (by “more likely,” I mean on average).
If legalized pot, gay marriage, and “path-to-citizenship” immigration reform are important objectives on the Libertarian agenda, then why don’t more LIbertarians vote for Democrats, who clearly have a better record on these three issues?
The reason, I suspect, is that very few Libertarians attach much importance to these three objectives in comparison to, say, reducing taxes, eliminating regulations, and, of course, replacing the Fed with the gold standard or “free banking.”
5. April 2013 at 19:37
Some other possible good news regarding the GOP.
David Stockman’s book had many weaknesses—but he included the “warfare” state on the list of evils.
So Stockman joins Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Dick Armey, Cato Institute and few others in the right-wing who are questioning a gigantic military at a time when we face about 1 percent of the threats we faced back in the bad old Soviet Union days
I always say, I wish I could vote for a GOP’er who would cut military spending, or a pro-business Democrat.
I wonder if I will get that chance?
5. April 2013 at 19:50
@ Bill Ellis
I wrote:
“There is *no* “GOP implosion”. The Republicans just had one of their greatest state-level elections ever, winning control of more states than they’ve had since 1952. They now have full control of 24 state capitals versus only 11 for the Democrats.”
Jim Glass,You have a good point. Gerrymandering is keeping the imploding Repub party in power.
Ha, that’s amusing. But we’ve run all around the gerrymandering tree previously, no need to do so again.
However, it’s good to remember that political propaganda (“the other side wins only by cheating”) is to be aimed at others, the great middling masses of uninformed.
When one starts believing one’s own, bad things happen.
5. April 2013 at 20:01
@ssumner
Jim Glass, You said; “The average American voter is a long, long, long, way from libertarianism and not visibly getting any closer.” Umm, I think you forgot to read my post before commenting. Libertarian views are rapidly gaining ground.
I read your post, I simply completely disagree — it can happen, even among friends!
I see no evidence at all that libertarian views are gaining general political popularity. The fact that a few political initiatives that correct past mistakes and stupidities are gradually being enacted doesn’t create a movement to libertarianism just because libertarians approve — if Buddhists approve as well (they don’t like mistakes and stupidity either) is Buddhism gaining ground too?
Was the 21st Amendment, a repeal of prohibitions that dwarfs these current ones, via amending the Constitution itself, a sign of libertarianism rapidly gaining ground in the USA? How about the 19th? Libertarians should have been ecstatic about both (and perhaps were) — but had zero political influence in enacting either of them.
Again, as I asked before, is either political party today seeking to get “the libertarian vote” on *any* issue?
“The events described are all just demographics, the opinions of the younger generations gaining weight as they grow in numbers and political influence, the opinions of the older receding.”
Actually just the opposite is occurring. The share of old people is rising, and the young are less numerous.
As I said, the young people of ‘the generation of VietNam/civil rights/ sex drugs & rock and roll’, are growing into the age of the 50+ power brokers — and we and the younger-than-us, who are together growing in numbers and pushing out the old of olde, never had much of a problem with smoking weed or the gay life.
That’s what’s going on here. That is all.
It’s all about the cohorts, not a population getting younger.
Umm, that’s what I said. It’s about demographics, not about the rise of libertarian ideas. Look at the opinions of those cohorts on the *broad range* of issues. They want more govt spending on purported social goods, on education, on health care, on retirees, more on darn near everything. Nothing libertarian in that. Go to Reddit and look at the relative volumes in the libertarian and ‘anti-libertarian’ forums. So much for that conceit.
But on the up side, they also have precious little interest in the common libertarian desire to go back to the gold standard.
5. April 2013 at 20:38
Interesting graph. Thoughts?
http://www.sprottgroup.com/thoughts/articles/a-retort-to-soc-gens-latest-gold-report
“Chart A illustrates the relationship between the growth of central bank balance sheets in the US, EU, UK and Japan and the price of gold. This relationship has an extremely high correlation with an R2 of about 95%. As central banks increase the size of their balance sheets through ‘open market operations’ to buy bonds, mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and the like, they inject more fiat dollars into their respective banking systems. As gold has a relatively stable supply, if there are more dollars available, the price of gold should rise in dollar terms. It’s really a very simple and intuitive relationship – as it should be.”
5. April 2013 at 20:48
I’m curious how to reconcile Sprott Group’s study on gold prices with this one by Jeremy Grantham’s fund:
“Emerging Consumers Drive Gold Prices: Who Knew?”
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/gmo_11912.php
5. April 2013 at 21:50
Scott,
Topics like how should society deal with currently legal or illegal substances with proven (a) addictivity and (b) significant negative health effects are an area where economists could assist the public debate by rigorous cost/benefit analysis, one of the core areas of the discipline. For instance the relationship between repression cost, benefits to legal/illegal providers and benefits to society. In the case of marijuana costs would be the explicit costs made by get agencies for detection and prosecution plus cost of adjudication and most importantly, cost of incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. Also excise taxes foregone (in comparison with legal risky substances like alcohol and tobacco assuming that regulation and taxation analogous with alcohol would be the alternative policy) . Benefits accrue mainly to providers and intermediaries (who operate largely outside the gvt revenue scope). Benefits of repression accruing to non providers are probably very hard to identify (eg parents who do not like their kids exposed) and probably the same for repression of currently illegal as well as legal drugs (drinking age).
But you rarely see an unbiased analysis that aims at defining criteria for (economically) optimal gvt policy. Meanwhile old people in the US often have to visit the underground for medicinal or recreational marijuana without proper quality control (high THC versions are far from harmless) and advice and adolescents throughout the developed world are encouraged to use illegal and potentially highly dangerous synthetic party drugs because they are cheap and plentiful and facilitate longer rounds of binge drinking (Europe, Australia) .
I guess a specialised economist would probably be able to develop a robust notion that ineffective but growing repression may well boost supply and profitability for illegal providers (with associated growth in capital available for the criminal sector as a whole) unto a clipping point, and that such high levels of repression would not be feasible under US constitutional constraints. This while legalising and regulating a wide variety of substances (incl ones supplied by the pharmaceutical industry and prescribed by doctors) could lead to (a) more effective control over usage patterns and health effects (b) revenue for the legal side of society (c) and overall shrinking of the habitat of organized crime.
But what has it to do with libertarianism? There are fantastic utilitarian arguments equally attractive to a authoritarians as democrats. Singapore’s strong repression of all drugs (high excise on alcohol and tobacco, supply restrictions, prescription standards for doctors) happen to be in a soft authoritarian country . Addiction levels seem to be genuinely low. Holland’s legendary hands off approach (guided by the intuition that in a small open economy repression would lead to a disproportionate use of resources with a still uncertain outcome )goes hand in hand with well documented declining levels of addiction to most products (with a caveat for binge drinking and associated use of party drugs). The Singaporean and Dutch authoritties are familiar with each others situation and policy logic and see this in utilitarian terms (horses for courses). However Holland is also home to a very large export industry of (“condoned”) soft- and party drugs as well as a wholesaling centre for (strictly illegal) hard drugs. That is probably a greater public policy problem than the treatment of the domestic retail markets. I prefer a libertarian mindset but after hearing utilitarian arguments in this area. That might very well give much broader appeal to the sort of outcomes the libertarians want.
6. April 2013 at 04:06
Has anyone in the entire history of democracy ever said, “In order to repair its fortunes, the losing party in the last election needs to move AWAY FROM my own position on the issues”?
6. April 2013 at 06:25
@Paul,
Actually, there are quite a few Republicans doing just that on the immigration issue. And we’ve seen a fair number of Democrats in the last election do that on gun control.
You forget that politicians are actually politicians. If a position proves to be poison in an election, they move away from it.
6. April 2013 at 07:04
Bill. There is no way a large bar could have any idea whether someone is drunk or not. Modern standards of drunkenness are completely different from in the past (when you had to look drunk.) I’ve seen people drink 2, 3, 4 times the legal limit and look completely sober. In a large bar with 100s of people it’s simply impossible to recall how much any individual person has drunk. And people can have their friends buy drinks for them.
There only externality is the drunk himself, and that’s who we should punish. Instead we treat alcoholics as “victims,” giving even repeated drunk drivers very low sentences until they kill someone.
TravisV, That’s why I’ve been 100% in equities since 2008. It seems like a mismatch. (But don’t buy stocks on my suggestion–I have no idea where the market is going from here.)
Greg Hill. There is some truth in what you say, but . . . Pat Robertson favors legalizing pot and President Obama favors the war on drugs, even overturning the decisions of states. Change that and lots more libertarians would vote Democratic. In my state the Dems tends to oppose legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The Boston Globe opposed the measure. It lost in a very close vote. In my view the Globe has endorsed the torture of US citizens, far more immoral than anything that happend at Abu Ghraib.
I care much more about the war on drugs than economic regulations, so I’d gladly support the Dems if they came out against the war on drags. Even in states where voters voted to legalize pot, the Democratic pols typical opposed the measure.
Jim Glass, The GOP is very worried about losing the libertarian vote (small L obviously, the Libertarian Party is a joke.) I predict the GOP will change its position on pot, immigration and gay marriage, in order to try to stem the losses. And these are not unimportant issues, immigration and the war on drugs are two of the most important public policy issues that we face, far more important than Obamacare.
TravisV, Regarding gold, correlation doesn’t prove causation.
Rien, I’m a utilitarian, so you are preaching to the converted.
6. April 2013 at 07:05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
“There are currently 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats and 1 independent that hold the office of governor in the states”
You can’t gerrymander votes for governor.
6. April 2013 at 08:09
In some ways this isn’t surprising, for 10-20 years, a republican could stay on good terms while being moderate about pot. Immigration is a different matter, the pat buchanan era was very dark for moderates on immigration.
9/11 was actually a step to fixing this. The moderate republican position became: I support border controls for security reasons, and I just want people to follow the rules. This exactly the terms which seem to have broad appeal now in the reform effort.
Still there is some denialism from progressives: demonize benefit rules that target illegal immigrants to avoid accepting the premise the public benefits have secondary effects that may be adverse.
6. April 2013 at 08:19
‘Could someone please explain why there is such a huge gap in returns between U.S. bonds and U.S. equities?’
People have been trying to for decades.
6. April 2013 at 20:28
@ Richard A. and Bill Ellis
“There are currently 30 Republicans, 19 Democrats and 1 independent that hold the office of governor in the states” You can’t gerrymander votes for governor.
Exactly. So much for any Repub “implosion”, stopped only by gerrymandering.
Moreover, gerrymandering in the House clearly helps Democrats — studies show that with “fair” impartially-drawn district lines Democratic electoral performance *drops* circa 7% — because Democratic voters tend to be heavily concentrated in a smaller number of districts (e.g. NYC Dem Reps win with 90% of the vote).
~~~~~
@ssumner
Jim Glass, The GOP is very worried about losing the libertarian vote
Repeating this doesn’t make it so. I’ll ask a third time, on what issue is either party competing to get “the libertarian vote”? I suspect the reason why my first two asks didn’t get an answer is because the answer is clear: none, as there is no significant libertarian vote.
The moves to legalize marijuana and gay marriage and for immigration reform are being driven by **liberal** organizations, lobbyists, campaign funders etc. For instance, all three very big-time here in NYC, where there are ZERO libertarians in politics. Liberal =/= Libertarian.
If it was a “libertarian vote” driving these changes then these people supporting them would also favor libertarian positions on reducing govt spending on Medicare, public schools, welfare, rent controls, nationalized health care and all the rest, when all polls of them show just the *opposite* is true.
The fact that libertarians may approve of these moves does not mean that “the libertarian vote” has any more to do with driving them than it does with making the sun rise in the morning, of which libertarians also approve.
The Constitutional amendments that repealed prohibition of alcohol and gave women the right to vote should have brought joy to the hearts of libertarians on a scale that DWARFS that from these current hoped-for changes. Try to find a historian that attributes them to political influence of the libertarian vote of the 1920s.
small L obviously, the Libertarian Party is a joke.
Of course it is a joke, because there is no pool of libertarian voters of any size large enough to discipline it into contact with reality sufficiently to do something practical, like win an election.
Hey, I have strong libertarian sympathies, but don’t think kidding myself with wishful thinking about such constructively helps realize them.
7. April 2013 at 01:19
But I thought all surveys were worthless, etc…
7. April 2013 at 01:25
And how is this not a better post: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/why-the-u-s-helps-defend-south-korea-and-what-can-go-wrong.html
7. April 2013 at 07:01
JIm Glass. I think a lot of people still don’t realize how embarrassing the 2012 loss really was. Obama presided over 4 years of high unemployment, a terrible economy, and was was re-elected by 4%!! The younger generation is completely turned off by the GOP anti-libertarian positions, which they view as neanderthal.
Saturos, I said all surveys of complex public policy issues are useless. I’ve always agreed you could survey simple yes/no questions like gay marriage and legalizing pot. Immigration is more complex, but the direction of change in the polls is revealing.
That’s also a good post. But the first was Tyler at his best—thinking more deeply about an issue than anyone else.
7. April 2013 at 07:12
“JIm Glass. I think a lot of people still don’t realize how embarrassing the 2012 loss really was. Obama presided over 4 years of high unemployment, a terrible economy, and was was re-elected by 4%!! The younger generation is completely turned off by the GOP anti-libertarian positions, which they view as neanderthal.”
The “younger generation” also came of age in a time when American capitalism blew up in its face. While probably (selfishly? irrationally – hyperbolic discounting?) against an increase of old-age welfare statism (certainly the ratio of $ spent on 65+ vs 18-) they definitely don’t buy crap the GOP sells about the “self made man” and the GOP spun version of the free market.
At the end of the day, they’d (we) be for a much simpler tax code (consumption), simpler (if equally large) welfare state.
While a move to consumption tax is OK for the younger generation, it would need to be equally progressive. The GOP won’t buy that any time soon. Social libertarianism is still only a small part of what the younger people want.
They’re a RIPE area for a good third party, because the Democratic line sounds equally unappealing.
8. April 2013 at 06:11
Ashok, You said;
“At the end of the day, they’d (we) be for a much simpler tax code (consumption), simpler (if equally large) welfare state.”
Me too.
You said:
“While a move to consumption tax is OK for the younger generation, it would need to be equally progressive. The GOP won’t buy that any time soon.”
I have a recent post showing that even if the tax reform were equally progressive, the Dems would claim it was far more regressive. So I see the Dems as the main barrier to tax reform. They need to study tax theory, and stop relying on cheap emotional arguments.
8. April 2013 at 07:04
Scott, as I said “They’re a RIPE area for a good third party, because the Democratic line sounds equally unappealing.”
I give the Dems a bit more credit, though. I see it as more game theoretic. Selling a consumption tax to the public, the way it’s framed, sounds regressive. Democrats know they can’t pass anything today without Republican support. They don’t want to go out on record in support of something perceived to be regressive without knowing it can get passed.
Otherwise, in close elections Republicans will appeal to voters about the “regressive” tax suggested by the Democrats.
Republicans are more responsible for this misperception than Democrats, as they’ve gone on record supporting things like a FairTax rather than a graduated tax on wages and business cash flow (w/ sound exemptions), like the X Tax.
If Republicans were to implement their (non-progressive but beautifully simple) consumption tax, I think savings among the bottom 30-40% would decrease. I spell out that argument here:
http://ashokarao.com/2013/03/28/is-consumption-a-giffen-good/
8. April 2013 at 07:28
Scott: don’t beat yourself about your blog quality compared to Tyler and such. Your blogs are just different. I don’t know how Tyler does it, but it seems that he eats books on breakfast, lunch and dinner – and I am pretty sure that he eats also eats some during midnight fridge raids. And he is also pretty good writer who can bring some surprisingly new things on the table. And even if I find myself not agreeing with him sometimes I really admire and respect him.
But on the other side bloggers like you or Nick can go deeper into specific area and give an insight into area that one thing is already explored. I love the way Nick Row writes, I am always excited to read another of his educational stories. When he is at his best I often experience that fantastic “heureka” moment as when suddenly something clicks in your head and you find understanding. You on the other side write stuff more frequently and you are not afraid to directly confront other ideas if you think it is worth it for educational reasons spurring interesting discussion around the blogosphere.
And yes, I almost forget one of the most important things – MM blogs in general are far more engaged with their readers than Tyler is. This in turn crowds in community of some pretty awesome commenters. And this is by no means trivial feat. This is internet blogging at its best.
8. April 2013 at 10:37
Bill–
If using hammers had the Certain effect of intoxicating people,
I have a beer with dinner almost every night. I haven’t been drunk since college.
As it is, Hammer related deaths are not a big problem.
Of course not, most people use hammers responsibly, and there are laws against misusing them. Most people use alcohol responsibly, too, and there are laws against misusing alcohol.
promoting drunk diving
No one promotes drunk driving. You may have been misreading/mishearing alcohol advertisements, they actually say “drink responsibly.” You might have thought they said irresponsibly, they’re very similar words, easy mistake.
Imagine a place where tons of people were being primed to do something dangerous and illegal the minute they walked out the door… every day… For decades.
That’s an apt description of the world we live in. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year without any help from alcohol (or even necessarily any bad choices), and sundry other ways as well. And yet we don’t ban cars or hammers.
8. April 2013 at 12:07
“We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” Obama said. “It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal.”
8. April 2013 at 12:36
I also found Tyler Cowen’s recent post on guns and booze great.