Indeed, and I am not being sarcastic.
Of course there are many illegal markets that would generate stimulus were they to be legalized. Here are some of the big ones.
- Drugs
- Guns
- Prostitution (except in Nevada)
- Gay prostitution (even in Nevada)
- Gambling
- Trade with Cuba
- Liberalized immigration
I can assure you that today Delta stimulated the book trade. Thank you all for the comments, I am genuinely pleased that I have all of you to complain to. It is a real pleasure.
Ah, most guns are legal for most people in most circumstances.
And the election already stimulated the guns and ammo market, there is a serious shortage of ammo due to hoarding.
Which reminds me, I need some 9mm.
Mike, our government is incompetent at a lot of things. But when it comes to the IRS and other tax agencies, you bet your ass that they’re going to put superhuman efforts into making it work. It’s the one major profit-generating activity the government has.
Who needs economic stimulus, phooey. What we need in reality is a social stimulus to increase the quality of our lives. Drop your bank account for a credit union. Turn off the expensive advertising you pay for called a TV. Shop Thrift. Invest in your community with municipal tax free bonds. All the while decreasing your total tax collective footprint, the ultimate evasion statement. Live in the third sector, use all the non-profit businesses and agencies you can, and live functionally very well.
Legalizing anything will reduce the costs associated with it. Fewer jails built, fewer body bags, guns, bullets sold, etc.
That means less waste, less “stimulus”.
Of course, legalizing victimless crimes is not really a bad thing. Only according to the logic of the current Klepto-demo-publican regime.
In really, efficiency makes capital available for other things. Mor value for the same money.
Such is the stuff of economic growth. It really has nothing to do with pissing away economic wellbeing by shifting resources to silly things more visible to the media.
Fidel will live to be 105.
“The demand for stimulus means that the cost of being morally opposed to these transactions increases and the margin between what is repugnant and what is not slides outward. (Tyler Cowen worries half-seriously that economists are evil when they try to persuade others to think in these terms.)”
Is this true? Morality that is subject to marginal economics is not morality at all, but preference. This is in fact the whole problem with everything! Seriously. People for whom it costs little can enforce their preferences on the rest of us. It is not evil to get over on these people by making them feel the costs. Beleive me, the Rahm Emanuels are not going to waste the crisis.
Liberalized immigration
When it is sunny, Cowen is for liberalized immigration. When it rains, Cowen is for liberalized immigration. More immigration when it is peace, more immigration when there is a war.
More immigration during Dot-Com boom, more immigration during Dot-Com crash, more immigration during Housing bubble, more immigration during resulting (dep)recession.
Is there ever a time when immigration is not in the interest of the American folk, Doctor?
And how liberalized immigration should be?
We already import more people than the rest of the world combined. Should we import 5 Million / year?
10 Million? Why not 50 Million?
If not, why not?
If immigration is always good with no negative side, why not to have a lot of it?
Even at 100 Million per year it will be at least 15 years before we reach level of India in living standards, so what’s wrong with 100 Million a year?
I have never seen Cowen mentioned any numerical limits on immigration, nor any requirements for prospective immigrants.
Assuming that even Dr Cowen would not want to admit known Al Queda members or serial killers, are there any criteria you would apply, Dr. Cowen?
Any numerical limits?
American immigration policy is based on 3 immovable legs:
Cheap Labor
Cheap Votes
Cheap Sentimentality (as in my great grandpa was an immigrant and he was a good man, therefore we have no moral right to turn away anybody)
People in the first 2 categories (cheap labor and votes) know what they are doing and could be shamed.
No amount of any data can convince people in cheap sentimentality group and Dr. Cowen is there forever.
We already import more people than the rest of the world combined.
Not per capita. Not even close.
1,107,126 immigrants became permanent residents of the USA in 2008
Total American Population in 2009: 306,148,000
Current Immigration Rate/Year: 0.36%
247,202 immigrants became permanent residents of the USA in 2008
Total Canadian Population in 2009: 33,605,000
Current Immigration Rate/Year: 0.74%
So yeah, you’re going to need to double your immigration rate to reach Canadian levels of prosperity.
Is there ever a time when immigration is not in the interest of the American folk, Doctor?
Maybe it’s just a good idea. Getting other countries to send you their smartest, most motivated workers is very good for any country over the long run.
What about squashing insects? Should the police concern themselves with children armed with magnifying glasses looking for ants?
Or should the state concern itself with protecting human rights, and leave the rest until it has reached perfection on its actual reason for existence?
How is the war on drugs working? Is it working as well as the war on “terror”?
Regarding immigration per capita, Sweden must be up there. A country of about 9.2 million, in 2007 they let in 95,750 immigrants and 102,000 in 2008. (They had similar numbers in previous years as well.) As a comparison, in 2007 the US State Department allowed 1,600 Iraqi refugees into the country while Sweden admitted about 18,600 Iraqi refugees.
Sweden now is also experiencing record emigration numbers, from native Swedes and non-Swedes alike.
We already import more people than the rest of the world combined.
Not per capita. Not even close.
Non sequitur.
Are you a victim of American Lib Arts education or just dense?
Getting other countries to send you their smartest, most motivated workers is very good for any country over the long run.
Perhaps on your planet it works like this. On our planet in the USA immigrants are well behind the natives in virtually all socially positive measurements: they are less educated, make less money, use much, much more social services, pay way less taxes, etc.
But they are way ahead of natives in crimes committed and producing lots of children with, on average, lower IQ than natives.
How is that a good deal?
I’m always amused when the libertine (those that confuse ordered liberty with unlimited personal license and who are primarily responsible for the marginalization of libertarianism) element in libertarianism call for the legalization of prostitution. The reduction of sex into a benign commercial act between rational free agents works fine until you start to consider thinks like underage prostitutes (if only pimps were more compliant with minimum wage laws)
and sexually communicable diseases.
At that point, the libertine decides these objections can be solved by such markedly non-libertarian things as occupational licensure and a nice new regulator.
Oh well.
What always amazes me is that authoritarians talk about all the bad things that will happen if prostitution is legalized, but don’t realize that all those things are already happening with illegal prostitution, which is rampant and open. (this is, of course, ignoring the fact that criminalization makes things like underage prostitution and communicable disease worse). Prostitutes operate out in the open on street corners, advertise their wares in public magazines. The only time that prostitution is punished is when the prostitutes or their pimps don’t pay off the cops. Prostitution is already defacto legalized, society simply doesn’t collect taxes nor enforce ethical business practices.
I mean, I get it. The bible says that sex outside of marriage is bad, so you need to be seen posturing against sex outside marriage. I can understand and respect if you have a religious belief that prostitution is evil in and of itself and should be banned for its own sake. But if you believe in any sort of pragmatic case for the criminalization of prostitution, you are a sucker and not worthy of any respect.
Maybe it’s just a good idea. Getting other countries to send you their smartest, most motivated workers is very good for any country over the long run. I’d laugh hysterically at this if the consequences of people like you being so clueless weren’t so dire.
wrt immigration, I don’t understand the assumption that the interest of American citizens outweighs the aggregate interest of all humans…. to me the anti-immigration comments sound like partners at a law firm griping at the expansion of a law school, allowing more new lawyers to compete with their overinflated prices… I have no sympathy for policies explicitly intended to prop up the income of a hereditary minority by denying the majority the opportunity to compete.
I wonder if there is an underlying variable that affects both the dependence on trade and the social safety net. Perhaps some aspect of culture or geography might be responsible for both.
Comments on this entry are closed.