(My delusional current hypothesis here) Since there are a finite amount of natural resources in/on the Earth, we purchase (or claim by conquering)those resources from other countries while saving ours for the time said resources become more scarce. The more scarce the resource (E.G. Oil), the higher the price it will cost other countries to purchase from us or can be used for national defense. The hypothesis is based on how long (and if) we can remain a sovereign nation though and these resources haven't already been purchased by other nations to pay off debts.

I did miss the part about marijuana deaths (or lack thereof) initially. Nothing personal here... but your posts sometimes tend to be a little on the novelish side (as mine can be at times too) and things get overlooked. I would still ask the question... why compound potential problems if there is no need to (from a "legal" standpoint)?

I probably should clarify my personal postition first. What a person does in the privacy of their own home or privately owned establishment among like-minded and/or consenting adults is of no concern of mine what-so-ever... PROVIDING, their actions do not interfere with my life and lifestyle choices at all. One may ingest, inject, smoke, or snort any substance (be it legal or illegal) they desire as far as I'm concerned. It's a matter of assuming personal responsibility for ones actions and suffering the consequences for the negative aspects of said actions. More often than not, it's my belief that people are incapable of both when it comes to drug usage (as indicated by the number of rehab centers and ER visits).

As per this debate overall. Can anyone make a persuasive (logical and rational) arguement on why to legalize marijuana? Just because the people want it, doesn't make for a compelling case for me. There are members of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) who want pedophilia legalized too for the same basic "constitutional" reasons (granted, an extreme example but still true). I would suggest the main appeal of illegal drug usage is mainly because it is illegal. In regards to medicinal uses... there are far more effective pharmacuticals (with less variables in the number of different compounds). Economically, it would be treated basically the same as any agriculture crop (the same cast of characters involved and reaping most of the capital). I too prefer the current way of doing business. Just like doing anything else, it's only illegal if one gets caught (whether it be a politician or Joe six-pack).

warmachine- I'm going to have to question your statistics. The claim of marijuana as a stand alone cause of death may be accurate (0); However, it would be intellectually dishonest to say it's not a possible contributing cofactor. Does marijuana contribute to inactivity and a poor diet? In some cases I would say "yes". (Facetious humor here) I don't recall ever seeing anyone getting the "munchies", eating celery sticks then doing aerobics. "Motor vehicle crashes"- Of all the fatalities involving vehicles... not one single driver had marijuana in his/her system? Impossible. The same would hold true to suicide, incidents involving firearms, and homicide (crimes committed with marijuana possibly being in the system). Not one single person contacted AIDS (or any other STD) whilst under the influence of marijuana? Could it be possible that there could be adverse reactions with other prescription medications or other legal/illegal drugs when used in conjunction with marijuana? Absolutely, there are just too many variables. I would submit that people do enough stupid things already without adding to the list another legal psychoactive depressant (marijuana) to contribute.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's comments just basically echos our own half-brown clown in charge "White folks greed runs a world in need" comment is all. How soon we forget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdLX3aRNaNk

When all else fails, play the race card.

I'll give it a shot on why not to end the drug war (on a border level). Quite simply, the effects they have upon the individual and the cost to society in the loss of life (the dealer violence aside) and productivity (raise your hand if you've called in to work and requested a personal day because of a hangover) by the recreational and/or habitual user. The most compelling reasons/arguements can be made by former users/addicts themselves... the toll taken upon friends, family members, and personal health. It also provides more excuses for people not taking personal responsibility for their actions (E.G. crimes committed while under the influence). The reduction of inhibitions- increasing the likelihood of risky behavior (E.G. contracting an STD). I would suggest using alchohol and tobacco (legal drugs) as the template. There are concerted efforts to restrict it's uses even further... where one can smoke and the lowering of the threshold of what is considered a DUI. It's always an "after the fact" consequence when it can be prevented by not legalizing or decriminalizing them to begin with.

I would suggest at looking at all the drug and alcohol treatment programs already... the more drugs legalized and/or decriminalized only compounds the costs for treatments and such. Just another way for government to separate you from your money (like gambling boats and the lotto). Cause the problem only to somehow miraculously have a half-assed solution to it, resulting in even more problems. The more the problems, it appears to me the more people look to government for solutions. Another piece of legislation (in legalizing/decriminalizing) that will result in further political corruption.

I'm of the same mindset as "nogames" (Kudos, appears someone is reading "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu).

Personally, I've never believed there being much success in writing politicians and threatening to withhold ones vote (other than the smug sense of self-satisfaction of claiming to do something). From my perspective, I believe the best approach is to allow said liberals have their way and use it to ones advantage. Do ones part in bleeding the system dry using their own policies against them. Assume no personal responsibility what-so-ever for ones actions (perpetually blame someone else). From the male perspective, procreate with as many willing female partners as possible (what are the politicians/state going to do, withhold food, clothing and shelter from innocent illegitament children? Nope.). Quit ones job (or find one with the least amount of responsibility and pay) and go on some form of welfare. There are a plethora of free programs both public and private, take advantage of EVERY single one. Free housing, free medical, free education, free food. Everyone from the IRS to credit card companies... from large pharmacuticals to healthcare providers are willing to negotiate... be like Iran, keep stalling and trying to renogiate to obtain the desired goals. There are too many safety nets in place to prevent complete depravity on a large scale in the US (just compare our poverty levels to the likes of Kenya).

It's my belief that we're past the point of salvaging or regaining anything that even remotely resembles the vision of our founding fathers. It appears there is too much time wasted on symbolic gestures and traditions that were once perceived as effective (I.E. writing politicians, "tea parties", single agenda protesting). There once were incentives to achieve and strive for personal accomplishment; However, those are being systematically dismantled in my opinion and relaced with "collectionism". Anyone with a modicum of common sense realizes this mentality is destined to collapse upon itself. The sooner this current way of doing business from the governmental level is bled dry, the sooner the rebuilding process can begin in my opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/obama-book-deal-500k-adva_n_176837.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, a best-selling author who received royalties of $2.5 million last year, will get hundreds of thousands more for a youth-oriented version of his published memoir and will write a nonfiction book after he leaves the White House.

Obama agreed in early January to deliver the new book after he leaves office. The White House said he already had a deal with Crown Publishing Group to write another book, and agreed Jan. 9 that he would produce the book after his term ends.

About a week later, shortly before his inauguration, Obama agreed to a $500,000 advance for an abridged version of "Dreams From My Father" that would be suitable for middle school or young adult readers, according to a new personal financial disclosure report released this week.

Obama will get $250,000 of the advance and the publisher will get the other half, a White House spokesman said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Obama didn't indicate how much he might get for writing the new nonfiction book, whose subject is yet to be determined. Terms likely would be negotiated at the end of his time in office. Former President Bill Clinton got $15 million for his book, "My Life."

Obama received nearly $2.5 million in book royalties last year for his two best-selling works _ "Dreams From My Father," which was written before he was elected to the Senate from Illinois, and "The Audacity of Hope."

Obama's financial disclosure report released this week covers January through Nov. 16, 2008, when he left the Senate. It shows that he and his wife, Michelle, have $1.3 million to $5.7 million in assets, which does not include their Chicago home. In addition, they have up to $550,000 in college savings plans for their two daughters.

The Obamas' holdings include $1 million to $5 million in Treasury bills purchased in October. They sold $500,000 to $1 million in Treasury notes last April, according to the report.

The book deal was first reported Wednesday by Congressional Quarterly.


I'll gladly take his paycut.

UPDATE.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/64644.html

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's army of canvassers fanned out across the nation over the weekend to drum up support for his $3.55 trillion budget, but they had no noticeable impact on members of Congress, who on Monday said they were largely unaware of the effort.

Over the weekend, Obama supporters knocked on an estimated 1 million doors in all 50 states. Canvassers asked people to sign a two-point pledge saying that they support Obama's "bold approach for renewing America's economy," and that they'll ask family, friends and neighbors to back it

I wish I had known about this event sooner, it took place yesterday (Saturday, March 21st). I would have been willing to sign up as volunteer coordinator (receiving a personal website from "My.BarackObamagroup"). Could have told different volunteers to show up at different times and different locations via e-mail and not show up myself (would have been too busy watching the NCAA men's basketball tournament). Perhaps show up and somehow forget to bring all the paperwork and such... the mind reels with possibilities. Use the tactics of project ACORN and other "activist" groups in submitting phoney names (E.G. Barack Bubaganoush or Mike Hunt). I wonder if they would get the "Bubaganoush" MXC reference. This event could have been a fun one to participate in. There is an old adage of "fighting fire with fire"... in this case it would have been "fighting smoke and mirrors with smoke and mirrors".

Absolutely. What would you rather do. Spend a few days apologizing for something that nobody can/will do anything about except express outrage or trying to explain to people you're attempts to seize private assets of private citizens (who have done nothing illegal)... AIG employees.

From Obama's perspective, I believe his remarks were brilliant concerning the special olympics. A welcomed distraction for him not having to talk about appointment failures, economy/legislative gaffs, and diplomatic faux pas'. I know if I were him, I'd much rather have people talking something like this than the other major things I'm screwing up on.

I'll match that and raise three toes.

Winx- I am sincerely curious and respectfully ask what you have against AIG? Did not the Obama adminstration (Geitner) and congress OK these funds? Yes. Did they not determine this company was "too big (or too important) to fail" (I would agree that it is). Yes. Was there not a financial contract between the government and AGI? Yes.

I would suggest you and others that are irate look at this from the bigger picture and believe the anger is misdirected. An example/analogy: Caterpillar Tractor Company and union workers. Cat management (the "government" of the company) v.s. union employees (AIG). A contract is negotiated and agreed upon for work to be done in exchange for financial compensation, benefits, ect.. The work and duties are performed (as per the contract). One day management walks in and says "We think we paid you too much and we want most of the money back". The union response would most likely be "good luck in trying".

Another analogy to toss out here. When one goes to a bank for a loan, don't the lenders usually as what the loan is for? For a business loan, ask for a business plan? Considering the bankers in this situation didn't even bother reading the legislation for the stimulus bill before approving it, let alone ask for a business plan... I would suggest that the old adage "A fool and his money are soon parted" has been proven again.

When the government can come in and seize (double tax) individual citizens of funds LEGALLY obtained "ex post facto" (after the fact) especially after an established contract, that alone should raise a huge red flag. (Edited to add- a huge red flag with a sickle and hammer on it)

Without trying to sound like a complete curmudgeon here...I'm thumbing through my "What Life Owes Me" handbook and looking for "It's just not fair" chapter. Before launching into my tirade, I too hope things work out for the best with you as well. While I can understand and appreciate your position, I believe you are looking at this from a very myopic perspective. You did make the CHOICE to work for the state to begin with, correct? I would assume when you started there it was for decent to good money, decent to good benefits, and job security not being a great concern. I applaud and compliment your claimed work ethic, loyalty, and devotion to the service of the state; However, there are a few niggling questions I have. If it is as bad as you claim; In conjuction, with the unhappiness you are expressing... why are you still there? What is preventing you from moving on and achieving better? My impression of you (that I've gathered from reading your posts) that it's beneath someone like you to blame the government for the employment choices you made.

I can completely understand and share your frustration with those who "just sit on their butts at home and get paid to do nothing". I frequently ask myself the same basic question "Why am I busting my rear to achieve success when it pays (though not quite as good) not to"? The incentives to work (and do a good job) are quickly disappearing and taking the path of least resistance is looking more appealing every day.

(Concluding on a significantly lighter and facetious note) In keeping with the appealing aspects of taking the path of least resistance and still working... want to make a porno flick with me Sea? I promise the title won't be "Making ends meet"!

"The US economy is not your household economy."

I would like clarification of this statement- the differences of economic principles between the two (aside from being a larger budget and me being imprisoned for practing the same bookkeeping techniques). I would submit that those not in debt are the true experts in economics regardless of their professional title.

As per second guessing the so called "experts" (especially in regards to replication of past failures)- In my opinion only Lemmings and complete fools don't. The so-called "experts" once asserted the Earth was flat (like the EEG results of some here) and the center of the universe too. To either build upon successful theories/techniques by their predecesors, disprove the previous "experts" and develop new (and hopefully better) theories/techniques, or a try combininations of both for other applications... by second guessing and asking "what if?"

Even Herbert Hoover had economic "experts". Though I don't deem this as a credible source; However, this article does make for a few interesting comparisions. This sound like anyone we know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

"Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth."

"At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[23] Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman,[24][25] on the other hand, accuse Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression.[26] His policies, however, had little or no effect."

"President Hoover and Congress approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. The plan seemed to work, as foreclosures dropped, but it was seen as too little, too late." (my translation here "We just didn't spend enough").

"In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history."

"For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[34]"

Obama adopting FAILED REBUPLICAN policies? Say it ain't so.

I'm not sure I understand what all the 's are for here by my fellow posters. Celebrating that Obama spoke out and saying he FEELS angry how this bailout money for AIG was spent? The toasting of empty words and complete incompetence on his behalf? If that's the case I'll join in . You've been conned again. While I too supported the bailout of AIG and equally outraged on how it was spent, it's not like Obama and congress didn't know how the money would or could be spent ahead of time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031600640_pf.html

"Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital"

"President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda."

"The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses."

"I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday."

"In February, Obama announced tough new restrictions on executive compensation that promised an end to massive salaries for executives of failing companies. Similar rules were eventually written into legislation and hailed as evidence that executive compensation would be checked."

"But reports about the latest AIG bonuses quickly undermined whatever political capital Obama has earned with his past efforts."

"Asked why the administration is attempting to claw back the bonuses now but did not do more to block the payments earlier this month when it was authorizing the latest $30 billion in new loans to the struggling insurer, Gibbs was unresponsive."

The 's are for what purpose again?

Considering I was in the transition of graduating high school and entering college when Reagan had become president, my economic concerns/thoughts for the country were elsewhere at the time. It's my belief and understanding that most if not all administrations going back as far as Roosevelt (the most noteable) have employed Keynesian principles to one degree or another (in regards to government intervention in business and markets to provide stability). In very limited cases, I would agree this is necessary (E.G. AIG). My opposition lies in the priciples of "nationalization" (even limited)of certain institutions and a unshakeable belief in "supply and demand" without subsidization (and intereference). So safe to say in matters of economics I'm non-partisan. I support whatever person/party that seeks to steal and interfere with my economic interests the least. Yes, I operate under the delusion that it's entrepreneurs who actually control (or should control) the economic engine/conditions that drives this country and not politicians. If I were truly partisan, I would point and laugh at the Dow-Jones and say "This is businesses response to the Obama/Geitner plan", but know that wouldn't be completely honest.

I couldn't agree more with your "Bigger Fool Theory" observation (and disappointed with myself for not thinking of that analogy myself). The best description to date in my opinion, great call. I would agree, great instincts are imperative to success in any business venture (there is much truth to the saying "it's better to be lucky (intuitive) than smart"). My realm is in manufacturing (with an online database side business, and a few profitable hobbies as well). Small business entrepreneurs like ourselves understand and accept the natural cycles of business, it's the job of people like brokers to convince "investors" these things don't ever occur. I believe sometimes it's best not to do anything (as in letting businesses succeed or fail on their own merits) and like water will seek it's own level (basically a Thomas Sowell/Walter E. Williams philosophy).

"Profitless Prosperity" says it all and I can't find one single flaw in your assertions. What compounds the problem in my opinion we have the weasels (politicians) guarding the chicken coop as well (protectors of nest eggs). The only way I can see an individual prospering, is to control ones own investments as much as possible (it's that pesky assumption of personal responsibility indocrination kicking in again). Legalized theft has been accepted for so long, it almost becomes a non-issue to some... welcomed by others who believe they will benefit/profit in some way (at the cost of those who strive for personal success).

Thanks for the laugh in your last paragraph. In all seriousness though- I believe you're really on to something there. Great post! Here's to wealth and prosperity built upon our own merits.

A little off topic but I'd be curious to hear your input on the following hypothetical situation. You own a manufacturing facility in the US. You've already jumped through the plethora of hoops to comply with a multitude of governmental alphabet agencies (from local to the federal level) and deal with all typical business concerns and are well established. You believe the successful business you started with your own capital and literally with your own two hands is being threatened (E.G. further government regulations/restrictions/demands, employees wanting to unionize, ect.). You were presented with an opportunity to have your product manufactured overseas or south of the border. What would you do and why?

I've never claimed to know better. That's between you and your friends.
I've always stated that I am not an economist. Im relying on the team of economic experts Obama has assembled to correct the Republican mess. That's why I voted for him, and I suspect that's why most Americans voted for him.
You and your little friends are the ones claiming economic expertise and exclaiming to know better.
You and your friends are the ones running around in circles claiming the sky is falling.
Just as you claim, (assume) that I have no education. (Technically-A clear violation of site rules)
I wouldnt be so anxious to place your assumptions on someone you know nothing about.
I would be careful what you place between ASS and U.

Now since you chose to park your ass in this conversation,
Where does your profound economic education originate?

4-H?

Oh, and I like my rolling emoticons!



"I've never claimed to know better". Yes, in my opinion you've proven that on multiple occasions on a myriad of threads (but that's besides the point); However, I don't see where anyone else claims to be an economist by education or training here either. I merely asked the same question of you that you did of someone else. I've never accused you of possessing intellectual honesty. In regards to this "republican mess", I still can't, not until you can acknowledge complicity with the democratic party. I don't recall asking who you voted for or your rationalizations for doing so but thank you for thinking I would actually care.

I would ask you to compare Obama's "plan" to your personal life (I really don't want to know, just something for you and others to think about). In financially troubling times, do you find yourself spending more money or less? (Obama/congress: more). Would you take out loans and run up credit card bills to pay the mortgage or rent HOPING you'd remain employed long enough to pay them off/back or just declare bankruptcy? (Obama/congress: further devaluing the currency/bankruptcy). HOPE a sugar momma/daddy will bail you out? (Obama/congress: Other countries like China). Lastly, Do you tell customers at the business you work for not to buy a product that you have a vested interest in? (Obama: "Don't go to Vegas").

I notice instead of answering the question of academic creditals the topic quickly changes and assumption of a defensive posture. "I would be careful what you place between ASS and U". For someone who is "relying (more like depending)on the Obama team"... I would say it would be your nose and lips (in a muffled voice saying "please Obama bail me out".

You're pretty close on your guess as per where my economic credentials originated. It's tie between 4H and a paper route. I learned then if I gave away newspapers, I wouldn't earn a penny and have to rely upon my parents for spending money. 4H taught personal responsibility, if I didn't take care of the things I had, I lost them. Unlike you, I'd be more than willing to elaborate upon my economic experience as an entrepreneur and the several adult continuing education classes in business and economics.

Emoticons... the intellectually poor mans crutch. In your case though, it's a wheelchair.

I keep forgetting too Fanta, what college did you received your Masters degree in economics (or any degree as far as that goes) from again? Anything beyond a GED would actually surprise me. (once again a series of rolling laughing emoticons aren't required)

In the whole Palin "family" situation, what I found humorous was the claim by this same ilk that Bristol Palin was really the mother of Trig rumors. Idle musing/rhetorical question here, in the event they reconcile and get married will the likes of madisonman start another topic stating it?

You are only wallowing in the middle class because you choose to and that's fine if it works for you. Insurance companies (non-government types) being a private "investment" business, has the right to do business with whomever they choose. It is your choice to do busines with whoever you choose as well. You're absolutely correct, "it's YOUR choice". Your choice to get more education, a better job/career, work harder, or hope to just get fiancially lucky (E.G. win the lotto or inheritance) as to be able to afford the best or better things in life. Nothing that hasn't been stated before... personal responsibility for ones actions or inactions.