Marijuana Cost VS. GOLD

[clorox]

uhm, how about the fact that marijuana cost isnt affected by market trend? or how about yes, gold is a rock, and weed is a plant, heres the thing: for thousands of years every tom, dick, and harry wanted as much gold as they could get there hands on.(and not to mention the females lust for gold)

then theres weed, its a plant, some people like it....


oh yea, gold isnt a replenishable resource... weed? you betcha.... the availability of gold is going down, weed? my guess would be its availability is still climbing..

see where im going with this?

 

[Guest]

the availability of gold is going down,

Well...thing the about something like gold is yes it's a finite reserve but as prices rise it then becomes profitable to work certain areas not possible before. So price goes up and more gold tries to come to market.

 

[socioecologist]

Rebuttal

Rebuttal

Kingmaker--I feel like a jerk doing this, but I can't let you drag me through the mud (apologies to everyone else ahead of time). I'd welcome you to any of the courses I teach so you could broaden your horizons, and I'd smoke you out afterwards with some Chemdawg ('06 #4) or OG or whatever the flavor of the day is--it sounds like the higher education system of the US has let you down, and, as an educator, it pains me to see that. You have promise, but your post contains no substance. Read back through it--there is nothing except name calling, and that doesn't contribute to this conversation.

Soviet Russia and Maoist China among the forefront of Marxist implementation in the world

Marxist analysis = historical materialism, not a form of government. This point escapes 99% of undergrads. It is a methodological approach (i.e. a way of doing research). Use wikipedia if you are unsure of what historical materialism is. I teach a class on that one.

What you'd better do is go get an education

I don't need to tell you how many degrees I have, nor do you need to do the same for me--what we need to do is compare the power of our explanations and see who's best explains the phenomenon in question.

then start in with the 'tautologies', and other bullshit that deconstructionist idiots like you use to obscure the fact you can't believe how things actually work, so you make up rules out of thin air- and when they don't work, declare the need for 'more study'.

A tautology is a statement that is true because it says so (internally). An example of a tautology is: "The price of cannabis sets itself." Here's another: "The price of cannabis is governed by supply and demand." Where does the price come from? It comes from people who set the price. The question we are trying to answer is "Why do people set the price where they do?". Supply/demand doesn't answer that.

ALL buying and selling is supply and demand- ESPECIALLY smuggling, and it galls clowns like you that it could be so simple and so brutal: which is why people invent ''theories'' of economics: to try to take some of the brutality out of it.

First, you are demonstrating your ignorance of how science works; everything is underpinned by theories. Empirical evidence demonstrates correlation, but cannot prove causality. Theories suggest causality, but cannot prove it. I teach a class on the philosophy of science. You can show up for that one as well.

Show me the supply and demand curves for cannabis and calculate the equilibrium price. Why can't you do that?

If you were sophisticated in your critique of what I put forward as an explanatory theory, you would say "the price elasticity of cannabis is bounded within the ranges that everyone has stated so far, that's why they haven't change over time" (which would be a standard neoclassical/rational choice response)--to which I would say:

"That could definitely be true, but would also mean that some other causal force would have to be in play--most likely declining nominal incomes, which would put a squeeze on discretionary household spending. But since nominal incomes have been rising (but ever so slightly declining in real terms, depending on what quintile of household income earners you are in) over the period in question, that doesn't hold much water. I stick by my theory that cannabis prices are a function of learned behavior and relatively quick entry/exit by consumers/producers (thereby creating a gap in institutional memory)." This theory needs to be augmented, as it seems to only apply to good homegrown dope (not imports).

But you didn't make such an argument--you just called me a fool and an idiot.

You're too weak to face the fact that in the HUMAN animal world, a large percentage never get off the ground, just like in the lower animal world, most of the time

You are trying to draw a parallel between Herbert Spencer's "social darwinism," which is a bastardization of Darwin's original theory (Marx and Darwin were contemporaries and friends), and neoclassical economics. Its biological determinism at its worst. Sure, there are definitely varying abilities among people, but we've been able to empirically demonstrate (that means using real world data, not something hypothesized) that social and economic inequality in the United States is best explained by your parents' income (notice that this says nothing of their or your mental abilities--that's important). If you need something to dissuade from your discredited "Bell Curve" hypothesis, please read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man".

Feel free to PM me, but keep the name calling out of this thread please.

 

[Grizz]

Kingmaker--I feel like a jerk doing this, but I can't let you drag me through the mud (apologies to everyone else ahead of time). I'd welcome you to any of the courses I teach so you could broaden your horizons, and I'd smoke you out afterwards with some Chemdawg ('06 #4) or OG or whatever the flavor of the day is--it sounds like the higher education system of the US has let you down, and, as an educator, it pains me to see that. You have promise, but your post contains no substance. Read back through it--there is nothing except name calling, and that doesn't contribute to this conversation.


Marxist analysis = historical materialism, not a form of government. This point escapes 99% of undergrads. It is a methodological approach (i.e. a way of doing research). Use wikipedia if you are unsure of what historical materialism is. I teach a class on that one.


I don't need to tell you how many degrees I have, nor do you need to do the same for me--what we need to do is compare the power of our explanations and see who's best explains the phenomenon in question.


A tautology is a statement that is true because it says so (internally). An example of a tautology is: "The price of cannabis sets itself." Here's another: "The price of cannabis is governed by supply and demand." Where does the price come from? It comes from people who set the price. The question we are trying to answer is "Why do people set the price where they do?". Supply/demand doesn't answer that.


First, you are demonstrating your ignorance of how science works; everything is underpinned by theories. Empirical evidence demonstrates correlation, but cannot prove causality. Theories suggest causality, but cannot prove it. I teach a class on the philosophy of science. You can show up for that one as well.

Show me the supply and demand curves for cannabis and calculate the equilibrium price. Why can't you do that?

If you were sophisticated in your critique of what I put forward as an explanatory theory, you would say "the price elasticity of cannabis is bounded within the ranges that everyone has stated so far, that's why they haven't change over time" (which would be a standard neoclassical/rational choice response)--to which I would say:

"That could definitely be true, but would also mean that some other causal force would have to be in play--most likely declining nominal incomes, which would put a squeeze on discretionary household spending. But since nominal incomes have been rising (but ever so slightly declining in real terms, depending on what quintile of household income earners you are in) over the period in question, that doesn't hold much water. I stick by my theory that cannabis prices are a function of learned behavior and relatively quick entry/exit by consumers/producers (thereby creating a gap in institutional memory)." This theory needs to be augmented, as it seems to only apply to good homegrown dope (not imports).

But you didn't make such an argument--you just called me a fool and an idiot.


You are trying to draw a parallel between Herbert Spencer's "social darwinism," which is a bastardization of Darwin's original theory (Marx and Darwin were contemporaries and friends), and neoclassical economics. Its biological determinism at its worst. Sure, there are definitely varying abilities among people, but we've been able to empirically demonstrate (that means using real world data, not something hypothesized) that social and economic inequality in the United States is best explained by your parents' income (notice that this says nothing of their or your mental abilities--that's important). If you need something to dissuade from your discredited "Bell Curve" hypothesis, please read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man".

Feel free to PM me, but keep the name calling out of this thread please.

you have a lot of class the way you handled this situation. As you can tell I dont have the education you do and don't feel guilty about it. What you say is all true and backed up with the economy the way it is. But I still don't agree totaly with all your ideas on the price of weed. Like someone else said earlyer gold isent like weed and really there is no comparison to the two. I understand with the economy being in resession there isent the extra money to spend on luxury items and can keep the price down, but if the supply isent there the price is still going to go up. How high I don't know.

 

[THCV]

My own background:
early 80's---weed cost me 20 1/8 40 1/4 (no matter whatt it was, pressed, or as we used to call it Red Hair Sinse)
sometime a few years later it went up to 25/50 (150z)

Then around 1988-90 we found something called The Kind.....Blueberry, Northern Lights, Skunk.....this stuff was the real deal, domestic finery, and it commanded double the price. 50 1/8, 100 1/4 400zip no breaks.....

Sometime in the mid 90's Beasters hit the scene. I used to call them pseudo-kind bud. All show no go. Cost the same though. 50/100 Garbage

Highest prices I ever saw were in NYC Delivery Services 97-00 I think they got 50 bucks for like 2 grams in a plastic container. At least it was quality, not beaster crap.

jip, this was exactly my experience too. More recently, I was just in NY and i got a delivery service $50 clear plastic container of Purple Star. It was 2 grams ($25/g!!) and not very good--in fact, much lower quality than i remember from 2000-03. Meanwhile, the absolute best herb in LA is $75/8th. So, at least in the big cities and at the 8th and lower level, the price has gone up a lot since 1990, but in what seemed to be jumps. I can't imagine it going above $75/8th (although people in Hollywood do try, I've seen $95 but not common) in the future, but i guess it could.

The quality of the $75/8th is far beyond anything i got back in the late 80s. So, in my lifetime of smoking over the past 20 years, i have seen the price go from $7 per gram of schwag, with nothing else available, to $21/g for killer og from a menu of strains. Price went up, but so did quality. Cost per dose might give better insight on the overall trend, although it would be hard to calc. The $7/g herb required smoking the full gram to get blazed, and the $21/g probably requires a third of a gram to get blazed. So that really makes it seem like the nominal cost of getting high has stayed the same, while quality has gone up and risk for the end user has gone down--since you don't have to carry as much or have as much in your possession for the same effect, minimizing legal exposure.

Also, here in cali there is a glut of herb, but the price hasn't gone down as much as quality for your dollar has gone up. And my younger experience was on the east coast, which has always been worse for quality than the legendary CA.

One thing worth considering: the imported stuff always has more middlemen and thus no one person is making that large a chunk of the $400. As the supply has trended from import to domestic, you have more growers selling directly or just one middleman removed. So while the nominal price may have remained $400/z, the players got to make more money off the deal, somewhat making up for the loss in inflation-adjusted value--or more than making up for it, it the case of a dealer (of imported) from the 80's that became a grower in the 90's. He made say $100 a zip as a dealer in the 80's, and makes $300 or more as a grower in the 90's, at the same price for his clients. So the grower in that situation has no need to raise the price above what his clients have been paying for years. Why rock the boat if you can triple income without rocking it? A simple example, but you get the idea.

THCV

 

[Guest]

Just a few thoughts...

Herb is a consumable. That should be the first thing to consider when making comparisons to other items of worth.

We seek out gold only to feed a rather hollow pleasure system within us. In that, we can only see gold as something we want or covet for the value of what our minds say it's worth. There is no actual physical pleasure gained by humans by holding or owning gold, other than what our feeble minds tell us. (disregarding the pleasure of just it's monetary value)

Herb is not that way. It's medicine. It's whiskey.
Do we really think there is any level at all that a person would not give for his medicine or his whiskey? A driven man will give even more than all he's got for his medicine and his whiskey. And with the price of herb what it is, and has been, we cannot assume that that equates to even close to all folks have. Consumers simply cannot have that great of effect on the cost, it's clear.

So, what else are we not seeing?
I say it's the risk.
The risk has to be the driver. If the risk is not provided, this market is gone in a flash.
But the risk is being taken, on many levels. And it is of my opinion that risk has found it's necessary level, and prices are dictated as such.
Which pretty much fits in with what ItsGrowTime presented to a tee.

 

[Mr Celsius]

Dude... socioecologist you just intellectually fuggin owned that guy. Remind me to never ever make claims of knowledge pertaining to economics and to only ask question from now on.

 

[jipedestran]

jip, this was exactly my experience too. More recently, I was just in NY and i got a delivery service $50 clear plastic container of Purple Star. It was 2 grams ($25/g!!) and not very good--in fact, much lower quality than i remember from 2000-03. Meanwhile, the absolute best herb in LA is $75/8th. So, at least in the big cities and at the 8th and lower level, the price has gone up a lot since 1990, but in what seemed to be jumps. I can't imagine it going above $75/8th (although people in Hollywood do try, I've seen $95 but not common) in the future, but i guess it could.

The quality of the $75/8th is far beyond anything i got back in the late 80s. So, in my lifetime of smoking over the past 20 years, i have seen the price go from $7 per gram of schwag, with nothing else available, to $21/g for killer og from a menu of strains. Price went up, but so did quality. Cost per dose might give better insight on the overall trend, although it would be hard to calc. The $7/g herb required smoking the full gram to get blazed, and the $21/g probably requires a third of a gram to get blazed. So that really makes it seem like the nominal cost of getting high has stayed the same, while quality has gone up and risk for the end user has gone down--since you don't have to carry as much or have as much in your possession for the same effect, minimizing legal exposure.

Also, here in cali there is a glut of herb, but the price hasn't gone down as much as quality for your dollar has gone up. And my younger experience was on the east coast, which has always been worse for quality than the legendary CA.

One thing worth considering: the imported stuff always has more middlemen and thus no one person is making that large a chunk of the $400. As the supply has trended from import to domestic, you have more growers selling directly or just one middleman removed. So while the nominal price may have remained $400/z, the players got to make more money off the deal, somewhat making up for the loss in inflation-adjusted value--or more than making up for it, it the case of a dealer (of imported) from the 80's that became a grower in the 90's. He made say $100 a zip as a dealer in the 80's, and makes $300 or more as a grower in the 90's, at the same price for his clients. So the grower in that situation has no need to raise the price above what his clients have been paying for years. Why rock the boat if you can triple income without rocking it? A simple example, but you get the idea.

THCV

This brings up an interesting point. Depending upon the crowd you run with, you may get charged a bit more for your herb.
Back to what I was saying about a 1000.00 jar of finely trimmed Super....some may pay, others would not. It is much easier to drop that money if you are earning 150k per year (or more) than it is for a college kid who is making 5 bucks an hour.
side note...just kicked over my glass...fucking bong water all over the rug. dumped my dish of trimmed for smoking buds. Fuck Mondays.

peace
jip

 

[Guest]

We seek out gold only to feed a rather hollow pleasure system within us. In that, we can only see gold as something we want or covet for the value of what our minds say it's worth. There is no actual physical pleasure gained by humans by holding or owning gold, other than what our feeble minds tell us. (disregarding the pleasure of just it's monetary value)

For whatever reason for a long time civilization has decided gold has value. Many societies over time have viewed gold from a spiritual perspective so it has been honored both spiritually and financially but also has many industrial/commercial applications. Regardless of any arbitrary value there's something about holding a chunk of gold....silver for that matter too. Take a handful of modern coins then some old silver. It's a totally different 'feel'. There is 'something' about precious metals.

 

[Delta9-THC]

If only I could grow gold..

 

[Guest]

Yeah, Nondual, but it is still our mind doing all the work. And not from a physical standpoint. If it were indeed as intoxicating as things that actually do work on our chemistries in a physical sense, such as weed, then I think we would all have a little bit of this element in our possession...wait...just about all of us DO have some of this stuff all the time.

Mr. Celcius...although I am trying to not enter into the battle that has apparently ensued here, I have to take up a bit for KingMaker and his stances.
At least, I understand exactly where he is coming from. And I also lack the intellectual background to be able to debate the topic of economics well. But, although our good prof. is clearly versed in all things socioeconomic, he has not "owned" anyone whatsoever. The debate has been, and will continue to be, entered into by many an economist and philosopher, both with adequate credentials to debate, and never a consensus being had on the issue.

A crude mentioning of Chinese and Russian societies being failed socioeconomic systems, can easily be corrected by definition, as the good prof did. But that still does not change the fact that these societies did employ these socioeconomic theories, and have shown to be great failures on multiple occasions, to hell with proper definitions of the mechanisms.
I will personally always have a problem with those who follow doctrines such as those of Karl Marx, Ward Churchill, et al. And I also have a very heavy dislike for those of academia who choose to indoctrinate their students, rather than simply offer the differing theories that exist and discuss them. The less than learned are easy targets for those who have their minds made up, and can control the lesson plan.
No personal offense, proffesor, but I can pretty much guess what it would be like in your classes. I've seen it first hand, and do not care for it's method, and even less for it's result.

 

[jipedestran]

And I also have a very heavy dislike for those of academia who choose to indoctrinate their students, rather than simply offer the differing theories that exist and discuss them. The less than learned are easy targets for those who have their minds made up, and can control the lesson plan.
No personal offense, proffesor, but I can pretty much guess what it would be like in your classes. I've seen it first hand, and do not care for it's method, and even less for it's result.

That is the beauty of any good Liberal Arts School. You will get indoctrinated by both sides and then you get to decide what comes out the ass end.

Any good teacher will teach you their passions. One mans indoctrination may be anothers salvation.

peace
jip

 

[socioecologist]

No "owning", and no doctrine here; I think you would be pleasantly surprised and enjoy yourself in my classes--most students do, regardless of their orientations, because I do attempt to address the most prominent theories' descriptions of the world. They all do a descent job, if you accept their assumptions, otherwise they wouldn't still be around. The most important point is that we are all equals; its a lot easier to drop your ego at the door if you have internalized that principle.

I simply employ historical materialism as my methodological approach in much of my research, though not all. HM can simply be described as "the present is explained by analysing the past"--wikipedia has a descent entry on it. A telling quote from Marx towards the end of his life can be roughly paraphrased as "I am not a Marxist if one is to accept the precepts of those who call themselves such". Marx did not advocate for any particular economic system, he simply projected that we would be transitioning towards something else, as capitalism lost its ability to generate ever greater returns for those who owned capital (i.e. finite resources = limits to growth). He was and is widely regarded as the most prolific scholar of capitalism...period. Marx was used as a scapegoat by the association of his ideas with the USSR (Leninism followed by Stalinism would best describe the "isms" of that land) during the McCarthy era, much like how today anyone who does not unquestioningly follow the "war on terror" becomes a terrorist or "hater of freedom"--its unfortunate that many have never been exposed to the most sophisticated analysis of capitalism's inner workings due to fear mongering.

Applying historical materialism methodology to cannabis prices seems (to me) like a better approach than traditional microeconomic methods (which are derived from neoclassical theories). We do not know what the supply of homegrown pot is; we don't know what the demand is.

The real find here is that the price range has remained stable from the late 80's/early 90's through today. It could be a function of supply and demand (as I acknowledged), but for that to be true there would have to be either: (1) an increasing supply over time, or (2) declining demand. In any case, any such changes in supply/demand MUST be accompanied by a PERFECTLY correlated relationship with the inflation rate AND net disposable income. I'm pretty sure demand is not decreasing.

When you get into the nuts and bolts of supply and demand determining cannabis prices, too many variables must be perfectly aligned for me to be comfortable accepting that as the explanation, especially when a simpler explanation is present (BUT I'm definitely not saying accept my theory or fuck off).

In addition to what I proposed before, I think the strength of social ties between buyer and seller have to play a significant role as well (mentioned by others). I know my friends pay less than 1/4 of what big city residents do for top-shelf smoke just because of their friendship (and the seller prices at the bottom end of going rates just to help people out, not to make money).

So what caused the explosion of high quality homegrown in the late 80s/early 90s?

 

[Guest]

Ah- I see you're here just as I'm about to post. It's my lunchbreak so I came out from the office to the living room and saw your previous post.

Kingmaker--I feel like a jerk doing this, but I can't let you drag me through the mud (apologies to everyone else ahead of time). I'd welcome you to any of the courses I teach so you could broaden your horizons, and I'd smoke you out afterwards with some Chemdawg ('06 #4) or OG or whatever the flavor of the day is--it sounds like the higher education system of the US has let you down, and, as an educator, it pains me to see that. You have promise, but your post contains no substance. Read back through it--there is nothing except name calling, and that doesn't contribute to this conversation.

Socioecologist when you mention Marx, 'tautology' and economics in the same sentence, that indicates to me you're in denial- so much that you'd bring it to a modern forum for examination by people from all over the world, whose -almost every act -pertinent to this field, is ruled over by awareness of complex laws- that are purely within the realm of Supply and Demand, and synthesized factors designed to impinge on equilibrium in one direction or another. It echoes a naivete I punctuated just for the sheer joy of it; and that dedication to blind formalism could only be bought with money or stupidity. It turns out, it's probably just money.

Marxist analysis = historical materialism, not a form of government. This point escapes 99% of undergrads. It is a methodological approach (i.e. a way of doing research). Use wikipedia if you are unsure of what historical materialism is. I teach a class on that one.

Soviet and Maoist communism were driven by a specifically keen sense of what historical materialism is: each created a form of government directly inspired by Historical Materialism; a point denied by 99% of Marxist fanbois. It is the fatally flawed view of a European awash in a sea of fear, who had no experience or education to expose to him the impossibility of his laughable constructions derived from thin air.
You'll face it - when your paycheck doesn't depend on you not facing it.

This is a smuggler's forum. We have breakfast laughing at thought control-based economics. Did you forget that fact when you were rushing to be the one to use the word 'tautology' for the 20 billionth time in connection with denouncing SD? Apparently you did, man. At digg.com it's cool. Here it's the height of self conscious frontally eminent bullshit typically rolled out by self concious frontal eminence farming, guru wannabes.

I don't need to tell you how many degrees I have, nor do you need to do the same for me--what we need to do is compare the power of our explanations and see who's best explains the phenomenon in question.

You're right, you don't. The drug Czar doesn't need to tell me how many he has, to come to the exactly wrong conclusion about socio-economics. Like ''Thought-Control Karl," his shit doesn't work either.

A tautology is a statement that is true because it says so (internally). An example of a tautology is: "The price of cannabis sets itself." Here's another: "The price of cannabis is governed by supply and demand." Where does the price come from? It comes from people who set the price. The question we are trying to answer is "Why do people set the price where they do?". Supply/demand doesn't answer that.

There you go again with the fanboi 'tautology' dropping; you're hilarious and an embarrassment. Lose it. People that word-drop 'tautology' never know wtf they're talking about.

Of course it answers that. It's just that no one's taken the time to construct the database needed correctly weight the factors holding the SD chart out of equilibrium.

Besides: the OBJECTIVE is to keep the supply side high, so that the supply either
[A.]creates it's own demand, or
[B.]breaks equilibrium driving downward,

or both; each of which are direct, conscious objectives to actual dope war activists interested in winning it; but maybe that's just not something you're prepared to admit is part of the dope war: influencing the Supply-Demand.

You can bet the D.E.A. admits it is. It's their primary platform as a matter of fact.

First, you are demonstrating your ignorance of how science works; everything is underpinned by theories. Empirical evidence demonstrates correlation, but cannot prove causality. Theories suggest causality, but cannot prove it. I teach a class on the philosophy of science. You can show up for that one as well.

No, you are demonstrating your ignorance of how science works. Science, as much as possible, is underpinned by LAWS. Theories that accurately interpret/are able to predict correctly, the functions of those laws are of one type;

theories that simply deny those laws - like the mainstream of Historical Materialism in most of socio-economics for instance, are called ''errata'' or ''swiss cheese'' because they're so full of holes.

Thanks for the invitation to sit in but I don't read popular fiction, flitting from guru to guru looking for permission to use new revolutionary words. Your paycheck depends on being a teacher's union yes-man and guru to the vulnerable; my paycheck depends on being right. A lot.

Show me the supply and demand curves for cannabis and calculate the equilibrium price. Why can't you do that?

Because i don't know where someone's compiled enough information to correctly weight a database; which is well known to be a very difficult task in smuggling because of the secrecy involved. Thus far, no one I know's cared to spend the hundreds upon hundreds of hours to collect, analyze and then somehow weight the various (synthetic & natural) socially driven, or even the physical supply/demand data, associated with the question; then construct appropriately weighted Supply-Demand curves. And if they do care to, who's going to say they've weighted the causalities accurately?

If you were sophisticated in your critique of what I put forward as an explanatory theory, you would say "the price elasticity of cannabis is bounded within the ranges that everyone has stated so far, that's why they haven't change over time" (which would be a standard neoclassical/rational choice response)--to which I would say:

"That could definitely be true, but would also mean that some other causal force would have to be in play--most likely declining nominal incomes, which would put a squeeze on discretionary household spending. But since nominal incomes have been rising (but ever so slightly declining in real terms, depending on what quintile of household income earners you are in) over the period in question, that doesn't hold much water. I stick by my theory that cannabis prices are a function of learned behavior and relatively quick entry/exit by consumers/producers (thereby creating a gap in institutional memory)." This theory needs to be augmented, as it seems to only apply to good homegrown dope (not imports).

But you didn't make such an argument--you just called me a fool and an idiot.

Firstly, no, I actually wouldn't have said that, because that's not what is holding the price down.

Secondly, yes I did; but since you've obviously got an aversion to Supply-Demand- much less, synthetic, non classically defined SD- what's one to say?
-That there's more to it than that, and go into a long dissertation on how Supply-Demand economics hasn't been properly updated for years, just to be told 'well since it's not classic, formal SD it really isn't'' -when it's perfectly obvious that it is SD economics being consciously weighted by synthetic, non-market, yet contributive forces?

You are trying to draw a parallel between Herbert Spencer's "social darwinism," which is a bastardization of Darwin's original theory (Marx and Darwin were contemporaries and friends), and neoclassical economics. Its biological determinism at its worst. Sure, there are definitely varying abilities among people, but we've been able to empirically demonstrate (that means using real world data, not something hypothesized) that social and economic inequality in the United States is best explained by your parents' income (notice that this says nothing of their or your mental abilities--that's important). If you need something to dissuade from your discredited "Bell Curve" hypothesis, please read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man".

First I wasn't alluding to anything substantial-
Then I'm alluding to overly simplistic, hybrid forces? Or... you're just making stuff up. I can understand the temptation to do so.

Nevertheless,

you need to relax because it's apparent your grasp on all this isn't quite as blindingly definitive as you hoped.

Out of nowhere, on your part: social darwinism? That's on you.

Knowing how a system works best, is a measurement of the efficiency of the system itself?
I'd say someone's been let down by the American higher education system, but I'm not the one who had to reach for Marx and the ''denunciation of tautologies' to ascribe some fairly obvious reasons for downward price fluctuations in illegal flowers.
The children of priviledge doing better than the children of poverty in a society has zero to do with the validity of the economic system itself.
The children of privilege are shown how to game any system efficiently as possible within the framework of acceptance, the children of poverty are shown how to game the system inefficiently.

It's utterly irrelevant and you knew it or should have;

then again, you believe the pot market has institutional memory, and completely forget the purpose of the drug war - from the good guys' side - is to consciously keep the price of pot DOWN- both for bragging rights, and to increase market size thus dilute enforcement, and raise the ante on their end: make them spend more, to exact less damage to the users of pot.

You- bragging about enlightened economics, -and how stupid I must be-
don't even recognize the primary, stated goal of the aggressors of the drug war is to drive the supply down, and the price of pot UP - and the pointed, HIGHLY conscious, counter-objective of the defenders, is to break equilibrium, to drive the price of pot DOWN, and supply up - both for the pragmatic, and propaganda victory's sake.

That front-line awareness on both parties' part, is the antithesis of Historical Materialism as you've invoked it. It simply makes no sense.

This institutional memory is such that people don't even realize what they're doing; that it cost's profits -

when one of the oft shouted battle cries is that there would be NO profit/loss motives driving criminal gang activity, since pot would be essentially free for the growing, in a true free market, anyway;

(at least for those who didn't want/couldn't afford to participate in the mass economy adjunct to legalized commercialization.)

Hit the Chemdawg and lay off the Marx.

While the entry/exit is significant, it's certainly for other reasons than Marxian model, blind proletarian, self-exploitation. It's a pro-active, competitive market - driven very strongly by ideological desire- and the pressure to win, in a dangerous, highly calculated, consciously entered into, dope war- where being wrong, can mean your ass.

The long term players in the market are the ones most often wishing for the price to go up to justify their constant risk; and allow them to minimize it, through relatively fewer, necessary transactions -once they become more confident and have established a steady customer base.

The entrants are often filled with revolutionary zeal- the determination to win the war of equilibrium,for revolution's sake- with many also just happy to finally be able to smoke for free- to them, the ultimate poke in the eye of 'the Man' in a war where 'the Man's stated purpose, is to drive the price up to where 'little Joe smoker' finds it uncomfortabely expensive, and gives it up.
Plus, the new sellers driven primarily by profit motive, are likely to be a source of undercutting so they can rapidly establish a secure, dependable, customer base.

Strongly figuring in this is the difficult to overstate, inherent danger in alienating known clientele- one reason would be raising prices - then having to go out and recruit new, less secure customers.

The ONE thing a dope smuggler craves, much more than most legal venders, is a steady, trusted customer base. Security, is all-important, even if there's no ideological desire for the dope war to stop, demolishing untaxed profits. This means it's important to keep that regular, 'known-quantity' base of reliable customers he feels he can trust.

If it was just blind, exploited-labor driven, institutional memory, the longer term growers would be mindlessly shuffling along, keeping prices where they were when they started, simply because it never occurred to them things could be different;

but smugglers are the very antithesis of mindless, shuffling drones, treading the mill, for their handfull of corn like cattle. They're the epitome of calculating, thoughtfully motivated sellers.

And, I'd agree with you that real disposable income has been slightly reduced, and also I'd have said that the primary market for pot being among lower income classes, contributing to exaggeration of the lagging real income factor- since the lower income classes consistently are farthest behind inflation, and only occasionally, (nearly) catch up.


I'll run along now and let you relax and get ready to take credit for what I just told you, to the kids down at the jr college so you'll right there in with your peeps in the revolution.

Feel free to PM me, but keep the name calling out of this thread please.

LoL

That's ok about the PM; but if I were to send one, it would just be ''Please apprise yourself: whenever you see someone use the word 'tautology' they're probably about to mess up.




'Thought Control Karl' remains-
a miserable buffoon.

 

[jipedestran]

There is something Kingmaker said about S+D......that makes sense.

I may be witnessing us winning the war on drugs. (us dopers--the good guys)

I stood on the steps of the US Capital in October of 1990 at a rally for Legalization.

I did not believe we would ever do it then, not sure if I still do, but we are further along now then backwards. At least we are moving in the right direction.

peace
jip

 

[socioecologist]

I'm done after this post. You (1) can't show me the respect I've tried to give you, and (2) you are guilty of doing the same thing I did--use words that most people are not familiar with. The trouble is, you repeatedly use them inappropriately and without understanding what they mean.

A supply and demand model is A FORMAL MODEL. It is NOT reality. You can use it to solve for things like price, demand, and supply. The means your decrying of "formalism" is (1) unfounded (2) demonstrably hypocritical, and (3) indicates that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

Why would you need to use a FORMAL MODEL to solve for price (which is what you are advocating for) WHEN THE PRICE HASN'T CHANGED IN 20 years? Does anyone see what I'm saying?

I've heard your cry of "not enough information" before:

What you'd better do is go get an education; then start in with the 'tautologies', and other bullshit that deconstructionist idiots like you use to obscure the fact you can't believe how things actually work, so you make up rules out of thin air- [bold]and when they don't work, declare the need for 'more study'.[/bold]

..but you directed it at me. So why can't you construct a supply and demand curve for cannabis prices? Here it is:

Because i don't know where someone's compiled enough information to correctly weight a database; which is well known to be a very difficult task in smuggling because of the secrecy involved. Thus far, no one I know's cared to spend the hundreds upon hundreds of hours to collect, analyze and then somehow weight the various (synthetic & natural) socially driven, or even the physical supply/demand data, associated with the question; then construct appropriately weighted Supply-Demand curves.

Sounds like you think we need more information. But we don't. Why? BECAUSE THE PRICE HASN'T CHANGED IN 20 YEARS.

You use arrogance and intimidation to cover up your faults. You are obviously intelligent, but you can't fake your way through this.

 

[Guest]

Will someone PLEASE do a formal study based on facts that's peer reviewed? I still think this is a great thesis subject. Supply and demand MUST play some part but ultimately up to the individual to say what they're willing to pay for anything so then personal desire and fulfillment. Cannabis is NOT an item/product essential to life so then to some extent it's a luxury. Even with basic staples like gas it's up to the individual to determine what's an acceptable price to pay. Some may say $4 a gal is fine while others will say $5 and this may have nothing to do with their disposable income.

Anyway...it's been a great thread and got me thinking...thanx y'all

 

[vod]

then again, you believe the pot market has institutional memory, and completely forget the purpose of the drug war - from the good guys' side - is to conciously keep the price of pot DOWN- both for bragging rights, and to increase market size thus dilute enforcement and up the ante.

You, bragging about enlightened economics, don't even recognize a primary objective of the aggressors of the drug war is to drive the price of pot UP: & supply down- and the pointed, and HIGHLY conscious counter-objective of the defenders, is to break equilibrium to drive the price of pot DOWN for pragmatic and propaganda victory's sake.

While the entry/exit is significant it's in exactly the opposite direction. Long term players in the market wish for the price to go up to justify risk, but entrants are filled with revolutionary zeal and the determination to win the war of equilibrium for revolution's sake. If it was institutional memory, the longer term growers would be holding the price down, and the newer growers driving it up predominantly; but in an ideologically driven drug war that's likely to be reversed; the longer people smuggle the more they tend to want to get paid for it; the less they've been doing it, the more likely they're simply happy to be smoking for free.

Good points here Kingmaker. It's a shame though I had to read through all the names calling and hateful shit to get to it.
I know this is internet, but nevertheless it would be nice to have a civil discussion and cut out the anger. Chill out. I'm sure it would do you good as well as the people reading your posts and you can make your points come across better without the froth coming from your mouth.

 

[Guest]

When ya'll figure this out, can someone dumb it down for the Econ 101 flunkies...

 

[socioecologist]

Kingmaker,

I like your description of some of the forces involved in pricing, but it still doesn't answer the question:

Why has the price stayed in the same nominal range for 20 years? Can you directly address that?

Thanks.