Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: It’s National’s turn for awful policy http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/10/09/its-nationals-turn-for-awful-policy/ The Visible Hand in Economics Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:06:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Elizabeth Marshall http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/10/09/its-nationals-turn-for-awful-policy/#comment-21614 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:35:45 +0000 http://www.tvhe.co.nz/?p=4384#comment-21614 Surely the banning of the sale of pseudoephidrine is going to create an even blacker market for the stuff. It’s going to be difficult for people who have a genuine need for the stuff—they’ll have to visit their GP to get a prescription, and go to a hospital pharmacy to get it. Makes it even more expensive for the ordinary sufferer.

]]>
By: ben http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/10/09/its-nationals-turn-for-awful-policy/#comment-21610 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:49:22 +0000 http://www.tvhe.co.nz/?p=4384#comment-21610 Good post. Here is Kevin Murphy from U Chicago on drug policy. This is a post that really changed the way I think about drug policy:

`what do we know about demand for any commodity, whether it’s drugs or haircuts or strawberries? You make them more expensive, people consume less. So our view of the world is that, basically the way drug policy works in the United States at least, is it tries to make drugs more expensive, less attractive, and cause people to consume less. In economic terms, it pushes us back up the demand curve. And rough estimates say we’ve quadrupled the cost of drugs relative to what they would be in a world without this interdiction.

If you quadruple the price of something, people are going to buy less of it. But, unfortunately, the way we bring about that quadrupling of price is by increasing the cost of supplying drugs. The amount of money people are spending on drugs is actually higher than it would be if the price were lower, because the demand for drugs is not very elastic.

Region: You’ve shifted the supply curve, and moved up the demand curve.

Murphy: Exactly. So think about a simple world where the elasticity of demand is about a half. You quadruple the price of drugs, and the quantity of drugs is cut in half. So you’ve got four times the price, half the quantity. You’ve doubled expenditures. People are spending twice as much and consuming half as much.

Well, where did that added expenditure go? It goes to the drug dealers. It doesn’t go to the government; it doesn’t stay with the consumers. It goes to drug dealers. And that revenue actually finances the supply of drugs and finances the drug lords who supply drugs to the United States. So what we’ve really done in this case is financed the people who are on the other side of the War on Drugs. So, the War on Drugs, in our view, has been kind of doomed by its basic economics. That is, the harder you fight the war, the higher you push up the price. The higher the price, the higher the revenue of suppliers; the higher the price, the greater the incentive to supply drugs to the United States.

Now, what are the costs to the suppliers? Well, they have to avoid detection. They fight over turf for drug territories. They pay people off. They may go to prison. All those costs are pretty much bad things. They use violence to enforce their contracts and the like. Not a good outcome.

But when you put people in prison, you have to consider not only does it cost society in the form of people in prison who could otherwise be gainfully employed, but it also costs us money to put them there. So for every dollar of cost we impose on the drug suppliers, we spend at least a dollar of our own money on top of it to keep them there. If we normalize what we would have spent in a free market on drugs at $100, consumers are now spending $200 on half the quantity of drugs and then spending another $100 on top of that to put all those people in jail. So we’re paying three times as much for half as much output. From an economic point of view, that’s more than a little bit counterproductive.

Usually you think, if I’m going to produce less output at least it should cost me less.

Region: So, rational addiction but irrational …

Murphy: Irrational policy, right. So, what’s the answer? If you want to reduce consumption, raise the price. What’s the natural way to raise the price of something? Tax it.

]]>
By: Matt Nolan http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/10/09/its-nationals-turn-for-awful-policy/#comment-21609 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:51:11 +0000 http://www.tvhe.co.nz/?p=4384#comment-21609 “And not all broad based policy is bad – think FTAs.”

True. Broad-based social policy then 😉

]]>
By: goonix http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/10/09/its-nationals-turn-for-awful-policy/#comment-21608 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:50:16 +0000 http://www.tvhe.co.nz/?p=4384#comment-21608 Terrible stuff. As with the recent alcohol debate, very little attention is given to the positive effects of pseudoephedrine while at the same time the negative effects are ramped up via sensationalism (Paul Holmes I’m looking at you). Even Gluckman has stated that it will have very little impact on the supply of meth (at least he can see that much). An absolute failure for the government and their worst move to date.

And not all policy based on broad-support is bad – think FTAs. 😉

]]>