Why doesn't the gov't legislate what people buy with food stamps?

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuci:

The point of all this was to respond to HC's comment that decreasing supply will result in increased prices of drugs and this would prevent people from buying drugs.

It certainly discourages drug use by some degree. Prices need not be so high that it is impossible to purchase.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci:

The point of all this was to respond to HC's comment that decreasing supply will result in increased prices of drugs and this would prevent people from buying drugs.

More properly, it would reduce the quantity of drugs purchased. Which is obvious because unless there is a truly huge amount of excess supply in the current distribution network, reducing supply reduces the total quantity available for purchase. Price is just the rationing mechanism.

[Kidlicious]

More properly, it would reduce the quantity of drugs purchased.

More properly, he was wrong. So why don't you argue with him if you two are so smart?

[Al B. Sure!]

More properly, it would reduce the quantity of drugs purchased. Which is obvious because unless there is a truly huge amount of excess supply in the current distribution network, reducing supply reduces the total quantity available for purchase. Price is just the rationing mechanism.

Blah blah blah... let's talk real world implications here...

Addicts will still try their damnedest to get the stuff regardless of what the supply is. There could be 1 kilo of crack in the entire city and thousands of addicts go without access, does that mean we've solved the drug problem in America? to quote you, HINT: NO.

Secondly, reducing supply and increasing prices only gives more incentive to drug dealers to access and sell the stuff. But I contend that economic motivations are only secondary for the drug trade. There are sociological and psychological factors at work motivating individuals to deal drugs, factors which are not solved simply by adjusting the values of the would-be dealer's utility equation by increasing the consequences of being caught.

That is my point. People do not operate as rational economic agents. I don't know what economics classes you took but it's been hammered into anyone that took Econ at Temple University that humans are not rational economic agents.

[Kidlicious]

BlaI don't know what economics classes you took but it's been hammered into anyone that took Econ at Temple University that humans are not rational economic agents.

It doesn't matter what classes he took. It's the fact that he doesn't understand what's obvious about reality.

[Hauldren Collider]

you guys....

[Kuciwalker]

Blah blah blah... let's talk real world implications here...

Addicts will still try their damnedest to get the stuff regardless of what the supply is. There could be 1 kilo of crack in the entire city and thousands of addicts go without access, does that mean we've solved the drug problem in America? to quote you, HINT: NO.

Secondly, reducing supply and increasing prices only gives more incentive to drug dealers to access and sell the stuff. But I contend that economic motivations are only secondary for the drug trade. There are sociological and psychological factors at work motivating individuals to deal drugs, factors which are not solved simply by adjusting the values of the would-be dealer's utility equation by increasing the consequences of being caught.

That is my point. People do not operate as rational economic agents. I don't know what economics classes you took but it's been hammered into anyone that took Econ at Temple University that humans are not rational economic agents.

Way to miss the point. Like usual. If you reduce the total amount of crack produced, then either 1) previously unconsumed crack will be consumed [i.e. there's a bunch of extra crack floating around not being sold] or 2) less crack will be consumed because less exists, period. No economics required.

[Kuciwalker]

In your "real world", apparently addicts' desire for a drug magically increases the amount of the drug available, regardless of how much is actually produced.

[Al B. Sure!]

Way to miss the point. Like usual. If you reduce the total amount of crack produced, then either 1) previously unconsumed crack will be consumed [i.e. there's a bunch of extra crack floating around not being sold] or 2) less crack will be consumed because less exists, period. No economics required.

WOW. So brilliant. Drug problem solved

All those addicts without access to crack will now become lawyers and doctors and God-fearing Taxpayers!

[Kuciwalker]

Where was I arguing that we can or should actually do that? I was just explaining to you the blatantly obvious point that if less of something exists, less of it can be consumed. The fact that you are too dumb to see that immediately means there's not really much point talking to you.

[Al B. Sure!]

Coming now to Fox from the creators of Bum Fights! Thousands of crackheads... no more crack... let the hilarity ensue!

Do you know what withdrawal is, Kuci?

[KrazyHorse]

There is a coherent argument to be made for limited paternalism*. Unfortunately, neither AS nor GePap are intelligent enough to make it.

*especially if, as KH does, you deny the validity of a nonzero discount rate on human welfare

Remember that I do believe in decreasing marginal utility, and that people in the future will already be better off than us.

[Kuciwalker]

Are you going to contribute something meaningful to this thread (which you haven't yet) or continue to beat on straw men of positions I've explicitly rejected?

[Al B. Sure!]

Where was I arguing that we can or should actually do that? I was just explaining to you the blatantly obvious point that if less of something exists, less of it can be consumed. The fact that you are too dumb to see that immediately means there's not really much point talking to you.

I was just explaining to you the blatantly obvious point that humans, especially drug addicts, are not rational economic agents and that there are more important things in social policy-making than finding points on a utility frontier.

[Kuciwalker]

Remember that I do believe in decreasing marginal utility, and that people in the future will already be better off than us.

Decreasing marginal utility should already be handled by an individual's utility function. The problem is that people discount their own future welfare when making decisions, which results in choices that are suboptimal in a predictable and [possibly, partially] correctable way through incentives.

edit: Do you mean that your global utility being optimized is nonlinear in individual utilities? If so, then my first sentence is clearly wrong.