Impose government tax in smoking bars, maybe?And make aforementioned bars more expensive. We'd still flock to them.
Holy christ i can solve the Economy.
- Thread starter TopHatTim
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gee, how didn't the people who are actually qualified and have degrees and experience in economics think of this?!? Oh yeah, because this wouldn't do anything. Believe it or not, there are people whose jobs are to come up with logical, throughout, and actually applicable ideas. Leave it to the professionals people.
buzzkill mode activated, but fuck it i do economics and sat a 3 hour exam earlier so blow me...TopHatTim said:
This would not have much effect due to the elasticity of demand for tabbaco and other de-merit goods such as alcohol. If the demand is inelastic (tabbaco is) then a change in price of said good (even through the use of a tax) will lead to a very small change in demand for said good, the more inelastic the more so. So yeah adding some extra taxes to tabbaco products will increase the price and demand will only fall slightly but overall the revenue made will be higher. so tax on tabacco= moneys for gov.
If your name is liam algor this proves my theory that you have failed this course
Actually slight modification to your explanation...Anachronism said:
People bought houses they really couldn't afford (at the later full interest rates) because screw it, they were planning on refinancing or selling the house in a few years.
The banks lent money to people who didn't qualify because screw it, they would be selling the houses in a few years or refinancing.
And everyone was fine with just barely getting by. It was tight but it could be done as long as nothing bad happened... Then gas went to $4.00+ a gallon for 7 months... to quote the movie Snatch...
"Now we are fucked"
Then everyone went into a panic and tried to refinance their houses, the banks couldn't handle the volume and said no, so everyone tried to sell their houses, the housing market couldn't handle the volume and said no. Then everyone who had any money left traded in all their shitty American gas guzzlers for foreign made quality vehicles, the American car companies couldn't handle the NON volume and shit the bed.
This caused the economy to go into a tail spin. An economy that was already weakened by the Iraq war and a pretty hefty deficit. Then people had to tighten their belts and stop spending, which caused the economy to dive more, which caused people to tighten their belts, which caused....
So, the moral of the story: Don't buy something you cant afford on credit you don't have from unscrupulous banks because there will be something else that totaly fucks your budget. In this case it was the oil companies who saw what was coming and decided to grab as much money as possible because their meal tickets in the White House were about to leave.
On top of all this it was an election year. Republicans said the economy was fine, the Democrats said the Republicans were out of touch with reality. The Republicans ran an old war veteran with a hypocrite dummy who thinks the earth is only 6000 years old. The Democrats ran a young cool guy who said he was the direct opposite of the last 8 years and a blue collar connected semi old guy who occasionally tells bad jokes.
The Dems won. John Stewart is happy, Fox is mad. And here we are.
meandering rant done lol
DDKR RULES!!!
Thanks Cheeze_Pavilion, I was looking for those articles, but my Google-fu needs work.
Skeleon, it's true that there are many, many factors in longevity, smoking being just one, but since cancer is a big killer, and smoking causes quite a lot of it, there's no doubt we'd have more people if everyone stopped. The exact numbers are probably something we'll never know, but I definitely believe it's true that measures intended to increase longevity, including anti-smoking laws, cost society more than anyone realizes due to the burden that a large population that is unable to contribute to the economy places on it.
A little more on-topic, though, blaming the recession on smoking or lack thereof is silly. As many have already pointed out, it was ultimately irresponsibility that led us to where we are.
Skeleon, it's true that there are many, many factors in longevity, smoking being just one, but since cancer is a big killer, and smoking causes quite a lot of it, there's no doubt we'd have more people if everyone stopped. The exact numbers are probably something we'll never know, but I definitely believe it's true that measures intended to increase longevity, including anti-smoking laws, cost society more than anyone realizes due to the burden that a large population that is unable to contribute to the economy places on it.
A little more on-topic, though, blaming the recession on smoking or lack thereof is silly. As many have already pointed out, it was ultimately irresponsibility that led us to where we are.
Even if it would solve the Economy, theres no way if I was in Government, I would support lifting laws on smokers. It's just a filthy addiction, which for some reason isn't illegal like most other harmfull drugs.
Pretty much this. However, one must understand that it wasn't exactly by the free will of the lenders that these loans were given. Thanks to a particular bill passed in 1979 and strengthened in 1992 by Janet Reno and her ilk, the Community Reinvestment Act was a regulation that forced banks to pass out loans to high-risk lendees. Thanks, Carter and Clinton administrations.Anachronism said:
What i propose happens, is full on keynesian policies. I'm talking high expansionary and monitary policies and to hell with the current account deficit and inflation. (im in the uk so im basing my plan on what should happen in the uk). Quantitive easing to continue, and the selling of the pound by the bank of england on the foriegn exchange market. I also believe that the goverment should subsidise certain monopolies and de-regulate other markets in order to achieve contestable markets. Throw in some supply side policies such as if you pass gcse grades with 5 C's or higher you automatically have to stay on in education and if you dont achieve those grades you go into training for a job. The voluntary unemployed will be employed in the building of schools and prisions while the involuntary unemployed will be given a grant to move to an area where jobs are available. I would also bring back the death sentance as well as fully remove soldiers from iraq(including those who are there to train foriegn forces). I think i should run for Pm tbh, lol just dont let them know im only 18
You need to go into more detail like the banks that loan to each other and this is why it spread around the world also the negative effects of globalisation-Zen- said:
I would submit that gas in my town was 139 in November 08 now its gone up 60 cents in 3 weeks and its hovering at 259. I don't quite think that resident of the white house has anything to do with it.George Palmer said:
*I say gas hits the 100 a barrel mark again soon.
Good argument, but even though more people are quitting smoking they are just raising the price of tobacco to counteract it. But yes i think more people should smoke, then we would ahve less opinionated self righteous assholes who think it's valid to deny others one small thing they take pleasure in. And I think lung cancer is hilarious.
Well if he has any controll over interest rates then yes he does have something to do with it, does he have any control over interest rates (im from the uk)sneakypenguin said:
My theory is that the economy is screwed up due to a certain few invasions that have happened over the last decade. but then again its easy to blame everything on war. on to your smoking idea. you defiantly have a point about the loss of tax revenue and i also have a cure. relax the laws on smoking and force the tobacco companies to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarette, thus killing two birds with one stone. less tobacco means less people get addicted but means that the addicted people have to buy more cigarettes. possibly more people will try cigarettes but this will aid the American economy at least as they have to pay for their health care but I don't really know where that money goes. Anyway that's my point of viewTopHatTim said:
