Mailvox: light up, it’s legal

Or it will be soon, anyhow. The media director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition sends the following email:

As you may know, just moments ago, the California Assembly Public Safety Committee approved a marijuana legalization bill, AB 390, by a vote of 4 – 3.

This is the first time that a state legislative committee has voted to legalize marijuana for non-medical purposes. Judge Jim Gray, who retired last year from the California Superior Court in Orange County and is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, released this statement:

“The mere fact that there was a vote in the Assembly to regulate and control the sale and distribution of marijuana would have been unthinkable even one year ago. And if the bill isn’t fully enacted into law this year, it will be soon. Or, the bill will be irrelevant because the voters will have passed the measure to regulate and tax marijuana that will be on the ballot this November.”

This may be the first intelligent thing California has done in decades. It’s about time; now the rest of the country should legalize it too. Of course, a cynical economist might suggest that the only reason marijuana is being legalized now is that the PTBs are very eager to ensure that the citizenry is as mellow as possible before the next meltdown. Anyhow, I find it more than a little ironic that pot will probably end up being more socially acceptable than tobacco in another decade or three.

I don’t partake of the herb myself, but I am a strong supporter of drug legalization on libertarian grounds. So, this is good news even if it’s probably more driven by California’s desperate need to increase tax revenue and decrease prison spending than anything else.

There is still no global warming

As I have said from the start, the significant point is not that Man is not causing global warming, although that is true, or that there are more important problems to be addressed than global warming, although that is true too. The significant point is that the so-called climate scientists are all incorrect, there is no long-term global warming trend, there is only a short-term and irrelevant warming spike, and all of the predictions of global warming based on the climacaustal’s scientific models will be proven totally incorrect over the next ten years.

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Of course, the mere fact of being completely wrong won’t slow down the global government crowd, their scientific enablers or the scienthological faithful. I just wonder how long it will be before “global cooling is climate change too” becomes the new mantra.

Come on now

Turgot’s Tetrapylectomy! Jonathan somehow manages to make more mistakes while trying to defend the hapless Amazon critic.

Actually, the original reviewer is completely correct. Vox was forgetting that in the multiplier effect, the “new” money becomes deposits at other banks. It is still thus true that at each and every bank, the profits stated by the reviewer are correct.

The original reviewer isn’t correct in any way, shape, or form. The reviewer completely leaves out the multiplier effect, which merely happened to be THE SUBJECT AT HAND, in favor of a trivial focus on the interest revenue – not profit – from a single loan, which he also manages to miscalculate. (He used the wrong interest rate.) It is demonstrably incorrect to say that “the ‘new’ money becomes deposits at other banks”, the most that can possibly be said is that it will USUALLY become deposits at other banks. I assumed for the sake of simplication that the revolving loans and deposits were all taking place at a single bank; this is hardly an unreasonable postulate in light of the fact that Bank of America presently holds 12.2% of total US deposits and 14.8% of total US loans and leases. (Now you know why they can’t be permitted to fail.) That third sentence only applies for each and every LOAN, not for each and every bank. And finally, since it seems everyone is determined to be pedantic about this, I note that the reviewer’s profit calculation could never have been correct since the example in the book was 5%, not the 6% cited in the review.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I should have created a better example of the multiplier effect in a fractional-reserve system. Mea maxima culpa. I should have referred to “banking system” instead of “bank” and I should have left out the “maximum profit” altogether since it’s not possible to calculate the net profit of the loan multiplier without knowing how many times the loan cycle will occur in the course of a year. But the trivial errors in my poorly constructed example do not justify this absurd level of pedantic and error-filled nitpickery, especially since it doesn’t even begin to call either my point about the fractional-reserve banking system or my conclusions about the systemic risks of such a system into question.