Last post, I talked about how no one should be intimidated by the longish Cannabis Commerce in the USA. Dive in anywhere — just think of it as a bunch of blog posts, unified by a common theme.
Speaking of longish, you may have been wondering: what’s up with the extended interviews with the top poteconomists on the planet? Audio, video, and transcriptions of sessions with Dr. and Professor Jeff Miron, Dr. and Professor Jon Gettman (he declined video), and Max Chaiken can be found in the Interviews category.
It’s not customary to provide full interviews, much less present them in three convenient formats. I’ve gone against the grain, providing hours of information in a seconds of information world.
- Because I would have appreciated encountering this kind of depth when I was researching CC in the USA.
- Economists are forced to use plain English in interviews, in contrast to the economist-speak prevalent in their white papers.
- I believe the “revenue issue,” (collecting pot tax bucks to benefit society), discussed by the experts who know the most about it, is a big deal.
- I believe big-time poteconomists do important work. Their methodology intrigues me. Their personalities interest me. In my mind, they’re celebrities, albeit ones who aren’t used to someone drawing them out. It all comes through in the interviews.
Allow me to connect the dots: the three long interviews correspond directly to Parts 2-4 of CC in the USA. Each part is based around that poteconomist’s interview. In case anyone isn’t enamored with my opinionated evaluation, no problem – you can actually see, hear, and read exactly what they said – and draw your own conclusions. That’s why they’re there. The interviews also contain lots of great stuff that couldn’t be included in the report.
Here’s my quick take on each interview:
Dr. Miron: (Is This Man the World’s Most Cautious Pot Prognosticator?) If you couldn’t tell, this guy fascinates me. Not everyone can be obstinate and open-minded at the same time. While Dr. Miron’s papers are a tough read, when he talks into a microphone, he dummies down to the laymen level like nobody’s business. We’re perfect foils: he doesn’t believe there’s a whole heckuva lot of pot tax money out there, I believe there’s enough to make a meaningful impact. Someone should hire us for a series of debates.
The big question is: how can a dropout continually challenge the distinguished head of the Harvard Economics Department, the most quoted man in marijuana, when every other media maven grabs their one-line quote and backs off?
I dunno. But I’ve heard sometimes practical experience trumps theoretical analytics. You’ll want to read Part 2 of CC in the USA, “The Enigma,” to find out if that’s true.
Dr. Gettman: (Jon Gettman Weighs In On Legalization, Cultivation, and Taxation) Read this guy’s transcription. Listen to the audio. He’s lectured so much, transcriptions of his off-the-cuff statements read better than his own writing (to judge for yourself, access Dr. Gettman’s reports in our Library). They come out pre-edited. I don’t know how he does it. He should dictate all his reports. I rarely challenge Gettman, because he obviously tries a lot harder to find lost tax money than Miron. This treasure trove of all things marijuana corresponds to Part 3 of CC in the USA, “A Poteconomist Plays the Game.”
Max Chaiken: (Brainy Brown Grad Predicts Pot Tax Gelt) Although his work was not blessed by Drs. Miron and Gettman, Max was well-prepared for his interview, let the criticism of his higher figures flow off him, and came across as a credible and genuine new voice. The title of his white paper, The Other Green Economy, is fantastic. It was refreshing to hear actual enthusiasm for “the subject.” I almost think he enjoys it, though I could tell he didn’t want me to ask him directly and jeopardize his future as a litigator. Chaiken’s rather outlandish MPMTR (maximum pot-ential marijuana taxation revenue) figures didn’t survive my cross-examination, although he held the line convincingly on his $72 billion minimum estimate. That said, Chaiken also missed some obvious revenue sources revealed in Part 4 of CC in the USA, “The Wunderkind.”
I hope we haven’t heard the last from this trio. While I make light of their serious natures to lure you in – remember, I promised you you don’t need a PhD to read my report – they were all great interviews.
Some ‘splaining to do
I wish Cannabis Commerce could magically become more self-explanatory; given time, and the right human and financial resources, it will. However, the fact is, it’s a unique site.
Not fitting into an established model might bother me more if constructing a few signposts here and there, or penning this “startup guide,” if you will, was particularly demanding.
I’m positive these last two posts will help newcomers and returnees navigate the site and get the most out of it.
Our next poteconomist interviewee will be . . .
So, who’s next? For a change of pace, I’ve got my eye on a certain female . . . a mystic pot oracle. I see us synchronized swimming in her think tank. Does she even know I exist?