[derosa8]

“Since the people at the time of the amendment don’t appear to have believed in incorporation…” — And you are basing this off of what? From what I understand it is a difficult debate that is hard to determine.

[derosa8]

McDermott, I am a high school math teacher and quite new to the liberty movement, but here is my two cents. Any indictments or critiques of public education are not personal attacks on you or other skilled teachers. Rather, they are an attack on the wasteful bureaucracy and awful policies so often associated with public schools (tenure for life, useless regulations, enormous pensions, union-negotiated starting salaries). Your skills as a teacher are certainly needed in the world. The point is that a freer market for schooling would still require good teaching and would weed out lots of the bad garbage and wasteful spending that weighs us down.

Also, it would foolish to say that public schools destroy all families. However, the main point is that MORE CHOICE for families regarding their child’s education and jobs they can work at a young age would make them better off. The market can provide for people’s needs when they can cast their vote by choosing to pay for an option in the marketplace. But when they are forced by government mandate into a single option (unless they have a bunch of extra money for private school), there is no room for the market to work.

[derosa8]

Just listened to your lecture on the Time Market and I think I now understand the answer to my last post. A decrease in the purchasing power of money brings about a higher interest rate, since lenders must take into account what the money they will be paid with will be worth in the future. Got it. That certainly makes sense on an unhampered market.

But what would be the effects on inflation on interest rates in the type of interventionist market we have?

[derosa8]

Very interesting. Perhaps if potential borrowers stopped borrowing so much (or there was less credit available for borrowing), then colleges would be forced to LOWER TUITION COSTS? Otherwise they could go bankrupt real fast. Peter Schiff and Ron Paul have made this point before, but it seems to make more sense in the light of Professor Herbener’s analysis.

[derosa8]

Also, what is the causal link between price inflation and interest rates? Why does price inflation tend to push up interest rates as you say? That sounds somewhat confusing, since we have had a good amount of inflation this past decade, yet interest rates have not risen. Perhaps you mean they would rise in a natural market without the FED keeping them low?

[derosa8]

Thanks Professor Herbener. You have a remarkable ability to give concise and coherent responses without fail. Continue to provide clarity in Economics! The good Lord knows we need more clarity, especially among younger folks like myself.

[derosa8]

The only thing is I don’t understand what would burst? It’s not like we’ve brought about an oversupply of higher education with no one to fill the universities. Or is it exactly that, since without govt subsidized loans the universities would not be full?

[derosa8]

Thanks for the reply!

[derosa8]

Seems like a good point to me Chris.

[derosa8]

Interesting analysis from Kevin above. So, was the war justified from the emancipation proclamation onward? Also, Ron Paul always used to get the question: would you intervene if another country across the world was enslaving and murdering its own citizens?

[derosa8]

Great question. This is a HUGE COMMON objection to local, state government sovereignty. People will almost immediately say, “But we had decentralized govt under the Articles of Confederation and it was a total failure!”

Would love some good facts and material to be able to respond to that objection.

[derosa8]

Thanks Brion, that certainly helps clarify the issue.

Could you also address the doctrine of “co-equal” states or “sister states” as you refer to them in one lecture? Where should one go to support this doctrine? I know you cited the clause “between the states so ratifying the same,” but I still find this wording confusing. Does it mean “the states have ratified the constitution in the same way” or does it mean “the states that have ratified the constitution have equal freedom/sovereignty” or does it mean something else??

Are there other places we can go to support the idea of “co-equal states” being a commonly understood belief?

Any help is always appreciated. When people are so caught off guard when someone makes the argument that states had the right to secede, they fight tooth and nail to challenge any argument you make. So I just want to sure up what I am saying so I can present a compelling case.

[derosa8]

Here are some off-the-cuff ideas that might help:

(1) The ONLY way (aside from inheritance/luck) to get wealthy in a free market society is to produce goods or provide services that others demand (i.e. need or want). Challenge your friend to DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL CONNECTION between one person accumulating wealth and another person subsequently falling into poverty. There is none to be found, since none exists. He may produce numbers pointing to increasing poverty rates, but those will be bogus because “poverty” changes in definition, and relative to the times, “poor” people today are way better off (materialistically) than rich people in the 18th century.

(2) I think you have too narrowly framed “the lesson.” I know it was not your intention to give the book definition of it, but just want to make sure it’s clear. Hazlitt’s point is that there are two economic fallacies commonly committed, which lead to negative outcomes The first is that people ONLY look at short-run consequences rather than long run consequences. The second is that people ONLY look at the effects of policy on specific group(s) rather than the effects for all groups.

(3) I honestly am not familiar with the term “closed economic system.” (I am quite new to liberty myself). Perhaps these remarks are relevant to the issue. We do NOT live in a system where money given to one party has been TAKEN from another. You are correct that the key is there is no forceful transfer of goods on a free market. Exchange on a free market is VOLUNTARY which necessarily means that both parties benefit from the exchange. It is not the exploitation of another man to charge him $25 for sneakers; it is the wonderful benefit of a system where the man may spend as he wishes.

[derosa8]

Yes you are correct Enron. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island had those similar provisions. My question was where we could go to legally support the idea of co-equality of states, since the combination of those 2 things is a very powerful argument for the right of secession.

[derosa8]

Great analysis Bharat. I look forward to reading more posts on your blog. Excellent point on the fact that Minimum wage hurts low-skilled workers WHETHER OR NOT they are on welfare.

[Author]

Posts