[derosa8]

Thanks MichaelP! Will definitely check it out

[derosa8]

JamesHarry Schaeffer, thanks for the comment. Would you recommend Hazlitt’s book to relatively new readers to economics? I have read Economics in One Lesson and Meltdown, but nothing too intense as far as economic analysis. Also, slowly working my way through Jeff Herbener’s lectures

[derosa8]

Lol don’t feel like you should know everything as a subscriber! I’m a complete amateur with all this liberty, but joined for learning purposes.

To my understanding, in the most layman terms I can think of, “An unfunded liability is debt, i.e. something owed, but there has been nothing set aside or invested for the future payment of the debt.”

But hopefully Jeff can weigh in since I have no idea how all the unfunded liabilities are calculated.

[derosa8]

The separate issues would be (1) the legality of secession and (2) the desire on the part of the south to perpetuate the institution of slavery. They are not separate as in unrelated. But they are separate in the sense that the desire on the part of the south to perpetuate slavery does not relate to the whether or not those states had the right to leave the union.

[derosa8]

I have not read Keynes other than when he is quoted in Austrian circles. However, contemporary Keynsian sympathizer Paul Krugman does not sound at all like he would agree with your teacher.

Krugman is famous for pushing the notion that the U.S. during FDR, Japan during 1990s, and U.S. during Obama and Bush did NOT RUN BIG ENOUGH DEFECITS to counteract the respective recessions. If he truly follows Keynes, it follows that Keynes would support major stimulus packages.

Hopefully the experts will weigh in!

[derosa8]

It is “inherently flawed” if we read our modern interpretation back into the text. However, here is Dr. Woods on the subject:

The power to regulate the value of money does not involve the power to dilute the value of money by inflation, an absurd and self-serving rendering. Regulation of the value of money is a power of declaration and comparison, whereby some monetary standard is compared to other coins in circulation and an exchange rate for these various kinds of currency is established according to the amounts of precious metals (with due allowance for the distinct values of different precious metals) in each. In the common law, “regulate” meant only “the process of properly comparing the coin needing regulat[ion] to the monetary standard, not falsifying that comparison or changing the standard.” . . . That is why this power appears in the same constitutional clause with the power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures,” which involves the measurement of fixed standards in order to assure uniformity throughout the country. That power does not give Congress the authority to declare that one-tenth of a pound is now a pound; like the power of regulation, it authorizes Congress merely to take an already existing standard and codify it. [Who Killed the Constitution?, p. 92-93]

[derosa8]

Great question. It seems the logical conclusion is they ONLY intended to give Congress the power to make law necessary AND proper to carry into execution their powers which were “FEW and DEFINED.” It is quite obvious that many states would not have ratified if they thought they were giving Congress power to make whatever law they wanted.

[derosa8]

I second these questions! Peter Schiff seems to be one of the biggest promoters of the “government bubble” which I think he also refers to as a bubble in treasuries.

[derosa8]

Also, since it is another secession-related, compact theory question, I will post here again. Brion McClanahan mentions an argument for secession based on the co-equality of states. Tom Woods brings this up in his PIG to American History as well. I feel like it’s an extremely strong argument when we consider that Virginia specifically said they had this right when ratifying and people did not object.

However, the rest of the argument seems to rest on the doctrine of co-equality of states with regards to rights and dignity. What is the best way to support this doctrine?

Brion mentions Article 7 of the Constitution in passing (“States so ratifying the same”) but does not elaborate. Since the word order of that sentence seems kind of outdated, I really don’t understand what it means. Also can we look to the ratifying conventions to support the doctrine of co-equal states?

I know Tom has made reference to Jefferson with regard to Missouri, but if we had additional evidence then people would be less likely to write the argument off as “radical anti-federalist propaganda.”

[derosa8]

Thanks for the replies. That definitely makes the issue clearer. Unfortunately, when in debates with people about the right of secession, they will quickly bring up quotes or opinions from southerners that are extremely racist. However, their conclusion then that secession is unlawful seems to be a conflation of two entirely separate issues as you all seem to agree ^^^

Thanks

[derosa8]

It appears this Daniel Kuehn is very well researched in his analysis and replies. He and “Lord Keynes” provide harsh critiques of Bob Murphy’s and Tom’s writings on the Depression of 1920 on this page of Murphy’s site: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/10/krugman-on-the-1920s-a-one-act-play.html

Hopefully Tom and Bob will respond with full force? It’s hard for a rookie like myself to sift through all of their empirical claims.

[Author]

Posts