[j.fournier]

Thanks for the explanation Jeff! The anecdotal evidence from my trip is consistent with the theory that a lack of sales tax will not necessarily result in lower prices. I visited a McDonald’s in Vancouver WA and also one in Portland OR, and observed the after tax prices for a “Big Breakfast” at each.

Vancouver WA after tax price = $4.11 = $3.79 big breakfast + $0.32 sales tax

Portland OR after tax price = $5.05 = $5.05 big breakfast + $0.00 sales tax

[j.fournier]

Correction: “I figure the application of this is that if the burden of the INCOME TAX is actually higher in Portland OR than the burden of the SALES TAX in Vancouver WA, at the margin it could result in fewer retailers per capita and fail to result in lower after tax prices than Vancouver WA.

[j.fournier]

Thank you.

[j.fournier]

OK, but but above you say “As we approached the ERE, in your example, production of malls would increase because of the greater return. This would lower output prices and raise input prices.” I interpreted this as saying that since more malls will be built, the price of malls will fall from $10 million (presumably the increased supply of malls would result in a decrease in rents and/or increase in their cap rates or discount rates), and the total money cost of factors of production of malls will increase from $8 million, and that in the ERE the money costs and price of the mall will equal each other somewhere between $8 million and $10 million because costs will go up and price of mall will go down. Did I interpret you incorrectly? Will the price of the mall stay at $10 million in the ERE?

Basically, I’m trying to figure out if economic theory can tell me whether the value of a shopping center will tend to go down if its replacement cost is lower than its current value. I thought Rothbard was saying that costs will go up to meet value, but I thought what you were saying implied that cost and value would meet somewhere in between because costs (inputs) will go up and value (output) will go down.

[j.fournier]

Thanks for your very thorough response! I think I understand what you are saying. Would you say then that in the ERE the shopping center would be worth somewhere between $8 million and $10 million then?

[j.fournier]

As support for my point I submit that if the 2nd amendment was repealed, there is no authority in the Constitution to take away our guns.

[j.fournier]

No response addressing my 2nd v. 9th and 10th question, which is leading me to believe it is really the 9th and 10th amendments that protect individual gun rights. This makes me think that the emphasis of the 2nd amendment is wrong in many cases.

[j.fournier]

Another anti-confederate argument I’ve heard is that the confederate constitution included the phrase: “permanent federal government” in its preamble. Doesn’t change my mind that secession is awesome! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

[j.fournier]

Sorry, I should have said “protect” in both clauses. I know better than to suggest we get rights from government… I screwed up the wording in one of those clauses. I agree it is important to stress that these are rights that we have regardless of the Constitution.

Check out this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXup3fWX7w&list=PLALopHfWkFlFXsDIlSx8KisqZM5OotGWq#t=14m27s where Judge Napolitano says the following at Mises Inst event:
“…Your right to keep and own a gun, which my friends is not the right to shoot at a deer, it’s the right to shoot at the government if it is taken over by tyrants.”

It seems like the Judge’s position is in conflict with some of the points made by Levinson in this article: http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Given the difficulty of understanding the 2nd Amendment, is there anything wrong with saying the following to 2nd Amendment skeptics: “If private ownership of firearms is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, then it is most certainly protected by the 9th and/or 10th.”

[j.fournier]

Sorry, I just noticed someone posted a similar question here https://libertyclassroom.com/forums/topic/the-right-to-use-guns-for-self-defense-protected-by-the-10th-amendment/

[j.fournier]

Thanks Jeff. I think he may be in the hopeless case category.

[j.fournier]

Thanks Jeff Herbener!

[j.fournier]

One of my economics professors at University of Virginia espoused the point of view that the Fed was powerless to affect interest rates. My recollection was that the main reason was that he thought their main tool for impacting the Federal Funds rate was through their involvement in the repo market, and that they are only a small fraction of that market. I’ve run into this guy more recently and asked him if he has changed his mind, considering all of the permanent open market operations, and low interest rates post 2008. His response was something like, well take last week for example, they bought a bunch of treasuries and the rates went up. I mentioned the difference between nominal and real interest rates, and he deflected by saying that there was no way that I could prove that the real rate had gone down. This prof is pretty knowledgable about real world stuff (made about $30 million on Wall Street). How could you convince such a person (if you wanted to waste your time) that the Fed is actually able to influence (real?) interest rates?

[Author]

Posts