[tylerboyd49]

I second this post.

Especially in light of some recent jury nullification victories, I’d love to learn more about it. It’s got me excited about someday being asked to be on a jury.

[tylerboyd49]

My first thought was of the rivalry in the 2nd half of 19th century between William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli. Gladstone led the Liberal party (in the final decades of ‘liberal’ describing laissez faire) while Disraeli founded the modern Conservative party at a time that conservative referred to maintaining state power.

In Prussia/Germany I think about Eugen Richter vs. Otto von Bismarck. http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/03/the-ron-paul-of-the-second-reich/

I know these examples are a bit more about liberalism vs. collectivism than liberalism vs. European integration…. I’ll try and think of better examples.

*Edit* and I just reread your question and realize that you’re looking for 1950s and forward… So I didn’t help. I’ll keep looking.

[tylerboyd49]

10 Minute video on the Israel/Palestine conflict since about 1900… Just watched it a couple days ago so I haven’t corroborated it with any other sources. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wb6IiSUxpgw

And a book that was recommend with it (on lewrockwell.com) is A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-20th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348360870&sr=8-1&keywords=a+peace+to+end+all+peace/lewrockwell

[tylerboyd49]

The main difference we have from NHS (if I understand NHS correctly) is that since NHS is single payor, the only way they can control costs since demand is automatically encouraged (it’s “FREE!”) is to tightly control the benefits and options available to the consumer (rationing). Being publicly owned, things that are popular and common will be well-funded (maternity care and tooth aches) while things that are more rare, in a specialty, perhaps more extensive are likely to be poorly funded (types of cancers, rare diseases, etc).

With our private insurance system, people have the freedom to pick and choose what “package” they can buy. Some people want high monthly premiums with no copays or deductibles (anytime you need something, you’ve got it fully covered – this encourages over usage, but they pay for it in their premiums). Other people choose high deductibles (they pay for everything up to a certain amount and then the 3rd payor starts picking up a portion of the tab – this will have cheaper premiums, but if you get caught needing care, you’ll be paying for it up till the deductible). And there’s potentially a plethora of options for people to get insurance that meets their desires (generic coverage vs. name brand, tests covered or not, maternal coverage, flu shots covered or not covered, etc)…

However, states and federal government have increasingly regulated things that insurance plans MUST cover which limits the variability between plans. Also, people in general don’t have much choice because insurance can’t be sold across state lines and it is much cheaper to get insurance through your employer because employers get tax cuts on employee health insurance (so if you lose your job, you lose your healthcare). In a free market of insurance, high premium plans would probably be pushed up in price by its “tragedy of the commons-esque” nature and people would then choose more cost effective means of insuring themselves (most stuff would probably be paid out of pocket with the exception of real expensive emergency care or “Major Medical” plans).

Obama wanted a “public option” in his health care reform, which would’ve probably pushed us towards single payor since the rise in private health insurance would’ve driven more people towards the publicly funded insurance until private insurance was run out of business. Instead, that was left out and we are forced to buy from companies that can absorb the costs of increased regulation at the expense of smaller insurance companies that can’t…. So Congress basically chose more fascism over socialism. Don’t let people tell you Obamacare is socialist. Socialist doesn’t force you buy corporate products. That’s fascist.

[tylerboyd49]

The reason demand is driven up with insurance is because the costs are spread out among a pool of buyers. Imagine going to a restaurant with 15 people. Prices range from 7-18 dollars and everyone agrees to split the total bill evenly. Now, say someone is there who if they were alone would buy the $10 burger or maybe just the $7 sandwich because the $14 shrimp plate is not worth it to them. But when the costs are pooled, then the to cost to the individual of getting more food is significantly smaller. The cost of going from a burger to a shrimp plate would only be adding about 26 cents to that individuals bill (and 26 cents to everyone else’s as well)…. Everyone has that same incentive to receive something because the costs are born mostly by others so more meals would be bought in the $12-18 than would normally occur.

The same is in healthcare. Not only does the physician have an incentive to prescribe an antibiotic for sinus infection that doesn’t even make the infxn go away quicker because he is reimbursed based on #of visits and #of prescriptions written rather than how good the pt. thinks the Dr. is at making him well, but also the pt. has the incentive to go get the prescription filled without considering the side effects, the actual cost of the product, etc because the cost is being paid mostly by his insurance company (and those who pay the insurance company in monthly premiums). He pays the same premium regardless (and with maximum deductible laws, he can’t choose to go with a high deductible/low premium plan to avoid costs he doesn’t benefit from).

[tylerboyd49]

My knee-jerk thoughts are that time and reputation would drive legalized fractional reserve banking to be such a small sector of the industry that it wouldn’t be very significant in the economy, sort of like if labor unions were to compete without government privilege (not a strict parallel).

[tylerboyd49]

We could employ a lot more people if it weren’t for those blasted anti-labor train engines. Wage-earning, car pulling laborers should do that instead! I’m sure the owners of the railroads could absorb the increase cost of wages without passing it on to consumers of the items being transported if only they weren’t so greedy (maybe a price a ceiling would work)….

[tylerboyd49]

Excellent. Added to my Amazon wishlist!

[tylerboyd49]

Regarding Tom Woods’ and Gary North’s position that since hyperinflation is bad for banks, the Fed won’t let it happen…. Has this held true for other nations that have hyperinflated (was German hyperinflation caused by their central bank or had the currency been under the control of their Parliament?, etc)

Related to that – I assume the only alternative to hyperinflation is a sudden cessation of payments and services from the government when the Fed quits lending them money? … in which case I could see government react or prevent this by nationalizing the banks and issuing the currency themselves –> hyperinflation. How am I doing?

[tylerboyd49]

Not to take it off topic Dr. Gutzman, but since the Constitution does not specify what type of treaties can or cannot be made, then does that make foreign aid Constitutional if done through a treaty? (Not that I think it’s good economic or moral policy)….

[tylerboyd49]

Thanks y’all

[tylerboyd49]

Thank you for the answer! I’m really enjoying liberty classroom.

So if goods such as cows, salt, or cigarettes are treated as a medium of exchange, does that mean that an object can be a medium of exchange and a producer (or consumer) good at the same time? Is there an overlap between these categories of goods, or do good strictly fit into one category or another?

[tylerboyd49]

Something else to consider is that at the beginning each representative (a number included in selecting the number of electoral votes) used to represent something like 35,000 people. Now they represent on average of 700,000 with some districts containing almost twice as many as other districts.

The higher the number of seats in the house/higher number of electoral college votes there are, the more an individual vote will weigh in selection of that representative/elector. Of course, then each representative/elector than weighs less in their own respective votes. But conceivably, an electoral college of 6,000 would yield results practically identical to the popular vote…. Personally I think the country is just too big for meaningful representation.

[tylerboyd49]

The way I usually explain it to friends is that there are 3 ways the government pays for stuff.

1.) Taxes – paid by today’s workers [Has political limits]
2.) Borrowed debt – paid for by tomorrow’s workers (aka: next generation pays taxes to pay for today’s spending) [has credit limits]
3.) Inflation – paid by the ones who get the created money last (by paying the prices that have reacted to the influx of currency) [The hidden tax – currency viability limit]

[Author]

Posts