tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post130302967661880092..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: The Adventures of Toad and Frog, and lessons for rules and constitutionsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-66781179547728882752014-03-17T23:59:15.892-04:002014-03-17T23:59:15.892-04:00Daniel, the reason we have central banks isn't...Daniel, the reason we have central banks isn't for the sake of the financial system or for reasons of good economics. Central banks exist for war finance.Suvynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-31665325463166186582014-03-12T13:22:32.293-04:002014-03-12T13:22:32.293-04:00I remember reading that story as a kid and thinkin...I remember reading that story as a kid and thinking it had a positive ending. They ate roughly as many cookies as they wanted to. Next time they should make cookies in smaller batches.<br /><br />We have our modern system of government because the Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself. Amending it turned out to be a really big hassle, so Frog & Toad discovered it was easier to just ignore bits of it. The nihilist response is that it was a mistake to create a national government through the Constitution in the first place.Wonks Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49958319002134849432014-03-12T05:54:54.753-04:002014-03-12T05:54:54.753-04:00Speaking of stories for children, Daniel...were yo...Speaking of stories for children, Daniel...were you aware that there are comic books which are aimed at explaining the subject in an entertaining, visual way? (I'm assuming that the book you read to Caroline was one of those books - simple sentences to teach her how to read, filled with lots of lively drawings.)<br /><br />Here are the three examples I have in mind:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Economix-Economy-Works-Doesnt-Pictures/dp/0606267301/<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/The-Cartoon-Introduction-Economics-Microeconomics/dp/0809094819/<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/The-Cartoon-Introduction-Economics-Macroeconomics/dp/0809033615/Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-56898398503218842942014-03-10T13:50:57.684-04:002014-03-10T13:50:57.684-04:00Sure, "generally speaking". It is after...Sure, "generally speaking". It is after all the "Federal" government, not the "Confederate" government.<br /><br />Canada was founded as a confederation with big powers to the Provinces but its Federal government is still large and powerful. Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49907040006165389772014-03-10T11:16:36.072-04:002014-03-10T11:16:36.072-04:00And I don't mean the last half of my post to b...And I don't mean the last half of my post to be so pessimistic. There have been positive moves on this front, from the Rehnquist court to welfare reform to pot legalization/SSM trends. It's a mixed bag, but the trajectory has been nice.<br /><br />There have also been moves in the other direction - most notably in health care and the ACA. Some nice state activity was going on, but we were really looking at a choice between my 3rd and 2nd choice. We went for the 2nd. Not ideal, but probably a good thing in the end.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81260708601714093462014-03-10T11:13:52.689-04:002014-03-10T11:13:52.689-04:00So as I read it the Constitution doesn't place...So as I read it the Constitution doesn't place very restrictive bounds on provision for the general welfare, and most of the incursions on state activities are regarding general welfare type issues.<br /><br />So the way I think of it is that the federal government is making poor decisions in a lot of cases by being more active in areas where states should take the lead. I am not sure I'd say it violates constitutional boundaries, although I would say it violates good government and federalist principles (do you have any particular bounds in mind? None come to mind for me).<br /><br />This is the "fault" of state governments as much as the federal government, I think. When I say "fault" I'm just referencing my own preference ranking:<br /><br />1st: States take lead, Feds have some minimal standard safety net/services but less prominent.<br />2nd: Feds take lead, states do what they do.<br />3rd: No one does anything.<br /><br />Some states may do nothing because they prefer my third choice, but enough people agree with me to move it up to the second. I do wish it would move up to the first, but I'm not entirely sure it's a constitutional problem that it doesn't.<br />Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-4829400888079555962014-03-10T10:59:59.298-04:002014-03-10T10:59:59.298-04:00The U.S. Constitution (the only one I really know ...<i>The U.S. Constitution (the only one I really know to any appreciable degree) is not libertarian. It's good and classically liberal, though, in that it constrains government and allows it to do a restricted set of things to provide for the general welfare.</i><br /><br />Daniel, do you think that the US government right now, generally speaking, is respecting the bounds of federalism as established by the US Constitution?Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.com