tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post7737600242011661292..comments2024-03-18T06:41:03.841-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Discussion on the Constitution at ThinkMarketsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-22048396289276392752011-03-17T09:17:28.057-04:002011-03-17T09:17:28.057-04:00where is this link? i'll take a look.where is this link? i'll take a look.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-92070132711278002642011-03-17T09:16:45.159-04:002011-03-17T09:16:45.159-04:00re: ""Jobs saved" is such a ridicul...re: <i>""Jobs saved" is such a ridiculous concept that it indeed deserves little more than ridicule."</i><br /><br /><br />I'm guessing you are currently employed.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-27787842514592688512011-03-17T07:44:26.419-04:002011-03-17T07:44:26.419-04:00Of course one has to have saving to invest. But th...Of course one has to have saving to invest. But the two are not the same thing. Investments are risky, savings -- except in an inflationary regime -- are not. Huge difference between the two. If Keynes' couldn't figure that much out, so much the worse for him.<br /><br />Go read the article I link to on that, yes, entirely bogus equation. Just because you can make an equation, that doesn't mean it represents reality. That equation is responsible for most of the stupid things out of government I have heard in the aftermath of this recession. "Jobs saved" is such a ridiculous concept that it indeed deserves little more than ridicule. It is an example of hos that equation is nothing more than a boon for self-serving politicians. Beyond that, it means nothing, and represents nothing in reality.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34547342486655272882011-03-05T05:49:26.237-05:002011-03-05T05:49:26.237-05:00Look, I'm glad you're reading the General ...Look, I'm glad you're reading the General Theory but I can't do this if I'm alternately going to be asked to defend a caricature and argue with someone that thinks things like the national income equation are bogus.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60714811607941920132011-03-05T05:48:01.214-05:002011-03-05T05:48:01.214-05:00"Nor do I think we should just throw up our h...<i>"Nor do I think we should just throw up our hands and declare that the experts should be the only ones to handle it, as you seem to imply."</i><br /><br />You infer - I never implied this nor have I ever thought this, Troy. You seem to infer quite liberally, I've noticed.<br /><br /><i>"Now, as for National Income Identity -- that involves that entirely bogus equation Keynes invented."</i><br /><br />First, Keynes didn't invent this. Second, if you think it's "bogus" there's absolutely no point in talking to you about economics. There's only so far we can go if you're really going to be this obtuse. Of course without savings there can be no investment. Who ever challenged that??Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90614175789036014292011-03-05T01:57:43.540-05:002011-03-05T01:57:43.540-05:00You're right. It is unconstitutional for the C...You're right. It is unconstitutional for the Congress to assert authority over decisions that the Constitution gives it no latitude to make decisions on. Which includes almost everything it does. Anything that is clearly to a certain group's benefit is not for the general welfare. A defensive military is for the general welfare. Everyone is protected equally and thus the general welfare is protected. <br /><br />Each law is able to come under judicial review, so yes, judging each and every law does matter. Nor do I think we should just throw up our hands and declare that the experts should be the only ones to handle it, as you seem to imply. <br /><br />Now, as for National Income Identity -- that involves that entirely bogus equation Keynes invented. Without savings, there can be no investments, there will be no protection against future problems, and those without savings will find themselves in deep financial trouble. The future is something real one has to plan for. And what do you think people are doing with their savings? Stuffing it under a mattress? At the least, it's put in a savings account, where it's available for loans and is drawing interest. Overall, the fact that Keynes had a low time preference doesn't mean that it's good economics.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72284046192789984842011-03-04T10:06:28.204-05:002011-03-04T10:06:28.204-05:00Troy -
This is precisely why we have elections and...Troy -<br />This is precisely why we have elections and Congress, rather than robots or dictators running the country.<br /><br />You are now predicating a constitutional argument on your own assessment of a law. That's not the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government vis a vis the people. Your basis for constitutionality can't be dependent on your own evaluation of the value of any given law. <br /><br />For example, I don't personally think it serves the general welfare to have a mortgage interest deduction or an exemption for employer provided health benefits. That evaluation on my part, though, doesn't give me grounds to rule these things unconstitutional. It isn't unconstitutional for the Congress to be wrong - it is unconstitutional for the Congress to assert authority over decisions that the Constitution gives it no latitude to make decisions on.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50968293848813347882011-03-04T09:55:58.514-05:002011-03-04T09:55:58.514-05:00Troy - you miss the entire point when you write th...Troy - you miss the entire point when you write this: <br /><br />"Certainly one cannot invest what one has not saved, but what one has saved is not necessarily invested. So the final equation isn't necessarily true, even if it can be true. It's possible to just sit on one's money and not invest it."<br /><br />His whole point is that when people sit on savings, investment demand is reduced to bring the national income identity into alignment.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-42985129275719566202011-03-04T01:53:45.892-05:002011-03-04T01:53:45.892-05:00I have to agree with Daniel on this. The general w...I have to agree with Daniel on this. The general welfare and commerce clauses are more than enough to make bank bailouts pass Constitutional muster.<br /><br />I still think it's a bad idea, and the Constitution a bad piece of paper. But it does fit.Mattheushttp://www.economicthought.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-77032502561001104662011-03-04T01:51:45.622-05:002011-03-04T01:51:45.622-05:00I see no obvious constitutional justification for ...I see no obvious constitutional justification for the bailouts. If it's obvious, it shold be easy to point out. Please show the constitutional justification for them.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60930196848729188652011-03-04T01:50:19.728-05:002011-03-04T01:50:19.728-05:00Daniel,
Feel free to point out and explain where ...Daniel,<br /><br />Feel free to point out and explain where I was wrong. I admitted that I was not entirely certain of some of my comments on Ch. 6. If I'm wrong you should be able to prove it.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50618300449461192772011-03-03T08:14:22.282-05:002011-03-03T08:14:22.282-05:00"I don’t know anyone that disputes the idea t..."I don’t know anyone that disputes the idea that rights not stated are reserved to the people and the states..."<br /><br />Quite famously Robert Bork argued that the 9th amendment was an "inkblot." Many legal scholars of varying ideological stripes agreed with him. The comment spawned an entire generation of 9th amendment scholarship to undermine this rather vapid idea.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.com