tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post6903725815010008258..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Joe Firestone: What If a Debt Limit Extension is Voted Down?mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45704246553232110492011-08-02T08:33:08.086-04:002011-08-02T08:33:08.086-04:00I basically agree with that. My point is that stat...I basically agree with that. My point is that states' rights and nullification, which are terms in the present political discourse on the far right in the US, were economically based. It was the Northern bankers and industrialists and Southern agriculturalists who depended on slave labor at the time. But history shows that it was not only about slavery. Nullification was initially about tariff policy, for instance.<br /><br />The point now is that even after slavery has been abolished, tariffs are not a regional issue, and the other economic factors have shifted, the basic issues from which the republic began are still with us, and we are re-litigating them now in current politics. Slavery has become racism and anti-immigrant sentiment, and previous economic issues like tariffs have morphed into fiscal issues.<br /><br />But the most fundamental issue is constitutional interpretation. The looming battle is between the strict and loose constructionists, which goes back to the formation of the republic. In fact, the strict constructionist position advanced by Justice Scalia, for example, is called "originalism." <br /><br />The issue that the right has with "activist judges" is not so much that they are "making law from the bench" as interpreting the constitution as an evolving document that must keep pace with changing times, in spite of what the founders may have been dealing with when they crafted the language. This is based on strict construction.<br /><br />So in this sense we are now dealing with issues that came to a head at the time of the Civil War and were decided by the outcome of that conflict for some time. However, that result was never accepted by the other side, which has continued to proudly fly its flag of rebellion, as if to say, "You won the first time, but...." <br /><br />Now that challenge is being thrown down openly, with even governors talking secession, and America is at the point of another civil conflict between two opposing factions dealing with essentially the same issues that have come up before as matters of contention.<br /><br />I look at trends and this is a long-term trend in the US. Long-term trend tend to rise and fall cyclically, We are in a period in which that long-term trend is peaking again.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-39285231622301911332011-08-02T01:44:08.748-04:002011-08-02T01:44:08.748-04:00Plenty of people who have gone back, including Lin...Plenty of people who have gone back, including Lincoln himself, in his second Inaugural, have said that it was about slavery, and imho this is the trend of recent scholarship. Marx - "a pro-slavery insurrection". Every other issue was trivial in comparison. When states rights conflicted with pro-slavery - as in conscripting Northerners on free soil to enforce fugitive slave laws - suddenly states rights were not so important. And were thus shown to be an effect, a disguise, not an ultimate cause.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31156888695463540402011-08-01T19:53:25.695-04:002011-08-01T19:53:25.695-04:00I certainly don't mean to deny the important o...I certainly don't mean to deny the important of slavery in the debate, but if you go back and read the history, you will see that toward the beginning of the war Lincoln was at pains to emphasize that this was not about slavery, it was about states' rights and nullification. The nullification crisis of 1832 traces its roots to very early in the formation of the republic, and it is recognized that this prepared South Carolina to eventually secede. See the article on nullification crisis in Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It was not just slavery, or even primarily slavery. There were other longstanding issues that were salient.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-15641986814467364582011-08-01T18:08:57.375-04:002011-08-01T18:08:57.375-04:00Tom, I agree about the useful comparison with the ...Tom, I agree about the useful comparison with the Civil war. But the Civil War emphatically was about slavery, not states rights. States rights was just a cover story sometimes discarded when it conflicted with the core beliefs. And this one is not about federalism vs regionalism, but about slavery too, and dismantling the New Deal protections against it.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44088387654263183722011-07-30T20:54:43.190-04:002011-07-30T20:54:43.190-04:00I agree Tom. Sometimes I think I'd like to let...I agree Tom. Sometimes I think I'd like to let 'em go this time, peacefully. Perhaps then the States whose populations believe in Federalism could re-build America or what remained of it. The others could create the social darwinist States, they clearly prefer.Letsgetitdonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607539419260450949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62972386322823963832011-07-30T00:46:06.759-04:002011-07-30T00:46:06.759-04:00Joe, when I say "redo of the Civil War" ...Joe, when I say "redo of the Civil War" I mean they want to revisit the original dialectic upon which the country was founded — the Hamiltonian idea of a strong central government and the Jefferson/Madison notion of states' right. The Civil War was really about states' rights, not specifically about slavery, which was only an aspect of that. Similarly, the New Deal is a federal imposition that doesn't mesh with states' rights. This war is not being fought against the New Deal, as progressives imagine, but for states' rights against federalism, and the New Deal is part of federalism, so it must go.<br /><br />Of course, the details that color the historical dialectic as expressed in the different periods are quite different, but the basic issue is quite similar.<br /><br />When I say that current events are not about rolling back the New Deal, I mean directly. It is an indirect consequence of a different vision of what America is, going right back to the Founding Fathers, who were not in agreement about this at all. Moreover, there were other voices that were involved, too, like the Pennsylvania democrats who did not want a republican government that would be controlled by vested interests. In fact, they were excluded from the table. <br /><br />Only vested interests were represented at the table, and they divided more or less on Northern and Southern lines, the Northern industrials and bankers favoring centralization and the Southern agriculturists favoring maintaining the differences among the regions and states. That culminated in the Civil War, and the centralists (Unionists) were the victors over the "Confederates."<br /><br />Now we are in the process of fighting that war again, right down to guns being brandished. If the confederates win, then the federal government and federal programs will be dismantled. This is the clear objective of the ultra-conservatives that is revealed not only in the rhetoric, but also in the legislation that they are demanding.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-40128245766180308282011-07-29T23:56:27.919-04:002011-07-29T23:56:27.919-04:00Tom, both are probably true.Tom, both are probably true.Letsgetitdonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607539419260450949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-36320554187856717362011-07-29T23:05:07.935-04:002011-07-29T23:05:07.935-04:00Practically speaking, I think we may be down to th...Practically speaking, I think we may be down to the 14th Amendment. The Democrats are jumping aboard that one and demanding that the president use it if necessary.<br /><br />I think that it is entirely conceivable that the TP'ers plan to engineer a default if they can. If they do, then the president will probably have to invoke either the 14th Amendment or national security to avoid catastrophe and being further held hostage. If he has the guts. The House will certainly impeach him, and the Senate acquit, of course. It will be poisonous if it comes to that.<br /><br />Many people see this as an attempt at a roll back of the New Deal. I see it as part of an attempt at a Civil War redo.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-78072935699942012592011-07-29T21:56:33.509-04:002011-07-29T21:56:33.509-04:00beowulf, So your view is that the "exploding ...beowulf, So your view is that the "exploding option" can't work for the Fed?Letsgetitdonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607539419260450949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-43717019335409713182011-07-29T12:35:14.552-04:002011-07-29T12:35:14.552-04:00Exploding option sounds like a blackbox trading sc...Exploding option sounds like a blackbox trading scheme (hmm, I'll have to drop Traders Crucible about that, its catchy).<br /><br />The big question is where in the FRA, the Fed Board is given authority to option or buy real estate (as opposed to making loans against it, which would fall under debt ceiling) outside the District of Columbia, even that is paid out of a special assessment on Fed banks.<br /><i>and such assessments may include amounts sufficient to provide for the acquisition by the Board in its own name of such site or building in the District of Columbia as in its judgment alone shall be necessary for the purpose of providing suitable and adequate quarters for the performance of its functions...</i><br />http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section%2010.htmbeowulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14987548132065830204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-78297820347511749602011-07-29T11:46:10.974-04:002011-07-29T11:46:10.974-04:00Can somebody explain the "exploding option&qu...Can somebody explain the "exploding option"?<br /><br />Treasury won't get $ 2 trillion in cash unless the option premium is $ 2 trillion - not the value of the underlying.<br /><br />That's not a bad deal if they buy it back for $ 1.<br /><br />But the Fed balance sheet won't look so nice after that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com