List of dubious Constitutional amendments

boredatwork

Banned
So you believe that only the rich and powerful should be able to steal, because that's basically what your saying.

No. I'm saying that no-one should steal. If you want something, get off your arse and work for it, if not, suck it up and live without it. Stealing via proxy (which is somewhat north of 90% of what politicians and govts do on a daily basis) is still stealing.

I must have missed the suggestion in the fictional amendments that repealed property laws, contract laws, or rights to private property. There's some out-there, hard-core, libertarian stuff listed, but (unsurprisingly, given libertarian core beliefs) there's nothing there about eliminating property rights, or endorsing wholesale theft.

(Unless your argument is that the moment mankind moves up the scale from wandering hunter gatherer tribes that share everything equally, then we're engaging in 'social theft' because of 'injustice', inequality, and 'unfairness'. In which case, I think your argument is absurd, and will happily provide you the directions to the hinterlands of the Amazon or the Papua New Guinean highlands, where you can return to such an idyllic state, and leave the rest of us alone.)
 
Well, I really don't have a problem with some of these amendments at all.
Many of them stem from christian-conservative ideology and seem silly and intrusive but many are truly libertarian in nature. And given that most of the previous posters seem to have no idea what libertarians believe or how the growing nanny-state actually stiffles economic growth and personnel prosperity its no surprise that they are shocked by these amendments.

Various amendments to the United States Constitution proposed at the Virginia Beach, Virginia, Constitutional Convention:

Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. No direct taxes shall be levied upon living persons, real or artificial.


Essentialy, ends the income tax. I'm not sure what is meant by artificial persons, but I don't know of any libertarians who would end taxes on corporations. In fact nearly all of them are against all kinds of corporate welfare and want to see a more open and fluid economy where small upstarts can truely compete with multi-nationals.

Amendment—Federal expenditures shall not exceed ten percent of Gross Domestic Product. An estate tax, not exceeding fifty percent may be levied on estates over ten million dollars in current dollars upon portions of those estates exceeding that amount. The figure of ten million dollars shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the rise in cost of living as determined by the Consumer Price Index.

A smaller federal government would be a blessing, returning more power to the states and giving voters more say in the laws that affect their daily lives.

Amendment—The Social Security and Medicare tax is repealed. Current interest holders in the Social Security system shall have their money repaid within ten years at an interest rate of nine percent.

Both of these programs are government sinkholes that waste more money than any good that they do. Private health care unfettered by government regulation would be more affordable and flexible.

Amendment—Within ten years from the date of enactment of this amendment the Congress shall not have the right to delegate its authority under the constitution. The Congress shall reduce the manpower of currently existing agencies to which it has delegated its authority by ten percent per year.

This just means that government agencies such as the EPA, TSA and many others cannot make rules that become defacto laws. I think this is a good thing as it gives voters the ability to decide what rules they want and re-establishes checks-and-balances.

Amendment—No one shall be elected to any office of the federal government more than twice in succession, three times in life, or twelve years total.

Just the age old question of term limits. Libertarians are split by this because some feel that if the voters want to continue to elect the same buffoon every time who are we to sa they can't. Also limiting the stay of elected officials would just give more power to lifetime government employees.

Amendment—Every four years, in conjunction with the election for the presidency of the United States, each ballot shall list all the members of the United States Supreme Court. That justice of that court whose name garners the greatest number of votes in that election shall be forever disbarred from a seat on the Supreme Court or any federal elective office.

This amendment is dubious as it would politicize the Supreme Court. Most libertarians realize that activist judges are only bad when they rule against something you like.

Amendment—At any time when a majority of the governors of the states shall vote, in joint session, to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court impacting upon the rights of the sovereign states under this Constitution, that decision shall be overturned. Thirty such governors shall constitute a quorum.

See above. This would just lead to renewed sectionalism I think.

Amendment—The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons may not be taxed.

As the 2nd Amendment was intended.

Amendment—No suit against the United States, or any of its states, for any grievance which accrued more than twenty years prior to the enactment of this Amendment, shall be maintained or sustained.

This just sets up a statute of limitations on cases against the government. I don't have a problem with preventing cases that put a generation on trial for the crimes of a past generation.

Amendment—The Regular Armed Forces of the United States shall be no greater in manpower than half of one percent of the population of adult citizens of the United States. In the event of war requiring greater levels of manpower, the states are required to provide further troops, up to six percent of the state's population as determined by the most recent census.

Again limits on federal power are okay, but I don't really agree with putting a cap on the size of state raised forces.

Amendment—Neither the federal government, nor any of its branches, shall make any rule limiting or interfering with the free exercise of religion on the part of any of the lesser polities of the United States or the citizens of those polities.

Ignores atheists, agnostics and humanists, but as these amendments seem to be written more by a conservative than a libertarian, I'm not surprised by this. All this really does is to move the "seperation of church and state" down to the state level. This was not the founders intent and could lead to some nasty theocratic situations in such places such as Utah.

Amendment—A human being shall be defined as an implanted, fertilized ovum of the human species, or any later stage of development of that implanted ovum. All human beings within the United States shall be entitled to the full protection of the law.

Again truly showing the christian-conservative influence on these amendments. Most libertarians are pro-choice, but many recognize that late term fetuses must have some rights, especially since a criminal can be charged with homicide if they cause the death of a fetus while a mother can not even if she aborts said fetus.

Amendment—It shall be the right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to speak in plain, standard and traditional English. It shall be illegal and actionable against any citizen, resident, business entity, educational institution or government to make any attempt to limit that right on the part of a citizen.

This is just an anti-immigration/bilingualism amendment. Most libertarians see no problem with bilingualism though they recognize the dangers that can arise when legal documents are written in two languages and do not say exactly the same thing upon translation.

Amendment—Federal law enforcement personnel are restricted to not more than one twentieth of one percent of the adult population of the United States.

This would porbably end the ridiculus war on drugs, which given the many accidental deaths caused by the frequent no-knock warrents and poor policing is a good thing.

Amendment—Whereas responsibility and authority must be equal, and whereas it has been demonstrated that abuse of authority is inevitable at some point for some responsibilities, so the United States Government is relieved of the following responsibilities: to ensure the economic well being of individuals of any class or by any means or for any period of time, to regulate commerce except that no state shall be permitted to set up tariffs against any other state or states, to conduct economic planning, to ensure the rights or presumed rights of any group as a group, to engage in social engineering, to interfere with or aid education at any level.

This just returns America to the pre-New Deal situation. And while many modern Americans have sadly come to believe that only government intervention can provide economic stability, they fail to realize that it is almost always government intervetion that caused the problem in the first place.

See www.reason.com if you want to understand what libertarians really believe.

Benjamin
 
I'll just take this one:

Amendment—Whereas responsibility and authority must be equal, and whereas it has been demonstrated that abuse of authority is inevitable at some point for some responsibilities, so the United States Government is relieved of the following responsibilities: to ensure the economic well being of individuals of any class or by any means or for any period of time, to regulate commerce except that no state shall be permitted to set up tariffs against any other state or states, to conduct economic planning, to ensure the rights or presumed rights of any group as a group, to engage in social engineering, to interfere with or aid education at any level.

This just returns America to the pre-New Deal situation. And while many modern Americans have sadly come to believe that only government intervention can provide economic stability, they fail to realize that it is almost always government intervetion that caused the problem in the first place.

Right, because the Depression was caused by that nasty interventionist Mr Hoover, and would definitely have gone away on its own. Oh, by 1965, definitely.
 

boredatwork

Banned
Right, because the Depression was caused by that nasty interventionist Mr Hoover

Actually, pretty much. Hoover got his start in politics under war socialism during Wilson's presidency, and it shows. If you peruse the actual history of the laws, regulations, taxes, and budgetary actions taken during the Hoover presidency, you'll see that he was far more interventionist than he's made out to have been. Calvin Coolidge (whom I far prefer) he was not, not by a long shot.

There's a big difference between non-interventionism, and not being as interventionist as Roosevelt. You could, for example, comfortably fit pretty much the entire American & European (non hard-core communist) political spectrums (as they exist today) in that gap.
 
Actually, pretty much. Hoover got his start in politics under war socialism during Wilson's presidency, and it shows. If you peruse the actual history of the laws, regulations, taxes, and budgetary actions taken during the Hoover presidency, you'll see that he was far more interventionist than he's made out to have been. Calvin Coolidge (whom I far prefer) he was not, not by a long shot.

No, it was the result of the banking industry blowing a gasket, the stockmarket undergoing the largest single bubble in economic history, and the marginal parts of the farming industry collapsing when the 1880ish -1928 abnormally wet period ended. The depression was so bad because all the causes lined up at the same time, but the government had nothing to do with them, individually or in collection.

If I say the words "John Maynard Keynes" does your eye twitch? :p

There's a big difference between non-interventionism, and not being as interventionist as Roosevelt. You could, for example, comfortably fit pretty much the entire American & European (non hard-core communist) political spectrums (as they exist today) in that gap.
Agreed.

that falling of the edge TL looks fascinating BTW.

Aw, thanks. :eek: I hope my socialist tendencies don't scare you away. (But then, it'll be 8 years of TL writing at this rate before I reach *Adam Smith, let alone *Karl Marx. ;))
 

boredatwork

Banned
If I say the words "John Maynard Keynes" does your eye twitch?

twitch? nah. he was just a opportunist who ignored some basic facts about how governments spend money. Doesn't make him too horrible or anything. Now, spend a lot of time on the so-called labor theory of capital, and I'll get grumpy. But then again, grumpy is pretty much my 'ground state' anyway.

No, it was the result of the banking industry blowing a gasket, the stockmarket undergoing the largest single bubble in economic history, and the marginal parts of the farming industry collapsing when the 1880ish -1928 abnormally wet period ended. The depression was so bad because all the causes lined up at the same time, but the government had nothing to do with them, individually or in collection

No - that would've been enough for another of the sharp but short recessions that had been seen pretty regularly since 1870 or so. What made it a Depression instead was the aggravation of the existing issue by at least three truly dimwitted steps.

1. Smoot-Hawley - turned a local recession into a global tradewar, which of course, exacerbated the recession - nice going guys.

2. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession - great timing Hoover old boy. That's the way to solve a recession - smack the folks making investment decisions with more taxes, simultaneously reducing the total pool of funds available for investment, and their expectations of returns on said investments. Truly... brilliant.

3. Attacking businesses in a populist spasm in papers and regulation - that certainly encouraged them to resume investing, hiring, and production in the expectation of future profits... right.

If anything, roosevelt aggravated these issues. The economy didn't resume non-war production driven (IE: sustainable, to twirl a phrase) growth until the post war period when things were (partially) liberalized.

Growth rates have yet to recover to the pre-1930 levels, which, given the additional weight of govt waste, and market distorting regulations, is sadly to be expected.

Libertarians may be quackers about a number of things, but they do know their economics (perhaps not much else, but who'm I to talk? I know bugger all about cricket, celebrities, or french literary history, among many other things).
 

boredatwork

Banned
Aw, thanks. :eek: I hope my socialist tendencies don't scare you away. (But then, it'll be 8 years of TL writing at this rate before I reach *Adam Smith, let alone *Karl Marx. ;))

what, you're going to introduce the same folks with the same ideas despite such a massive POD? :eek:

:mad:BLASPHEMER:mad:

Death by Quantum Butterflies - You Shall Never Have Been Born! ;)

ASB Lo Vult (grammatically crap, I know, so what?)
 
No - that would've been enough for another of the sharp but short recessions that had been seen pretty regularly since 1870 or so. What made it a Depression instead was the aggravation of the existing issue by at least three truly dimwitted steps.

1. Smoot-Hawley - turned a local recession into a global tradewar, which of course, exacerbated the recession - nice going guys.

Smoot-Hawley was a disaster, and a catastrophe, and a boondoggle, and many other kind words, but it didn't start the depression.

2. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession - great timing Hoover old boy. That's the way to solve a recession - smack the folks making investment decisions with more taxes, simultaneously reducing the total pool of funds available for investment, and their expectations of returns on said investments. Truly... brilliant.
It's not the raising taxes; it's the raising taxes without spending the money again that's the problem.

3. Attacking businesses in a populist spasm in papers and regulation - that certainly encouraged them to resume investing, hiring, and production in the expectation of future profits... right.
Again, populism sucks; but that's not a cause of the depression.

If anything, roosevelt aggravated these issues. The economy didn't resume non-war production driven (IE: sustainable, to twirl a phrase) growth until the post war period when things were (partially) liberalized.
Well, he stopped the decline in production, even if it didn't start rising again, and he certainly had some good policies for staving off bloody red revolution (which was certainly a possibility in early-depression US).

Growth rates have yet to recover to the pre-1930 levels, which, given the additional weight of govt waste, and market distorting regulations, is sadly to be expected.
Well, obviously we haven't hit 1920s bubble growth figures; bubbles are always record highs and they always lead to trouble. And what was that word you used again? "Sustainable"?

Libertarians may be quackers about a number of things, but they do know their economics (perhaps not much else, but who'm I to talk? I know bugger all about cricket, celebrities, or french literary history, among many other things).
You probably do know more about economics than me; I'm only a month into ECON 110. But I'm learning. Be back to you later. ;)

what, you're going to introduce the same folks with the same ideas despite such a massive POD? :eek:

:mad:BLASPHEMER:mad:

Death by Quantum Butterflies - You Shall Never Have Been Born! ;)

ASB Lo Vult (grammatically crap, I know, so what?)

...That's what the * means. By *Adam Smith I mean "the guy who codifies economics", who will not be called Adam Smith but is sort of an analogue, and by *Karl Marx I mean "the guy who introduces socialism" (which obviously Karl didn't really do, but I didn't want to spend half an hour trawling wiki fior some name you'd only have to wiki anyways). If I ever get there, the economic systems introduced will probably be quite different, but like I said, it's a long way off.
 
1. Smoot-Hawley - turned a local recession into a global tradewar, which of course, exacerbated the recession - nice going guys.

Mrmm. On America, Smoot-Hawley appears to have not had a major effect. After all, tariffs went up in the 20s, when trade was booming.

If you'd like, I dig up the relent articles on the topic.

Mind, tariffs may have caused problems elsewhere, but that's not America.

Here's a good quote: One could have thought that it might have been expected to benefit corporations, many of whom actively sought the tariff … other economists, including Rudgier Dornbusch and Stanley Fischer, pointed out that exports were only 7% of the gross national product (GNP) in 1929 and that between 1929 and 1931 they fell by only 1.5% of 1929 GNP. This hardly seems like the cause of the Great Depression. Moreover, they pointed out that it is not clear that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was responsible for the decline in exports. The depression itself might be held responsible for part of the decline. Dornbusch and Fischer showed that the 1922 Fordney-McCumber tariff increased tariff rates as much as the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and the Fordney-McCumber tariff was of course followed by no such recession...

Irrational Exuberance, by Robert Schiller.

(Here's another good discussion: http://books.google.com/books?id=pT...wley&sig=prpocynKIJqvQEZn3VOT10u2cj4#PPA73,M1)

2. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession - great timing Hoover old boy. That's the way to solve a recession - smack the folks making investment decisions with more taxes, simultaneously reducing the total pool of funds available for investment, and their expectations of returns on said investments. Truly... brilliant.

?? Hoover cut taxes in 1929.

Moreover, aren't you libertarians supposed to be big on balanced budgets?

If anything, roosevelt aggravated these issues. The economy didn't resume non-war production driven (IE: sustainable, to twirl a phrase) growth until the post war period when things were (partially) liberalized.

What? The economy was recovering, until the recession in 1930s.

And a lot of the postwar boom was due to the Roosevelt policies; the SEC, the FDIC....

Look at the economic history before these were instituted; lots of sharp booms and busts, instead of continuous economic growth.
 
Last edited:
Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. No direct taxes shall be levied upon living persons, real or artificial.

Taxation is necessary to proper running of government. It is not taxation but excessive taxation to which I object.

Amendment—Federal expenditures shall not exceed ten percent of Gross Domestic Product. An estate tax, not exceeding fifty percent may be levied on estates over ten million dollars in current dollars upon portions of those estates exceeding that amount. The figure of ten million dollars shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the rise in cost of living as determined by the Consumer Price Index.

While I like the general idea, this is far too specific for the Constitution. Perhaps something more along the lines of every expenditure having to be justified according to Constitutional requirements.

Amendment—The Social Security and Medicare tax is repealed. Current interest holders in the Social Security system shall have their money repaid within ten years at an interest rate of nine percent.

Considering social security and Medicare are not parts of the Constitution, there is no need for amendments to contradict them. Repeal the laws, don't waste space in the Constitution. The Constitution needs to be as concise as possible.

Amendment—Within ten years from the date of enactment of this amendment the Congress shall not have the right to delegate its authority under the constitution. The Congress shall reduce the manpower of currently existing agencies to which it has delegated its authority by ten percent per year.

Again, I like the idea, but there would need to be significant re-working of the wording and other specifics. Any thing that cuts down on bureaucracy is a good thing, though.

Amendment—No one shall be elected to any office of the federal government more than twice in succession, three times in life, or twelve years total.

Tally-ho, great idea.

Amendment—Every four years, in conjunction with the election for the presidency of the United States, each ballot shall list all the members of the United States Supreme Court. That justice of that court whose name garners the greatest number of votes in that election shall be forever disbarred from a seat on the Supreme Court or any federal elective office.

No.

Amendment—At any time when a majority of the governors of the states shall vote, in joint session, to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court impacting upon the rights of the sovereign states under this Constitution, that decision shall be overturned. Thirty such governors shall constitute a quorum.

No. The ability of the collective states to amend the Constitution is more than enough.

Amendment—The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons may not be taxed.

:eek:

NO

Amendment—No suit against the United States, or any of its states, for any grievance which accrued more than twenty years prior to the enactment of this Amendment, shall be maintained or sustained.

Uh, is this entirely necessary?

Amendment—The Regular Armed Forces of the United States shall be no greater in manpower than half of one percent of the population of adult citizens of the United States. In the event of war requiring greater levels of manpower, the states are required to provide further troops, up to six percent of the state's population as determined by the most recent census.

Again, I think this is too specific and far too limiting. Repealing the National Guard Act and significant military restructuring is all that is necessary.

Amendment—Neither the federal government, nor any of its branches, shall make any rule limiting or interfering with the free exercise of religion on the part of any of the lesser polities of the United States or the citizens of those polities.

Isn't this pretty much covered by the 1st Amendment?

Amendment—A human being shall be defined as an implanted, fertilized ovum of the human species, or any later stage of development of that implanted ovum. All human beings within the United States shall be entitled to the full protection of the law.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Until a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, it's the mother's decision.

Amendment—It shall be the right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to speak in plain, standard and traditional English. It shall be illegal and actionable against any citizen, resident, business entity, educational institution or government to make any attempt to limit that right on the part of a citizen.

Oh god, please don't start this official language shit. We don't need this Amendment and the person who thought it was necessary is engaging in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution is for.

Amendment—Federal law enforcement personnel are restricted to not more than one twentieth of one percent of the adult population of the United States.

Once more, has the right idea but it's far too specific for the Constitution.

Amendment—Whereas responsibility and authority must be equal, and whereas it has been demonstrated that abuse of authority is inevitable at some point for some responsibilities, so the United States Government is relieved of the following responsibilities: to ensure the economic well being of individuals of any class or by any means or for any period of time, to regulate commerce except that no state shall be permitted to set up tariffs against any other state or states, to conduct economic planning, to ensure the rights or presumed rights of any group as a group, to engage in social engineering, to interfere with or aid education at any level.

What the fuck? Do these people not get what the Constitution is?

Who wrote this shit?

EDIT: As to all this talk on the Great Depression, that particular boondoggle was caused by the government implementing an agency (the Fed) with no clear idea on how what it would be regulating worked. It was initially thought that it would regulate the economy by fucking with the Reserve Ratio. The Great Depression had everything to do with an interplay between government intervention and the free market. It was most definitely not the sole fault of the market.
 

boredatwork

Banned
Moreover, aren't you libertarians supposed to be big on balanced budgets?

Not a libertarian myself. Getting more inclined that way as time goes on I'll admit. Libtertarians seem too... wrapped up in their crusade for my taste. The few I've spoken to hate all kinds of things because of the misery they feel those things cause the world. I sympathize, somewhat, but I only truly get worked up about something if it has a direct effect on me and mine. Does the fact that... frex that the chinese govt tells the chinese people what they can or can not talk about is unfortunate, sure, but at the end of the day, that's up to the chinese people to sort out. I'm not going to get invested in the issue until I get calls from Beijing about the content of email outbox.

Mrmm. On America, Smoot-Hawley appears to have not had a major effect. After all, tariffs went up in the 20s, when trade was booming.

I would be interested in those articles. Tarriffs might have risen somehwat in the 20s, but S-H more than doubled them across the board, which set of a trade war. Which every text and study I've ever seen holds had a significant effect on the volume, mix, and profitability of US trade.

Hoover cut taxes in 1929.
That is news. The last time I looked into this (at MBA back in... '95?) it showed a significant jump in corp tax rate in 29. That was a Freidman textbook though, so it wouldn't totally shock me if he was off, but I would be surprised.

What? The economy was recovering, until the recession in 1930s.

From the black monday crash, the economy had greater or lesser levels of problems until the late 40s. Was it on the mend before folks started monkeying with it? Yes. Did that mean that the monkeying did not harm? I have a hard time seeing that link.

And a lot of the postwar boom was due to the Roosevelt policies; the SEC, the FDIC....

I would be interested to see how you would propose to prove that. Those policies were in place before and during the war, but no growth can be found associated with them. What changed after the war was removal of many of the earlier regulations and restrictions on trade and businesses.

Look at the economic history before these were instituted; lots of sharp booms and busts, instead of continuous economic growth.
Yes, please do.
1. Even with the sharp ups and downs, the average growth rate was higher than afterwards.
2. Continuous growth? Hardly, there have been regular recessions since then, they were just more muted. The problem is, they lasted longer on average, and the growth rate between recessions was lower. The result is a lower net average growth rate.
3. In addition, inflation since the 1930s has also been higher on average then inflation prior - which has resulted in slower capital growth (real and financial) on average.
 
Last edited:
rticles. Tarriffs might have risen somehwat in the 20s, but S-H more than doubled them across the board, which set of a trade war. Which every text and study I've ever seen holds had a significant effect on the volume, mix, and profitability of US trade.

See what I posted a little while ago

That is news. The last time I looked into this (at MBA back in... '95?) it showed a significant jump in corp tax rate in 29. That was a Freidman textbook though, so it wouldn't totally shock me if he was off, but I would be surprised.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,738193,00.html

There's the Time Article itself, discussing it.

I would be interested to see how you would propose to prove that. Those policies were in place before and during the war, but no growth can be found associated with them.

Oh, come now. The FDIC helped to end the run on banks, which caused so many to fail beforehand. I think the benefits of a stable banking system are self evident.

1. Even with the sharp ups and downs, the average growth rate was higher than afterwards.

Cite? Certainly they were higher in the 1920s, but the growth rate in the late 19th century was glacial.
 

boredatwork

Banned
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,738193,00.html

There's the Time Article itself, discussing it.

cool, I'll check that out. But Time Magazine isn't, in and of itself, what I would consider a solid source. Still, I'm sure that the article will have the cites to the core research, which will be educational to read. Thanks!:D

Oh, come now. The FDIC helped to end the run on banks, which caused so many to fail beforehand. I think the benefits of a stable banking system are self evident.

'Helped to end the run on the banks'. Not sure I agree. Pretty sure the fact that so many of the banks of dubious solvency had cracked before the FDIC was established or funded had something to do with the drop in run volume. The US Treasury records and the Fed Reserve studies both showed that the volume of runs started dropping well before the FDIC was in place.

That aside, while I agree that a stable banking system is beneficial (at least for folks like me who are employed by it), there are some caveats.
1. It actually and hasn't been that stable, we've still had a decent number of periodic runs and collapses, each time when a bubble burst or a recession was kicking in - a smaller number, but the total amount of assets as a portion of national wealth per collapse rose. Net-net, not a dramatic difference.
2. You seem to be making the assumption that the FDIC is responsible for the greater stability - I don't take that as given. The wider economy shifted dramatically. Ironicly, a large part of the post 30s stability is due not to the FDIC, but to the greater availability of Treasury debt as a safe investment(courtesy of that govt deficit we all love to rail about), the enforcement of margin requirements, and the restrictions on bank capital/investments.
3. At what cost was the stability (supposedly) achieved? The greater regulations, of which the FDIC is a part, ended up driving a huge chunk of the financial services industry offshore - great for London, not so great for the US.

Cite? Certainly they were higher in the 1920s, but the growth rate in the late 19th century was glacial.

Now I owe you the source :) - the chart that stuck in my mind is from one of my B-school stats courses. I'll drop the page/title when I get home t-night for the details. Still, 'glacial' growth in the late 19th century, the time of the robber barons and the US industrial revolution? Prima facie I find that hard to believe.
 
...

Amendment—The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed. No direct taxes shall be levied upon living persons, real or artificial.

Essentialy, ends the income tax. I'm not sure what is meant by artificial persons, but I don't know of any libertarians who would end taxes on corporations. In fact nearly all of them are against all kinds of corporate welfare and want to see a more open and fluid economy where small upstarts can truely compete with multi-nationals.

The arguement against taxing corporations is that combined with taxing stock dividends you end up with double taxation.

Also in this senerio, which would probably include the replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax the coperations would be paying tax like everyone else every time they bought something.



Amendment—Every four years, in conjunction with the election for the presidency of the United States, each ballot shall list all the members of the United States Supreme Court. That justice of that court whose name garners the greatest number of votes in that election shall be forever disbarred from a seat on the Supreme Court or any federal elective office.

This amendment is dubious as it would politicize the Supreme Court.

Agreed.


Most libertarians realize that activist judges are only bad when they rule against something you like.

If that is true them my opinion of libertarians just dropped, activist judges are by defintion abusing the power of their office.





Amendment—At any time when a majority of the governors of the states shall vote, in joint session, to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court impacting upon the rights of the sovereign states under this Constitution, that decision shall be overturned. Thirty such governors shall constitute a quorum.

See above. This would just lead to renewed sectionalism I think.


Actually considering that you need 26 governors I think sectionalism would be unlikely. This would never happen, unless the Court was way out of line.


Amendment—No suit against the United States, or any of its states, for any grievance which accrued more than twenty years prior to the enactment of this Amendment, shall be maintained or sustained.

This just sets up a statute of limitations on cases against the government. I don't have a problem with preventing cases that put a generation on trial for the crimes of a past generation.

Damn straight!!!
 
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,738193,00.html

Interestingly this article supports something I'd heard about but never really seen any substance on:

Times said:
For a solution Mr. Ford proposed: 1) "Putting additional value into goods or reducing the prices to the level of actual value." 2) "Starting a movement to increase the general wage level."

Unusual was this Ford statement because he alone of the conferees spoke before an official White House statement was issued, because he openly differed from the President whose position is that there has been no business recession, only a threat of one. But more unusual and surprising did it become when Motor Maker Ford suddenly went back to the President, announced he would increase the wages of all his men.

Because this decision was made some time after the conference, one view was that it was impromptu, for publicity purposes. But in any case, the fact was that by advancing wages when other employers met to see if the present level could be kept where it is, Henry Ford again took a solitary stand, maintained his position as Most Original U. S. businessman.

I'd been told by a professor once that Ford had a hand in promoting job protection in the middle of 1930, contributing to the subsequent explosion of unemployment. The conversation didn't last long and we never really spoke on the subject again so I never saw any numbers or any other evidence. Not being the sort of person to just believe such claims, I put it at the back of my mind and forgot about it.

But, apparently, in his characteristic manner, Ford was involved in such a thing. Now that I've remembered it I think I'm going to go on and do some actual research into the idea.
 
cool, I'll check that out. But Time Magazine isn't, in and of itself, what I would consider a solid source.

A Primary article from the period in question isn't a solid source?

What?

'Helped to end the run on the banks'. Not sure I agree. Pretty sure the fact that so many of the banks of dubious solvency had cracked before the FDIC was established or funded had something to do with the drop in run volume. The US Treasury records and the Fed Reserve studies both showed that the volume of runs started dropping well before the FDIC was in place.

Look at the number of collapses before and afterwards. It's dramaticalyl lower. And while you might argue that the net total of assets per collapse rose, I find this hard to believe, as evidenced by the Depression. America has never again experienced such a large collapse in actual per capita.

3. At what cost was the stability (supposedly) achieved? The greater regulations, of which the FDIC is a part, ended up driving a huge chunk of the financial services industry offshore - great for London, not so great for the US.


Now I owe you the source :) - the chart that stuck in my mind is from one of my B-school stats courses. I'll drop the page/title when I get home t-night for the details. Still, 'glacial' growth in the late 19th century, the time of the robber barons and the US industrial revolution? Prima facie I find that hard to believe.


It's surprising, ain't it? I'll dig up the numbers, but it was surprisingly slow. Probably not helped by the deflationary tendencies of the era, granted.
 

boredatwork

Banned
whoah - from the Time article in question:

Leading employers: No reduction of wages.
Labor representatives: No agitation for higher wages.
U. S. Chamber of Commerce: Formation of a permanent national economic council to deal with emergencies.
Railway and industrial leaders: Expenditure on improvement and expansion.
Federal Reserve: Cheaper credit. (*)
Congress: Bipartisan support of the proposed $160,000,000 reduction in Federal income taxes. (*)
Treasury Department: Enlargement of public building program from limit of $248,000,000 to $423,000,000.
James John Walker: Quick commencement of New York City's $1,000,000,000 construction plan.
Interstate Commerce Commission: Prompt action on the railroad consolidation question.
Interdepartmental Sub-Committee: Awards of 15 ocean mail contracts by Jan. 1. requiring $200,000,000 ship construction.
Such guarantees that the wheels of business would not slow down under the sudden loads of Loss & Fright could be created only by a powerful force. To obtain that force President Hoover (while Statistician Babson shouted that Congress should adjourn, go home, allow the President to act alone) summoned the strangest gathering to come to Washington since the "dollar-a-year" men of the War. Merchants, Bankers, Manufacturers, knocked into the Cabinet Room, heard the President's plea, discussed the situation informally, pledged their support.

That's what folks call Hoover's non-intervention? There's a definite difference in definitions of the term. The stupidest part of this plan is the first two lines - if implemented, it halts the process that would've allowed wages and prices to reach a clearing level, thus prolonging a short sharp adjustment into a longer more drawn out process.

The fun part, is that the income tax reduction, from available evidence http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html, didn't actually take place (no change in tax rates from 25-31, then a jump in 32 (top rate went from 25%-63%, rate at 100K went from 25% ro 56%). It seems to have been similar to the repeated promises from DC to balance the budget and cut waste - nothing ever happens. Occasionally we get lucky in that gridlock stops budget growth long enough to allow the economy to catch up or even overtake, but it never seems to last.

On growth rates - the data is from: http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~hyndman/TSDL/mac-econ.html, though the Fed should have cleaner data.

Averaging year over year change in GNP (as the growth rate proxy) we find 1874-1929 inclusive gives an average growth rate of 4.2%, 1930 to 1979 inclusive (prior to the first attempts at reliberalization) gives an average growth rate of 3.3%.

Trade volume - given that every citation I've ever seen refers to severe drops in trade volume, I'm trying to find historical data on the point, but it may have to wait until I get back to the house.
 

boredatwork

Banned
actually, this has renewed by stats interest - I'll see if my bloomberg logon still works and see what I can pull from there (always fun to try to get data from before the 1890s, when a lot of the stats we refer to today were first gathered formally.)
 
@ Corbell Mark IV -
Quote:

Most libertarians realize that activist judges are only bad when they rule against something you like.

If that is true them my opinion of libertarians just dropped, activist judges are by defintion abusing the power of their office.

I was referring to how libertarians percived the reactions members of the two major parties had towards activist judges. To most people activist judges are those judges whose decisions are used as a pretext for changing or making what becomes a defacto law. Yes, this is in many cases above and beyond their legal power to "interperate the law" but given the precident of judicial review judicial activism has become a standard procedure. This is especially true with controvesial items such as abortion and gun control which many legislators are unwilling to deal with out of fear of alienating a portion of their constiuancy.

As for the rest of the argument I think there is a lot of evidence that government intervention played a significant role in prolonging and worsening what should have been a cylical market correction. And one must remember that Hoover is should not be the major target for blame here. It was, as it is now, Congress that makes these laws that screw with the economy. Yes the president can set a policy and the Fed can mess things up, but Congress is the primary meddler.

In the end one's views on this subject generally come down to political and economic ideology. Unfortunately, Europe has become almost completely enamoured by socialism seeing capitalism as the domain of the greedy and heartless. While here in the states the Republicans, once standard bearers of limited-government, are now big-government spenders on par with any liberal democrate.

I'll admit I'm an unabashed libertarian and this gives me a particular ideological bias, but to put all of one's faith in an all powerful nanny-state central government feels a bit too Germany 1933 for my tastes.

Benjamin
 
Top