An initial note: there is very little economic data this week. Some house price information gets updated tomorrow, and then on Wednesday we get a slew of data, including Q3 corporate profits, jobless claims, new home sales, durable goods orders, and personal income and spending. That’s probably worth two days’ of posts, at least one of which will probably be at Seeking Alpha.
Shorter version: don’t be surprised by light posting here this week!
In the meantime, as we wait to see whether the GOP Michigan and Pennsylvania legislatures will officially turn the United States into a banana republic, here are a couple of quotes worth your noting about Legislative and Executive power. Bolded sections are my emphasis.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, held that the Legislature must be the supreme authority in all well-ordered republics. But because it was not necessary, not beneficial, for the Legislature to sit permanently, there must be a permanent Executive power to enforce the laws at all times, including the use of “prerogative,” i.e., discretion:
Sect. 134. The … first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power…. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it; nor can any edict of any body else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law, which has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and appointed…; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts:
Sect. 143. The legislative power is that, which has a right to direct how the force of the commonwealth shall be employed for preserving the community and the members of it. But because those laws which are constantly to be executed, and whose force is always to continue, may be made in a little time; therefore there is no need, that the legislative should be always in being, not having always business to do…. [T]herefore in well ordered commonwealths, where the good of the whole is so considered, as it ought, the legislative power is put into the hands of divers persons, who duly assembled, have by themselves, or jointly with others, a power to make laws, which when they have done, being separated again, they are themselves subject to the laws they have made; which is a new and near tie upon them, to take care, that they make them for the public good.
Sect. 144. But because the laws, that are at once, and in a short time made, have a constant and lasting force, and need a perpetual execution, or an attendance thereunto; therefore it is necessary there should be a power always in being, which should see to the execution of the laws that are made, and remain in force. And thus the legislative and executive power come often to be separated.
Sect. 161. This [Executive] power, whilst employed for the benefit of the community, and suitably to the trust and ends of the government, is undoubted prerogative, and never is questioned: for the people are very seldom or never scrupulous or nice in the point; they are far from examining prerogative, whilst it is in any tolerable degree employed for the use it was meant, that is, for the good of the people, and not manifestly against it: but if there comes to be a question between the executive power and the people, about a thing claimed as a prerogative; the tendency of the exercise of such prerogative to the good or hurt of the people, will easily decide that question.
With another century of experience, 100 years later here is how Benjamin Franklin responded during the US Constitutional Convention, on June 4, 1787:
“Docr. FRANKLIN. [In] … the case of the U[nited] Netherlands [i.e., the Dutch Republic]…, [t]he people being under great obligations to the Prince of Orange whose wisdom and bravery had saved them, chose him for the Stadtholder. He did very well. Inconveniences however were felt from his powers; which growing more & more oppressive, they were at length set aside. Still however there was a party for the P. of Orange, which descended to his son who excited insurrections, spilt a great deal of blood, murdered the de Witts, and got the powers revested in the Stadtholder. Afterwards another Prince had power to excite insurrections & to make the Stadtholdership hereditary. And the present Stadthder. is ready to wade thro a bloody civil war to the establishment of a monarchy. Col. Mason had mentioned the circumstance of appointing officers. He knew how that point would be managed. No new appointment would be suffered as heretofore in Pensa. unless it be referred to the Executive; so that all profitable offices will be at his disposal. The first man put at the helm will be a good one. No body knows what sort may come afterwards. The Executive will be always increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a Monarchy.”
As I have written before, every single Presidential Madisonian democracy except for the United States (so far) has devolved into Presidential autocracy. Every. Single. One.
Very good. Thanks for posting.
NewDeal
thanks for the history lesson. it helps to have the perspective, but for the most part history teaches me to believe that even the smartest people often turn out to be wrong.
as for the lesson of “every one,” I think I agree, but, for example, Roosevelt had autocratic tendencies… but it turned out he was smarter than “the people” much less the Congress and his own advisors. and I believe even recently Obama was accused of autocratic tendencies… which, i also believe… were not especially helpful to the people.
Coberly,
Yep, yet again. The problem is that “autocratic tendencies” run a broad gamut from “Father Knows Best” to Jeffrey Dahmer, whereas the elite class bias of legislative bodies only runs from “Dynasty” to the “Simpsons.”
Ron
i mentioned in another thread, but I was thinking of your comment here:
autocratic tendencies are running a broad gmut in my family today, my kids hate my interfering with their freedom to be i,provident. but they don’t mind asking me for money.
don’t worry too much about the elite class bias of legislatures, it can go bad, really bad, from time to time. but the elite class can be counted on to be somewhat rational in their oppression, the have-not class cannot.
Coberly,
Sure, but my best advice is to never bring a lawyer to a gun fight :<)
Coberly,
IOW, rationalism is kissing cousin with rationalization, but a Smith and Wesson still beats four aces.
Major social change, either for good or ill, rarely comes by means of peaceful negotiation. The US Constitution and the Article of Confederation before it were drafted on the back of the Revolutionary War, eight years of cruelty and atrocities committed in the name of civil society. France, Russian,China, Cuba, and Vietnam perhaps had worse and Rwanda had great Fen gobs worse. Yet peace and order do emerge after enough killing has passed.
That said, then not to worry. We are not really in this for change. Industrial capitalism is a cruel mistress. She gives the capitalists enough to hold power and the working class enough to submit to that power. However, even the timid whining and pissing sounds will be less grating on the ears without Trump. If you are worried about the have-not class, then maybe you should live in the US instead of Somalia.
My wife’s family excepting herself, are mostly if not entirely Trump voters from CT and NY state. I understand them quite well. It is mostly a Calvinist thing.
Ron
can I bring a gun to a lawyer fight?
i am not expecting the have-not class to start a gun fight anytime soon…unless the have-class pushes them into it (thinking Proud Boys here, not the starving masses.
I wish you would explain the Calvinist thing to me. My family were Republicans (in Chicago where the R’s were the good guys back then) until Reagan disgusted them more than they could bear. But my sister, who didn’t get out much, was persuaded by Fox News that immigrants were bad and bought the R line along with it (hook, line and sinker sort of thing). not sure what she would have thought of Trump, but she was a good person and not a total fool, so I like to think she’d have drawn the line.
you are quite right with rationalism being cousin to rationalization, but don’t try to tell it to anyone who is proud of their “reason.”
I like to think the New Deal came about by peaceful means, if not exactly negotiation.
don’t understand the “worried about have not class therefore Somalia” clause. please explain.
I worry about the have nots because i am a human being, and because i know i might become one. But I do not expect them to save themselves.
A rational country would see the advantages of saving them..even from themselves. I think it was more or less tried from about 1932 to 1980… discounting Vietnam… which was rationalized by the best and the brightest who probably believed themselves. but they were not human beings.
Coberly:
Where in Chicago?
Coberly,
“…I wish you would explain the Calvinist thing to me…”
[One way to look at it is the meritocracy fraud where the merit class has good parents, but did not complete a degree program. In my in-law case mom and the oldest sister had degrees and taught public school, but the four younger sisters did not finish and three of them voted Trump and the fourth has lived with me for twenty years. Mom and the oldest sister have been dead for over fifteen years. My in-laws are Episcopalians, not known for being poor. It is like what the hot snarky chicks say about the rednecks that like to show off guns. How can a bunch of snarky hot chicks possibly be wrong? Lots of people are overcompensating for something. The higher the bar then the heavier the burden.
I never had much use for superficial materialism. I only like boats if they fish well. There is nothing superficial about that. I am like a Martian to most people. People lash out when they are afraid. Materialist are afraid of everything, but most of all loss of status. Pointing out everything bad about someone else is therapeutic for them. It would never occur to most people, not just them, to fix what is wrong with themselves. When they see others not taking responsibility then they are horrified by their own reflection. ]
[The New Deal needed the threat of a growing socialist movement in the US to happen. It is just history. Links later if needed.]
[Our have not class is small and practically by definition lacks the means to revolt in our environment. In Somalia there are a lot more people in the have not class and a lower bar for becoming a threat. Particularly though, our have not class has usually been better off than the median income in places like Somalia, not everyone and certainly not the homeless. Under most economic conditions until 2008 most homeless in the US were alcoholics, but then people started losing their jobs and homes and I saw entire families living under bridges. Also, what I see here is not representative of the most hard hit areas of the US. This time around the heroin was a bigger problem than homelessness from unemployment until Covid-19.]
[Later, I am fixing dinner now and got to go.]
Ron
thanks, i understand much of this. i asked because i found i was essentially a puritan in some respects (and not in others) but there is no history of religous affiliation in my family… didn’t even think enough about it to bother to become atheists.
turns out that at some point “poverty” becomes a relative matter. but being thrown out of your home be crooked banks (or even honest ones) is real poverty. i am not sure if a reasonable amount of good sense could have avoided it for most, but i suspect that “reasonable” amount is not that common. ordinary people can’t see it coming.
that’s why the gvernment needs to help…paid for by worker paid insurance… if for no other reason than poor people are a drag on the economy, and the talents of people who fall into poverty are wasted…they lacking only the talent for making money.
this may be as hard for you to follow as i sometimes find you hard to follow.
gotta go make supper for the dogs.
Coberly,
I had no problem following you at all, my sentiments exactly as it were.
What the Calvinist euphemism refers to that is objectionable is the perversion of moralism as it is self-righteously used to judge others rather than righteously used as a code to live by. IOW, it is not the values, but the hypocrisy that bugs us. I was raised to live by the Protestant work ethic, not measure others by it.
My father-in-law was a decent charitable man. Later in life he took a homeless man into his home, helped him get some education and a fresh start. However, his two youngest girls would be homeless now if not for the generosity of their older siblings, yet they both voted for Trump.
Ron
i think hypocrisy is part of a broader problem. thinking about it, i think Calvinism is part of the broader problem. both the code and the hypocrisy engendered by it are perversions of what a true “morality” would be. Calvin lost sight entirely of the words of Jesus (pretty sane words even if you don’t believe he was the son of god). but that’s a dangerous subject probably not welcome here.
i didn’t get much verbal “work ethic” or even decent concern for the needs of others… but i did get a lot of non verbal strong hints that that was what was important. might have helped to get a few kind verbal hints too along the way.
voting for Trump seems to me to be a mishmash between genuine evil and a very badly thought out intention to be “good” entirely corrupted by the sea of lies washed over people by the likes of Fox News.
as for that, I think the hypocricy of Democrats is better for us than the invitations to frank evil of the R’s.
Run
south side. 35th and Western. under a freeway now i think.
coberly:
Northwest side, Portage Park area. Went to Lane Technical High School. Six Corners: Irving, Milwaukee, and Cicero was the closest intersection.