Yeah they had good reason to punt it to congress skrum, since the court isn't in the business of writing legislation most of the time. I just think congress choose poorly in how they decided to legislate insurance.

But also, the Court said in that case that if they ruled otherwise than the way they did, practically nothing would be interstate commerce, violating the premise that the Framers intended that there be some interstate commerce that needs to be regulated. By the same reasoning, if the Court were to rule that nonpurchase of insurance is interstate commerce, then there would be practically nothing that is not interstate commerce, violating the premise that the Framers intended that Congress' interstate regulatory powers are enumerated.

That really was the end of the era of state lines really being important from a logistical standpoint.

I am love the constitution, but I think you have to look at in the context of the time, and appreciate that states mattered in the 1780s, they are nothing more then signposts on the interstate now. Trying to hold on to archaic ideals at the risk of retarding true economic freedoms.

Crony capitalism?


Skrum: MPC is a function of APC. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004323/low/macro1.html
Scroll to the bit about APC and MPC. Im sure you already admit the wealthy have a lower APC than us right? Well MPC is generally lower for people with lower APCs. Frankling I don't know what more evidence you need. You are being obtuse, which is why I didn't feel the need to continue our previous discussion on the subject. Anyone can look up that old thread and see mounds of evidence that not only is the APC of a family lower the higher it's income, but so is it's MPC. Frankly, APC takes into consideration MPC, since it's used in the aggregate.

Crony capitalism was my response to deadcodes rethorical question* did realize there were like 10 posts after it.

Autocorrect is awful

Epic fail again. The article offers no empirical support for a declining MPC as a function of disposable income. If C = constant + MPC x DI, then APC would be constant/C + MPC, or b = APC - constant/C. So MPC is a "function" of APC, but could be constant, declining, or increasing. As C increases, both APC and constant/C are decreasing, but they are subtracted from each other!

Victory is sweet.

But DI isn't constant that's the point. DI is increasing which means APC is getting smaller. MPC isn't something you calculate as much as it's something you observe. Economists use observed MPCs about the population to draw inferences about the APC of additional monies. MPC is just APC if you get more money, and the smaller percentage your marginal increase in money, the smaller MPC.

If MPC is "something you observe", then how come you can't give me a number, based on observations on what MPC is?

MPC is in fact very hard to observe because it has to be isolated from other things that cause consumption to change, such as change in expectations, long versus short term perception on income change, wealth effect, availablity of credit, availability of insurance, etc.

Marxism made a huge fucking post about exactly what you want to see a while back and you just ignored him. Remember it was the one where foodstamps had the greatest multiplier effect/rate of return for the GDP and tax breaks to the wealthy had a negative rate of return (because they just invested most of it in other markets like china).