I decided, in the goodness of my heart, that I should request my Readers to read this link. I personally like Smith and Ricardo, but do not think that Schumpeter is a flake. There was definite economic life before Smith, and it evolved to quite a high state. Ancient Athens itself had sliding scale tariffs, and even earlier Persia had higher taxes placed on items sold below what was considered Market standard. The Kings of Spain limited the speed of Gold sales from the New World, in order to maintain the value of Gold. I have some agreement with Kauder, but cannot quite understand the Rothbard denial of the Scholastic belief in Demand. The entire point about the later consisted of setting a utilitarian value of Demand, which went far beyond Price into the realm of God’s desire. They tried to fix a monopoly Price on what people should want, according to God’s desires. The Scholastics differ markedly from the Austrians, and shows clearly through the discussed issue of usury. Rothbard cannot understand the Scholastic stance while I can; they simply thought that God should profit, rather than individual, in all transactions; finding that God was the only true Owner of any fundamental Resource.
I now include this link, basically due to the fact that Karl Smith seems more understandable than Paul Krugman at this point. Karl starts by trying to define the two-tier yuan, where China will let Dollars in, but not yuan. Seems a little far-fetched, especially knowing the long tradition of Chinese smuggling; hauling currency seems as easy a smuggling item as you can find–easy to hide, and impossible to detect after it is spread. Foreign Consumers are given an advantage over domestic Consumers, but considering the splash of Wealth inside China; I do not believe it is very serious discrimination. It is my belief that the Chinese Government finds it far more convenient to take measures to forestall Utilities and Infrastructure from collapse, rather than it is an interest to sell more Chinese Goods overseas. I ask myself Why Paul Krugman and Karl Smith imagine that Chinese leadership has more capacity to affect their economy, than does Ben Bernanke to affect the American economy.
I finish with this link, and ask if there stands a fundamental principle being violated here. Can Local Governments grant third Parties the semblance proprietary rights to an individual’s property without due process of law. Local Governments will claim it is simply assessment of property taxes in which the individual is delinquent; yet, the individual finds that the third Parties have been granted proprietary right never granted to themselves. The specific issue being the right of third Parties to purchase debt without the property-holders Consent, which is justified by local government recognition with allowing them to have paid the tax involved without assignment by the property-holder. Business has been trying evasion of property rights since they attempted to expand the right of eminent domain in years past. This is one of those issues which the US Supreme Court should issue a Ruling, especially the practice of local governments selling personal information of Taxes in arrears. lgl