A Brief Rejoinder to Professor Mullock

Mullock on Summers on Hart is bad enough, but Summers on Mullock on Summers on Hart is worse. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no rule (primary or secondary) entitling either of us to vouch Professor Hart into the proceedings. With all due respect to Professor Mullock (and to me, of course), I fear the two of us may be compounding erroneous interpretations of Professor Hart’s work. Sans Hart, I shall exercise admirable restraint and argue over the meaning of the scripture. Regrettably, Professor Mullock and I are both defenders of the faith; I had hoped to draw the fire of a non-Christian

Gibson's Paradox and the Gold Standard

This paper provides a new explanation for Gibson's Paradox -- the observation that the price level and the nominal interest rate were positively correlated over long periods of economic history. We explain this phenomenon interms of the fundamental workings of a gold standard. Under a gold standard, the price level is the reciprocal of the real price of gold. Because gold is adurable asset, its relative price is systematically affected by fluctuations inthe real productivity of capital, which also determine real interest rates. Our resolution of the Gibson Paradox seems more satisfactory than previous hypotheses. It explains why the paradox applied to real as well as nominal rates of return, its coincidence with the gold standard period, and the co-movement of interest rates, prices, and the stock of monetary gold during the gold standard period. Empirical evidence using contemporary data on gold prices and real interest rates supports our theory.

Lee Hargis Lytton III: A Most Extraordinary, Interesting and Instructive Life

Tribute to Lee Hargis Lytton III, a professor at St. Mary\u27s University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas

The International Law of the Environment from the U.S. Perspective: A Case Study: The U.S. and Mexico

The subject of public international law is vast, rich and varied, thus offering the potential to explore many interrelated topics ranging from the lofty philosophical precepts of positivist and naturalist thought to the technical intricacies of international business transactions. Many of these topics are also historically relevant to the long and often inclement history of Mexican-U.S. relations. These include the law of war, peace and neutrality, self-determination, territory, recognition, and diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities. Regrettably, the allotment of time and space for the subject of public international law in the Joint Venture Program does not allow discourse on these topics, but instead demands a different, more efficient and more timely focus. The direction of this paper is therefore aligned with some of the most critical issues of international law confronting Mexico and the United States in today\u27s diplomatic context, which is marked by singularly positive and mutually supportive relations. These issues center on a relatively new concern to the international community, that is, the environment. The urgent preoccupation with environmental protection must inevitably be weighed against the frequently conflicting but equally vital need for economic development. This conflict is particularly acute at present because critical trade issues are now being vigorously debated during deliberations about the proposed trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada