tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post1536858025762328341..comments2024-03-28T03:15:14.875-07:00Comments on Unenumerated: Separation of powers and credible commitmentNick Szabohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16820399856274245684noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-89052235914101117962010-12-11T18:20:45.339-08:002010-12-11T18:20:45.339-08:00This is an interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure...This is an interesting viewpoint. I'm not sure if it's accurate though.<br /><br />The contrary view is not that the Revolution made the country more democratic in the modern sense of mass voting, but that it made it more democratic in the 17th century sense of more Parliamentary. The reason that Stuart kings had to pay such high bond rates is not that they opportunistically defaulted on their debts - they were well aware that default would hurt them. Rather, they defaulted because of insufficient revenues - kings could not raise taxes without Parliamentary consent.<br /><br />By placing sovereignty with Crown-in-Parliament, as opposed to the Crown, the Glorious Revolution married the tax-raising power to the executive power, and hence made the executive power much more solvent, and thus able to get better bond rates. At least, this is what I was taught in school, and I don't see anything in your post to change it. After all, the government could still abrogate its debts after 1689, just it would require a Parliamentary bill, rather than an Order-in-Council. The procedure for default changed, but the possibility did not.Salemhttp://whyiamnot.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17908317.post-89680020143238269382009-04-29T15:38:00.000-07:002009-04-29T15:38:00.000-07:00England was remarkably successful in leading the G...England was remarkably successful in leading the Grand Alliance in the War of the Spanish Succession, 1701-1714, at least until the Tories took over.karlnoreply@blogger.com