Physicists for Ron Paul!

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:26 pm

Anyone supporting Ron Paul on this forum? :wink:

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby negru » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:05 pm

I am

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby grae313 » Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:57 pm

negru wrote:I am


This... is not surprising.

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:40 pm

Somewhat disappointed that negru is the only one who responded... So is everyone supporting Gingrich, Romney or Santorum, or are you guys apathetic about politics?

Well, if it's the latter, then so was I a few months ago... but then I came across Ron Paul. I used to think 'honest politician' was an oxymoron, until I discovered this man.

The U.S. dollar is destined to crash within this decade imho, if not within a few years if there aren't radical changes in Washington. The American people is lucky to have R.P. running for office at such a crucial time in American history. If the American people are so dumb that they end up nominating one of the three remaining Republican warmongering, repugnant corporate sell-outs over this wise and honest man, then imho they deserve the coming economic apocalypse. They would be condemning their children and grandchildren to debt slavery.

Obama=Romney=Gingrich=Santorum='status quo'

Ron Paul 2012 or bust!

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby bfollinprm » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:28 pm

Ummmm.....Ron Paul would gut the DOE and NSF research funding, leaving this country without funding for basic science, as well as destroy the federal emphasis and support on science education through the Department of Education. Hate to be Machiavellian, but even if I were to like Ron Paul's ideologies (I don't), that's enough for me to campaign against him if he were to win the nomination (not that he will).

There's certainly a need for a balanced budget and a sounder economic policy, but most of our woes are due to the trade deficit, which can't really be ascribed to government intervention (most government policy is pro-manufacturing, other than maybe the corporate tax structure).

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby CarlBrannen » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:39 pm

qed wrote:Somewhat disappointed that negru is the only one who responded... So is everyone supporting Gingrich, Romney or Santorum, or are you guys apathetic about politics?


I think that part of the attraction of Paul is that pretty much anyone is going to agree with at least one of the oddball things he promotes. In my case, I think the TSA is useless. This came up today because his son got delayed.

As far as "warmongering", as far as I can tell, sticking their noses into other people's business is normal human behavior and darn hard to avoid. As far as the "coming economic apocalypse", nope, I'm too old to believe crap like that.

I haven't looked carefully at Paul's ideology I'm assuming that the apocalypse arises as a result of US government deficits. I went through all this back in the 1960s / 1970s. The end result is that we'll have budgets balanced around 10 years from now. At that time the price of a can of soup will be $10. And the debts we owe now will be quite paltry compared to the inflated GDP of that time.

Debt slavery can only happen when you owe real money, i.e. gold. A country can't go bankrupt so long as it owns the printing presses which produce the denomination it borrows. (The problem with Greece is that they borrowed other people's money, not something they could make as much as they want whenever they feel like it.)

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:26 pm

CarlBrannen wrote:
qed wrote:Somewhat disappointed that negru is the only one who responded... So is everyone supporting Gingrich, Romney or Santorum, or are you guys apathetic about politics?


I think that part of the attraction of Paul is that pretty much anyone is going to agree with at least one of the oddball things he promotes. In my case, I think the TSA is useless. This came up today because his son got delayed.

As far as "warmongering", as far as I can tell, sticking their noses into other people's business is normal human behavior and darn hard to avoid. As far as the "coming economic apocalypse", nope, I'm too old to believe crap like that.

I haven't looked carefully at Paul's ideology I'm assuming that the apocalypse arises as a result of US government deficits. I went through all this back in the 1960s / 1970s. The end result is that we'll have budgets balanced around 10 years from now. At that time the price of a can of soup will be $10. And the debts we owe now will be quite paltry compared to the inflated GDP of that time.

Debt slavery can only happen when you owe real money, i.e. gold. A country can't go bankrupt so long as it owns the printing presses which produce the denomination it borrows. (The problem with Greece is that they borrowed other people's money, not something they could make as much as they want whenever they feel like it.)


I appreciate you outlining your thoughts, Carl. Obviously you are senior to most of us on this forum and have more life experience. However, allow me to respectfully rebuttal.

*"Oddball" issues? So, you are OK with the National Defence Authorization Act, which essentially gives the U.S. president power to execute any U.S. citizen 'suspected' of terrorism, without trial or access to lawyer, a.k.a. assassination? Then there's stuff like SOPA and PIPA, which I don't think we have seen the last of. I think this is only the beginning; are you OK with the U.S. government steadily ushering in 'A Brave New World'?
*"Warmongering" is not only incredibly immoral, but most relevantly: perpetual war is unsustainable. And it leaves a lasting negative impression on the minds of the people of the world whose sovereignty has been undermined. Hence, it spurs rather than curbs terrorism.
*Your last analysis on debt slavery is most interesting. Note though that the difference between the 60's and today is that the U.S. has lost most of its manufacturing base and competitive advantage. The reason that the U.S. dollar was originally adopted as the reserve currency of the world was because of the unmatched industrial might at that time. This is no more; the U.S.'s hold as the reserve currency and its global political overlordship is based solely on weapons (aircraft carrier groups). Hence, after the dollar crashes, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will retain its monopoly as reserve currency. (Probably, China and other creditors would come up with a proposal to write-off some of its U.S. debt under the condition that the U.S. substantially loses its 'say' in the financial world.) Furthermore, inflation would drive the prices of goods and services up, but the salaries of the vast majority of people would stay the same (here you're age and experience could be helpful - how much has your income increased over the last few decades?) Thus, the standard of living would go down, and since the manufacturing base is destroyed, it would take decades to recover. In short, the America would be reduced to a middle-income country.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby negru » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:38 pm

bfollinprm wrote:Ummmm.....Ron Paul would gut the DOE and NSF research funding, leaving this country without funding for basic science, as well as destroy the federal emphasis and support on science education through the Department of Education. Hate to be Machiavellian, but even if I were to like Ron Paul's ideologies (I don't), that's enough for me to campaign against him if he were to win the nomination (not that he will).

And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law making ;)

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:44 pm

bfollinprm wrote:Ummmm.....Ron Paul would gut the DOE and NSF research funding, leaving this country without funding for basic science, as well as destroy the federal emphasis and support on science education through the Department of Education. Hate to be Machiavellian, but even if I were to like Ron Paul's ideologies (I don't), that's enough for me to campaign against him if he were to win the nomination (not that he will).

There's certainly a need for a balanced budget and a sounder economic policy, but most of our woes are due to the trade deficit, which can't really be ascribed to government intervention (most government policy is pro-manufacturing, other than maybe the corporate tax structure).


Some of my friends did point this out to me, and it does make me concerned. However, the article you are referencing does not explicitly say that the NSF and NASA would be gutted. You see, the spirit in cutting those five departments is to reduce bureaucratic waste of resources in government. The Department of Education is an important example. It dishes out large student loans to way too many students. This subsidizing of education, especially college education, serves to kill competition in the education industry and it has been driving up the cost of college education. The tragedy of all of this is that since everyone in the country is getting a college degree, it no longer gives you an edge in the job market. What's the point of ending up with a worthless piece of paper and saddled with a 100k student loan debt with no better job prospects after college graduation? These students would have been better off saving four years of their life by getting a job or starting a business right after high school.

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:53 pm

One other quick fact that I want to point out before calling it a night is the following. Obama's biggest campaign donor was and is Goldman Sachs, and Mitt Romney's biggest donor was also Goldman Sachs. At the risk of offending some people here, I'd say that the Republican and Democratic dichotomy has fallen apart-its now the 'Republicrat' party. Both parties essentially support the same UNSUSTAINABLE big government policies, only some of their stances on so-called social issues (gay marriage, abortion, and the lot) is conservative versus liberal. But people don't realize that economic future of this country IS THE BIGGEST SOCIAL ISSUE of this era.

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby bfollinprm » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:23 am

negru wrote:
bfollinprm wrote:Ummmm.....Ron Paul would gut the DOE and NSF research funding, leaving this country without funding for basic science, as well as destroy the federal emphasis and support on science education through the Department of Education. Hate to be Machiavellian, but even if I were to like Ron Paul's ideologies (I don't), that's enough for me to campaign against him if he were to win the nomination (not that he will).

And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law making ;)


Sorry for being obtuse, but am I supposed to be the convict in this analogy? If so, while I agree with the sentiment, it isn't accurate--we essentially put energy companies/environmental organizations in charge of our energy policy (energy bills are written by lobbyists), etc. It's in fact those who benefit who do write the laws in this country, and I'm not too proud to stick up for my own interests in this good, "democratic" American tradition.*

And QED, you're right that my link doesn't specifically mention NSF or NASA. But Dr. Paul has, and that shouldn't be too surprising, since he's anti- anything federal government other than (1) self-defense, and (2) road building (interstate commerce). But really, my problem is as CarlBrannen stated, the main problems in this country are NOT deficit oriented, they're trade deficit oriented. And no budget cutting fixes the trade deficit. So none of Representative Paul's policies really help the economic situation of the country (other than, possibly, deregulation of the manufacturing industry and lower taxation on goods producers, both of which are actually quite popular on both sides of the aisle at the moment).

*I actually do happen to believe that not just scientists benefit from science funding and the DOE, and would continue to believe that if I were to ever stop being funded (directly or not) by government science funding through the DOE. But that's really secondary to self-preservation.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby midwestphysics » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:48 am

CarlBrannen wrote:I think that part of the attraction of Paul is that pretty much anyone is going to agree with at least one of the oddball things he promotes.


I couldn't agree more with that statement.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby negru » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:09 pm

bfollinprm wrote:
negru wrote:
bfollinprm wrote:Ummmm.....Ron Paul would gut the DOE and NSF research funding, leaving this country without funding for basic science, as well as destroy the federal emphasis and support on science education through the Department of Education. Hate to be Machiavellian, but even if I were to like Ron Paul's ideologies (I don't), that's enough for me to campaign against him if he were to win the nomination (not that he will).

And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law making ;)


Sorry for being obtuse, but am I supposed to be the convict in this analogy? If so, while I agree with the sentiment, it isn't accurate--we essentially put energy companies/environmental organizations in charge of our energy policy (energy bills are written by lobbyists), etc. It's in fact those who benefit who do write the laws in this country, and I'm not too proud to stick up for my own interests in this good, "democratic" American tradition.*

Exactly. So how would you for example go about ending this lobby thing? Or would you at all? To me lobbying is no different than the usual way of gaining votes - promising various benefits to various individuals or classes. What's the difference between getting money for writing some law favorable to a company, and getting votes for raising teacher salaries? That favorable law will quite possibly mean some benefits for the employees too. So it's pretty much the same thing (except competition issues ofc but let's not go into that yet). So making any form of lobbying illegal wouldn't make sense in my opinion. The only other solution is to do away with the people powerful enough to create such laws in the first place. Or I don't know, let them be, just have a constitution which wouldn't allow them to make any kind of law they want. Oh wait we have that and no one cares.

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby CarlBrannen » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:42 pm

qed wrote:*"Oddball" issues? So, you are OK with the National Defence Authorization Act, which essentially gives the U.S. president power to execute any U.S. citizen 'suspected' of terrorism, without trial or access to lawyer, a.k.a. assassination?


I also think I'm against this one, but I haven't studied it enough to know for sure.

qed wrote:are you OK with the U.S. government steadily ushering in 'A Brave New World'?

I'm ignoring this as argumentative.

qed wrote:*"Warmongering" is not only incredibly immoral, but most relevantly: perpetual war is unsustainable. And it leaves a lasting negative impression on the minds of the people of the world whose sovereignty has been undermined. Hence, it spurs rather than curbs terrorism.


It's hard to argue this one way or another on the basis of observation. The Roman Empire lasted many hundreds of years; I suspect our empire will last as long. And as far as giving a negative impression on the "minds of the world", the US found more allies in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Vietnam so the situation doesn't seem to be moving against the US. As far as the morality, that's hard to figure out as well. But if you count up the percentage of world population killed in war before the period of US dominance and compare it with the later figures you'll find that the world is an amazingly peaceful place nowadays. And I should add that I was against us going into Iraq, I'm mostly making these arguments as a general comment on the logic of your claim.

qed wrote:*Your last analysis on debt slavery is most interesting. Note though that the difference between the 60's and today is that the U.S. has lost most of its manufacturing base and competitive advantage. The reason that the U.S. dollar was originally adopted as the reserve currency of the world was because of the unmatched industrial might at that time.


Sigh. (1) US industrial might was briefly unmatched when the rest of the industrial world was used as a battlefield during the second world war. The 30 years after the war were a recovery from that. (2) The adoption of the dollar as the reserve currency had absolutely nothing to do with US industrial might. Money is two things, a store of value and a medium of economic exchange. The adoption of the US dollar was for the convenience of these reasons only.

(3) While the press (which is about selling soap not telling you the truth) would disagree with me on this. But I've spent most of my life as a manufacturing engineer. The truth is that the US has not lost any of its manufacturing base. What happened was a sequence of the following things: (a) US dollar was adopted as the reserve currency, (b) The world became steadily wealthier and the demand for reserve currency grew, (c) Huge amounts of US currency (or the electronic equivalent) were exported from the country to fill that demand, (d) To obtain US currency, foreign countries had to provide us with huge amounts of goods, (e) In order to sell in our markets, those goods had to be sold cheaply, (f) The cheap price of imported goods made US produced goods too expensive for US markets, and so (g) a lot of things that used to be made in the US were instead made overseas.

Now it's important to note that the series of events in (3) above were not some effect that was created by one political party or another, or by US workers, or by US corporations, or by our rejection of the gold standard, etc. They were the unavoidable result of being the country which prints the reserve currency during a time of world economic growth. When Great Britain's gold back currency was the world's reserve currency their economy was sent through identical cycles. These made it difficult to manufacture goods in Great Britain but Great Britain's manufacturing base was never "lost". Instead, the manufacturing base came back to Great Britain when the currency flows reversed (as they inevitably do).

The situation in the US now is one where foreigners have stupidly absorbed huge amounts of our currency but our Federal Reserve is printing it as fast as it can. The inevitable result of this will be that the foreigners will discover that, once again, they have been duped into holding huge amounts of dollars that are quickly dropping in value. These cycles, like the stock market bubbles, can take many decades to turn but turn they must, and this one appears to be upon us. When this happens foreign holders of US dollars will do the same thing they have done so many times in the past with so many other reserve currencies (including the US dollar in the 1970s), they will get rid of their US currency.

The result will be the same as it always is. Money will come flooding back into the US. Our manufacturing base will magically reappear and goods not seen in US factories will again flood the world market.

qed wrote:This is no more; the U.S.'s hold as the reserve currency and its global political overlordship is based solely on weapons (aircraft carrier groups).


You're confusing causes with effects here. US military power has been partly the result of the strong dollar but even in the absence of any US military the dollar would still be the reserve currency.

qed wrote:Hence, after the dollar crashes, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will retain its monopoly as reserve currency.


If we get away from being the reserve currency this would be a truly wonderful thing. We would avoid having our currency sucked out of our country and our population could rely on a more steady production.

qed wrote:(Probably, China and other creditors would come up with a proposal to write-off some of its U.S. debt under the condition that the U.S. substantially loses its 'say' in the financial world.)


Suppose that China owned US treasury notes in the amount of $10 trillion dollars. That amount of money can be created by the Federal reserve in the course of a half hour. After paying them off they would have no legal recourse. So it's silly to imagine they could tell us what to do.

The only thing China could do would be to refuse to buy future US debt, and to sell the debt they already own. As far as their selling our debt, our Federal Reserve simply buys it with a few key strokes. As far as refusing to buy future US debt, again the Federal Reserve simply buys any securities for which there are no bids.

Our situation is not like Greece which stupidly borrowed a currency it can't print.

qed wrote:Furthermore, inflation would drive the prices of goods and services up, but the salaries of the vast majority of people would stay the same (here you're age and experience could be helpful - how much has your income increased over the last few decades?)


We haven't had significant inflation during the last few decades. Mostly this has been because foreigners have kept absorbing our currency. I was a young man during the last inflation and I can tell you that it's not big deal. You will regularly get huge increases in salary. The price of stuff will steadily increase.

Most of the US's current economic difficulty is the banking and economic problems associated with the collapse in housing prices. A few years of 20% inflation will bring housing prices up to the point where the average house is worth more than its mortgage. I expect this to happen (i.e. the US dollar to drop in value perhaps 40% over the next 5 years.) This would be a vastly more healthy situation than the one we're in. Depression is far worse than inflation.

qed wrote:Thus, the standard of living would go down, and since the manufacturing base is destroyed, it would take decades to recover. In short, the America would be reduced to a middle-income country.


Inflation does not cause the "standard of living" to go down. If it did, everyone in Brazil would be dead. Instead, the standard of living is a matter of the relationship between wages and prices.

As far as the length of time for the manufacturing base to recover, as an engineer I can assure you that it takes far longer to get a product built overseas than it does to have it built nearby. The complications and difficulties of manufacturing overseas can only be imagined. The most effective relationship I ever had with manufacturing was when our offices were next door to the manufacturing floor.

The problem of "building a factory" probably seems like an impossible feat to someone who's never been involved with it. But factories are very easy to construct. A great example is the factories of the Soviet Union which were removed from the path of German advances and rebuilt farther to the east. Their production of ammunition never even faltered. (By the way, did you know that the "tractor factory" that was a center of the defense of Stalingrad was designed by the US company Ford?)

The time required by a US company to build a factory overseas far exceeds the time required to build it in the US. There are huge amounts of factory space that is underutilized right now. These plants are already in locations with the right zoning for factories. The skilled workers who worked at them are still skilled, though some are getting older. Our manufacturing base will quickly expand as the result of higher prices of imported goods (just as it always has in the past through the many business cycles Capitalism has experienced since it was invented).

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:34 pm

CarlBrannen wrote: And as far as giving a negative impression on the "minds of the world", the US found more allies in Afghanistan and Iraq than in Vietnam so the situation doesn't seem to be moving against the US. As far as the morality, that's hard to figure out as well. But if you count up the percentage of world population killed in war before the period of US dominance and compare it with the later figures you'll find that the world is an amazingly peaceful place nowadays. And I should add that I was against us going into Iraq, I'm mostly making these arguments as a general comment on the logic of your claim.


Yeah, well, this is the so-called 'American Pacifier' argument. My professor of government at an Ivy also tried to sell that to us. I don't think it really works because I think humanity as a whole is becoming more peace and economy-oriented, as illustrated by the European Union.

I don't support the U.S. government leading us into one meaningless conflict after another, driven by the greed of the military-industrial complex. As you'll probably acknowledge, WMDs in Iraq were a blatant lie; the U.S. simply went in for Iraq's oil, which is the second-largest reserve in the world. Not to mention lucrative contracts for U.S. contractors for rebuilding the infrastructure that the U.S. military demolished with bombs.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim as 9/11 was an inside job until someone provides me with concrete, air-tight evidence. But what did the 10 years of military adventurism in Afghanistan yield? Trillions of dollar in debt, and are we any safer from terrorism today than we were 10 years ago?

Then there are the legacies of war: Before the Afghanistan war, the native Taliban government actually fought against and tried to eradicate opium production. But since the U.S. invasion, did you know that 80% of the world's opium is produced in Afghanistan? Isn't it ironic that the U.S. spends billions of dollars at home on the War on Drugs while essentially sponsoring and profiting off of opium production in Afghanistan? (BTW, Ron Paul thinks that the War on Drugs is a failure and is a wasteful spending. After all, alcohol is much more harmful than marijuana. Also, the War on Drugs is a veiled form of racism given the disproportionately large incarceration of minorities.)

And now they are planning to go into Iran. This time, though, if the U.S. attacks Iran, I think China and Russia will get involved. Who knows what this may escalate to!

CarlBrannen wrote: If we get away from being the reserve currency this would be a truly wonderful thing. We would avoid having our currency sucked out of our country and our population could rely on a more steady production.


Yep, if we could gradually rein in and abolish the Federal Reserve, then we wouldn't have these Keynesian boom-bust business cycles. From 1780s to 1913, the U.S. had sound money and steady economic growth. What is so wrong and 'crackpot-y' about going back to that model that works?

CarlBrannen wrote: Suppose that China owned US treasury notes in the amount of $10 trillion dollars. That amount of money can be created by the Federal reserve in the course of a half hour. After paying them off they would have no legal recourse. So it's silly to imagine they could tell us what to do.

The only thing China could do would be to refuse to buy future US debt, and to sell the debt they already own. As far as their selling our debt, our Federal Reserve simply buys it with a few key strokes. As far as refusing to buy future US debt, again the Federal Reserve simply buys any securities for which there are no bids.


If this was so simple, then I guess we have absolutely nothing to worry about!

But more seriously, I think when China begins dumping U.S. debt, other creditors would panic and follow suit. There would be hyperinflation in the U.S., and almost overnight, the U.S. would find itself unable to import ANY goods or services. Thankfully, though, U.S. is an agricultural powerhouse, so it will still be self-sufficient in food. But still, most essential commodities would sky-rocket and there would be anarchy in the streets. Government would impose martial law, and so on and so forth... you can imagine the rest.

In any case, thanks for taking the time to share your ideas and observations with me. :) So is negru really supporting Ron Paul, or is there some form of sarcasm going on that I'm not getting? :lol:

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby CarlBrannen » Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:05 pm

qed wrote:Yep, if we could gradually rein in and abolish the Federal Reserve, then we wouldn't have these Keynesian boom-bust business cycles. From 1780s to 1913, the U.S. had sound money and steady economic growth. What is so wrong and 'crackpot-y' about going back to that model that works?


Not true. The US had huge booms and busts between 1780 and 1913. Stuff more rugged than the Great Depression, but somewhat reduced in effect to the extent that a larger percentage of the population lived in the countryside and during the panics were in total abject poverty but had stuff to eat, or were already in abject poverty during the boom times. Since 1913, the economy has had a fairly steady run of good years.

The difference with the Great Depression is that it's the most recent, not the worst. Wiki has a nice article listing the busts and what they were associated with (things like railroad stock market panics, failing loans to Latin American dictatorships, many many banking failures, etc.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... ted_States

qed wrote:
CarlBrannen wrote: Suppose that China owned US treasury notes in the amount of $10 trillion dollars. That amount of money can be created by the Federal reserve in the course of a half hour. After paying them off they would have no legal recourse. So it's silly to imagine they could tell us what to do.

The only thing China could do would be to refuse to buy future US debt, and to sell the debt they already own. As far as their selling our debt, our Federal Reserve simply buys it with a few key strokes. As far as refusing to buy future US debt, again the Federal Reserve simply buys any securities for which there are no bids.


If this was so simple, then I guess we have absolutely nothing to worry about!


Yes, this is how I see it. On the other hand, there isn't a damned thing you can do about it so why are you suggesting we "worry" about it?

qed wrote:But more seriously, I think when China begins dumping U.S. debt, other creditors would panic and follow suit.


Traders will panic, but "panic" is a relative term. Traders panic all the time. Their ability to follow suit is greatly limited by the number of available buyers.

When a foreign country tries to dump another country's currency, they have to find a buyer for the currency. Unlike gold or oil, currency in itself is worthless paper, you have to find a counterparty to make a transaction. In a panic, the Federal Reserve can use its reserves of foreign currency to buy back US currency. And in such a situation the value of US currency drops so it makes it that much cheaper to buy back.

Consequently, a panic is arguably a good way of getting our currency back in that it's the cheapest. At the end of such an event foreigners would realize how stupid they've been and deeply regret ever having collected US currency. And it could be many decades before they start doing it again. These are good things for the US.

qed wrote:There would be hyperinflation in the U.S., and almost overnight, the U.S. would find itself unable to import ANY goods or services.


This is silly for multiple reasons. First, the amount of US debt is nowhere near enough to associate with hyperinflation. US debt is a small multiple of the GDP, consequently the amount of inflation needed to deal with it is only a small multiple. If you look at the comparative figures, you'll find that the ratio of US debt to GDP is reasonable compared to most industrialized nations.

But history has many examples of hyperinflations and in not a single one was the situation of "unable to import ANY goods" obtained. And uh, services are difficult to import even in good times.

qed wrote:Thankfully, though, U.S. is an agricultural powerhouse, so it will still be self-sufficient in food. But still, most essential commodities would sky-rocket and there would be anarchy in the streets.


I'm old enough to remember the last inflationary run and there was absolutely no anarchy in the streets because of it. Our last peak of "anarchy in the streets" was during the Vietnam war and that was quite mild on a historical scale. There were something like a couple dozen people killed, most notably a few at Kent State. There are biker parties that do more damage than that.

And what is the rest of the world going to do without our agricultural products? Calmly starve themselves to death? No. They will give us various things we need in return for our food. This is called "trade" and it's been going on for thousands of years.

Trade is not something that needs a government. Trade is one of those things that government can't stop. For example, since I was a little boy the US has been failing to stop the trade in illegal drugs.

No, trade is something that humans do no matter what, and just as in the case of every other hyperinflation, trade will continue through a US hyperinflation. But we're not due for a hyperinflation, our economic problem is nowhere near so serious.

qed wrote:Government would impose martial law, and so on and so forth... you can imagine the rest.


It's ridiculous to expect martial law in the US. It just isn't going to happen.

Apparently humans have a deep-seated need to believe that we are in the midst of "end-times". The religious people expecting the (nth) coming of XXX, the Mayan "prophecy", the "Y2K bug" fears, the expectation that the World Trade Center attacks would end civilization, fears that global warming would hurt the population, the fears that we would enter into another ice-age during the 1980s, the fear that we would run out of food (which date back to Malthus's articles sometime around 1800 and which have been constantly repeated since then), the fear of running out of oil, etc. In the light of the failed horrible predictions of the past why do you believe this crap?

During WW2 we went into debt to a degree considerably deeper than today (in terms of ratio of debt to GDP). Those were gold-backed dollars and we paid it off. Our current money is not gold backed and consequently is much, much, much, much easier to pay back.

As far as the fact that the currency is essentially worthless, if this were "news" it would be a big deal. But the currency hasn't had any backing for many decades. So it's a little late for it to be causing a problem.

Hey, if you look around and see people using their hordes of silver coins to buy McDonald's hamburgers then you can assume that we've suffered hyperinflation and our currency has gone up in smoke. The reason this is not going to happen is that McDonald's needs US currency in order to pay its debts.

Grab a dollar bill. Note that it says, (in small capital letters) "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE". This means that McDonalds can use that stuff to pay their debts. And the seller is legally obligated to accept it. This is why McDonalds will continue to accept your green backs.

Because of this law, a complete collapse of the money supply cannot cause a collapse of law and order. In fact we've seen several instances of US currency dropping in value to near zero. Most recently this happened during the Civil War. The US dropped off the gold standard and gold zoomed in price. It took a couple dozen years (I recall) to buy back the outstanding green-backs but the US eventually returned to the standard. That was difficult (much more so than our WW2 debt). But the situation now is much easier as our currency is not backed by gold.

Instead, to get a complete collapse of the US dollar, you first have to have a complete collapse of law and order. And that doesn't happen even (in the unlikely event) of martial law.

So, no, I'm not buying your fears.

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:18 am

Thanks, Carl. OK, I think I have done enough for Dr. Paul on this forum.

For anyone who might read this forum in the future: I just want to reiterate one last time that the mainstream-media promoted view that Ron Paul is popular because of a few "oddball issues" is untrue.

Dr. Paul represents a comprehensive new vision for America. Especially if you supported Obama and have been disappointed, consider Ron Paul - he's not just a republican, he has a lot of concord with liberalism. I'd say do a lot of research and study the logic behind his financial, economic and foreign policy instead of dismissing him outright. As a start, consider his ideas as outlined in the recent Iowa debate (watch it all the way through):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo

Ron Paul on Bill Maher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XYZevkS ... re=related

SSM
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:57 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby SSM » Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:48 am

CarlBrannen wrote:Suppose that China owned US treasury notes in the amount of $10 trillion dollars. That amount of money can be created by the Federal reserve in the course of a half hour. After paying them off they would have no legal recourse. So it's silly to imagine they could tell us what to do.


Could you explain this a little more?

CarlBrannen
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby CarlBrannen » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:54 pm

SSM wrote:
CarlBrannen wrote:Suppose that China owned US treasury notes in the amount of $10 trillion dollars. That amount of money can be created by the Federal reserve in the course of a half hour. After paying them off they would have no legal recourse. So it's silly to imagine they could tell us what to do.


Could you explain this a little more?


A treasury note is a legal agreement. It says that the Treasury will pay the bearer (or holder or what have you) a certain amount of dollars on certain fixed dates. This obligation can be fulfilled by providing the bearer with the appropriate amount of cash. A treasury note is not some sort of agreement that allows the bearer to make the US government do anything other than pay the given amount of cash on the given dates. The Federal Reserve can create the money needed by the touch of a few computer keys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_n ... asury_note

qed
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: Physicists for Ron Paul!

Postby qed » Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:41 pm

Creation of the Federal Reserve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ




Return to “Physics Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest