Physicists for Ron Paul!
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:26 pm
Anyone supporting Ron Paul on this forum?
(This resource is NOT affiliated with gre.org or ets.org)
https://physicsgre.com/
This... is not surprising.negru wrote:I am
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.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 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.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. In my case, I think the TSA is useless. This came up today because his son got delayed.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?
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.)
And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law makingbfollinprm 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).
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.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).
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.*negru wrote:And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law makingbfollinprm 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).
I couldn't agree more with that statement.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.
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.bfollinprm wrote: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.*negru wrote:And that's why we don't put convicts in charge of law makingbfollinprm 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).
I also think I'm against this one, but I haven't studied it enough to know for sure.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'm ignoring this as argumentative.qed wrote:are you OK with the U.S. government steadily ushering in 'A Brave New World'?
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:*"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.
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.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.
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: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).
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:Hence, after the dollar crashes, there is no guarantee that the U.S. will retain its monopoly as reserve currency.
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.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.)
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.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?)
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.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.
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.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.
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: 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.
If this was so simple, then I guess we have absolutely nothing to worry about!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.
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.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?
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:If this was so simple, then I guess we have absolutely nothing to worry about!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.
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.qed wrote:But more seriously, I think when China begins dumping U.S. debt, other creditors would panic and follow suit.
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.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.
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.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.
It's ridiculous to expect martial law in the US. It just isn't going to happen.qed wrote:Government would impose martial law, and so on and so forth... you can imagine the rest.
Could you explain this a little more?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.
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.SSM wrote:Could you explain this a little more?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.