Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

Umm, there is a quarterly and annual audit of Fed assets.

Why a move to hard assets? Everybody has already proven that thats a bad system. Furthermore, if it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? What about Austria, the famed home of Mises? If it was such a rocking system and it worked so well, then a country would have adopted it and had been kicking ass.

Yes the Fed's assets are indeed audited. My only argument for the movement to hard assets is the relative hamper it clamps on inflation. I like Mises do not see why inflation has to be part of an economy. What is the point of inflation in a currency, and why is more rampant in a fiat system than one backed by something? To hedge the response, when we had the gold standard inflation was an issue but the rate of inflation was much much less than it is now.

That is much better. The key to the idea that inflation can be 0 is that, without a cushion of inflation, then prices aren't stable, since they can rapidly decline into deflation. In a highly connected goods, services, and capital markets, this wild gyration adds to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to reduced investments in the future, since people never know what's going to happen.

One of the major reasons why the US capital markets and economy are world leaders is because we try to manage to a certain level of inflation and currency performance.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Again I'm awaiting any type of response to my posts, maybe they are too loony.

You've named two people (well, von Mises is a school of thought now) who agree with Ron Paul. All of the economists who live in these countries think the opposite. Now, despite most of the world believing in a spherical Earth, I can find you some people who think the Earth is flat too. Do you think we should start sailing the world and seeing if our ships fall off? Maybe you should leave the criticisms to people who actually know of the subject.

Offhand, nothing you've said has really been very deserving of a response. You're asking silly questions that have been answered a hundred times over in other threads, and nobody has the patience to do it yet again.

Just because it the majority doesn't make it right. So I would leave that out of the argument.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.

Speaking of interventionism, where is that post where you completely misunderstood both world wars, their causes and their consequences?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

No, you are throwing out names and theories rather than hard ideas. I understand fully what they propose, but not everybody does. Ever notice that I explain things in real terms? Is it for your benefit, or everybody elses?

Try to explain yourself and put it into an actionable plan, not just toss out two names.

I don't go to work and say. "Hey, I think we should do a Greg Pelzer for this deal, which perfectly defines the structure of the transaction". No, I create a term sheet, listing my own terms, in my own words, and how I plan to carry them out.

I'd love to know what world you live in defines action plans by the names of the people who created a theory, which may or may not be comletely applicable to your idea.

If you understand what they propose than what is your reasoning for why their logic is flawed? If your reason is because everyone else is doing it, then it is indeed your logic that is flawed. If you have some tangible reason as to why these theories are flawed, present it. Otherwise it is you who has been so miserably "bitchslapped" in this debate as you have already lost before it ever began.

I can point it out, but for the sake of everybody, state your opinion and actionable plan, not a name and a loose theory. The world doesn't work off of names and loose theories with no personal opinion or plan.

 

[palehorse]

I'm going to keep reposting the following until one of the RPB's decides to actually answer some/any/all of the questions...

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Just because it the majority doesn't make it right. So I would leave that out of the argument.

Just because someone proposes something 'different' doesn't mean that it's better or even a good idea.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: yllus
Okay, I have to get back to some work but I'll answer what I think is a pretty silly set of questions first.

Getting Osama Bin Laden is, on the grand scheme of things, a minor detail. Dismantling Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations, on the other hand, is what the true goal is. Makes sense, right? The individual is immaterial if you can take away his organization and its capability to project violence.

Al Qaeda was able to took root in Afghanistan because it is a country with an absence of the rule of law, is desperately poor and consists of a largely uneducated populace. Without that lack of rule of law, their violence would not be tolerated locally. Without that lack of money, leaders in various parts of the country could not be swayed to look the other way while the troublemakers get up to no good. And without the lack of education, they'd have a significantly harder time winning converts and sympathizers.

Al Qaeda was nothing before we invaded Afghanistan. They were not in control, they were a rag tag group of terrorists numbering in the 100's who adored Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were sympathizers to their cause because in actuality the Al Qeada are none other than remnants of the CIA financed Mujahdeen force which helped the Taliban overthrow Soviet rule.

The key to rooting out Al Qaeda, then, is to deprive it of what allows it to thrive. When it could thrive openly in Afghanistan, they were free to plot and carry out attacks with far greater ease. Banishing them to the mountains and taking away those three factors that allow them to stay put in Afghanistan is essential in the long term to destroying the organization. None of this can be accomplished in five years time - who expected it to? When's the last time a country went from zero to industrialized nation in half a decade?

Folks around here love to put down short, definitive sentences to solve large, complex issues. Those people are never right and should never be allowed near a decision making role. Unfortunately, one seemed to have made his way all the way to your Presidency. But I digress.

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.

News flash: America hasn't perfected warfighting. Innocents will get maimed and killed by even the most cautious army. Does this mean that the war should never be fought at all? I guess it would be easier if one side just absorbed the aggressive actions of the other. We'd probably even see peace in our time.

P.S. Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Power projection has been a dead horse in the sense that you've listed it here since the first atomic bomb was used. That's ALL the power projection we'll ever need. Everything else is posturing and wasting money. In the age of instant communications, it's quite possible for us to reach foreign leaders and express our disapproval of their actions should that be required. Power projection is just a nice way of saying schoolyard bully when it comes to our current use of the word. Our reign as world police needs to be over and the sooner the better.

Except that everyone knows that the U.S. will never use a nuke unless nuked first. What would you have done in '95, threaten to nuke Bosnia if they didn't stop the genocide? How about Afghanistan in 2002? Your plan is especially silly when you consider the prevalence of non-state actors as a security issue.

I have a great question concerning both accounts of intervention by our Military. For Afghanistan we were supposed to be getting Osama Bin Laden, not spending Billions to rebuild a nation. I'd say we have failed miserably in this regard. In Bosnia we intervened, that intervention has now put us at further odds with Putin.

It's simple really, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the reactions we don't take into consideration when we take action. Could their be reaction with no action taken, possibly if action is expected. It's time we make sure others don't expect action, it's time for others to take responsibility for themselves.

Okay, I have to get back to some work but I'll answer what I think is a pretty silly set of questions first.

Getting Osama Bin Laden is, on the grand scheme of things, a minor detail. Dismantling Al Qaeda and like-minded organizations, on the other hand, is what the true goal is. Makes sense, right? The individual is immaterial if you can take away his organization and its capability to project violence.

Al Qaeda was able to took root in Afghanistan because it is a country with an absence of the rule of law, is desperately poor and consists of a largely uneducated populace. Without that lack of rule of law, their violence would not be tolerated locally. Without that lack of money, leaders in various parts of the country could not be swayed to look the other way while the troublemakers get up to no good. And without the lack of education, they'd have a significantly harder time winning converts and sympathizers.

Al Qaeda was nothing before we invaded Afghanistan. They were not in control, they were a rag tag group of terrorists numbering in the 100's who adored Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were sympathizers to their cause because in actuality the Al Qeada are none other than remnants of the CIA financed Mujahdeen force which helped the Taliban overthrow Soviet rule.

The key to rooting out Al Qaeda, then, is to deprive it of what allows it to thrive. When it could thrive openly in Afghanistan, they were free to plot and carry out attacks with far greater ease. Banishing them to the mountains and taking away those three factors that allow them to stay put in Afghanistan is essential in the long term to destroying the organization. None of this can be accomplished in five years time - who expected it to? When's the last time a country went from zero to industrialized nation in half a decade?

Folks around here love to put down short, definitive sentences to solve large, complex issues. Those people are never right and should never be allowed near a decision making role. Unfortunately, one seemed to have made his way all the way to your Presidency. But I digress.

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.

what does that have to do with closing down ~700 Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine bases located outside of the U.S.?

Remember, it's not "loony" to propose a withdrawal from the Middle East -- but when RP starts talking about closing down EVERY base in the world, things start getting kooky...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So, because politicians abuse an extremely powerful tool, we should axe it?

This is exactly why the founders gave the federal government very little power. Because power will always be abused. They were right then, and we have proven them right now.

Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

If the federal government didn't have the power, the state governments would be doing equally as stupid things on a smaller scale. Believing we'd be better off with a weaker federal government is foolish, we'd have different problems.

We've had plenty of responsible leaders who haven't gotten us knee-deep in shit. What we need is our damned senate to step up and stop bending over backwards for the executive. The founding fathers, in their infinite glory, never really foresaw an alliance between those two branches.

I think there is some truth to that. The people do have the power. But I think corruption and some misleading of the American people are to blame to some part of where we are in a nation.

I guess if the people refuse to take on the responsibility which is called upon in order to keep a democratic government, then they don't deserve to have it. This is one reason why the Left is moving toward Socialism, and why the Right is moving toward something worse.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm going to keep reposting the following until one of the RPB's decides to actually answer some/any/all of the questions...

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

I attempted to reply to your post above even if I intentionally did not give direct answers to your questions. I feel I could not do so due to the fact that we differ in our perceptions on the role our military overseas.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
So, because politicians abuse an extremely powerful tool, we should axe it?

This is exactly why the founders gave the federal government very little power. Because power will always be abused. They were right then, and we have proven them right now.

Why not elect a more responsible leader that can use it to do some damn good in the world?

Now, THAT is a dream. Perhaps you would be comfortable with the clown avatar when making such statements?

If the federal government didn't have the power, the state governments would be doing equally as stupid things on a smaller scale. Believing we'd be better off with a weaker federal government is foolish, we'd have different problems.

We've had plenty of responsible leaders who haven't gotten us knee-deep in shit. What we need is our damned senate to step up and stop bending over backwards for the executive. The founding fathers, in their infinite glory, never really foresaw an alliance between those two branches.

I think there is some truth to that. The people do have the power. But I think corruption and some misleading of the American people are to blame to some part of where we are in a nation.

I guess if the people refuse to take on the responsibility which is called upon in order to keep a democratic government, then they don't deserve to have it. This is one reason why the Left is moving toward Socialism, and why the Right is moving toward something worse.

I'm all for making changes to the federal government. My reasons for opposing Paul are because his ideas are not what I even remotely agree with. Some changes are necessary and would improve the functioning of our government. Let's work towards affecting that change rather than scrapping everything and starting over.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

Umm, there is a quarterly and annual audit of Fed assets.

Why a move to hard assets? Everybody has already proven that thats a bad system. Furthermore, if it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? What about Austria, the famed home of Mises? If it was such a rocking system and it worked so well, then a country would have adopted it and had been kicking ass.

Yes the Fed's assets are indeed audited. My only argument for the movement to hard assets is the relative hamper it clamps on inflation. I like Mises do not see why inflation has to be part of an economy. What is the point of inflation in a currency, and why is more rampant in a fiat system than one backed by something? To hedge the response, when we had the gold standard inflation was an issue but the rate of inflation was much much less than it is now.

That is much better. The key to the idea that inflation can be 0 is that, without a cushion of inflation, then prices aren't stable, since they can rapidly decline into deflation. In a highly connected goods, services, and capital markets, this wild gyration adds to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to reduced investments in the future, since people never know what's going to happen.

You see and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Reduced investing means more money will be used for consumption. There's an equal and opposite reaction. Mises advocating that investing allows companies to prop themselves up in the event of stagnation, it takes the burden of responsibility from the company and puts it on the investors.

One of the major reasons why the US capital markets and economy are world leaders is because we try to manage to a certain level of inflation and currency performance.

Yes and what Mises and to a lesser degree Friedman advocated is letting the market or a computer decide the basis of currency performance. Friedman being the advocate for "artificial intelligence" of course Friedman said no man should have this power, which I agree with that. Mises agreed too, but Mises said no computer should have that power either.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'm going to keep reposting the following until one of the RPB's decides to actually answer some/any/all of the questions...

First you must explain why you believe our presence throughout the world is unnecessary to begin with -- perhaps then we can discuss financing.

Unless, of course, your entire justification is fiscal... is that the case? is that the basis for your entire argument against our current strategy of power projection?

1) If that's the case, then roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out beyond the main bullet points?!?

I attempted to reply to your post above even if I intentionally did not give direct answers to your questions. I feel I could not do so due to the fact that we differ in our perceptions on the role our military overseas.

wtf do "our perceptions on the role in our military overseas" have to do with the questions I asked?! I think you need to go back and read them, because not many of them, if any, depend depend upon you and I agreeing philosophically. In fact, most of them are asked from the basis of us agreeing to go forward with the closings...

So, once again, without the bullsh*t excuses, and given RP's "plans," can you please answer the questions?

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

We have given Osama recruiting tools as we attempt to uproot and install our own democracies throughout the middle east. Our intervention has done the exact opposite of what was intended. How one can not see that is beyond me.

Speaking of interventionism, where is that post where you completely misunderstood both world wars, their causes and their consequences?

You tell me, because I'm pretty sure it was indeed our intervention who helped bring Mr. Hitler into power in the 1930's.

Treaty of Versailles. Sanctions are intervention after all, and they are indeed an act of economic warfare.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

Please summarize Friedman's and Mises' positions, in your own terms, as they relate to Ron Paul's plans.

You aren't going to debate him on it so leave it alone. Why do you want to be mister instigator?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre
I would be happy to see a large percentage of our 700 overseas bases closed up. We simply must shave off military spending. I oppose a permanent base in Iraq.

I would be ok with the Fed staying, but I would like to see some more oversight. I think the overspending Congress is a bigger problem.

Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

FED: Not only do I want congressional oversight, I want a regular audit of FED assets. A slow gradual move to hard assets. Then some kind of rule as to how much money can be printed and only in emergencies (clearly defined as: war).


I reserve the right to edit my conditions

Umm, there is a quarterly and annual audit of Fed assets.

Why a move to hard assets? Everybody has already proven that thats a bad system. Furthermore, if it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? What about Austria, the famed home of Mises? If it was such a rocking system and it worked so well, then a country would have adopted it and had been kicking ass.

Yes the Fed's assets are indeed audited. My only argument for the movement to hard assets is the relative hamper it clamps on inflation. I like Mises do not see why inflation has to be part of an economy. What is the point of inflation in a currency, and why is more rampant in a fiat system than one backed by something? To hedge the response, when we had the gold standard inflation was an issue but the rate of inflation was much much less than it is now.

That is much better. The key to the idea that inflation can be 0 is that, without a cushion of inflation, then prices aren't stable, since they can rapidly decline into deflation. In a highly connected goods, services, and capital markets, this wild gyration adds to uncertainty. Uncertainty leads to reduced investments in the future, since people never know what's going to happen.

You see and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Reduced investing means more money will be used for consumption. There's an equal and opposite reaction. Mises advocating that investing allows companies to prop themselves up in the event of stagnation, it takes the burden of responsibility from the company and puts it on the investors.

One of the major reasons why the US capital markets and economy are world leaders is because we try to manage to a certain level of inflation and currency performance.

Yes and what Mises and to a lesser degree Friedman advocated is letting the market or a computer decide the basis of currency performance. Friedman being the advocate for "artificial intelligence" of course Friedman said no man should have this power, which I agree with that. Mises agreed too, but Mises said no computer should have that power either.

Then what is your solution?

Computers fail in that they still depend on man to program them, so their conclusion is false.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Palehorse, you're not bringing much to the discussion by responding to my responses to another poster with "wtf does that have to do with bring our troops home from around the world". It was a response to the post from the other poster.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Just because it the majority doesn't make it right. So I would leave that out of the argument.

Just because someone proposes something 'different' doesn't mean that it's better or even a good idea.

Doesn't mean its the wrong idea either

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me agree with a few hard facts. I would say close 70% of those bases. They arent needed and could save us tons of cash.

on what "hard facts" do you base that percentage? From where was it derived?

Was it www.pulledfromyourass.com?

Seriously... where did you get that number, and which ~490 bases do you plan to close?

Jesus Christ, not getting the fight you wanted earlier mr instigator?


Either I didn't write it correctly or you didn't read it correctly. I agree with Bamacre, but included "hard facts" as to say what I would like to see. I was only trying to give a ballpark as to what I would accept. As for which bases need to be closed? I haven't a clue where to start, but I am sure 70% could be pulled (leaving 210) without harming "national security".

But how are you "sure"? On what strategic analysis did you base your conclusions? what evidence have you been shown that closing ~490 bases would have little or no negative effect on "national security"? On what did you base this "ballpark" of yours?

My point is to demonstrate that you're pulling those numbers from your arse, and that you have not actually conducted an analysis on which to base those conclusions. You have picked a random number of bases to close, or keep, based on absolutely no data or analysis whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but your layman's gut instincts just won't cut it when you're proposing something as drastic as a total 180 degree shift in our global military strategy.

I made bold the most telling sentence in your reply...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

Please summarize Friedman's and Mises' positions, in your own terms, as they relate to Ron Paul's plans.

You aren't going to debate him on it so leave it alone. Why do you want to be mister instigator?

Why wouldn't he? If the other guy was more clear on his policies rather than tossing out two names it might interest more people, or make it easy to understand. You, however, are, more or less, doing what you accused others of.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I'm came to this topic in good faith that LK would engage in a real debate on the issue of the Federal Reserve. I have gotten nothing but a paragraph explaining to me why in his opinion the system is so wonderful. Will I get a retort to my original post?

You didn't do anything but project other people's opinions. They aren't your own, they aren't an idea of your own, nor are they a solution. All you did was post two people's names, not even what they believe in.

So far, you have two names and nothing more. Good job at refuting any of my post. Good job at not even answering my post regarding yours.

Really good start.

Well don't we need to argue the positions of those economists as those are the positions that Ron Paul is advocating? In order to do so don't you agree that you need to understand their alternatives, it will be hard for me to establish a basis of for debate if the person I'm debating doesn't understand the alternative I'm advocating for. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if you have the basis for both understandings before engaging in a debate with someone who doesn't understand the alternative theories we're supposed to be debating.

Please summarize Friedman's and Mises' positions, in your own terms, as they relate to Ron Paul's plans.

You aren't going to debate him on it so leave it alone. Why do you want to be mister instigator?

BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO SEE ONE OF YOU BOTS ARTICULATE SOMETHING ON YOUR OWN FOR A CHANGE!!!!111

wouldn't that be a hoot!? :roll:

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK as far as an actionable plan to abolish the Federal Reserve I have no idea why you expect me to have such a thing at my disposal, I didn't realize that was the premise of the topic at hand. I thought the premise was to defend why such a proposal was not only reasonable but attainable? You were the one who claimed it be loony?

If you are the one to claim it to be loony it should be you who is taken to task to prove as to why it is loony, not the other way around.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Palehorse, you're not bringing much to the discussion by responding to my responses to another poster with "wtf does that have to do with bring our troops home from around the world". It was a response to the post from the other poster.

and you are!? by avoiding every direct question aimed in your direction!?

meh...

 

[palehorse]

duck and weave folks... duck and weave...

once again:

1) Roughly how much money would we save, over time, if we were to close down operations at all 700 foreign bases?

2) What impacts will the closings have on global security and stability? For simplicity's sake, break it down by major regions, or according to our current global Commands. (PACCOM, SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM, CENTCOM, etc)

3) Where will we house all of the troops and equipment back in CONUS? What will they do in their downtime? If you plan to cut troop levels, what size Army, Navy, USAF, and Marine components do you foresee? What will the hundreds of thousands of troops do once they've been laid off?

4) Does this include the NAVY's global operations and foreign bases with ports? Should they stop patrolling the worlds' oceans? What effect will doing so have on the safety of the shipping lanes? How will stopping their missions effect trade?

5) What about those troops who are overseas at the request of a foreign host nation?

6) Do you have the answer to ANY of these questions? Has RP thought ANY of this out, beyond the main soundbites?