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

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
This thread needs it's own - there are too many embedded arguments going on, so this can be the cagematch thread. Please keep insults to a minimum and discuss the two issues...

I will post my opinions shortly.

PS: I feel special, having my own RP thread.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I'll start off with my traditional post.


Here's a nice dose of reality for RPbots who think the Fed is evil. Try to reply to it, if you can.


1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system. *Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system. This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of. Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

People think that the Fed should be abolished and that Congress should take over managing the currency. Sure. Perhaps 200 years ago when we didn't vote in dipshits. However, the short-term nature of Congressional "worries" (aka, getting re-elected) and the long-term concern of managing the economy, are not congruent. Thus, the two should absolutely be delinked.

The Fed is also very secret because, if it weren't, then the markets would be extremely volatile. Looking into the Fed on a minute basis would be akin to allowing people direct access to *every* board of directors of *every* company for *every* meeting. That would introduce tremendous problems, as people tossing around ideas, problems, solutions, and long-term projections would then be prone to conjecture in the market. The financial markets would be so stutter-stopped and jagged by the news that risk would skyrocket. Asking for a lot more transparency would stifle the Fed's ability to manage thigns on a long-term basis.

The Fed pays the government more than 80bn in revenue per year. *ALL* profits go to the government. Profits are from revenues on lending money to all banks, that money is from member banks and the government. The interest charged by the Fed, from banks, is then dividended out to the member banks (they deserve return for their lending), the remainder goes to the government.

2. Get a clue about the "government". WE spend the money the way WE want it. People try to pretend that the government is not representative of us, yet we vote them in. The Fed acts in accordance with the needs of the government, which passes laws to spend. WE vote in those who pass the laws. As soon as WE learn that WE need to either cut spending or raise taxes, then WE will not have to borrow.

3. Inflation doesn't occur just because currency circulation increases. If that were the case then we'd be facing drastically increasing inflation. Money can and should grow with the economic growth of the country. The more goods, services, and wealth in the country, the more currency should be circulated. Otherwise you are in a deflationary system.

Inflation occurs for several reasons. That includes growth resulting in wage increases which then floats into the system. It's also caused by the input of foreign goods into the system, which may be increasing in price (importing inflation). There are dozens of other reasons.

4. The problem with the Fed is that it has the problem of trying to balance short-term movements with long-term projections using historical events. Anybody who is a quantitative person involved in statistics knows that history is a very imperfect predictor of the future. You are always behind the curve. When inflation finally rears it's ugly head, it's too late and you are trying to play catch-up. AFAIK the only time the Fed was able to head off inflation was the mid 90's when they did pre-emptive rate increases, which turned out to be very accurate. However, those were gut feelings, not exact data driven events.

Furthermore, economics, at it's heart, is still an art, not a science. It is impossible to gauge human psychology when it comes down to these events. Thus, managing the growth of an economy that is unpredictable and un projectionable is more or less an impossible task.

Thus, the movements of the Fed are imperfect. Additionally, they will never be popular because everybody wants growth to be predictable. However, irrational exuberance, irrational pessimism, and the bubble mindset make it impossible to predict exactly how to stimulate or reign in the economy.

Additionally, the very nature of the Fed is to try to be as hands-off as possible without letting the economy run rampant. However, the ability of the economy to go through boom and busts have led to some of the greatest inventions and times of innovation and genius this country has ever seen. This destructive creativism is essential to continuing a modern country.

Blame the Fed all you want for the problems. However, until you come up with a viable and implementable solution, then shut the fuck up. I am sure some dipshit will go on and on about gold. But guess what? Gold is a commodity that is prone to speculation worse than a currency. It's deflationary in nature. It's inflexible, as the 1930's proved since *ALL* countries still o nthe gold standard took, on average, about 5 more years to even begin to recover.

Our currency is backed by something a lot less problematic, the US economy, the US military, and US innovation. It may not be fungible like gold, but is sure as hell gives you a vested interest.



In conclusion, let me ask people this. If the Fed, with a Fiat currency, were so evil and the root of all inflation, then how was inflation caused in the 1960s and 1970s when the Fed had far less control over rates. It had far less power to put bills into the market. The government had essentially no debt and the amount of currency into circulation. How then, was the Fed able to raise rates and get inflation under control so quickly? I thought the Fed was evil and wanted inflation?

What then, about years prior to that? When inflation was unpredictable, wild, high, low, inflationary, deflationary, and the economy was much more difficult to manage? Was that such a great time then? Additionally, you are talking about 100 years ago when managing an economy 1/200th the size was relatively easy. Now, using the same system, woudl be impossible and would lead to our collapse.

You people are so f'ing ignorant of the facts of the Fed, it's purpose, economcis, and above all, HISTORY and HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY.


I edited out the "insulting" parts so RPBs don't get their undies in a bunch.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
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.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
I actually don't think the Congress should run the production of currency (neither does Ron Paul BTW), I think they should have oversight but run, no. You see your entire paragraph ignores the possibility that Mises and the Austrians do have a viable alternative. Of course it's theory, but one that does indeed sound interesting. I think we 1st must look at the system we had prior to the FED and investigate who, why, when, and where the Fed was created and for what purpose. What was wrong the system prior to the Fed, and why do Economists like Mises and Friedman want to get rid of it?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.


Tell me how can we afford to keep all of this.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
I think that RP has several decent ideas, but I really see most of them as short-term solutions to bigger problems. I don't think that bringing the troops home is wacky idea at all. I don't think it's a particularly good idea, but I don't think it makes him a loon.

RP's solution to most things is to disband the government and America's infrastructure. Get rid of this, get rid of that. It's all quite extreme, and I think it appeals to those people who want to think of only the here and now. Does our government need a lot of work? Hell yeah. Should we pull it apart piece-by-piece? No way - what's the end goal of that?

Strict constitutionalism can be a very commendable thing, but it's very limiting when it comes to modern day issues. It's sort of like the Bible. There are those that feel that the Constitution or Bible provide us with all of the answers that we need. There are those that don't.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,733
6,758
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

What if the crises are those important to human evolution, like throwing off dictators? What if we deter needed change? What if supporting stability is supporting an evil status quo? Are we into power for wealth?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Just forget it. None of the Paulbots can explain any of Paul's ranting and looning.

Here's a simple one. What will he do without the CIA/FBI/NSA/Homeland Security? How will he protect this country?

I'll say it again. Paul has some things I agree with - the guy's a Conservative, no bones about it. But his extreme stance on foreign policy and certain areas of domestic policy, combined with the lunacy of his Paulbots and spammers are too much.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I actually don't think the Congress should run the production of currency (neither does Ron Paul BTW), I think they should have oversight but run, no. You see your entire paragraph ignores the possibility that Mises and the Austrians do have a viable alternative. Of course it's theory, but one that does indeed sound interesting. I think we 1st must look at the system we had prior to the FED and investigate who, why, when, and where the Fed was created and for what purpose. What was wrong the system prior to the Fed, and why do Economists like Mises and Friedman want to get rid of it?

What, specifically, would you propose? What are your specific problems with the Fed? Do not quote Friedman, come up with your own ideas.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

We neither have the moral responsibility, nor the economy to maintain this "projection of power" surely you understand that the people that say we do "need" this are somewhat biased as well.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Just forget it. None of the Paulbots can explain any of Paul's ranting and looning.

Here's a simple one. What will he do without the CIA/FBI/NSA/Homeland Security? How will he protect this country?

Ron Paul has not publicly stated he'd like to see the abolishment of the NSA. My response to this is how many intelligence agencies do we realistically need? Every branch of our armed forces also has an intelligence agency. As far as the FBI goes he was actually misquoted, but to each his own. Homeland Security and the CIA are the thorns in the side Ron Paul truly espouses to abolish and I happen to agree with him wholeheartedly.

I'll say it again. Paul has some things I agree with - the guy's a Conservative, no bones about it. But his extreme stance on foreign policy and certain areas of domestic policy, combined with the lunacy of his Paulbots and spammers are too much.

I disagree with the assertion that his views are somehow extreme, they are indeed conservative to the core. It's the extremist who have taken control and run rampant with what they say we need

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

As a challenge to the RP camp, please explain to me how the above strategy of power projection is flawed, and present your case for bringing EVERY troop and piece of equipment back to the continental United States.

I will formulate a thorough rebuttal based on your response.

Tell me how can we afford to keep all of this.
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?!?
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Elimination of the Federal Reserve is one of the singular dumbest political movements I've heard of in a long time. The principles of an arms-length agency controlling the nation's money supply and managing inflation and the exchange rate aren't unique to the United States. Practically every developed nation in the world uses the central bank scheme, meaning that tens of thousands of trained economists worldwide agree that the idea is a good one. That the obstetrician Ron Paul thinks otherwise is, well, you'd think people would know better.

You folks could stand to rearrange a lot of the forces and financial contributions you've got spread out in the world. Perhaps Japan or Germany would be prime targets to a reassignment of deployment (actually scratch Germany, that's a invaluable training and staging area). However, going overboard and "bringing them all home" is nothing short of idiotic. You may decry interventionism, but jumping on a problem while it's small and manageable instead of large and unwieldy is a smart move. It's not even that military might has to get expended. The knowledge that U.S. diplomats can back up their words with more than just sanctions is what drives a lot of nations to be reasonable.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

I was unaware that we had 698 other crisis this side of Iraq and Afghanistan. Enlighten me (speaking figuratively to your "700 foreign military bases" post that is).
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I find it ironic that RP proposes we eliminate most government agencies in favor of private control with limited government regulation -- yet, that's essentially what we have with the the Federal Reserve, concerning our currency, and he wants it abolished... !?

odd that...
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
legend, you got completely owned with your copy/paste job in post #2 a few months back. I wish I could find the thread..

Every point you made was debunked...especially #2. The idea that banks owning shares in the fed makes it a "public" organization is laughable at best.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

I was unaware that we had 698 other crisis this side of Iraq and Afghanistan. Enlighten me (speaking figuratively to your "700 foreign military bases" post that is).
Supposedly, that's the rough number of foreign military bases/facilities we're currently operating throughout the world. RP want to close and dismantle ALL of them, and bring ALL of our troops and equipment home -- not just from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ron Paul's "plan" is to withdraw the entire US military back to the continental United States.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
legend, you got completely owned with your copy/paste job in post #2 a few months back. I wish I could find the thread..

Every point you made was debunked...especially #2. The idea that banks owning shares in the fed makes it a "public" organization is laughable at best.

Is it? Then counter every one. to say it's private is just as laughable, especially in the context loonies try to paint it.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
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.
 

Rockinacoustic

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2006
2,460
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: palehorse74
The United States Department of Defense defines "power projection" as the following:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

I was unaware that we had 698 other "crisis" this side of Iraq and Afghanistan. Enlighten me (speaking figuratively to your "700 foreign military bases" post that is).
Supposedly, that's the rough number of foreign military bases/facilities we're currently operating throughout the world. RP want to close and dismantle ALL of them, and bring ALL of our troops and equipment home -- not just from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ron Paul's "plan" is to withdraw the entire US military back to the continental United States.

You missed my sarcasm. Notice the quotations around "crisis" now ;)
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Having a dollar backed by something other than debt?

Using the defense budget for DEFENSE?

Yep...real wacky.