Author Topic: Ron Paul  (Read 19004 times)

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #45: December 25, 2011, 10:09:28 PM »
I was like that a day or two ago until I saw a news. Then I realized NDP barely had over 10 seats until the last election.

Shizzle

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1537
  • Skyndarbau, Yusklin, Yarvik, Werend and Kayne
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #46: December 25, 2011, 11:06:18 PM »
If you can only follow the mobs, and vote for the big parties so at least you have a chance of 'winning', you're not even worth your right to vote. It's not because the party you favor can't press on the policy that your vote is lost.

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #47: December 25, 2011, 11:22:35 PM »
So when will the actual election start?

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #48: December 26, 2011, 08:46:32 PM »
America seems to be waking up to the fact it isn't the world's greatest super power any more and I doubt it's going to go down well when it's bundled together with debt, the style of public politics over there and general anger about living standards decreasing/not improving greatly for most people.

I would suggest the issue is even harder.

America is still the world's strongest power, on practically every scale, and is still top-10 in most per capita rankings as well. The difference is that we're not the ONLY power as we have been since '91. The world from 1991 to 2007 or so (the ending date is fuzzy; you could place it anywhere from 2001 to 2008) could be meaningfully divided into three groups: "US," "US Allies," "Irrelevant Backwater." Or at least it seemed like it could be so divided. And anytime an Irrelevant Backwater got uppity, the US and allies could take care of it (Persian Gulf War, Bosnia).

The US is not so much weaker than it was then (in many ways it is stronger); the difference is that great power politics are returning. The Chinese sphere of influence is just one such factor; India is not so far behind. Anxieties over Japan's rise in the '80's were circumstantially misplaced, but reflected a real problem for the US: how to define foreign policy in absence of a clear existential foe. The US historically has either been isolationist or monopolist. We either don't interact, or we are the only game in town (and if there's another game in town, we will fight it, by proxy or otherwise).

The US learning to handle its role as the strongest of several powers is probably more challenging, because the US still has all its strength with which to !@#$ up. A weak US wouldn't !@#$ up as much; a weak US, lacking in military or economic strength, would not be able to launch military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc, or maintain carrier groups in every ocean. But the US remains quite strong, and so can do those things... and so can colossally screw itself.

Debt... yeah. Should be paid off. Or, rather, we need to be shrinking it relative to GDP. IMHO, growth perspectives, even at their rosiest, don't seem good enough to plausibly suggest that "growing out of debt" is possible for the US. That would require stunning amounts of growth that just doesn't seem likely. Inflating out of debt is hypothetically possible right now, but with how much money has already been pumped into the economy, while hyperinflation is no immediate risk, monetary authorities are wise to be careful. Plus, financial institutions are developing adaptive responses to monetary policy, meaning that most of the research of the past 20 years is increasingly irrelevant.

Which leaves the only meaningful way out of debt as fiscal policy, which will further hamper growth.

Or default, of course. Which, while it many ways it would be catastrophic (especially in terms of what it would do to US retirement funds and pension plans, and Chinese ones), most research has suggested that defaulting on debt in large economies with market power, especially if followed by credible policy change, has comparatively small side effects (comparatively, of course, referencing hypothetical costs of paying the pre-default obligation plus future interest).
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Nathan

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #49: December 26, 2011, 11:38:56 PM »
So when will the actual election start?

Define "election". If you mean "when do they start campaigning", then probably January 2009. If you mean "when can people vote", I think that's November next year - an American can probably give you the exact date.

America is still the world's strongest power, on practically every scale

I'm not too sure about that to be honest. Their political weight has been subdued a lot lately, especially with the "last minute" agreement on raising their debt ceiling. That made a lot of countries a little annoyed as it seemed like America was just a big child stamping its foot. Their involvement in Libya wasn't as great as it could have been, they took much more of a back seat in that. Now you're pulling out of Iraq whilst other allies are still there. America's power is failing and, to be honest, I would say China is the world's most powerful at the moment. Just look at their stance on Libya, a lot of countries decided not to get involved because China was the first to say "no, we don't want to". China also holds a darn lot of American debt (as you noted), as well as debt in many other countries. They've also offered to put up money for the Euro crisis. So what they say has a lot of weight from intimidation in Europe and a lot of weight from admiration in Asia. Their military is probably just as well armed as the American military, except they have the funds to be able to deploy it if they wanted to.

But yeah, they're still one of the strongest and always will be - the geographical & population size of the country is too great for it not to be an important player in the world.

Or default, of course. Which, while it many ways it would be catastrophic (especially in terms of what it would do to US retirement funds and pension plans, and Chinese ones), most research has suggested that defaulting on debt in large economies with market power, especially if followed by credible policy change, has comparatively small side effects (comparatively, of course, referencing hypothetical costs of paying the pre-default obligation plus future interest).

Possibly missing out the psychological effects though. Americans come across as very patriotic, much more so than most of the world (let's not get into who is and isn't patriotic though). That level of faith in their country on being "the strongest" in the world would leave ordinary people devastated should the US ever default on its debts. Suddenly the great nation isn't so great, it can't live up to its promises. I would expect that to have a great effect on the ordinary man or woman. So whilst policy changes might aid a default the effects on the people would be felt for many years to come and, whilst I can't find evidence to back this up, I would suspect that it would effect peoples' ability to get themselves out of any holes they may have gotten in to.

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #50: December 27, 2011, 06:42:22 PM »
I'm not too sure about that to be honest. Their political weight has been subdued a lot lately, especially with the "last minute" agreement on raising their debt ceiling.

Honestly, I don't think that matters that much. The reality of it is that US debt yields fell during that crisis, not rose. And even as Europe begins to try to get its house in order, US debt yields remain low. Simply put, all the US' political gridlock is still assessed as more functional, according to almost any measure, than most of Europe. And pretty soon China will join that club. I've been arguing that China will start to face serious problems soon for a while; what is funny is that Paul Krugman, with whom I usually disagree, recently wrote a piece about China being about to face a major negative economic shock as well.

That made a lot of countries a little annoyed as it seemed like America was just a big child stamping its foot.

See "European Union."

Their involvement in Libya wasn't as great as it could have been, they took much more of a back seat in that.

This is laughable. I'll tell you whose involvement wasn't what it could have been: Europe. Panzified half-arsed European pseudo-military wannabes couldn't get the job done in their own back yard. Spain and Italy both have brand-new (2008 and 2010 commissioning) aircraft carriers that they didn't deploy. Italy deployed their small one from the 80's, briefly. France deployed theirs, and practically had to decommission it from wear and tear.

The US shouldn't have needed to do anything in Libya. But Europe is a lackluster washed out power unable to manage its own affairs, so Uncle Sam had to come in and supply the drones, carrier support, in-flight refueling, technical coordination, etc. Europe did better than in the past, but still hilariously poorly. That British SAS unit getting captured by the Libyan rebels was funny too. Frankly, the US did more in Libya than it should have had to, and hopefully European nations will get the signal soon that they need to approximately double their military expenditures and start coordinating better. Libya wasn't a sign of American weakness; overall we performed very well in Libya. Libya will be held up for years in the US as the poster child for successful foreign intervention, compared very positively to Iraq.

Now you're pulling out of Iraq whilst other allies are still there.

That I did not know. Who's still there, and how many of them?

America's power is failing and, to be honest, I would say China is the world's most powerful at the moment.

Perception does not create reality. China is perceived to be strong. They are not in reality as strong as the US. They have 0 carriers. The US has 11. They have a few hundred nukes. The US has a few thousand (and Russia has even more, but they're outdated and poorly maintained). China has no serious deployments of cruisers (actually, I checked wikipedia, they have no cruisers or battleships; their largest ships are destroyers). What stealth technology they have is the product of learning from second-hand salvage of downed American craft. Their economy remains, what, just over 1/3 the size of the US?

In the long run, China could be stronger than the US, if they play their cards right. But if we hypothesize foreign nations' strength being demographically predicated, India is the winner. Younger, faster growth, less of a "baby boom" issue, will ultimately be more populous than China, and a better strategic position in terms of access to resources and markets. India is a natural hegemon without serious competitors in the Indian Ocean besides the US, with whom it has fairly good relations now, Australia, who are US allies, and Indonesia, whose competitition consists of trying not to be subsumed into an Indian sphere of influence.


Just look at their stance on Libya, a lot of countries decided not to get involved because China was the first to say "no, we don't want to".

Yes, China leads a meaningful power bloc or sphere of influence. As I said, the world is no longer unipolar; there are multiple powers. But arguing that China's support among a serious of mostly weak nations whose economies are dependency-driven makes it a world power is funny. How many nations that backed out would have sent meaningful military aid if China hadn't backed out?

China also holds a darn lot of American debt (as you noted), as well as debt in many other countries.

To parphrase Keynes, "If you owe China one dollar, China owns you. But if you own China $2.3 trillion, you own China." Sovereign debt holdings are hilariously bad indicators of power. In fact, China holding lots of US debt would serve as incentive for the US not to service its debt, if we presume a model wherein the US and China must be in competition. Debt from small countries is a very real power; I don't know what China's sovereign debt portfolio looks like. I imagine that information isn't publicly available, at least not all in one place. But for large nations, it's the opposite. Plus, China sits on a lot of USD... which is awesome. China sitting on USD gives the US more flexibility in economic policy, especially the monetary side, where it's like having a money-sink. China sitting on USD is literally like us paying them for goods, then them lighting the dollar bills on fire.

There's only one place China can meaningfully spend all their dollars they earn: the US. The US' status as a reserve currency slightly mitigates the economic weight of this currency effect, but increases the monetary effect. If China actually started using that money, the US might run a trade surplus... and China would run even more of a deficit.

They've also offered to put up money for the Euro crisis. So what they say has a lot of weight from intimidation in Europe and a lot of weight from admiration in Asia.

They have indeed, which was very interesting. Did they actually end up giving any money in the end? I didn't finish following that story.

However, their power to intimidate in Europe is not a product of China's absolute strength, but of Europe's absolute weakness, leading to relative strength for China. If Europe had a stronger military and less of a deserve to fight political civil wars every few years, it wouldn't be so weak.

Their military is probably just as well armed as the American military, except they have the funds to be able to deploy it if they wanted to.

The US has plenty of money to deploy whenever and wherever it is needed. Reports of America's demise are greatly exaggerated.

And being "just as well armed" is hilarious. I don't feel like looking up all the stats, but I'm reasonably confident that the US outguns China in every single category imagineable for military gear except absolute manpower.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #51: December 27, 2011, 07:44:04 PM »
China cannot be compared to the US just yet. China is way too unstable. Over half of their population is still living under poverty, and they treat other non Chinese population living in China badly. There are way too many problems which China has to overcome. If it does not do that, they can say good bye to the 21st century being the century of China.

Every country goes through a cycle. I think the average length of peak is 80 ~ 120 years? The US was not even considered a super power before WW 1. Unlike other countries with richer histories, a country formed by immigrants need something to pull their citizens together. I think I read an article a long time ago saying how the US does this with their flag. Unlike the Western countries, the Eastern countries have one major population group in their countries and people look alike as well giving them a sense of unity. This generally leads to racism and with some government propaganda, people become pretty patriotic. They also use history as a tool of propaganda as well.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 07:54:25 PM by Zakilevo »

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #52: January 11, 2012, 04:59:34 AM »
Ron Paul not at 24-25%. Just have to bring down Mitt Romney!

GoldPanda

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #53: January 15, 2012, 04:47:48 AM »
words

Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
------
qui audet vincit

Zakilevo

  • Guest
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #54: January 15, 2012, 05:08:58 AM »
He is not planning to reduce the military size. I think he is just trying to bring soldiers home. America is running an empire and falling apart because of it.

Perth

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Current Character: Kemen
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #55: January 15, 2012, 05:40:02 AM »
Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

1. I'm not sure how Vellos simply recognizing the reality of American military supremacy around the world would negates him from supporting any particular political viewpoint. He was mostly just stating fact, not commenting whether it should or should not be so.

2. I don't Ron Paul has ever said he wants to whittle down the military to just protect U.S. territories. I am pretty sure he advocates a very strong national defense. His primary foreign policy issue is that there is a big difference having great national defense capable of defending our home and striking out at our enemies if needed, and permanently and constantly exerting military influence all the time in all places around the world. But, mostly what he has harped on in this campaign has been "bring the troops home" and "stop effing stuff up abroad."
"A tale is but half told when only one person tells it." - The Saga of Grettir the Strong
- Current: Kemen (D'hara) - Past: Kerwin (Eston), Kale (Phantaria, Terran, Melodia)

Vellos

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Stodgy Old Man in Training
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #56: January 16, 2012, 01:49:47 AM »
Vellos, how can you say all this and support Paul? You know that he wants to whittle down the US military to just enough to protect US territories, right? That probably means the US will no longer have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.

What Perth said.

Also... where did I say I'm an especially strong supporter of Ron Paul? I worked for him in 2008 briefly; I was downright passionate about him. I still find him a very interesting candidate representing a valuable point of view, and he has many policies with which I do agree. But I disagree with many as well.

Most importantly with a figure like Paul, however, is that any support I do have for him his ultimately not derivative from his policy positions in detail, but from the fact that he is one of the only candidates on either side who represents a known commodity. He can make the most credible "I promise X" statements of any candidate. And I respect him a great deal as a man and a political figure, even aside from any disagreements.
"A neutral humanism is either a pedantic artifice or a prologue to the inhuman." - George Steiner