Two Last Whacks at Rep. Ron Paul
Okay, they won't be the last if he stays in. But some have politely questioned my ability to go lower and lower down the GOP evolutionary ladder -- I'll soon be singing the praises of worms! Time to take another look at a man of boundless principle, Representative Ron Paul?
No, thanks. (Worms really are underappreciated...)
Two great articles today express my concerns without my syrupy prose or bad typing: Marinating in 'Decline' by Bret Stephens and The Benefits of Hegemony by Arnold Kling.
Hegemony makes the argument I have made, without invoking the name of Deepak Lal. The type of modern, global trade I want (Lal's Liberal International Economic Order) simply cannot prosper without somebody playing World Police. I don't see anybody else stepping up. Kling ends with a pretty thoughtful rebuttal of the anarcho-capatalist claims that iPod's 47 different countries' parts will come together just as freely under protection of pirates than of the USMC.
If I am correct, then the markets in ancient Rome were filled whenever the legions came home with loads of plunder. Otherwise, the markets would have been relatively empty.
What I suspect is that over the past several hundred years, the production/plunder ratio has increased dramatically. That is, in a typical ancient market, most of the goods for sale were plundered by the imperial armies. Only a few goods for sale were produced voluntarily by citizens. In a modern economy, the ratio of production to plunder is far higher.
Bret Stephens's piece speaks to my other concern with Paul. His insistence that we are broke, we cannot continue, we're borrowing too much, we're...
Stephens traces the roots of this line of thought:
In 1788, Massachusetts playwright Mercy Otis Warren took one look at the (unratified) U.S. Constitution and declared that "we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of confusion and violence." This, roughly, is the origin of American declinism -- and it's been downhill ever since.
And follows with some modern statistics which belie it:
Yet each of these assumptions collapses on a moment's inspection. In his 2006 book "Überpower," German writer Josef Joffe makes the following back-of-the-envelope calculation: "Assume that the Chinese economy keeps growing indefinitely at a rate of seven percent, the average of the past decade (for which history knows of no example). . . . At that rate, China's GDP would double every decade, reaching parity with today's United States ($12 trillion) in thirty years. But the U.S. economy is not frozen into immobility. By then, the United States, growing at its long-term rate of 2.5 percent, would stand at $25 trillion."
Now take military expenditures. Yesterday, the administration released its budget proposal for 2009, which includes $515.4 billion for the regular defense budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this would be the largest defense appropriation since World War II. Yet it amounts to about 4% of GDP, as compared to 14% during the Korean War, 9.5% during the Vietnam War and 6% in the Reagan administration. Throw in the Iraq and Afghanistan supplementals, and total projected defense spending is still only 4.5% of GDP -- an easily afforded sum even by Prof. Kennedy's terms.
We're not broke because the world wants to invest in US Securities. But we would be considerably poorer if we did not hold up our oversized but necessary portion of the defense of worldwide, liberal trade.
GOP2008 Primary
Posted by jk at February 5, 2008 5:08 PM
Actually, the U.S. is nowhere near "not broke." A person is not "broke" because of mere borrowing. A person is broke because he is not producing enough, and if he borrows on top of that, he's *still* broke because he'll never be able to pay back the debt. Once he starts producing again, *then* he's "not broke." Right now, the U.S. economy is certainly continuing to produce a lot, but if you'd never hear that listening to the MSM.
Whether it's our Treasury securities, our equities or our real estate, the U.S. is the investment magnet of the world *by default*. It's like someone running a 100-meter race in 11 seconds: not bad, but not the best, except that everyone else ran slower.
Our economy is going along despite the fact that it's hamstrung by our governmental policies, and the policies just keep getting worse. So much capital is taken from the private sector that it's a miracle we're not like France. But because Japan is still struggling after nearly two decades, and Europe doesn't have sufficient places to attract investment, foreigners look to us. And as Don Luskin has pointed out, no small reason is that the Fed has created so many dollars, where else are foreigners going to save them but U.S. Treasury securities?
As I said before in comments,
"Right now, the U.S. economy is just damned lucky that China (with Japan and South Korea to a lesser extent) wants to continue buying our Treasury securities. The dollar is losing value in the short-term, but Asians are betting on our long-term growth. By the time the Chinese will roll over one of our matured 30-years that they bought today, much of Europe will likely be deep into poor economic growth, stemming from its rapidly aging society. Japan has an even worse demographic problem, so it similarly puts its faith in American investments. But all that could change if the Fed makes things bad enough."
With any other factor than the Fed, Paul would be wrong. But that's his main harping point, and he is correct. The Fed is continually wrecking the dollar's value, which is now "balancing" the U.S. current account deficit, but in the worst way possible. It's not doing our domestic economy any favors, nor is it doing favors to foreigners who want to invest in dollar-denominated assets.
I haven't read Kling's full writing, but he forgets the simple fact that people today produce in *excess* of what they consume. Thus when something is plundered, it's not as critical. If you produce $10 worth of goods and $5 is stolen, that's incredibly bad. If $50 is stolen but you produce $1000, that's not as bad. Today, people tolerate extremely high levels of theft when *government* is the main plunderer. I don't know about the rest of you, but half of my 2007 income was stolen by various forms of taxation. They tend to compound each other, too, so that I pay property and sales taxes using income that was already taxed. If I take money out of a liquid savings account to invest in stocks, that money was already taxed, and it will be taxed again when I sell for a profit. Bandits never implement such complex levels of tribute: they just take off the top and make it simple.
I won't argue that we need a strong military today, but really, how much is enough? I suggest you reread some Bastiat and consider that "only" 4.5% of GDP is money that could be spent on other things. When government has the unlimited means to spend, it has no reason to restrain itself.
http://www.threesources.com/archives/004223.html
We've been through this before, and your argument basically comes down to a fictitious necessity of a supremely powerful military, so that people will feel confident enough to trade internationally. That has helped somewhat, but *the* reason international trade has increased isn't because of law enforcement, but by technology allowing us to travel further in less time. The reason we can get fresh-cut flowers from South America isn't because our military is protecting the airports, but because of jets and communication that allow us to place orders and transport things overnight.
So I ask you again, whose offer of protection is the worse deal? Chiquita is finding it cheaper, and *effective*, to buy off the terrorists who'd otherwise kidnap and kill their workers. The Colombian government not just won't do anything, but *can't* do a blessed thing to protect them.
Like I said, "It is, though, not a cry for the necessity of government, but for the necessity of entrepreneurs having some sort of confidence that they can ultimately enjoy the fruits of their labor." Confidence that you can trade successfully does *not* require a gargantuan military, let alone active protection. The confidence relies on *passive* protection, the promise that you or hired bodyguards or the government can do something *if and when* someone attacks you.
Actually, the U.S. is nowhere near "not broke." A person is not "broke" because of mere borrowing. A person is broke because he is not producing enough, and if he borrows on top of that, he's *still* broke because he'll never be able to pay back the debt. Once he starts producing again, *then* he's "not broke." Right now, the U.S. economy is certainly continuing to produce a lot, but if you'd never hear that listening to the MSM.
Whether it's our Treasury securities, our equities or our real estate, the U.S. is the investment magnet of the world *by default*. It's like someone running a 100-meter race in 11 seconds: not bad, but not the best, except that everyone else ran slower.
Our economy is going along despite the fact that it's hamstrung by our governmental policies, and the policies just keep getting worse. So much capital is taken from the private sector that it's a miracle we're not like France. But because Japan is still struggling after nearly two decades, and Europe doesn't have sufficient places to attract investment, foreigners look to us. And as Don Luskin has pointed out, no small reason is that the Fed has created so many dollars, where else are foreigners going to save them but U.S. Treasury securities?
As I said before in comments,
"Right now, the U.S. economy is just damned lucky that China (with Japan and South Korea to a lesser extent) wants to continue buying our Treasury securities. The dollar is losing value in the short-term, but Asians are betting on our long-term growth. By the time the Chinese will roll over one of our matured 30-years that they bought today, much of Europe will likely be deep into poor economic growth, stemming from its rapidly aging society. Japan has an even worse demographic problem, so it similarly puts its faith in American investments. But all that could change if the Fed makes things bad enough."
With any other factor than the Fed, Paul would be wrong. But that's his main harping point, and he is correct. The Fed is continually wrecking the dollar's value, which is now "balancing" the U.S. current account deficit, but in the worst way possible. It's not doing our domestic economy any favors, nor is it doing favors to foreigners who want to invest in dollar-denominated assets.
I haven't read Kling's full writing, but he forgets the simple fact that people today produce in *excess* of what they consume. Thus when something is plundered, it's not as critical. If you produce $10 worth of goods and $5 is stolen, that's incredibly bad. If $50 is stolen but you produce $1000, that's not as bad. Today, people tolerate extremely high levels of theft when *government* is the main plunderer. I don't know about the rest of you, but half of my 2007 income was stolen by various forms of taxation. They tend to compound each other, too, so that I pay property and sales taxes using income that was already taxed. If I take money out of a liquid savings account to invest in stocks, that money was already taxed, and it will be taxed again when I sell for a profit. Bandits never implement such complex levels of tribute: they just take off the top and make it simple.
I won't argue that we need a strong military today, but really, how much is enough? I suggest you reread some Bastiat and consider that "only" 4.5% of GDP is money that could be spent on other things. When government has the unlimited means to spend, it has no reason to restrain itself.
http://www.threesources.com/archives/004223.html
We've been through this before, and your argument basically comes down to a fictitious necessity of a supremely powerful military, so that people will feel confident enough to trade internationally. That has helped somewhat, but *the* reason international trade has increased isn't because of law enforcement, but by technology allowing us to travel further in less time. The reason we can get fresh-cut flowers from South America isn't because our military is protecting the airports, but because of jets and communication that allow us to place orders and transport things overnight.
So I ask you again, whose offer of protection is the worse deal? Chiquita is finding it cheaper, and *effective*, to buy off the terrorists who'd otherwise kidnap and kill their workers. The Colombian government not just won't do anything, but *can't* do a blessed thing to protect them.
Like I said, "It is, though, not a cry for the necessity of government, but for the necessity of entrepreneurs having some sort of confidence that they can ultimately enjoy the fruits of their labor." Confidence that you can trade successfully does *not* require a gargantuan military, let alone active protection. The confidence relies on *passive* protection, the promise that you or hired bodyguards or the government can do something *if and when* someone attacks you.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 5, 2008 10:56 PMI recently found what I consider to be the ultimate explanation of what is wrong with Libertarianism and I intend to share it with all the nice folks real soon, once the campaignin' excitement ebbs somewhat.
For now, though, it is late and I'll just let it suffice to say that the 'Ron Paul for President' flyer being distributed at the caucus tonight carried the endorsement of Rep. Barbara Hagan, former Chair, New Hampshire Right to Life Committee: "Pro-Lifers should support Ron Paul for President."
So this supposed paragon of individual liberty opposes a woman's right to own and control her own body? P'shaaaw.
Posted by: johngalt at February 6, 2008 1:12 AMWelcome back, Perry (everyone should see his pix).
I hate to respond to a well reasoned debate with a personal anecdote, but I was 20 (and pretty non-political) when President Reagan took over the Executive from President Carter. And it was truly morning in America.
Reagan's fiscal policy was better, he told Volker to keep a firm hand on inflation, I prefer his policies. But the best part was replacing Carter's hairshirt pronouncements (wear a sweater, we can no longer afford heat) with can do, sunny, optimism.
Sadly today's GOP candidates all follow Reagan by saying "I'm an optimist" which is not really the same thing. HB's awesome Drew Carey post captures it well. Pessimistic hyperbole is not likely to fix the real problems and real challenges we face.
On the Anarcho-capitalism front, I'm just not buying. I've read some powerful arguments. Great for Dole on their bananas (Mmm, bananas...) I don't think it scales to iPods. I don't think the infrastructure you credit can be built without implicit insurance that warlords and terrorists will not take it or destroy it.
JG: Reason has been on him for his pro-life positions and his immigration policy (hint: it's yours, not mine). All the same, he is pretty much the real deal from a limited government perspective.
Posted by: jk at February 6, 2008 11:20 AMAll right, after skimming through Stephens' ridiculous article, there's only one thing to say:
Stephens is full of it. He has a point about the perpetual defeatism that some people have, but Mercy Warren was not one of them. Stephens either has no idea what the hell Warren was talking about, or he purposely took this quote out of context. Warren was *not* talking about America falling into a superpower decline, contrary to the absurd insinuation that Stephens makes by linking it with contemporary quotes.
Like Patrick Henry and many others opposed to the Constitution, Warren believed that the new federal government was *too strong*, and that this *government* would merely succeed George III as tyrant. *That* is why he wrote what he did. The full quote:
"...extremes of confusion and violence, in consequence of the proceedings of a set of gentlemen, who disregarding the purposes of their appointment, have assumed powers unauthorised by any commission, have unnecessarily rejected the confederation of the United States, and annihilated the sovereignty and independence of the individual governments. -- The causes which have inspired a few men assembled for very different purposes with such a degree of temerity as to break with a single stroke the union of America, and disseminate the seeds of discord through the land may be easily investigated, when we survey the partizans of monarchy in the state conventions, urging the adoption of a mode of government that militates with the former professions and exertions of this country, and with all ideas of republicanism, and the equal rights of men."
Here's a free history lesson for Stephens, and the rest of you may likewise learn. The Constitution itself, sans amendments, creates a federal government with no explicit limitation of powers. That's extremely dangerous. Federalists argued the reverse, that it was fine because the Articles' specific lists of federal powers implied limitation. In other words, they wanted people to trust that government would limit itself. Patrick Henry knew better than that, and it took a few years before he and others could press Madison into drafting a Bill of Rights -- particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which don't matter today anyway because they're just ignored by the courts, but that's another topic.
I've known this since I was 11. What's Stephens' excuse, or was the quote a snippet he came across once, deciding to save for later use though it meant taking it out of literal and historical context?
Now, as I said to someone the other day, optimism must be tempered by reality. Then again, that was in the context of expecting our home team to lose badly in the Super Bowl. It doesn't mean wringing your hands and surrendering, but it means looking at the whole picture.
Reagan's optimism was not about ignoring problems, but by recognizing that Really Bad S*** was happening, and not just that we had to do something about it, but that we could. Today, we must recognize that the U.S. is on an unsustainable course. Government fiscal policies are hamstringing our growth by discouraging people from producing, whether it's taxing me or giving my money to welfare queens, and discouraging. Our budget deficit is presently manageable, but that's partly with borrowing from Social Security. Never mind that the trust fund will be broke in 2017 (because it will have to start redeeming bonds, meaning getting money *from* the federal government instead of lending money). The trust fund's surplus will peak in 2009, meaning less money for the federal government to borrow, and more money it must borrow externally. So what does Bush do? He offers a $3.1 trillion budget. By the time the Democrats get the spending they want, and Bush acquiesces so long as Republicans can get the spending they want, it'll probably mean $3.5 trillion of total spending.
On the monetary side, it's not much better. My undergrad thesis was on the current account deficit, and I was a bit Keynesian about it, but the bottom line is that the pace is unsustainable. Right now, the current account deficit is correcting when it doesn't inherently have to. Contrary to what that economics ignoramus Warren Buffett says, trade never needs to be balanced. Anyway, this is happening about five years after most Keynesians started expecting it to correct. I wrote in my thesis that intentionally devaluing the dollar can bring the current account into balance, and the Fed is doing that right now. To paraphrase what I wrote, the cure's effects are as bad as the disease's symptoms: inflation on the domestic side that makes domestically produced goods and services more expensive; a reduced ability to buy imports; and reduced exports for the other side, reducing their income. This means a lower standard of living for both sides.
This isn't hyperbole. It's reality that we're heading down a dangerous path, where central bankers reduce our wealth and government takes what's left.
So tell me, how does the American military implicitly make all participants feel confident enough to produce iPods? Is it actively protecting shipping lanes and airports? Is it guarding factories? Are semi-conductor factory workers in Singapore and Malaysia even worried about bandits coming in? Or Chinese? No, and most probably aren't even conscious of American military might. Even Americans aren't necessarily consciously confident in today's world that someone will protect them. We're all used to the safety of modern times, that's all. Part of it is law enforcement, but a lot of it is that technology allows us to evade bandits. Traveling along the old Boston Post Road 200 years ago, I might have fallen prey to a highwayman. Today, carjackings do occur, but it's difficult, and generally only when people stop.
You're still giving too much credit to government for "saving" us, when it comes at tremendous expense -- which we pay for. It doesn't matter how people become confident enough to trade. Let them be free to choose, and they'll pick the most cost-effective way. For Chiquita Banana, it was to pay off the bandits that government couldn't fight. As another example, the Sicilian Mafia was ironically born out of a law enforcement necessity. Government couldn't and/or wouldn't protecting the common people, but certain "leaders" emerged who had a comparative advantage in violence. The Mafia emerged in America's 19th century Italian neighborhoods, when the police generally wouldn't do anything for Italian victims of crime, if the police weren't the perpetrators to begin with. Part of the origins of the gun control movement was to disarm Italian immigrants who resorted to self-defense against the Irish, who in New York and Chicago comprised a lot of the police.
The Mafia, you realize, makes it far easier to pay tribute. Modern government makes so many levels that it would boggle our Founding Fathers' minds. I should have added previously, when you're paid by a company, that company has already been taxed itself, and it passes along any sales taxes to you. The local don only take from right off the top.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 6, 2008 8:36 PMThat should have been, "The Mafia RE-emerged in America's 19th century Italian neighborhoods."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 6, 2008 8:37 PMAppreciate the tip on Mercy Warren. To be fair to Stephens, he chose the quote for the date, to show that defeatism predates the Republic. I'm sure many of the defeatists were right.
But I don't think that's the point. If you consider Madisonian Democracy a failure because our government is too big, then you may join the defeatists. I long for 19th Century government, mid-20th Century civility and 21st Century technology. But all and all, I am prepared to call the American experiment a success.
I also believe there were credible arguments enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights. I'm glad to have them but think you are unfair in your criticism of the opposition. But that's an aside.
Reagan faced down the bad s*** with sunny optimism. Rep Ron Paul (whom, I must point out, is not mentioned in your comment) whines. "We're Broke! We gotta stop this because we can't afford it anymore! Just the Chinese and printin' money that keeps us afloat!" I don't remember President Reagan doing that. He poked his opponents with wit and style.
I'd have to look at the list of 47 countries where iPod components are manufactured again. But I'm betting Taiwan and South Korea are on it. There is an explicit agreement that the US will protect their sovereignty and an implicit understanding that America would intervene to defend shipping and trade around the world.
What would be the state of trade with Europe had the US not stood up to fascism and communism? A big free trade region of happy Nazis and Bolsheviks making earbuds for 14 cents a pair?
If only a third of the 47 nations are free to manufacture and trade, the cost of the iPod goes up. Double the price and the iPod is no longer marketable.
Clearly, Rep. Ron Paul is a threat to the iPod.
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2008 2:48 PM"If you consider Madisonian Democracy a failure because our government is too big, then you may join the defeatists."
In fact, Madison never advocated democracy, but a republic. Democracy inherently is a failure, because it allows the majority's will to rule in all cases, regardless of individual rights. A republic guarantees the rights of the individual against the majority, no matter how overwhelming. It was Andrew Jackson who advocated "democracy" more, because his support was more "populist" than the Founding Fathers, but even so he never believed in full "democracy" that could override the individual's rights.
Your definition of "defeatist" is too general. Or are you really calling me a "defeatist" because I think we have serious problems that can nonetheless be fixed? You're lumping me and Mercy Warren with the pure anti-Americans that were quoted. The difference is that Warren and I love this country and want it to succeed. When it shows signs of failure, we weep but want to fix it. The others whom Stephen quoted, well, are joyful when America has problems.
"I long for 19th Century government, mid-20th Century civility and 21st Century technology. But all and all, I am prepared to call the American experiment a success."
Considering that the federal government already began expanding beyond its Constitutional limits in the early 1800s, and began passing purely unconstitutional legislation like the Alien & Sedition Acts, I long for no later than late 18th century constitutional government. I don't care about civility, because sometimes people do need to be told what to do to themselves.
"I also believe there were credible arguments enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights. I'm glad to have them but think you are unfair in your criticism of the opposition. But that's an aside."
The opposition was simply naive to think that government would voluntarily limit itself. Do you discipline a child by giving him a specific list of things to do, and then expecting him
"Reagan faced down the bad s*** with sunny optimism. Rep Ron Paul (whom, I must point out, is not mentioned in your comment) whines. "We're Broke! We gotta stop this because we can't afford it anymore! Just the Chinese and printin' money that keeps us afloat!" I don't remember President Reagan doing that. He poked his opponents with wit and style."
I didn't have to mention Paul by name when addressing your criticisms. Now, the problems were not so different between then and today. The difference between the two men is Reagan and Paul is only in style. Reagan exuded confidence in public, but in private he knew that correcting the Fed's disastrous inflationary policies, and the federal government's equally disastrous tax rates, would create a recession. Could Paul be more optimistic in how he approaches things? Today, not anymore. Americans are deluding themselves about our central bank "tuning" the economy when it's in fact destroying the dollar, and they don't realize what our federal debt levels are doing. After 25 years of optimism, we need to start talking tough.
And as I stated, it shouldn't be a surprise that our trading partners are buying so many Treasury securities, because the Fed keeps printing more money for us to pay our trading partners. After a couple of decades, we went from 25% of the federal budget being used to pay interest on federal debt to perhaps 10%. But now the trend is reversing, because we got too used to economic good times and didn't think about the consequences.
Did you pay any attention at all to what I said about Social Security? The problem is growing too fast to grow out of economically, and it's coming in 2017. It might even come sooner, because for the last several years, the trustees recalculate once a year and come up with a date one year earlier.
"I'd have to look at the list of 47 countries where iPod components are manufactured again. But I'm betting Taiwan and South Korea are on it. There is an explicit agreement that the US will protect their sovereignty and an implicit understanding that America would intervene to defend shipping and trade around the world."
Oh, and what if mainland China invaded Taiwan? Do you really think the U.S. would go to war?
Ironically, the only threat to Taiwan is mainland China. Even so, if you examined the first situation more closely, you'd realize that should someone else try to invade Taiwan, mainland China would be the first to come to the defense of "its" island. The U.S. wouldn't have to do anything unless the PRC proved incapable.
Nobody's going to invade Taiwan. Nobody's going to invade Singapore, or Malaysia, or the Philippines, or most any other country, for the same reason North Korea or anyone else would never dare start anything with South Korea. Forget the ROK/U.S. Mutual Security Agreement. Forget the fact that the U.S. would automatically come to South Korea's aid even if that treaty did not exist. Remember what happened the last time a globally important country was invaded by an aggressor? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it didn't expect virtually the entire international community to oppose it. Saddam thought our ambassador's statement meant we wouldn't fight Iraq over Kuwait, when all our ambassador said was that we wouldn't get involved in the dispute about the Shatt al Arab.
"What would be the state of trade with Europe had the US not stood up to fascism and communism? A big free trade region of happy Nazis and Bolsheviks making earbuds for 14 cents a pair?"
Now you're talking about nation-states going to war, which is a much different matter than pirates or other groups, which is what we were talking about before.
But that again solidifies my point that it's technology, not militarism, that enables us to defend shipping routes. Through the early 1800s, there was nothing the U.S. could do to protect our trading partners in Europe, when Napoleon began his conquests. It's only advances in technology allows the U.S. military to respond actively to various threats around the globe, though we still can't actively protect our interests.
For the record, Ron Paul has never said we shouldn't go to war. If that's your implication, you're again completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding his position. Paul believes that war is fully justified as a matter of self defense, such as if we are attacked, and we can go to war to defend a friendly nation who is attacked -- like Kuwait in 1990.
Remember, Paul's opposition to the 1990 Congressional resolution was *not* because he didn't believe we shouldn't defend Kuwait, but because we were doing it under a UN mandate. It was a bad precedent to surrender our authority to do something. Really, for what he says about that, conservatives and liberal hawks should love him -- he's as much against a "global test" as Bush is.
Similarly, Paul's opposition to invading Iraq in 2003 wasn't because he didn't think it could be justified, but because we did it under several political pretenses. Furthermore, he noted that the resolution transferred the power of declaring war from Congress to the President, and he was right. It's unconstitutional for Congress to make a "resolution" that's just a carte blanche war declaration, allowing the president to invade when he likes. The proper way to do things is like December 8th, 1941: declare war on an enemy, stating the reason, and fight all-out.
"If only a third of the 47 nations are free to manufacture and trade, the cost of the iPod goes up. Double the price and the iPod is no longer marketable."
At double the price, I could easily afford it if I didn't shell out half of my income in taxes.
"Clearly, Rep. Ron Paul is a threat to the iPod."
The real threats are opponents of free trade, and government confiscatory policies that keep the middle class poor. Even after normal withholding rates, some stuff last year pushed me into a higher tax bracket. I have to give the Feds and New York State *literally several thousand dollars more in taxes* -- now how many iPods could I buy for that?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2008 2:43 PMI use the term Madisonian Democracy to describe our Federalist Republic, at least as Jay, Madison & Hamilton envisioned it. I think it is common coinage.
The trouble with your 18th Century government was slavery. I see 19th Century America as the apogee of laissez-faire. One could make many arguments.
Opposition to the Bill of Rights was not about trusting the Government. Some felt that enumerating rights implied limitation. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments present a good attempt at disproving that, but they have not succeeded by any measure.
Too many tangents. The question is whether globalization would have come this far without Pax Americana. You cite Taiwan and ask if we would defend them today. The answer is no but that has changed in the last ten years. Had previous administrations felt that way, there would be no Taiwan today. American power kept it out of Chinese hands. American involvement in Vietnam curtailed Chinese aggression.
South Korean and Taiwan are making those cheap iPod parts because of US military power. Applied where the United States was not attacked. Presumably, Ron Paul would not have fought Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, nor stationed troops and missiles in Europe to counter the Soviets.
Yup, your tax bill and mine is way too large. But not because the US chooses to defend freedom and defend trade. Let’s cut Ethanol subsidies and tax rebates to non-taxpayers. But let's keep defending and expanding freedom.
Social Security is going to be tough to fix politically. Democrats want to turn it into a European style welfare-pension scheme. That won't be hard because it is halfway there. We could indeed grow out of it if we indexed benefits to inflation instead of wages.
Rep. Paul's fix is to stop it and pay off the exiting benefits with the money he saves surrendering in Iraq. Right after he dissolves Congress and establishes military rule -- oh wait, he fired the military! Sorry to be flippant, but that is not a serious proposal.
Posted by: jk at February 8, 2008 7:09 PM"I use the term Madisonian Democracy to describe our Federalist Republic, at least as Jay, Madison & Hamilton envisioned it. I think it is common coinage."
If it's used, it's completely incorrect usage. I've heard of Jacksonian Democracy, but "democracy" is anathema to what Madison advocated.
Hamilton is a completely different story. He was a statist. Jay was questionable.
"The trouble with your 18th Century government was slavery. I see 19th Century America as the apogee of laissez-faire. One could make many arguments."
Well, that's a reach. I never said precisely the same government, nor would I advocate one that permitted the involuntary servitude of people.
"Opposition to the Bill of Rights was not about trusting the Government. Some felt that enumerating rights implied limitation. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments present a good attempt at disproving that, but they have not succeeded by any measure."
Hamilton and others who claimed that limited powers were implied *were* effectively saying that the government could be trusted to limit itself. But how do you discipline a misbehaving child? Do you tell it only the things he can do, and then trust him to stay within the limitations, or do you tell it what it cannot? So what, then, should we do with government, which is far more dangerous?
Note that Article I, for example, does not say "Congress shall only have power," but that "Congress shall have power..."
"Too many tangents. The question is whether globalization would have come this far without Pax Americana. You cite Taiwan and ask if we would defend them today. The answer is no but that has changed in the last ten years. Had previous administrations felt that way, there would be no Taiwan today. American power kept it out of Chinese hands. American involvement in Vietnam curtailed Chinese aggression."
In fact, I've written for a long time now that China's goal wasn't to fight the U.S. over Taiwan, but to build up their military so that the U.S. wouldn't want to fight.
China could have (re)conquered Taiwan in the post-WWII era, but it didn't. There were periods when the U.S. simply couldn't have fought such a war (completely incapable at certain times, or when it was already embroiled in Korea or Vietnam), or when Carter's weakness wouldn't have permitted him to do anything about it. Yet it wasn't the American military that dissuaded China: it was the threat of many nations coming together, much like Europe banded together against Napoleon.
But again, you're talking about war now, and that's an entirely different subject than the U.S. military supposedly fending off pirates on trade routes.
By the way, American involvement in Vietnam only got American soldiers killed needlessly. American interests weren't being threatened there, but LBJ wanted his war and the resulting profits.
"South Korean and Taiwan are making those cheap iPod parts because of US military power. Applied where the United States was not attacked."
No. They're making it because of a comparative advantage in labor and manufacturing, and technology today provides for low shipping costs.
So tell me, who is threatening South Korea? Who is threatening Taiwan? As I said before,
"Presumably, Ron Paul would not have fought Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, nor stationed troops and missiles in Europe to counter the Soviets."
That's an entirely different situation, and you don't know that Paul wouldn't have been aggressive in counteracting such a threat. Paul is talking about bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, Okinawa, etc., where they are hardly needed today.
"Yup, your tax bill and mine is way too large. But not because the US chooses to defend freedom and defend trade. Let’s cut Ethanol subsidies and tax rebates to non-taxpayers. But let's keep defending and expanding freedom."
The energy bill was $10 billion. You don't think we could easily cut 10 or 20 times that by bringing troops home from where they shouldn't be?
"Social Security is going to be tough to fix politically. Democrats want to turn it into a European style welfare-pension scheme. That won't be hard because it is halfway there. We could indeed grow out of it if we indexed benefits to inflation instead of wages."
Even that isn't enough, which is why *after* the reindexing, Democrats want to increase taxes, Republicans realize the necessity of cutting benefits, and libertarians are so disgusted with the pyramid scheme that they say, "To hell with it, just scrap the system." The retirees are growing too fast, relative to the workforce, for economic growth to take care of it. Our domestic birthrate is decreasing, so the pyramid is getting too top-heavy.
"Rep. Paul's fix is to stop it and pay off the exiting benefits with the money he saves surrendering in Iraq. Right after he dissolves Congress and establishes military rule -- oh wait, he fired the military! Sorry to be flippant, but that is not a serious proposal."
You're completely misrepresenting his position. He doesn't want to fire the entire military. He doesn't want to completely eliminate the military, but instead restore it to its true purpose, defense. He really wants to get going on a missile defense shield, which will protect us against North Korean and Iranian missiles.
How about missile defense setups in Turkey and Poland? Nothing Paul has said would lead me to believe he'd oppose those. They'd protect America as well as friendly nations, and they'd be purely defensive. Putin's talking like the old Soviet bureaucrat he is, claiming that such defensive systems pose a threat to Russia.
Now, I still disagree with Paul on the specifics of Iraq, but not his principle of not entangling ourselves in places where we shouldn't be. Don't you agree that that's sound foreign policy? What about his bold statement, the only one of its kind, that if we are to do something against another nation, we should properly declare war rather than relying on the UN's mythical "authority"?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 3:11 PM | What do you think? [9]