Republican Debate SC

  • News
  • Thread starter drankin
  • Start date
  • #76
180
0
Why? if they acquire properties outside the US then they should expect that to be a risk, it may be cheaper to build a factory in sudan, but if they built it in the us they would have US protection under the law. My problem is they expect the same protection in sudan.(hypithetical) and my other problem is that it's not all US business that recieves this benifit, it the ones that have bought and paid for their congressmen.

Do you have any support for that comment (my bold)?
 
  • #77
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,191
2,644
Just to check, you know who "this Fitting guy" is, right?

Doch....

I'm still waiting for your question; "Why did you call me an idiot the other day?"

:smile:
 
  • #78
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,208
14
Doch....

I'm still waiting for your question; "Why did you call me an idiot the other day?"

:smile:

Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but tell me anyway.
 
  • #79
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,191
2,644
Well, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but tell me anyway.

Because we pretty much agree on lots of stuff, so I figured I should throw a turd at you, before I nodded in agreement. It's more fun that way. And I figured it would confuse the hell out of the vanilla brained people.

:rolleyes:
 
  • #80
Al68
I agree, but according to Paul, the Fed is there to benefit more than just the government. Again, read his book End the Fed. he also gave praise to the book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
Again, you have provided no quote to refer to, and using an entire book as reference for a claim on PF is a very impractical substitute.
Most of the Ron Paul supporters I have seen think the Fed is a private corporation (Glenn Beck has been harping about this lately).
The Fed is a government created enterprise organized as a private corporation. But as a practical matter, it is under the control of government. I have never heard Paul say otherwise, and you have not provided any evidence that he has.
I agree, but all conservatives tend to be, at least on paper, for this. Moving in the direction of limited government, and reducing government here and there, and slowing its growth to slower than that of the economy (so as a percentage of the economy it shrinks over the years), are all reasonable goals. But Paul has an extreme idea on how to do this.
Calling an idea "extreme" has no value in honest discussion. Explaining why you disagree with a policy Paul advocates would be.
Classical liberalism means one who supports human freedom, limited government, market economy, etc...but the definitions of "limited government" can vary with time. A person in 21st century America's definition of limited government could be the definition of a huge government to a person in 1844 America.
Classical liberalism generally refers to a government limited primarily to protecting liberty, not a government that is "small" in a subjective relative sense. Economically, classical liberalism specifically means that the private economy is free from government interference and control.
Paul has the idea of limited government meaning a government like we had in the 1800s it seems.
That's not "Paul's idea", that's classical liberalism. And again, what specifically about the 21st century makes it incompatible with classical liberalism? What justification for restricting economic liberty exists today that didn't exist in 1844?

What is the point of your comparison between the 21st and 19th centuries?
 
  • #81
amwest
I think we'd have a lot more trouble projecting power without our bases. Those bases are also to protect our allies against other countries.

With a show of force by visiting ports around the world as we already do, and holding exercises with other nations which we already do we project our power enough. this on top of the fact that we're the number one weapons supplier in the world.(no i don't have a link to fact check that, but im confident its true.) Having participated in the military for almost 6 years i FEEL that we can accomplish our national defense from home. (this includes our territories, to cover SE Asia.)

The only contry where i see our bases protecting our ally is S Korea, all the other bases, especially in europe do not really protect anything.
 
  • #82
amwest
Do you have any support for that comment (my bold)?

No i don't this is my jaded belief. I comes from having seen special favor given to select people during my time in the military then afterwards as a government contractor.
 
  • #83
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
I agree with you on most things but protecting our energy supply on foreign soil is not necessarily a national security issue IMO.

That opens the can of worms around being energy independant though.

I specified "energy" because of the 2 companies named in the prior post. More specifically, many large US based corporations operate globally. There are US citizens working throughout the world. Additionally, many retirement funds including 401K's and union pensions are vested in these global corporations. Travel and tourism is another concern. This is not a simple deploy or don't deploy question. The national interests of the US and it's citizens are diverse.

Let me be clear (President Obama likes to say that doesn't he?) I'm not endorsing the US Government guaranteeing bad investments (derivatives) to help European banks. But I think a US based company that acquires a manufacturing facility off-shore or builds world-wide distribution facilities, or other capital investments abroad - should be protected from hostile foreign forces - UNLESS THEY WERE WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

Focusing on energy does cloud the issue just a bit.

Energy (or at least energy from fossile fuels) is a special case in that there is no true petroleum production in the world; there's only recovery of petroleum that's been produced by natural processes over hundreds of millions of years. In that sense, energy independence is a pipe dream since the entire world is living on accumulated 'savings' vs production.

But economic independence is important. The United States is the world's third largest oil producer and that's one major reason the US has experienced such steady growth in its standard of living (and its corresponding increase in consumption). But it's not the only reason. Unless other resources are available as they are in the US, then a country isn't going to grow fast enough to use the oil they produce. You really have to look at overall resources and overall consumption and oil is just one commodity produced and consumed. A country can compensate for shortages in one product by trading a different product for it.

A country needs to produce as many overall products/resources as it consumes or it becomes dependent on the rest of the world for its survival. A country with a lot of resources will grow faster than a country with few resources, and that fast growth means it will still eventually grow large enough that it's consuming all that it can produce. Once that happens, the country has to accept a certain stagnancy where it just won't grow anymore or it has to start bringing in more resources from foreign sources to continue growing.

And, since it can't trade for more than it can produce, it honestly does come down to its military capabilities - if not by outright invasion and forced possession of resources; then by enabling its companies to bring in resources below true market costs so that they're affordable (and the US certainly does have lower fuel costs than the rest of the developed world).

I don't find WhoWee's options attractive, but they are the options that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of historical world powers have chosen when they've grown beyond their capability to support themselves. In fact, part of the unattractiveness of WhoWee's options are that they tend to signal the beginning of the last stage of a world power's growth.

Hopefully, we're not really quite at the point where WhoWee's options are the best and most dominant options, but, if we're not quite there yet, we will be eventually. (In fact, it would probably be naive to say they haven't played any part at all in maintaining the US current standard of living.) No country has ever continued to grow forever - especially by relying solely on its own resources.
 
  • #84
CAC1001
Again, you have provided no quote to refer to, and using an entire book as reference for a claim on PF is a very impractical substitute.

I listed a source. It's a short book. if I had it with me, I would quote it, but I had taken it out of the library to read.

The Fed is a government created enterprise organized as a private corporation. But as a practical matter, it is under the control of government.

The Federal Reserve is a hybrid institution. It is not a standard private corporation nor is it a nationalized central bank.

I have never heard Paul say otherwise, and you have not provided any evidence that he has.

I never said he thinks it is (although I wouldn't be surprised at all as he keeps claiming it needs to be audited). His fans all sure believe it is however. And G. Edward Griffin, who wrote the book The Creature from Jekyll Island (which Ron Paul praises) thinks it is.

Calling an idea "extreme" has no value in honest discussion. Explaining why you disagree with a policy Paul advocates would be.

He wants to shrink the government to an 1800s level for a 21st century nation. That's pretty extreme. We had very few, if any, labor laws, regulations, no social safety nets, etc...whatsoever in the 1800s.

That's not "Paul's idea", that's classical liberalism. And again, what specifically about the 21st century makes it incompatible with classical liberalism? What justification for restricting economic liberty exists today that didn't exist in 1844?

What is the point of your comparison between the 21st and 19th centuries?

There is nothing about the 21st century that makes it incompatible with classical liberalism. But the definition of classical liberalism that fit the 19th century does not fit the 21st century. It didn't really fit the 19th century either, it's just people had to deal with it then.

You say that economically, classical liberalism means that the private economy is free from government interference and control. Well how does one define what that is exactly though? The ideal of a private economy with literally no government interference of any kind is a fantasy. You have to have some degree of regulation, you just want it to be as light as possible, not overly-burdensome.

Otherwise we'd end up with corporations working people literally to death, no worker rights of any kind, industry polluting as it pleased (companies used to dump gasoline into the rivers), in the 1950s, I forget which river, but it even caught fire from all the pollutants in it, they had to clean it up, there was a tremendous level of corruption it was discovered that had occurred after the 1929 crash within the financial system, etc...so regulations to some degree are required.

The idea of classical liberalism as it might have fit the 19th century is incompatible with the 21st century. The idea of classical liberalism for the 21st century is you want the government to mostly keep its paws out of the economy and regulate to the degree necessary, light and efficient regulation basically. Paul however seems to want the 19th century variety. He said he would like to shrink the government to the point where there is no income tax required.
 
  • #85
CAC1001
But economic independence is important. The United States is the world's third largest oil producer.

I thought Norway was the world's third-largest oil producer...?

And, since it can't trade for more than it can produce, it honestly does come down to its military capabilities - if not by outright invasion and forced possession of resources; then by enabling its companies to bring in resources below true market costs so that they're affordable (and the US certainly does have lower fuel costs than the rest of the developed world).

That's true, but part of the reason for this is that many other countries artificially drive up the cost of their fuel via things like a VAT tax.
 
  • #86
Al68
Otherwise we'd end up with corporations working people literally to death, no worker rights of any kind, industry polluting as it pleased (companies used to dump gasoline into the rivers), in the 1950s, I forget which river, but it even caught fire from all the pollutants in it, they had to clean it up, there was a tremendous level of corruption it was discovered that had occurred after the 1929 crash within the financial system, etc...so regulations to some degree are required.

The idea of classical liberalism as it might have fit the 19th century is incompatible with the 21st century. The idea of classical liberalism for the 21st century is you want the government to mostly keep its paws out of the economy and regulate to the degree necessary, light and efficient regulation basically. Paul however seems to want the 19th century variety. He said he would like to shrink the government to the point where there is no income tax required.
I'll just make three points here, and not address what has already been addressed:

First, laws against pollution, etc, or laws in general prohibiting inherently criminal acts, have absolutely nothing to do with classical liberalism. The relative lack of certain laws in the 1800s merely coincided with classical liberal economic policies. Classical liberalism didn't preclude such laws, they are separate issues. Paul advocates the classical liberal economic policies of the 1800s, not every policy that existed alongside. That would be insane, considering the most notable anti-classical liberal policy of allowing slavery.

Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads. The advantage to government of the income tax is the fact that it's so convoluted that people can be misled about who is paying how much. And (2) the costs of operating the government itself, including all constitutional duties, is but a tiny fraction of government spending. The bulk of the federal budget has nothing to do with operating the government itself, it's composed of wealth redistribution of one form or another, and to a lesser extent, military spending we can do without.

Third, I never claimed Paul was the perfect candidate. And his foreign policy positions do concern me, although it's not like he would just dismiss the entire military. His economic positions don't bother me at all, because their effect in reality would be to move the government in the right direction a modest amount at best. A century of government expansion simply can't be undone in a few years by any one man in the White House.
 
  • #87
CAC1001
I'll just make three points here, and not address what has already been addressed:

First, laws against pollution, etc, or laws in general prohibiting inherently criminal acts, have absolutely nothing to do with classical liberalism. The relative lack of certain laws in the 1800s merely coincided with classical liberal economic policies.

If they are regulations that infringe on economic freedom to a certain degree, they to a degree infringe on classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism didn't preclude such laws, they are separate issues. Paul advocates the classical liberal economic policies of the 1800s, not every policy that existed alongside. That would be insane, considering the most notable anti-classical liberal policy of allowing slavery.

I am not saying he advocates every policy of the time, but by advocating a government the size of the one at the time, he is going to be for the repeal (or lack of enforcement at least) of a heck of a lot of laws and regulations.

Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads. The advantage to government of the income tax is the fact that it's so convoluted that people can be misled about who is paying how much. And (2) the costs of operating the government itself, including all constitutional duties, is but a tiny fraction of government spending. The bulk of the federal budget has nothing to do with operating the government itself, it's composed of wealth redistribution of one form or another, and to a lesser extent, military spending we can do without.

Yes, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, and defense make up (around 70%) of the budget.
 
  • #88
Al68
If they are regulations that infringe on economic freedom to a certain degree, they to a degree infringe on classical liberalism.
Yes, but laws against pollution and slavery don't infringe on economic liberty.
I am not saying he advocates every policy of the time, but by advocating a government the size of the one at the time, he is going to be for the repeal (or lack of enforcement at least) of a heck of a lot of laws and regulations.
What a coincidence, that's the exact number of them (heck of a lot) that we should get rid of. :smile:

Seriously, I don't think we're in danger of government becoming too small. It's like a 600 pound man worried about becoming too skinny from his diet: he's thinking a little too far ahead.
 
  • #89
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,191
2,644
......
Second, violating everyone's privacy with an income tax is clearly not needed to fund government, for two reasons: (1) There are far better ways to raise revenue, which has been discussed extensively in other threads......

hmmm..... I've heard of the purple monkeys prophesy, but I have not heard that the goose that laid the golden egg parable had come true.

How does a government raise revenue without taxation? Sell California?

Can you please point out the thread(s). I'm very interested.
 
  • #90
Al68
hmmm..... I've heard of the purple monkeys prophesy, but I have not heard that the goose that laid the golden egg parable had come true.

How does a government raise revenue without taxation?
LOL, it seems you misread my post. I said that funding government didn't require an income tax specifically, not that no form of taxation was needed. Pretty significant difference there, no purple monkeys or golden eggs yet. :smile:
Sell California?
Now that you mention it, yes, that would be better than any form of taxation. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Republican Debate SC

  • Last Post
5
Replies
123
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
176
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
S
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
8K
A
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Z
Top