News What are the economic impacts of government growth and corruption?

[falc39]

Wow, has anyone been following how much he raised yesterday, I think the figure was 6 million in one day.

Here are his fundraising stats:

1st: $639,889
2nd: 2.5 million
3rd: 5.3 million
4th: approaching 20 million

Talk about exponential. Crazy

 

[Evo]

No, he's a nut. "Crazy" is right.

It's amazing how many people have jumped on the bandwagon and have absolutely no clue what kind of crazy things he's proposing, like leaving the UN.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He will be on Meet the Press next Sunday. The show can be watched online later.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Some of his ideas do sound extreme, but an hour on Meet the Press can be worth a thousand press releases in its information value. He clearly offers ideas that inspire a new generation of voters.

Note that Russert has been interviewing all of the candidates. See the list of candidates along the right column of the page and click to watch.

So far he is the only Republican that has a chance of getting my vote. After the last seven years we might just need someone like Ron Paul. That's what happens when you support crazies like Bush.

 

[Evo]

He doesn't even have an environmental plan. In a live interview when asked about GW/C02 he said he'd heard about it, but said it would work itself out naturally based on marketing needs. That video of the interview was posted in another thread here.

 

[falc39]

There are some things I don't agree with him, and then there are some things I really love about him:

His impeccable voting record. The most honest politician I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. I'm reading his book, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0912453001/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

Great book, he's basically been saying the same thing for 20+ years, hasn't flip-flopped at all. He supposedly has studied Austrian economics for the last 20 years too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He doesn't even have an environmental plan. In a live interview when asked about GW/C02 he said he'd heard about it, but said it would work itself out naturally based on marketing needs. That video of the interview was posted in another thread here.

But he is dedicated to the Constitution, and that is more important that any other issue.

If we have a constitutional government, then the will of the people will follow. By definition that would include environmental issues.

 

[Evo]

Hopefully the will of the people will be to elect someone that has all of his bulbs lit.

 

[ShawnD]

It's amazing how many people have jumped on the bandwagon and have absolutely no clue what kind of crazy things he's proposing, like leaving the UN.

He might be a bit strange, but he speaks his mind because he knows he can't win. He took a strip off Giuliani, he openly talks about completely withdrawing from the middle east, he had the guts to say 9/11 was due to bad foreign policy, he talks about how the war should not have happened, and he talks about government bloat in general. He's not the kind of person you want leading the country, but he's worth having around.

 

[Evo]

He wants to pull all foreign aid to other countries and isolate the US from the rest of the world. You've heard about his stand on refusing aid to Darfur?

 

[Astronuc]

No, he's a nut. "Crazy" is right.

It's amazing how many people have jumped on the bandwagon and have absolutely no clue what kind of crazy things he's proposing, like leaving the UN.

There's a guy in the building where I work who supports both Kucinich and Ron Paul - and displays bumper stickers of both on his car. I think he's a self described liberal-libertarian who has some rather nutty ideas. Last presidential election, he supported Nader.

 

[ShawnD]

He may have given a silly statement about Market Forces ending slavery, but the idea of pulling out isn't so foreign. If you can look at your own citizens and say "deal with your own problems" then why not apply that same logic to the rest of the world? That makes at least as much sense as the current republican view of letting lower class Americans fix their own problems but trying to save the world when it comes to international problems. If the country can't deal with its own problems, why would it take on the world's problems?

 

[mheslep]

Rep. Paul's close adherence to the constitution in the face in the status quo must certainly be the reason for his wide appeal. For me, the interesting question about Paul is whether or not this position is taken out of courage or nuttiness. That is, a nut doesn't require courage to challenge the status quo because he doesn't rationally analyze all the consequences of doing so. After watching more of him I believe there's some courage there and unfortunately also some nuttiness. I saw him a couple weeks back in a televised house committee where Bernanke was testifying on the economy/Fed and specifically on the falling dollar vs other currencies. Paul went off on a rant, a fair description I think compared to the solid & quiet Bernake. Now when you are running for President and you question the Fed Chairman seems to me you should have a very good handle on the facts before launching into a rant. Paul went on about this would eat up the savings of the common man (?). Bernanke explained that would only be the case, um, if one was buying all your food, etc from overseas and traveling to the south of France, and that the falling dollar would would, uh, have little effect on inflation, which is, uh, what you really mean. http://resources.bravenet.com/audio..._simpson_-_longer_version_of_the_doh/listen/"

 

[mheslep]

.. he had the guts to say 9/11 was due to bad foreign policy,

I don't recall where he specifically said this , but if so then good example: You say guts, I say nuts on this one. The logic of the argument is that if somehow the US didn't antagonize Al-Qaeda that they would chill out; the evidence is almost completely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia" . If Paul's policy is hand's off the world, then what about the consequences? A non-nut has to consider them. Does that mean sit by and allow the enslavement of women, WMD equipped Al-Qaeda, the destruction of Israel?

 

[OrbitalPower]

If Ron Paul had "close adherence" to the constitution he'd realize that the United States is bounded by any international treaty it signs onto that's ratified by the congress (Article VI). The US can't go entering into agreements and then back out of them, according to the constitution. He has as much spin on the constitution as the so-called "constitutionalists" or any other politician.

I also disagree with his belief in market capitalism. Corporations become so big that they become "too big to fail" and rely upon the government far more than the "welfare cheat," whoever that's supposed to be. Also, the market has proven ineffective in numerous areas and thus R&D funding is necessary by the government (particularly in space exploration, automotive standards, computing, etc.).

 

[falc39]

Rep. Paul's close adherence to the constitution in the face in the status quo must certainly be the reason for his wide appeal. For me, the interesting question about Paul is whether or not this position is taken out of courage or nuttiness. That is, a nut doesn't require courage to challenge the status quo because he doesn't rationally analyze all the consequences of doing so. After watching more of him I believe there's some courage there and unfortunately also some nuttiness. I saw him a couple weeks back in a televised house committee where Bernanke was testifying on the economy/Fed and specifically on the falling dollar vs other currencies. Paul went off on a rant, a fair description I think compared to the solid & quiet Bernake. Now when you are running for President and you question the Fed Chairman seems to me you should have a very good handle on the facts before launching into a rant. Paul went on about this would eat up the savings of the common man (?). Bernanke explained that would only be the case, um, if one was buying all your food, etc from overseas and traveling to the south of France, and that the falling dollar would would, uh, have little effect on inflation, which is, uh, what you really mean. http://resources.bravenet.com/audio..._simpson_-_longer_version_of_the_doh/listen/"

I saw that too. You kind of have to know that Paul analyzes the market through Austrian economic school of thought. I felt he did say some great things to Bernanke.
http://www.mises.org/story/2781"

A lot of people actually support his views with economics, he was just on Jim Cramer's mad money and I thought Jim Cramer was going to start worshiping him at one point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE"

Nevertheless, In my opinion, Paul seems to have a firm grasp of monetary policy compared to other candidates.

 

[D H]

No, he's a nut. "Crazy" is right.

It's amazing how many people have jumped on the bandwagon and have absolutely no clue what kind of crazy things he's proposing, like leaving the UN.

Unfortunately, I know exactly how loony he is. Thanks to Republican gerrymandering designed to counter previous Democratic gerrymandering, Ron Paul is now http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=TX&district=14" . He appeals to the mix of nutballs, retirees, and engineers/physical scientists that form the bulk of the electorate in this district. One thing I really don't get is his immense appeal to engineers and physical scientists.

Does that mean sit by and allow the enslavement of women, WMD equipped Al-Qaeda, the destruction of Israel?

Market forces will take care of all of that.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I don't recall where he specifically said this , but if so then good example: You say guts, I say nuts on this one.

Yes, it is "nuts" to state that many foreign policy specialists believe that 9-11 was partly caused by what many CIA specialists have termed "Blowback theory," i.e., the belief that the United States' support of corrupt dictators, radical Islamists (particularly the Mujahideen under the Reagan administration to help fight the Soviets) and so on has made the US a prime target for many in the Muslim world, and that many internationals scholars trace the spread of Islamic fundamentalism to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état in Iran, which led to much hostility and resentment towards the US as well as the spread of fundamentalism.

It's "nutty" to believe that the United States is not winning the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim world and that to effectively combat terrorism we should punish those responsible (as in accordance with international law) and engage in social and ideological activities in addition to the use of force, despite what Bruce Hoffman at the "left-wing" Rand corporation says.

I'm sure you can give me the names of foreign policy experts who actually believe that that this a "nutty opinion," and that it's not just "nutty" according to the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and Rudy Giuliani's foreign relations adviser.

The logic of the argument is that if somehow the US didn't antagonize Al-Qaeda that they would chill out;

I believe that the argument is that United States foreign policy has been, and is currently, increasing the role of Islamic fundamentalists and militant Jihadists, despite our best efforts, so we need a change in policy, not that they will just "chill out" if we don't respond in someway. Ron Paul is not saying that, and in fact he voted for the use of force in Afghanistan.

The claim is backed up by the facts and international relations experts, and I can give the studies if you like.

the evidence is almost completely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia" .

The evidence is that US foreign policy has not been effectively combating terrorism around the world.

If Paul's policy is hand's off the world, then what about the consequences? A non-nut has to consider them. Does that mean sit by and allow the enslavement of women, WMD equipped Al-Qaeda, the destruction of Israel?

What about the fact that the United States has far more often had absolutely disastrous rather than successful results using the military in the third world (i.e. Vietnam)?

Ronald Reagan claimed he was going to put an end to the change the "evil" Sandinista's were bringing to Nicarauga, and as a result they ended up the second poorest country in the hemisphere in the 1980s, with Ortega currently back in power (not to mention the tens of thousands of people killed in what the World Court condemned as "international terrorism" committed by the US). I'm sure you're upset that the Miskito Indians ended up in a far worse position than under the Sandinistas.

Or in Brazil, where the US supported Branco, or Pinochet under Chile, or Argentina under Videla, and other dictators part of "Operation Condor" (look it up, you could use the exercise). These right-wing dictators did not exactly have a successful track record when it came to human rights.

Since you've proclaimed yourself a foreign policy expert who can write off other people's opinions as "nutty," I'm sure you're well aware of the numerous US attempts to put down the democratic movements in the Islamic world, and the fact that some of the US' harshest critics when it comes to the Middle East are Iranians and Arabs who are part of those peace movements.

It seems that by the US interfering in the third world, the US causes far more trouble (and death) for the people in those countries than had they not intervened at all, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, and Iraq again in the new millennium are just a few examples.

 

[OrbitalPower]

One thing I really don't get is his immense appeal to engineers and physical scientists.

Neither can I. In fact, I don't even believe he has such an appeal to engineers and scientists, and some of the most respected physical scientists I know of (Klaus, etc.) are seemingly liberal.

Can you provide statistical evidence that Ron Paul has a large following of physical scientists (i.e. Ph.D level scientists)? Because according to a chart on wiki, a clear majority of engineers and scientists polled are Democrats.

For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I think American foreign policy sucks, esp. under the Bush administration. It's so far to the right that even many in the foreign policy elite, right-wing realists and so on, think it's extreme.

 

[drankin]

I haven't spent much time researching the latest candidates but from everyone has posted here, I think I like this guy. It seems pretty Constitionally sound to fix our own problems before we run out and try to fix the rest of the world. Lead by example first if we are going to lead anything.

 

[ShawnD]

I don't recall where he specifically said this , but if so then good example: You say guts, I say nuts on this one. The logic of the argument is that if somehow the US didn't antagonize Al-Qaeda that they would chill out; the evidence is almost completely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia" .

Canada - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Denmark - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Sweden - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Norway - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
USA - strong presence in middle east - has terrorist problems
Israel - is located in the middle east - has severe terrorist problems

Seems like to the closer you get to the middle east, the worse things get. Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is. Ron Paul spoke quite a bit about the middle east and foreign policy.

And in answer to your question: **** the middle east.

 

[mheslep]

I saw that too. You kind of have to know that Paul analyzes the market through Austrian economic school of thought. I felt he did say some great things to Bernanke.
http://www.mises.org/story/2781"

A lot of people actually support his views with economics, he was just on Jim Cramer's mad money and I thought Jim Cramer was going to start worshiping him at one point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE"

Nevertheless, In my opinion, Paul seems to have a firm grasp of monetary policy compared to other candidates.

Sure, to the extent he espouses market economics and less interference by the govt. of course many people support that. The trick is that just because one promotes many worthy ideas doesn't give you a pass to http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/dean_nuts.mpga".

...I mean, if you have a devaluation of the dollar at 10 percent, people have been robbed at 10 percent...

Thats just wrong, there's no Austrian economics about it.

 

[mheslep]

I haven't spent much time researching the latest candidates but from everyone has posted here, I think I like this guy. It seems pretty Constitutionally sound to fix our own problems before we run out and try to fix the rest of the world. Lead by example first if we are going to lead anything.

Yes I have an affinity for that line as well. I agree with Paul when he says the hundreds of troop deployments around the world is out of line. I just don't know if he's the guy to sanely cut it back.

 

[mheslep]

Canada - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Denmark - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Sweden - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
Norway - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
USA - strong presence in middle east - has terrorist problems
Israel - is located in the middle east - has severe terrorist problems

Thats amusing, and since it only takes a couple moments to dig up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Toronto_terrorism_case"
"www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13150516/"[/URL]
[PLAIN]"[URL
Jihad Against Danish Newspaper[/URL]
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/25/news/denmark.php"
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/denmark.htm"
and so on.

And in answer to your question: **** the middle east.

Ok good, thanks for the careful thoughtful answer. US can get rid of those damned expensive armed forces now.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, it is "nuts" to state that many foreign policy specialists believe that 9-11 was partly caused by what many CIA specialists have termed "Blowback theory," i.e., the belief that the United States' support of corrupt dictators, radical Islamists (particularly the Mujahideen under the Reagan administration to help fight the Soviets) and so on has made the US a prime target for many in the Muslim world, and that many internationals scholars trace the spread of Islamic fundamentalism to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état in Iran, which led to much hostility and resentment towards the US as well as the spread of fundamentalism.

I spoke to only one issue, the claim by Rep. Paul that

9/11 was due to bad foreign policy

as posted in this thread. 9/11 was executed by Al Qaeda, not by the 'whole muslim world', and not by all radical Islamists. I didn't address, nor care to here, the whole post 9/11 war on terror. I also did not address Iran which has nil connection to AQ. I address just the organization responsible for 9/11 since that was the topic Paul's comment.

Now, in Afghanistan, you mistake the Mujahideen (local Afghanis) for the foreign Arabs to which Bin Laden belonged and which did its best to destroy the Mujahideen when the Taliban cam to power. If AQ has any roots it must be seen to be the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt via Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's mentor. Regardless of its roots, Bin Laden's Jihad declaration in the '90s stated as one its major reasons was the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia. The US left Saudi Arabia as I cited above. AQ response? More Jihad. BTW, you can find similar AQ like Islamic response around the world long before 9/11. So, yes, to blame 9/11 solely on the US and not the warped f'k'd in the head, slave trading, kill the unbeliever ideology of AQ, is nuts.

 

[DrClapeyron]

From what I read in the local paper, Ron Paul believes it is unfair that the Hispanics, Blacks and Jews can caucus in congress but Whites cannot. He sounds like the kid that is always picked last at everything. I mean, I guess if whites were allowed to caucus, then he would techniquely have to be a part of their group. lol

 

[opus]

Many people make fun of the internet nerds supporting Ron Paul, and I support their ridicule.

His success is popular because he able to unite both social conservatives and social liberals. When you have rednecks and gays agreeing on the same candidate at times (albeit not well informed of political thought), you're destined to have some success.

Take for the example of same-sex marriage/civil unions:
Social conservatives agree with the libertarians who say: "it should be a state's rights (of course the idea won't fly one bit if given to states)"
Social liberals agree with the libertarians who say: "freedom for everybody, even homosexuals, government is evil and oppressive and irresponsible, church/state divide, etc."

The complications are that because libertarianism is infatuated with negative freedoms (i.e. "liberal"), it is thus conservative because it justifies a society where the poor are left to be poor. Libertarians like to think in theory, if everyone left to their own well-being, that everyone starts at the same starting place in life. That of course, ignores social oppression and things like gender, race, class completely that exist. So in a world where there is inequality, libertarianism is inherently conservative; in a world where everyone is equal, then libertarianism is liberal.

So if you're an angry person, angry at the world for having dealt you bad cards, then getting rid of the government will do jack-all for your self-interest, considering government as an "equalizer".

 

[Economist]

it is thus conservative because it justifies a society where the poor are left to be poor.

This is such bs. Many times democrats, republicans, and libertarians have the same objectives, but think different methods will accomplish those objectives.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a libertarian may want to read this:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/45044.html

 

[IMP]

He would abolish the IRS, and get the UN out of the US. Just those two items really got my attention. I have done some research on his view on other topics. He has my vote for sure. I have also been able to get several other people to look at his website to see what he stands for. Several of my family and freinds are voting Ron Paul now. He truly is the only hope for a decent future for us all.

 

[colby2152]

If he can get US out of the UN, then he has my vote.

 

[kach22i]

He's not the kind of person you want leading the country, but he's worth having around.

The democratic party is not counting primary votes in Michigan and Florida, republicans are only counting half in five states including Mich & FLA.

Ron Paul could win two of the largest swing states because of this, and his anti-war stance may have a presence at the national convention.

Ron Paul's voice is indeed worth having around.

 

[kach22i]

I believe that the argument is that United States foreign policy has been, and is currently, increasing the role of Islamic fundamentalists and militant Jihadists, despite our best efforts, so we need a change in policy, not that they will just "chill out" if we don't respond in someway. Ron Paul is not saying that, and in fact he voted for the use of force in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul's reasons seem to always go back to the US Constitution and are detached from any other reasoning.

Bill Richardson proposes a pull out based on an actual policy change, and he has a lot of experience in this area to back it up with.

 

[opus]

This is such bs. Many times democrats, republicans, and libertarians have the same objectives, but think different methods will accomplish those objectives.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a libertarian may want to read this:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/45044.html

Are you just dissenting for the sake of dissenting? Ron Paul may not be "libertarian" to the libertarians, the same way the Democrats are "conservative", but Ron Paul is libertarian compared to every other mainstream candidate that's running and the Democrats are liberal compared to the Republicans. That of course, doesn't mean they aren't conservative, the same way Ron Paul may not be pure progressive libertarianism.

I quote from this site very biased towards Ron Paul:
"Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist."

To say that Ron Paul isn't a full libertarian may have some truth to it, but to say that he isn't a libertarian at all is retarded.

He would abolish the IRS, and get the UN out of the US. Just those two items really got my attention. I have done some research on his view on other topics. He has my vote for sure. I have also been able to get several other people to look at his website to see what he stands for. Several of my family and freinds are voting Ron Paul now. He truly is the only hope for a decent future for us all.

If he can get US out of the UN, then he has my vote.

I worry for the sake of America when simple-minded public policy is attractive. If you think the US abolishing the IRS will mean no taxes (or less taxes) and leaving the UN will solve your foreign policy blunders then you are mistaken.

 

[IMP]

I worry for the sake of America when simple-minded public policy is attractive. If you think the US abolishing the IRS will mean no taxes (or less taxes) and leaving the UN will solve your foreign policy blunders then you are mistaken.

Income should not be taxed to begin with. If you are forced to give up a portion of your labor, at the threat of prison, well that is just wrong. Taking someones labor against their will should not exist in 2007.

 

[Economist]

Libertarians like to think in theory, if everyone left to their own well-being, that everyone starts at the same starting place in life.

Not true. Even in a world where everyone does not start at the same starting point, policies built on freedom may still be optimal. In fact, most of the economists I know who have strong libertarian ideas, don't even think that it's true that people are all equal.

Read F.A. Hayek's book "The Constitution of Liberty" or watch Milton Friedman's Free to Choose documentaries at ideachannel.tv (look for the volume titled "Created Equal?" I think it's volume 5 on both the 1980 and 1990 series).

That of course, ignores social oppression and things like gender, race, class completely that exist. So in a world where there is inequality

Yeah, obviously gender, race, and class exist. But that doesn't prove anything about the role they play in our society currently. Even in economics it is still not completely understood the role these things play in peoples job opportunities, incomes, etc. Some people say they don't matter at all, because the market cares mostly about talent, ability, productivity, etc. While others say that it does matter, and that there is discrimination in the labor market, etc. However, for you to sit here and act as if you know the role these things play in the US, is hugely a misrepresentation of your knowledge. What you should say is that you think they play an important role, just like I think they don't play that large of a role.

As far as I am concerned, in economic areas gender does not play that large of a role. The gender earnings gap has continued to sharply decrease over the past 30 - 40 years, college is currently female-dominated, and many careers and majors that used to be male-dominated has seen increasing number of women in recent years. Furthermore, it is not known whether in the past females didn't earn much mainly for social reasons (oppression, discrimination, etc) or economic reasons (stable income because less likely to divorce, technology advances that allowed both members of a household to be able to work (vacuums, dishwashers, washers, dryers, etc)).

In regards to race, yes there still is inequality when you look at raw numbers. However, this still doesn't mean it's a result of racism, discrimination, or oppression. One thing that jumps out at you when you look at the data is the difference in schooling, especially between whites and blacks. Some blame this on peer effects and cultural values (read some of the work done by the African American Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr). Some blame this on the horrible public schools that are disproportionally black (the same schools that liberals seem so worried to bring economics competition to). Even in regards to race, the explanation of racism, discrimination, and oppression don't seem to hold up that well when you look at some things. For example, black women are quickly increasing in both the amount of education they get, as well as the amount of income they earn. Another example is Asian Americans, who generally have average incomes above that of whites. Racism, discrimination, and oppression is not really consistent with either one of these cases.

It's interesting to me that sociologists dwell so much on the role their ideas play in the private sector. They almost seem obsessed with it, and I don't understand it. Maybe they think if we can't find much evidence of all their theories in the private sector, maybe they think it's a huge knock to their ideas and concepts.

So if you're an angry person, angry at the world for having dealt you bad cards, then getting rid of the government will do jack-all for your self-interest, considering government as an "equalizer".

LOL. Yeah, government is the great equalizer. Sure. That's why the founding fathers of the US were largely skeptical of government.

What you should have done is replaced governments with one of the following words: individual liberty/freedom, limited government, economic freedom, markets, free enterprise, capitalism, etc.

 

[opus]

Income should not be taxed to begin with. If you are forced to give up a portion of your labor, at the threat of prison, well that is just wrong. Taking someones labor against their will should not exist in 2007.

So you're saying taxation should be "voluntary"? You might as well just abolish government completely, since all government services will be left to the market anyways.

Not true. Even in a world where everyone does not start at the same starting point, policies built on freedom may still be optimal. In fact, most of the economists I know who have strong libertarian ideas, don't even think that it's true that people are all equal.

If people are unequal, and thus inequality is "natural", then you're advocating then that one should "leave the poor to be poor" and "leave the rich to be rich"?

See, your argument is predicated on the assumption that the market reflects people, that is, people are paid exactly what they are "worth". However, this is simply not the case, because you're saying then that a CEO is "worth" 600x more than a wage-labourer than say, years ago when it was simply just 60x. In fact, there is a nasty tautology that develops where the logic becomes that the CEO is paid a lot of money because he is rich (since he is worth more).

Even Adam Smith knew that large inequalities will be a bad thing for society, and criticized "materialistic excesses".

Yeah, obviously gender, race, and class exist. But that doesn't prove anything about the role they play in our society currently. Even in economics it is still not completely understood the role these things play in peoples job opportunities, incomes, etc. Some people say they don't matter at all, because the market cares mostly about talent, ability, productivity, etc. While others say that it does matter, and that there is discrimination in the labor market, etc. However, for you to sit here and act as if you know the role these things play in the US, is hugely a misrepresentation of your knowledge. What you should say is that you think they play an important role, just like I think they don't play that large of a role.

It's not an issue of "I think this" and "you think that", because gender, race, and class are real and have real effects that are empirically measured. How else can you explain women making 70% of what men make, when given the same job, qualifications, and abilities? Just because your fantasy economic modelling don't see this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As far as I am concerned, in economic areas gender does not play that large of a role. The gender earnings gap has continued to sharply decrease over the past 30 - 40 years, college is currently female-dominated, and many careers and majors that used to be male-dominated has seen increasing number of women in recent years. Furthermore, it is not known whether in the past females didn't earn much mainly for social reasons (oppression, discrimination, etc) or economic reasons (stable income because less likely to divorce, technology advances that allowed both members of a household to be able to work (vacuums, dishwashers, washers, dryers, etc)).

In regards to race, yes there still is inequality when you look at raw numbers. However, this still doesn't mean it's a result of racism, discrimination, or oppression. One thing that jumps out at you when you look at the data is the difference in schooling, especially between whites and blacks. Some blame this on peer effects and cultural values (read some of the work done by the African American Harvard economist Roland Fryer Jr). Some blame this on the horrible public schools that are disproportionally black (the same schools that liberals seem so worried to bring economics competition to). Even in regards to race, the explanation of racism, discrimination, and oppression don't seem to hold up that well when you look at some things. For example, black women are quickly increasing in both the amount of education they get, as well as the amount of income they earn. Another example is Asian Americans, who generally have average incomes above that of whites. Racism, discrimination, and oppression is not really consistent with either one of these cases.

So essentially in two paragraphs you say that race and gender do not matter, there are other factors beyond this. The most elementary of sociological articles can easily refute your claim that there is just "something other" that is causing this oppression and not admitting that there is blatant discrimination in the world because it doesn't follow your neoclassical model of economic outcomes.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2007/00000072/00000005/art00002
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2007/00000072/00000005/art00006
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2007/00000072/00000001/art00001
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9620.00277
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-166X(197323)8%3A4%3C436%3AWDRFAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED397148
But according to you, "nah, race and gender don't matter, it's just the individual and it's unexplainable factors like culture that bogs them down." Sociologists are just making stuff up. They're full of fluff.

It's interesting to me that sociologists dwell so much on the role their ideas play in the private sector. They almost seem obsessed with it, and I don't understand it. Maybe they think if we can't find much evidence of all their theories in the private sector, maybe they think it's a huge knock to their ideas and concepts.

Thank you for the ad hominems Mr economist major, but sociology is as empirical as economics and hardly needs "evidence" that you feel that they "can't find".

LOL. Yeah, government is the great equalizer. Sure. That's why the founding fathers of the US were largely skeptical of government.

Well, I guess taxation doesn't exist, universal education is a failure, and government doesn't do anything but waste money. I'm sure the founding fathers said that. After all, they say things that both liberals and conservatives use that "support their argument".

What you should have done is replaced governments with one of the following words: individual liberty/freedom, limited government, economic freedom, markets, free enterprise, capitalism, etc.

You somehow unabashedly think market fundamentalism will solve the problems of the world.

 

[ShawnD]

From a http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst102201.htm" on Rep. Paul's US HoR website.

ShawnD - I blame myself, really, for giving you any initial creditability.

So you didn't even watch the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is.

That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.

 

[ShawnD]

That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.

Reagan is very often quoted on this. Here is what he wrote in his autobiography, word for word:

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

As much as I hate Reagan, I have to give him credit when he can admit possible mistakes.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Of course neutrality may have worked in Lebanon. There were half a dozen guerilla groups operating in Lebanon. The US chose a side, was bombed and moved off shore where the guerillas could no longer attack. It wasn't as though Lebanon was crucial to US foreign policy. What exactly is Lebanon's staple export/commodity/product? Location

Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.

 

[ice109]

he's never going to win

 

[ShawnD]

Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.

The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years, and the US did nothing to protect either country. The US was helping to fuel the war by selling/giving weapons to Iraq, then it was later discovered in the Iran-Contra scandal that the US was also selling weapons to the Iranians. That's not protection. That's war mongering. If you want to know why Arabs hate the US so much, a review of the 1980's would be a good start.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

 

[ShawnD]

Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

You're right about defending allies being a top priority, but the blowback theory isn't about defending allies. It's about state sponsored terrorism that some US politicians openly talk about on live TV. Of course they don't call it terrorism; they prefer the term "Nation Building" which roughly translates as the process of replacing a country's government with one that you like more. Such examples include the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran where CIA and British intelligence overthrew a democratically elected government in order to put the Shah back in power. Then in 1979 he was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and American diplomats were taken hostage. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence and it had absolutely nothing to do with government terrorism that happened in 1953. It makes me wonder if Carter or Reagan tried that same "they hate our freedom" line.

The worst part of this is that there is a disconnect between the people and their government. Nobody goes to the polling station with the mentality of "I think I'll vote for terrorism this time", but politicians end up doing that. Then when retaliation happens 5, 10, 20 years later and innocent people like those in the WTC or on the USS Cole are killed, those same politicians throw up their hands and act like they have no idea why this happened. Sure I was yelling at the dog and hitting it with a stick, but why did he bite me??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?

 

[DrClapeyron]

Ivan Seeking, I meant that the US is motivated to protect its cash-futures market, to be blunt about the matter.

ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually preferred the Shah.

 

[ShawnD]

ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually preferred the Shah.

Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).

Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protesters of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded.

Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. The already precarious alliance between Mossadegh and Kashani was severed in January 1953, when Kashani opposed Mossadegh's demand that his increased powers be extended for a period of one year.

[...]

When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests. [...] Despite his stature as a nationalist, he is shunned because of his secularism and western manners
[...]
Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).

 

[mheslep]

the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.

No. Paul clearly opposes US foreign involvement, esp. Iraq. He's hardly clear about the causes of the 9/11 attack, he's dancing on the head of a pin.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8"

Host: "Are you suggesting the US caused 9/11?
Paul: "No, ..."

Host: "What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?"
Paul: "The Americans didn't do anything to cause it..."

In the debate he says generically 'attacked' due to policies, is ambiguous whether or not he's means 9/11 or in Iraq; taken with the rest of the video and his http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst102201.htm" posted on the House site, he's contradictory at best. All the more reason why one has to be careful about what's attributed to him.

As an aside, the fun part is the >12000 Paul You Tube comments! For which, http://xkcd.com/202/" is well earned.

 

[ShawnD]

Youtube comments are hilarious. That's half the reason for going there.

I'm referring to the actual debate itself at roughly 6:00 in the video.

Moderator: You don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks?
Ron: What changed?
Moderator: Noninterventionlist policies
Ron: No, nonintervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the middle east... I think Reagan was right, we don't understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics, so right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what we would do if someone else did it to us.
Moderator: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?
Ron: I'm saying we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted we're over there because Osama Bin Ladin has said "I am glad you're over here on our sand because we can target you so much easier." We've already since that time killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary.

Americans themselves did nothing to cause this, as the guy at 11 minutes is trying to get him say, but the government certainly does deserve some of the blame, and Ron Paul says just that at 6 minutes.

 

[mheslep]

Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).




He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).

Excuse me while I shift the topic to something like ... the title of this thread, R. Paul. On the subject of avoiding foreign wars with admittedly hostile powers, Paul has cited as an example that the US[West] managed to contain the Soviet Union while avoiding a hot war; I suppose that would also go for China under Mao[1]. If I read Paul correctly, he contends the US should do likewise with todays bad actors. Fair enough. It must be seen however that the USSR containment was done by fighting a cold war through some nasty proxies in S. America, Iran as posted here, the M. East, etc., which Paul again criticizes, saying they cause 'blowback' among other things. I'd agree some of these cold war actions were ill advised / foolish in some cases. I'd also say its unavoidable to have blunders like that in a war, cold or hot.

Now, my summary take on Paul is he:
-Opposes direct military action in Iraq, Sudan, etc and points to containment strategies instead (probably while people rot - Sudan),
-Opposes involvement with proxies required to execute containment,
and all the while says he's not an isolationist. I'm still waiting for a Presidential foreign policy plan he supports in one sentence without criticizing it in the next.

[1] Not that I'd grant this is a given 'good' as Uncle Joe killed/imprisoned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#_note-72", but ok, the argument for containment is it's better than blowing up the whole world.

 

[Evo]

Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?

Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.

To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy

H.R.6
Title: An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:7:./temp/~c110ErkbdS::

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.