One of the reasons for the Korean War was Acheson not including South Korea in the strategic Asian defense perimeter. (Cite). This cite doesn’t specifically mention the link, but it is clear the apparent unimportance of South Korea to the US encouraged the North Koreans to attack, just as Saddam attacked Kuwait when he got the incorrect impression we wouldn’t respond. Pulling troops out would increase the probability of another war. The troops are obviously there as a trigger - an attack would involve an attack on American forces which would trigger the full response. The troops in Germany during the Cold War were there for the same reason - they would not stop a Soviet advance, but they’d make the prospect of a nuclear response far more likely.
Bringing them home would not save a lot of money. Germany is also a convenient halfway point to the Middle East. I think it probably is more expensive to station troops in Alaska - a friend stationed there got hardship pay.
I will answer your other questions later, but first: what the hell are you talking about? We do not have $40 trillion in national debt.
Depending on who is counting, our debt is in the neighborhood of 80% of our GDP. But that isn’t the whole story.
We currently pay a lesser percentage of our wealth to service (maintain) our national debt than we did 20 years ago. It is a fact: our larger debt today costs us less than our smaller debt in the early 1990s. Bet you didn’t know that.
But hasn’t the portion of government spending to pay the interest on the debt increased? Isn’t it about to pass national defense to become the single largest part of the budget?
The nation’s ability to pay may be increasing, but it still seems precariously high…
(I did hear on the radio the interesting story of the Clinton-era report on the downside of paying it off completely. But once again, there can be a parallel with a business: businesses work best when operating at a certain, limited amount of debt. If they owe no money, they aren’t operating at the peak efficiency. Companies borrow money to run R&D, to provide for future products and profits… I know that government is not a business, but the parallel seems valid in this specific.)
Personally, I’d question the economic argument that a limited amount of debt can be a good thing. It seems suspect. But I’ll admit I’m not enough of an economic expert to state that it isn’t true.
However, I’ve heard the argument that some debt is good for political reasons and I can see the rationale here. The argument is that the lender has a financial stake in the borrower’s well-being. He wants the borrower to prosper so his loan will be repaid.
This works on an international scale. If the United States government owes China a hundred billion dollars, China doesn’t want the United States government to collapse.
Outside of the Joker, even evil lunatics need a reason for their crimes. It may be an evil insane reason but they still have one. Bin Laden was quite open about his reasons - he wanted all non-Muslim troops out of any Muslim country.
I’d like to understand why libertarians see the Fed as pernicious. There are people of differing politics who thought Quantitative Easing to be a poor policy; is that the problem? That they have the power to do that? Or that they used the power inappropriately? Or is it something else?
I’m hoping for a brief clarifying answer, rather than links to screeds. But, since IIRC Ron Paul alleges that the Fed loans money secretly to foreign governments, linking to a credible discussion of that would be nice, if that’s part of why the Fed is pernicious.
My question was sincere, but went unanswered. Apparently libertarians know the Fed is “pernicious” but don’t know why.
Answering my own question, Ron Paul blames the Fed for inflation, which “has caused the dollar to lose 96% of its value.” But this claim seems wrong for a few reasons:
[ul][li] The Fed’s mandate is to control inflation, not encourage it! It targets about 2% annual inflation, which, I believe, mainstream economists regard as preferable to having no inflation at all.[/li][li] Inflation is both a cause and a result of people’s and businesses’ desire to spend money. Again (and ignoring those who “want to see Obama fail”), sane policy-makers want to see more spending now, not less.[/li][li] Stipulating that 2% annual inflation is desirable, the dollar should have lost 86% of its value over the last century. Ron Paul may be more sincere than other GOP Presidential material, but he’s still just another inane-soundbite guy.[/li][/ul]
There have been 3 or 4 bouts of inflation over the last 100 years (though monetary performance was much less erratic than in the pre-Fed days). This is the first I’ve heard that WWII inflation and the oil price-triggered inflation of the 1970’s should be blamed on the Fed. (There were a few inflationary years in the 1910’s immediately after creation of FRB – what caused that?)
And much, much better than deflation. That discourages spending, as during the Depression.
When they get around to answering your question, perhaps they can explain why the supposed loss of value of the dollar means anything. Typically prices can be expressed in number of hours one needs to work to make certain purchases - by that measure we’re doing much better than we were in 1910 in many areas, such as food. We’re in relatively good shape versus the currencies of various countries. If you count gold we probably have lost more than 84%. When I got my school ring gold was still $35 an ounce. But unless you are buying jewelry or filling your teeth, who cares?
Perhaps the same way that someone simultaneously argues “With the internet, who needs the FDA to evaluate drug safety” and “The only reason the masses have yet to embrace Ron Paul is that the big media are being mean to him”?
“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Here’s you talking about the New Deal era previously:
Here’s you now:
First, I don’t appreciate your condescension. Secondly, it comes across as really foolish in the context of you switching up metrics in a misleading way. You claimed that there was no economic recovery until after WWII. In fact, the US GDP hit a new record high by 1936. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
I apologize, though it was in reaction to your veiled “condescension.”
I never argued that GDP did not increase. In fact, I didn’t mention it at all, making it impossible that I was “switching metrics.”
Why would you consider those employees when they are not contributing to the aggregate wealth of the nation? What are they producing? I could dig a pretty deep hole in my backyard, and you could pay me for it, but would it be contributing in any way to the economy?
The confiscatory tax rates of the time helped to fund grandiose work programs that did little to help the economy.
How about we follow our own advice lest we be accused of hypocrisy.
In fact, your first claim was that there was no economic recovery. Your second claim was in regards to unemployment. The facts are that in terms of the economy AND in terms of jobs, the evidence is clear that the New Deal dramatically improved both.
Ok. So if you look at GDP and employment. One of the best times in American history was between 1943 and 1945.
We had millions of EMPLOYEES overseas getting blown away. Millions at home making armaments. In fact 40% of the labor force was producing neither consumer goods nor capital goods. And GDP was through the roof. Meanwhile nobody could even buy a car, and purchases of sugar, gas, and tires were limited.
Those were the days.
There is a real difference between increased GDP and increased wealth. The 1930s and 40s demonstrate this.
They even taught me in HS that the New Deal was a failure, never thought I’d hear otherwise.
