Posts Tagged ‘Ron Paul’

Hey Ron Paul Fans: Hope You Know That If America Stopped Being The World’s Policeman, America’s Economy Would Collapse

August 23, 2011 2 comments

Aug. 23, 2011, 4:32 AM  “Business Insider” – Ron Paul doesn’t just think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake. He’s an isolationist: he thinks America shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. He thinks America shouldn’t have troops abroad and shouldn’t use its military except in cases of self-defense.

Here’s the problem: this would wreck the US economy, and the world economy.

And isolationists in general, and Ron Paul in particular, don’t seem to grasp that.

Here’s the thing: when isolationists talk about America being the “world’s policeman”, they think about foreign wars like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. That’s what mobilizes people’s imagination for very obvious reasons: it’s where people die. But foreign wars are by far the least important part of America’s duty as the world’s policeman.

What matters about America being the world’s policeman, and America’s troops abroad, is all the troops that don’t do any fighting.

From bases in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the US military protects the world’s shipping lanes, making sure the clockwork of the global economy runs smoothly and goods and oil can be shipped to and back. This is the part of the global American military footprint that actually matters, not the wars.

These wars may be very bad ideas, but Ron Paul and his ilk don’t just want to end those wars. They want to end America’s global military hegemony.

And it should be obvious by now that this would be like taking a wrecking ball to the American economy.

Everyone takes it as a granted that you can load a ship full of oil in Saudi Arabia and take it to China and not have anyone steal it. And that you can load a ship full of toys and iPhones in China and take it to the US and not have anyone steal it. And so on.

But even a cursory look at world history shows that this is exceptional in the history of the world. The reason why this happens is because there is a benign, global military hegemon which ensures the security of the world’s shipping lanes, on which the globalized world economy, and therefore the US economy, depends.

Every era of successful globalization, from Pericles to Queen Victoria, has involved a naval hegemon to ensure the security of shipping, and therefore commerce. The hegemon provides this public good that lets other, smaller actors free-ride not because it’s in the thrall of neocons, but because it directly benefits from strong, safe international trade.

And it’s everything libertarians abbhor: basically everyone except the US is getting a free lunch. Saudi kings and Greek shipping magnates don’t pay for the security that the US provides. And the US is paying for everyone else’s security. But actually, the US gets a lot more out of it than it spends, because it gets to be at the center of safe, global free trade.

There’s no way around it: without this trade subsidy that the US provides the world, which costs $700 billion per year in military budget but probably brings back trillions in value to the US economy, and trillions more to the world, the cost of everything would automatically rise, especially the cost of oil and the cost of anything that’s on store shelves. It’s not hard to see the effect this would have on the global, and US economy. It would make the Smoot-Hawley Act look like the Doha Round. It would have exactly the effect of something libertarians claim to detest: a giant global tarriff.

Now, Ron Paul fans sometimes answer with something like, well, once everyone else stops getting a free lunch, they’ll take charge of their own security.

Except that’s not plausible. Who else could do it? No one, that’s who.


This is Europe right now.

Image: Twitpic

Europe would be the likeliest candidate, except that its defense capabilities have shrunk to an extent where it’s impossible. The United States has eleven carrier groups, and “Europe” (because “Europe” is a geographical construct, not a political one) has four. Europe’s carriers are all much smaller than the smallest US carrier. Europe has only one nuclear carrier, meaning a carrier that can stay at sea for a long period of time. Europe doesn’t have military and naval bases across all the global shipping lanes, mostly just in its former colonies in Africa. Even if Europe a- got a unified political executive and b- took up its defense spending to the level of the US, it would take decades for it to actually build the ships and the infrastructure it would take. And meanwhile the world economy burns. (Not to mention that given its current fiscal position, it would have to do it at the price of terrible austerity, which would also wreck the global economy.)

China is an even more risible alternative. For all the talk of China’s rising clout, it doesn’t have anything near a “blue-water” navy that can project power globally. Its first and only aircraft carrier, recently launched with much hype and fretting, is a 20-year-old Soviet diesel-powered hand-me-down. So even leaving aside the obvious problems with just handing over responsibility for the global economy to a Communist dictatorship, it’s just not possible.

The same applies to India: for all their sheer size, which makes them important political and economic actors, they remain very poor countries that just don’t have the technological and economic capacities to build a military with global-reach.

Well, maybe no one country can replace the United States, but maybe everyone could chip in: Europe and the US would ensure the security of the Atlantic, India of South Asia, China of East Asia (which will certainly go down well in Taiwan and Japan) and so forth. Except that history teaches us that these “multipolar” zones of influences lead to one thing: war. In the 17th century, Britain, France and Spain fought endlessly for naval superiority. Only when Britain became most powerful did peace arrive and global trade begin in earnest. Same thing with the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. And so on.

But let’s imagine an ideal libertarian scenario. Let’s imagine that instead of a specific country, or even set of countries, global security is provided by private actors through some combination of mercenaries and insurance. By definition this would still raise the cost of global trade dramatically. Those mercenaries and insurance would still have to be paid, and those costs would still be reflected in the price of shipping. So it would still amount to a huge global tarriff.

All but the most hardcore libertarians realize that government has a role in providing public goods–things that benefit everyone but that it doesn’t make sense for any individual actor to pay for. Like it or not, global American military hegemony is a public good. The fact that the US military is so much more powerful than anyone else (indeed, everyone else combined) means that global trade is safer, and thereby cheaper, than it’s ever been before, which benefits the global economy and the US directly and tremendously.

Captain America

Image: IMDb

When libertarians and isolationists talk about the US being “the world’s policeman”, they talk in terms of a- politics and b- foreign wars. But the parts that matter are about a- economics and b- preventing wars. What matters in policing a city isn’t the SWAT team, it’s the cops who walk the beat and take care of the riff-raff so that the SWAT team only has to come out once in a while. And when the SWAT team raids the wrong house, that’s terrible and we should do something about that, but it doesn’t mean we need to disband the police force.

We’re all for blasting illegal, unwinnable, endless foreign wars of choice. We’re all for smashing the national security state that treats grandma like a terrorist if she wants to board a flight. We’re all for howling at the insidious and wasteful military-industrial complex, and cutting the unsustainable Pentagon budget.

That’s what gets Ron Paul attention, but that’s not what he wants. What he and other isolationists want is to end American global military hegemony. And facts are stubborn: like it or not, doing that would wreck the global and US economy.

Ron Paul and his fans should come to terms with that.

Commentary. What a complete load of crap.

Business Insider admits it; But I have a question: Minding your own business is being “isolationist”? So that means that pretty much every other country in the world is isolationist?; So all these presence of the US military all over the world is only for securing the shipment of oiltankers? lol how much really are the people stupid to believe that?

The economy-damaging US wars are thought to continue as long as giant American corporations supporting Washington politicians profit from them.
The US economy will fail because Americans pay through debt; and by 2021 the US’s debt will equal its GDP. Obama’s solution for debts crisis? 2+2×2=8!!
I say thank God Germany stopped being isolationist when they invaded Poland!
Americans are going homeless, have no health care, pay $100,000 for college tuition….but they got troops all over the world so they secure oiltankers! LOL
The US economy is dependent on wars and the US is being illegally world’s policeman to save its economy, very informative article by BI.
Categories: Politics Tags:

Paul: Limit military to national defense

August 23, 2011 6 comments

August 22, 2011 “Concord Monitor” – History is an excellent teacher, and though her lessons can be painful, Americans had better start listening up, says Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

If not, the 6,000 soldiers lost in Iraq and Afghanistan will have died for nothing, he said in a meeting yesterday with the Monitor editorial board.

“I’m hoping and praying we can get a message out of this, learn a lesson. If you don’t change your viewpoints, if you don’t understand history . . . they will have died in vain. We thought we learned our lesson in Vietnam,” he said, but war “is constant, it’s endless, it’s killing. How many more people have to die before we wake up and admit that those people should not have died? If we would have only had the proper policy, those (soldiers) would have been alive today.”

The proper policy, Paul said, is to keep our military limited to national defense, not intervening in other nation’s affairs.

“Great countries are brought to their knees because they go empire building,” he said during the hour-long interview.

Paul is running for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election and made a two-day visit to New Hampshire. He began Wednesday night by officially opening his campaign headquarters in the city and ended with a house party in Amherst last night.

Known mostly for his decades-long crusade to shrink the size of the federal government, Paul jokingly suggested yesterday a few dozen jobs that could be added to the rolls.

“Anybody who wants to start a new war should have his head examined (and) there’s room for a lot of psychiatrists down there in Washington,” said Paul, paraphrasing former defense secretary Robert Gates.

Paul has stood apart from his Republican competitors in his staunch criticism of the country’s military spending. If elected, he said he would close the dozens of military bases America has around the world to bring billions, if not trillions, of dollars in savings and economic stimulus to the country.

“What do we need ’em for? . . . It’s $1.4 trillion we spend on maintaining our militarism,” Paul said. “It mostly gets us into more trouble by getting involved over there. We’re just getting killed over there, shot at and wasting our money. There’s no authority for it, for us to be the policeman of the world.”

For Paul, everything the federal government does must find, at its roots, authority granted by the U.S. Constitution. That means no Environmental Protection Agency, no federal health care programs and no income tax.

Reducing taxes is the only job creation program he believes the Constitution would allow.

“We need more spending, in the private economy,” he said. “People need to be able to make business decisions on how to allocate their resources. That’s how we got into (the recession). Our big problem is . . . misdirected investments by the government.”

The Federal Reserve system also contributed to the recession, he said, through “this silliness of constantly creating new money when you need it.”

Other Republicans in recent days have been critical of the Federal Reserve, with Paul’s home-state Gov. Rick Perry, the newest candidate in the presidential field, saying recently, “printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous – or treasonous in my opinion.”

“I don’t use those words,” Paul responded yesterday. “I think they’re misinformed on monetary policy and that’s the more important thing. Evidently (Perry) thought it was good politics. I have never met the man, I don’t know what his monetary policy is. I’m not disappointed he addressed the Fed, but he doesn’t do it the way I do.”

Paul is consistently courteous even toward those he disagrees with, partly because the country’s situation isn’t the fault of any one person, he said.

The country has been led astray for years, he said, duped into believing in Keynesian economic theories that “they are to be taken care of and we are to be the policemen of the world. It’s not (Fed Chairman Ben) Bernanke, it’s the system. It’s not Obama, it’s not George Bush. It’s a system of foreign policy that has been around a long time, a foreign policy I challenge. I probably slip up, but I basically try really hard to not personalize. I don’t enjoy that at all.”


I like Paul


Congressman Ron Paul is a true patriot and citizen statesman who has governed with Constitutional principles.

Paul, a U.S. Air Force veteran, has served with distinction as a representative for Texas. He is also an advocate for low taxes, free markets, honest money, and a pro-America foreign policy void of corporate special interests.

Over the years Paul has had a consistent voting record and has voted against every tax increase and every unbalanced budget. Paul is no friend of Wall Street bankers and corporate welfare beneficiaries.

Our founding fathers stood up to the British empire so that we could be free.

Now Paul stands up to the corporate empire so that Americans can be free from the rule of their special interests.

Paul placed second in the Iowa straw poll, losing to Michele Bachmann by less than 1 percent. Paul is one of the “big three” candidates remaining in the Republican presidential contest; don’t be fooled by the media blackout regarding Paul’s popularity with the working class. Remember, Paul has corporate special interests on the run, and they fear his nomination in 2012, for they know their days are numbered in Washington.

It is time to restore prosperity, peace, freedom and true economic security to America’s working families.

In 2012 vote for the change you wanted; vote Ron Paul, a true American hero.


Categories: Politics Tags: ,
%d bloggers like this: