

An Empire At Risk - jganetsk
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694

======
thaumaturgy
America's priorities, on the whole, have shifted in recent decades from
embracing risk and ingenuity to seeking safety and security at any cost. For
much of the population, education is less important than faith, and "freedom"
has been twisted perversely into something that actually means "safety".

Those trends began America's downfall as an empire. It was inevitable, all
empires come to an end eventually, supplanted by a new one, full of people
willing to explore and take great risks.

~~~
UncleOxidant
"For much of the population, education is less important than faith, and
"freedom" has been twisted perversely into something that actually means
"safety"."

Spot on.

------
Alex3917
It seems like ever since Obama was elected, the three things Newsweek
complains about most are the Iraq war, the death of civil liberties, and the
fact that fiat money is about to destroy the American empire by making the
dollar worthless.

If only there were some presidential candidate who had those as his top three
issues before the election, I'm sure Newsweek would have been 100% behind him.

/sarcasm

~~~
thaumaturgy
I assume you're talking about Ron Paul.

Much of what Ron Paul said sounds great to armchair economists, armchair
social scientists, armchair international political scientists, and so on.
Nearly all of his proposals were simple solutions to exceedingly complex
problems, and in practice, complex problems more often require complex
solutions.

(Disclaimer: I liked Ron Paul a whole lot during the early stages of the
primaries, but on later reflection concluded that an RP presidency more likely
would have been disastrous.)

~~~
dpatru
A Ron Paul presidency would have economically hurt people who make money by
relying on the government to enforce anti-market policies. For example, the
military spends a lot of money maintaining troops throughout the world. If
troop levels were reduced and bases closed, a lot of the people involved,
especially military contractors, would suffer, at least until they could find
a way to serve private interests.

Also, banks that rely on the ability to create fiat money that the government
forces people to use would suffer as people begin to use hard currency.

Also, a lot of government employees would have to transition to private
employment.

Since a lot of people are employed by the government, banks, and the military,
RP-style changes in these sectors would create a lot of tumult. But this would
be temporary until people readjust. The end result would be a richer society
because more people would be employed privately and resources would be better
distributed. Society would also be more free, which is a quality worth having
even if there were no economic benefits.

~~~
ubernostrum
Assuming that by "hard" currency you mean a gold standard or something
similar, I'd suspect you've not thought your cunning plan all the way through.
I've commented before on the problems with gold, and they generalize to many
other things which are proposed to back "hard" currencies:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629390>

------
known
In one page <http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/output/print>

