@Veta; makes sense; take your time to recover and we can continue the discussion when you have time. I actually feel like I'm getting something as well.

The Vietnam issue is kind of a tangent. We can just agree to disagree on it. Quite frankly I don't know enough about Russia to declare if that base is needed or not. I'd rather not hinge my argument on that anecdote that isn't crucial to my argument anyway.

I completely agree that naval bases are necessary for defense (re-fueling, R&R, training, etc). But I think we both agree that many of the bases are no longer necessary; and represent critical defense points from historical conflicts. I'd leave it up to experts to determine which ones are crucial and which ones aren't.

I also agree that cutting the MIC is a way bigger savings. Then the cutting of the bases; however I think both are necessary. I'm not going to comment on specific weapon systems; because I'm not an expert. But it is clear that there is a ton of waste and unnecessary spending on weapon systems and research.

Btw; interesting enough; RP talks about the cuts of bases vs MIC in the speech posted for Skrum in my last post. Watch it; he clearly makes the same point. MIC and foreign spending represents a much bigger part of the 1 trillion in spending cuts he plans in year 1; than the bases. However bases are still a integral part of it.

He also talks of the economic effect of bring troops home; due to the increases in domestic spending that will happen when troops are spending their wages in the USA instead of Germany, Japan, etc. This would have the same effect as a stimulus package from the government without having to use any taxpayer money. After WW2, all the troops coming home had the same effect.

For you Veta:

"I also agree that cutting the MIC is a way bigger savings THAN the cutting of the bases; however I think both are necessary."

lol <3

I'll watch the vid when I get a chance dead

Okay; take some vitamin C and feel better soon.

It was not at Da Nang that the Soviets/Russia had their naval base but Cam Ranh Bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Ranh_Bay

They left the base in 2002. The United States has been negotiating with Vietnam about opening the base to visits by foreign navies.

When I was in the Navy (1970-1974) the Soviets also had a submarine base at Cienfuegos, Cuba and a base at Conakry, Guinea.

I watched the whole 44-minute speech.

Ron Paul did not say anything about what he would do about Iran or the Straits of Hormuz. He did not show any familiarity with naval thinking.

He mentioned Austrian economics in his speech. My problem with Austrian economics is that many of its precepts are nonfalsifiable and place themselves outside the scientific method.

It doesn't talk about Iran and Hormuz specifically; but he does talk about the difference between defense spending and militarism. Which is the other topic we were talking about in this thread.

So Skrum; considering you require falsifiable precepts. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that scientific method of the natural sciences is applicable to the social sciences?

This is a clear difference between Austrian economics and Keynesian economics. If this is what you think; then explain to me how it is possible to know with the certainty all the statistical characteristics at any given moment of a human being? Without perfect knowledge of the exact statistical properties of a human it is impossible for you to replicate the exact procedures that are used in the natural sciences.

Please explain how you over come these hurdles? The end result of trying to break a human being into a set of statistical properties which are unknowable; then construct an experiment; is exactly the result that you argue against with the Moody's numbers in the other thread.

Treating social sciences like natural sciences result in garbage in and thus garbage out. You inevitably need to make silly assumptions like Tom's propensity to spend money on beer is 4.32 and Bill propensity to choose plastic over paper bags is 7.93. Therefore GDP is yada-ya if we give money to Bill vs Tom.

The end result is obviously just trash. And this is obviously what Moody's did when deciding that Food Stamps are 1.72 vs Tax cuts are .72. And it is also the reason why Moody's probably keeps their methodology secret; because it would be laughable if you actually saw the mathematical gymnastics and assumptions they had to make in order to describe a human beings actions and characteristics in statistical terms.

Mises spoke of this in great length; and I wholeheartedly agree. Human activity cannot be described by a mathematical formula; nor are humans passive objects with completely measurable properties like a rock or a beaker full of silicon.

Mises called this a form of scientism.

UPDATE: US Aircraft Carrier has arrived in the Straight of Hormuz. Iran is currently holding war games near by.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8983631/Strait-of-Hormuz-standoff-continues-as-Iran-films-US-aircraft-carrier.html

strait*

Social sciences are studies of people in the aggregrate and you can develop falsifiable hypotheses of aggregate human behavior just as you can construct falsifiable hypotheses of physical chemical systems although you can't track the behaviors of individual atoms and molecules.

Most economic hypothesis testing is ex post facto, but that makes economics no less a science than say, astronomy. Economic experimentation has taken place and is taking place. A notable example, that I have mentioned a number of times in these threads, is the Iowa Electronic Markets, run by the economics department of the University of Iowa. They are testing the rational expectations hypothesis: can markets predict human events? They currently have markets for the Iowa caucuses, Republication nomination overall, generic Democrat versus generic Republican in popular vote, and whether the Fed's FOMC is going to raise, lower, or keep interest rates the same at their next meeting. And, unlike most markets, all transactions of all buyers are recorded, so rational and irrational behavior and their outcomes can be measured. The Iowa Electronic markets have a good, but not perfect, record of predicting outcomes of elections.