I guess you made a very good point. HOWEVER, The constitution does not say we should have bases all over the world. In essence a military empire.
Can't argue there, I have no idea why we have shoulder the burden for defending Japan, South Korea, Europe and the like. It's more like military welfare imo, look how much these places have prospered under our protection. Time for them to do it themselves, let China secure the persian gulf -but we still get the benefits of the oil.
What??? Weren't they prosperous before??? Japan was an empire, Korea was about to merge with Japan. A cultural genocide but hey......... Europe, had the US not invervine in WW1, would be German all of it. A united states of europe by 1918.
Quoting from the Wikipedia link you posted: "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize."
omg. ok, not the original nobel prize set up from nobel's funds. but it is an equivalent of that - awarded also in stockholm and on the same day (called usually a nobel prize...). it is awarded "in accordance with the rules governing the award of the Nobel Prizes instituted through Alfred Nobel's will"... not sure it makes any sense to argue about verbatim here - the point is he got the award which he did not deserve imo.
What??? Weren't they prosperous before??? Japan was an empire, Korea was about to merge with Japan. A cultural genocide but hey......... Europe, had the US not invervine in WW1, would be German all of it. A united states of europe by 1918. The point is that WWII happened, and nations under Soviet influence were not prosperous. Most certainly both Germany and Japan would not have done as well without protection and Marshall plan type projects. South Korea especially is a case of tremedously benefiting, dittos for Kuwait. I think that we can longer afford to be a cop for the wealthy.
Even so, defense spending as a percentage of total GDP is only at 4.7% for 2009. In fact, it was only at 3.9% in 2005. I believe that the 45-year average is 5.5%
It's called the Nobel prize because Nobel paid for it and said what he wanted it awarded for. He did not say to have an economics prize, therefore an economics prize made up 70+ years later is not a Nobel prize. The economics prize is a Swedish bank prize, not a Nobel.
Marc Faber: "Professor Krugman, whose recent criticism of the Austrian School of Economics shows that he really has no clue about economics â an impression I had already following a discussion with him in the late 1990s when he claimed the NASDAQ would never decline4 (Paul Krugman: ââ¦.âAustrian theoryâ of the business cycleâa theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fireâ)