NEWS: The Dangers of Ron Paul

Faustus49 said:
Go to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

"insists that the Federal Reserve (which was a decentralizing institution) is a pinnacle of centralized control."

Read the very first line. I don't like to argue with people like you for the same reason you don't like many Ron Paul supporters and most people don't like Dick Cheney. You make up your "facts" to support your arguement.

Yes, I just compared you to Dick Cheney and Crazy Ron Paul supporters.

"Study the falsehoods a man tells others and you'll discover how he intends to profit from them. Study the falsehoods a man tells himself and you'll discover how others will profit from him. " - Specbear

Faustus49 said:
Go to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

"insists that the Federal Reserve (which was a decentralizing institution) is a pinnacle of centralized control."

Read the very first line. I don't like to argue with people like you for the same reason you don't like many Ron Paul supporters and most people don't like Dick Cheney. You make up your "facts" to support your arguement.

Yes, I just compared you to Dick Cheney and Crazy Ron Paul supporters.

"Study the falsehoods a man tells others and you'll discover how he intends to profit from them. Study the falsehoods a man tells himself and you'll discover how others will profit from him. " - Specbear

freshprncebelair said:

Hmmm...gdp growth figures don't seem to support that assertion:

(2006 GDP growth figures)
France: 1.4%
UK: 1.8%
European Union: 2.1%
Japan: 2.7%
United States: 3.5%
India: 7.6%
P.R. China: 9.9%

Granted, it's easier for a poorer nation to grow than a rich one, but much of the growth in China and India is cannibalized from the United States, and more recently the European Union as a whole.

Also, bringing up the above, if the EU reduces fossil fuel dependence (read: demand) domestically, but transfers the production to a country like China where they don't care about the environment so much, you haven't actually helped the environment, as your buying patterns canceled out the gains.

we3_pirate said:

GOP is only a fraction of the story.

<snip>

GOP also doesn't take into account unemployment. One would think that it would, but with government assistance programs, GOP can grow even as unemployment rises.

<snip>

So essentially, as long as the rich still have some investment in the country, the government spends money, and consumers consume, then GOP can be even marginally healthy.

SockPuppet said:

Fixed.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist that...

bean said:

You mean the ones that have been back for almost a year now?

OrlandoClassWar said:
The farthest left on any normal scale is usually Anarchism, which has little or nothing to do with anything you can find on the conservative side of things. So i'd say your circular diagram is about a mile off.

Toku666 said:

Except for all those far-right anarchists, which is the people on the "conservative" side of the circle. We just usually call them "separatists," or "militia" or something. Wishing for a cessation of government is not the sole property of the far (far) left.

Toku666 said:
That's why a left/right linear scale is unhelpful, and the circular diagram is not "about a mile off."

Zarth said:
To be fair, the circular diagram is also pretty limited - as any graphic visualization of political philosophies is doomed to be.

joker_ said:

Codswallop! I have a diagram that describes everything.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

OrlandoClassWar said:
The farthest left on any normal scale is usually Anarchism, which has little or nothing to do with anything you can find on the conservative side of things. So i'd say your circular diagram is about a mile off.

As for Ron Paul supporters, yes, they are usually nutty and generally have 100-200 "Survival" kits in their house in case the world is overrun by the apocolypse or zombies.

we3_pirate said:

Doesn't everyone have a zombie survival kit?

we3_pirate said:
GDP also doesn't take into account unemployment. One would think that it would by extension, but with government assistance programs, GDP can grow even as unemployment rises. GDP is measured by: investment+(exports-imports)+government spending+consumption. EDIT: Essentially, all that would have to be done is for the government to increase spending to the poor/unemployed, they still buy more, leading to increased investments. And the U.S. has a steady rise in unemployment, while the EU has shed some of its unemployment rate.

TheFuckOffKid said:

I should know better than to venture into a Ron Paul thread, but ...

GDP does not take unemployment into account because it's meant to be a measure of (the value of) a nation's total output, however it is produced.

All the things you mentioned (investment, net exports, government spending, private consumption spending) all sum to total spending on national output and hence give you an expenditure-based measure of what has been produced and sold through markets. Based on that definition, unemployment doesn't belong there.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, spending on the unemployed would be classified as transfers and not spending on output (the product in Gross Domestic Product), so GDP would not rise as spending on programs of that sort doesn't count as spending on product of the sort included in GDP.

Third, as spending on output rises, employment would tend to rise, so GDP and unemployment tend to be negatively correlated.

we3_pirate said:
Although, in this particular case, GDP is rising, but so is unemployment. Weird freak of nature, huh?

MrCrisp said:

man, ron paul works fast!

Zarth said:
"Anarcho-capitalists" is the usual term, actually, though they often self-identify as "Objectivists," as well.

Zarth said:

To be fair, the circular diagram is also pretty limited - as any graphic visualization of political philosophies is doomed to be.

TheFuckOffKid said:

I haven't seen the most recent US numbers, but I don't think GDP's growing by much, eh? Nor do I think unemployment's rising much either. (Is that correct?)