NEWS: The Dangers of Ron Paul

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but quoting a wiki article and then saying "that's all I'm going to say" is a really lame argument. Do you think you can come up with something better? I'm willing to listen if you are.

I'm sorry, who were you talking to? (Hint: there's a "Reply" button.)

GDP is only a fraction of the story. Consider this: Japan's economy has grown beyond the factory/manufacturing workforces that defined most of the Twentieth Century, but has still kept that base, which is a bigger accomplishment than most people are willing to admit. America is losing its manufacturing jobs while expanding into other markets. The EU, while subject to regional variation, has also been stable, with many of the leading manufacturing companies being housed in their member-states.

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.

I'll admit to using "booming" incorrectly (EDIT: and also that I'm no econ expert, so I'll accept any ass-kicking I get in this field), but I still say Japan and the EU are doing better overall than the U.S. is right now.

Fixed.

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

Awesome.

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.

Let's face facts, people. No one can make a single argument to change someones mind once they're set in their ways. If someone likes Ron Paul, they like Ron Paul. If someone likes Hillary, then they are retar - I mean, they like Hillary.

The simple fact of the matter is, no one votes anymore because they happen to see a candidate they like, who actually embodies their political philosophy. No, they vote for the lesser of two evils, or for nobody at all. Our country shows absolutely abysmal voting percentage because our candidates are on par with chugging a cup of broken glass and whale semen thats been left out in the sun for 6 hours.

I'm not saying don't hate Ron Paul because you disagree with him... I'm simply saying - look at the competition.

I like to to give ron paul a shout out for raiseing 4 millon in one day and i slaute him for being the #1 fundraiser from soilders. and hitting all thoes 1st in the straw polls.

How about do a INTERVEW with him i think he would be more then happy.

one of the things i like about ron paul is his internet freedom . wants to give us all thoes sexy pics that have been blackd out for us back.

man, ron paul works fast!

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.

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

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

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

Codswallop! I have a diagram that describes everything.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

joker_ said:

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

Codswallop! I have a diagram that describes everything.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Fixed.

Doesn't everyone have a zombie survival kit?

Even the zombies have those.

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.

And, here, I have received my econ ass-kicking.

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

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?)

And great on those tough grease stains!

I forgot about them because I usually am trying very hard to forget about them. Who the fuck is John Galt, anyhow?

I agree on this for sure. Let's not forget how much support the Ronster is getting because of those goofy "What Are You?" quizzes that libertarians demo on college campuses. "A fancy square done told me I'm a libber-tare-yun!"

True. It's growing slowly, but steadily.

And by "slowly," I mean slllllooooowwwwwwwlllllllllyyyyyyyyy. Like watching a frame-by-frame of a train wreck.