|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:41
>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
planet.
Care to try again?
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | 24 Comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:26
>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
They do say that. That's why we have Showers and Growers.
> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
> planet.
>
> Care to try again?
All that the smaller economy has to do is trade with a larger
economy, then the proposition is certainly true. Given
equally beneficial trade the smaller economy grows faster as
a result of that trade than the larger economy. That's just common
sense.
Also, bringing online economies with a surplus of labor
but a shortage of capital means the supply of labor goes up,
as does the demand for capital. So capital pays off better
than labor. That's just supply and demand.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:32
>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
> planet.
>
> Care to try again?
And anyway, the KKKahill is not authorized to lecture anyone
about economics, since he believes in "tax cut recessions" and
other fairy tales, and is merely trying to relive the prime of his
life, back in the late Seventies when taxes were high and so was
he.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:37
On Jun 29, 8:32 pm, Shrikeb...@ gmail.com wrote: >>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
>> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
>> planet.
>
>> Care to try again?
>
> And anyway, the KKKahill is not authorized to lecture anyone
> about economics, since he believes in "tax cut recessions" and
> other fairy tales, and is merely trying to relive the prime of his
> life, back in the late Seventies when taxes were high and so was
> he.
That's what we call "negatory" economies of scale, good buddy.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:54
>>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
> Who said this? �
Obviously a moron.
A moron who is too cowardly to take credit for his own poop.
And, if you are thinking of using computer searches to identify the
moron, think again.
You should be advised that we're on the honor system here.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DeadratDeadrat Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:54
>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>
>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
> planet.
>
> Care to try again?
Try what again? Try to make you understand a simplye statement?
Seems futile, but I'll try.
The statement does *not* say that if you're smaller, you ipso facto get a
higher growth rate. Somalia is the counterexample.
The statement merely says that the size of the task is smaller. Under
comparable economic conditions, the smaller task is easier.
> Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DeadratDeadrat Date: Jun 29, 2008 21:06
>>>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>
>>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
>> Who said this? �
>
> Obviously a moron.
Like someone who answers a rhetorical question?
> A moron who is too cowardly to take credit for his own poop.
>
> And, if you are thinking of using computer searches to identify the
> moron, think again.
Yeah, none of that evidence stuff for you.
> You should be advised that we're on the honor system here.
|
| Show full article (0.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Jun 29, 2008 21:16
>>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>> If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
>> planet.
>> Care to try again?
> Try what again? �
Being a moron?
. . .
> The statement does *not* say
Look, we _know_ that the statement does _not_ say an _infinite_ number
of things so don't try to weasel out of what you said with that
tactic.
You made your bed.
And now you are going to eat it.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jun 29, 2008 21:41
>>> The issue here is _growth_ rates.
>>> The Chinese have a positive 8%% growth rate.
>>> The Americans have a negative growth rate.
>> It's easier to have a higher growth rate when you're smaller.
>
The argument is presented in error. You give examples of the growth
rates of two large countries as some sort of evidence to warrent a
conclusion about the growth rates of small countries. But the
conclusion is not even supported sufficiently in the premises.
An apple refrigerated is eatable
An apple in the sun get rotten
therefore bannas make good food and dildos
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cua4N0LlrCs
|
| Show full article (0.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
