|
Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » "It's Easier To Have A Higher Growth Rate When...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 29, 7:41 pm, BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 29, 7:41 pm, BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 29, 8:32 pm, Shrikeb... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Jun 29, 7:41 pm, BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: 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?
. . .
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 29, 7:41 pm, BretCah... at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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
Quote: If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
planet.
Care to try again?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: 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.
Try to remember, these twerps are complete _morons_. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<0320a00a-487f-450e-80ae-3747b1e45a23 at (no spam) z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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? Since you snip attributions, there is no way of knowing.
Quote: If that were true Somalia would have the highest growth rate on the
planet.
This would only be true if there were no other factors whatsoever that
contributed to growth rate. Just because it is easier doesn't mean it
is a forgone conclusion.
Do you?
Heck, someone else even posted two countries with smaller economies than
Somalia, yet you continue to claim they have the smallest in the world.
Do you ever acknowledge you are wrong? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Deadrat... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote in news:0320a00a-487f-450e-80ae-3747b1e45a23
at (no spam) z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Deadrat... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote in news:046d1021-35ca-4a84-b705-8d7009bee0f6
at (no spam) v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Quote: 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?
Quote: 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.
Quote: You should be advised that we're on the honor system here.
That's the nice thing about newsgroups. We don't have to rely on the honor
system. The bits are there in cyberspace.
> Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<046d1021-35ca-4a84-b705-8d7009bee0f6 at (no spam) v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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.
Well you're the one who posted it in this thread, and didn't claim who
it came from.
I wonder if you thought you'd take it as your own idea, much like you
would have us believe you came up with your asinine "judges hate
lawyers" theory, only to reveal earlier you stole the idea from someone
else.
Quote: A moron who is too cowardly to take credit for his own poop.
As opposed to an idiot who could have posted the threat with
attributions? You know what those are, don't you?
Quote: 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.
Funny, coming from someone with no honor. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<6196fdcc-6436-4615-9c9d-752b8e3e8b20 at (no spam) g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote:
Quote: 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.
Then why do you claim it says one of those infinite number of things?
Quote: You made your bed.
And now you are going to eat it.
Ummm, you either make your bed and sleep in it, or have your cake and
eat it.
I can't tell if you mixed these up in a misguided attempt to be funny,
or are just plain stupid. My vote's the later. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Deadrat... |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
BretCahill at (no spam) peoplepc.com wrote in news:6196fdcc-6436-4615-9c9d-
752b8e3e8b20 at (no spam) g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Quote: 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.
I take it that's the imperial first person plural. OK, king of the
ignoramuses, the one thing that my statement does *not* say is what you
attribute to it.
Also, you accidentally snipped my rephrasing of what my statement *did*
say. So I'll restore it:
<quote>
The statement merely says that the size of the task is smaller. Under
comparable economic conditions, the smaller task is easier.
</qutoe>
Quote: You made your bed.
And now you are going to eat it.
I think the adage ends "lie in it."
But this "bed" is yours. Don't lie about it.
> Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
