Re: Iraq update


"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s3vuo1hls25nbiaur101f81l5g3lnm4a3t@xxxxxxxxxx

>>> You've been laughed out of serious economic forums...the links to such
>>> are
>>> everywhere.
>>
>>
>>Nope. Never.
>
> Yes, we understand that you must keep telling yourself that to avoid a
> shotgun mouthwash, but that isn't going to make it true.


<snicker>

Pronouncements from a moron...








>>> Your personal kookery is near-legendary.
>>
>>
>>Yes, because most people wouldn't waste the time and effort to try to
>>educate ignorant morons like you.
>
> Is that your idea of a rebuttal?



Yes.





> Which person in this thread has websites
> listing their kookery? Oh, that'd be you.


So? I go to the effort to educate kooks like you and others, and those
kooks sometimes respond by trying to tear me down rather than participate in
honest debate.





> Nobody ever takes anything you
> say seriously...but that of course is a problem with everyone else, and
> not
> you.


Except for all the non-morons out there. It's only the ignorant and stupid
like you that need to engage in ad hominem rather than intelligent
discussion. I tear down your false arguments and you can't respond to my
arguments, so you throw a tantrum like a six year old.

Here the bulk of your posts are either ad hominems or appeal to ridicule, or
special pleading, or any of a number of other things that intelligent and
educated people know to avoid.







>>> You've been asked repeatedly to come up with any sort of evidence to
>>> support your assertion that you've even seen the inside of a college
>>> classroom, to say nothing of possessing the qualifications you claim to
>>> have...and you've not even TRIED to do so.
>>
>>
>>Tell you what. You prove to me that you have in fact seen the inside of a
>>college economics classroom and indeed passed a single economics course
>
> I never claimed that I did. I do not need to back up claims that I've
> never
> made.


Logical fallacy-

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something
must be false because it hasn't been proved true.



What is your claim? That I cannot be massively qualified in economics
because I have never proved I am? Pure argumentum ad ignoratium.

You simultaneously claim that I falsely use apeal to authority when I
correct you. Only appeal to authority is an argument, and I was correcting
you on a matter of facts. You nicely shifted the basis of the discussion
from one of the underlying facts (whichever bit of ognorance you were
spouting about economics at the time) to one of whether I could properly
contradict you, which you then support by argument ad ignorantiam because I
know damn well that an appeal to credentials is a false argument- facts or
either true or not on their own merits, not the merits of the person
speaking, and I am honest enough and eucated enough not to play that game.

Thus you successfully cloud the underlying issue- which is whether YOU know
jack squat about economics to make the ignorant assertions you do.



> I do however, know the difference between GDP, per-capita GNP, and average
> income, which you do not.



At least you think you do. Actually you don't.



Oh man... I forgot that you didn't even know the difference between GNP and
GDP...

Oh man you're funny when you are so fucking arrogant and SO fucking
stupid...



"GDP isn't even the whole thing...that's why we have still another category
by which to measure things: GNP. "


That's basic first day of econ 101 stuff...

Thanks for the laugh...



A- Income to Americans earned in America.

B- Income to Americans earned outside America. (say a Nike factory in
Vietnam)

C- Income to foreigners earned in America (say a Toyota factory in Missouri)



G *D* P is gross *domestic* product, the total value of good and services
produced *in* the US, which is to say 'domestically'. It includes A and C
but not B.

GDP = A + C.



G *N* P is gross *national* product, the total value of goods and services
produced by Americans, as opposed to *in* America. It includes A and B but
not C.

GNP = A + B.



(trade would make things more complicated, so I left it out)



Under no circumstances whatsoever do you ever add A, B, and C together.



As you can see, while they are different things, both GDP and GNP are the
"whole thing". Neither is a subset or superset of the other.



> Just a refresher, since you'll just try to deny it, and Google is not your
> friend: http://tinyurl.com/dexj7



Damn your own citation makes you look like an idiot....

What kind of a fuckhead ARE you?



>> and I will prove every single one of my credentials.
>
> We're waiting...but not with baited breath.



All you have to do is prove that you ever passed a single economics course
and I'll provide all the citations you want...


.

Loading