Deficit declines $100 billion
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
The statistic of national debt as a percentage of GDP is used for comparing the state of one country's economy in one particular year to the state of another country's economy in the same particular year.
It is not used to compare the state of one country's economy to itself in a past year. This is precisely because debt is cumulative while GDP is not.
It is not used to compare the state of one country's economy to itself in a past year. This is precisely because debt is cumulative while GDP is not.
Mike, all I am asking for is for you to post proof for your argument.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
The proof is in the logic. To compare something from one year to the next, you need to have a statistic which starts over each year.
Once again you are saying that all the economists of the world are wrong by that statement. So when did you get your Nobel Prize in Economics?
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Originally Posted by BonzoAPD
Once again you are saying that all the economists of the world are wrong by that statement. So when did you get your Nobel Prize in Economics?
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
The statistic of national debt as a percentage of GDP is used for comparing the state of one country's economy in one particular year to the state of another country's economy in the same particular year.
It is not used to compare the state of one country's economy to itself in a past year. This is precisely because debt is cumulative while GDP is not.
It is not used to compare the state of one country's economy to itself in a past year. This is precisely because debt is cumulative while GDP is not.
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Originally Posted by BonzoAPD
wow you're an economics student. Congrats. I still see no proof from you or Mike 
It is amazing how painfully immune to logic you are.
If you would simply look at the statement I have made countless times that you cannot use a cumulative statistic to make a year-to-year comparison, we would all be done a long time ago.
Responding to that statement by saying, "well a bunch of economists track it for SOMETHING, so you're wrong!" makes no sense whatsoever.
I refuse to try and talk about logic to someone who has demonstrated an utter lack of any understanding of it. Here is an intruduction to logic:
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/
Read it and then we can talk.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 16,353
Likes: 0
From: Ossining, New York
Originally Posted by MrFatbooty
What constitutes proof to you? A link to some page I found on google which shows the stat being used for something?
It is amazing how painfully immune to logic you are.
It is amazing how painfully immune to logic you are.
To you nothing is logical unless you or one of your liberal cronies posts it.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 0
From: Location Location
Originally Posted by MDork
[hijack] rick did you see your autox pics?[/hijack]
no what autox pictures?
__________________
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
'00 Dakar Bus CRS Edition
LCD Squad #0001
Originally Posted by WiLL
...I really wanna get out and shoot people.