|
|
| Author |
Message |
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
 Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | lol...Here's a nice Scottish figure. Manufacturing is down 7.8% this year in Scotland. They're having a tough time keeping up with their masters' 1.4% contraction! 
http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/pressrelease.asp?ID=2559
Actually, to Scotland's credit, their 2002 GDP is actually about $116 billion...which is almost half of Wal-Mart's revenue! |
Ah the Lesser Minded WheresNWS.
Notice how this nocturnal creature of the leech family, when beaten in a debate, tries to steer the topic at hand away from the points on which he has just been spanked and introduces some pallid ad hominem attacks.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | lol...Here's a nice Scottish figure. Manufacturing is down 7.8% this year in Scotland. They're having a tough time keeping up with their masters' 1.4% contraction! :lol:
http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/pressrelease.asp?ID=2559
Actually, to Scotland's credit, their 2002 GDP is actually about $116 billion...which is almost half of Wal-Mart's revenue! |
Ah the Lesser Minded WheresNWS.
Notice how this nocturnal creature of the leech family, when beaten in a debate, tries to steer the topic at hand away from the points on which he has just been spanked and introduces some pallid ad hominem attacks.
Regards,
Eduin |
Whatever, dumbfuck. Did you even read the powerpoint presentation you found? Granted I haven't taken an introduction to macroeconomics since I was taking college courses in high school and don't remember the Keynesian Model, the 5x multiplier is a result of the given example with specific assumptions of government spending, net exports, and planned investments that, as I said, have NO BASIS IN REALITY! The specific assumptions, which have been simplified for simpletons like yourself, yield a multiplier of 5. You are soooooo f*****g stupid.
This example assumes no exports, no government spending and no taxes.
For your continued ignorance, you get a big...
<img src="http://www.realpoor.com/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif" width="400">
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 14:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | Whatever, dumbfuck. Did you even read the powerpoint presentation you found? Granted I haven't taken an introduction to macroeconomics since I was taking college courses in high school and don't remember the Keynesian Model, the 5x multiplier is a result of the given example with specific assumptions of government spending, net exports, and planned investments that, as I said, have NO BASIS IN REALITY! |
You never asked for that, you asked :-
"Why don't you provide a reference stating that a 1.3% increase in government spending (which is at both state and federal level, btw) should create a corresponding gdp increase of 8.0% that same quarter. This is where Eduin stops posting, because he can't backup his made up claims."
This explains why, clearly you didn't understand. I told you, I can't be bothered researching a precise calculated figure, it's not a huge amount of work simply based on a Lim function of the marginal propensities to save and consume but it is more work than you're worth and I already know that the answer will be pretty close to 5 (that's why, as expected, the first example I found used 5 - it's the expected value in Western economies for the short term).
Now hopefully you'll crawl back under your rock but unfortunately I expect you'll just return with another weak ad hominem.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 15:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | Whatever, dumbfuck. Did you even read the powerpoint presentation you found? Granted I haven't taken an introduction to macroeconomics since I was taking college courses in high school and don't remember the Keynesian Model, the 5x multiplier is a result of the given example with specific assumptions of government spending, net exports, and planned investments that, as I said, have NO BASIS IN REALITY! |
You never asked for that, you asked :-
"Why don't you provide a reference stating that a 1.3% increase in government spending (which is at both state and federal level, btw) should create a corresponding gdp increase of 8.0% that same quarter. This is where Eduin stops posting, because he can't backup his made up claims."
This explains why, clearly you didn't understand. I told you, I can't be bothered researching a precise calculated figure, it's not a huge amount of work simply based on a Lim function of the marginal propensities to save and consume but it is more work than you're worth and I already know that the answer will be pretty close to 5 (that's why, as expected, the first example I found used 5 - it's the expected value in Western economies for the short term).
Now hopefully you'll crawl back under your rock but unfortunately I expect you'll just return with another weak ad hominem.
Regards,
Eduin |
And you STILL haven't provided what I asked for. You provided the incorrect assumption that you remember from your intro to macroeconomics textbook that simplifies the variables such that they are completely irrelevant. So I guess your response is "you don't have time", even though you've spent a good deal of time responding to these posts! Pathetic. Purely pathetic. Are you able to tell the difference between the results of an exmple problem and reality? You're very sad, and very fat. And your economy can't even come near Wal-Mart's revenue. In fact, your country's GDP is less than General Electric...America's 5 largest corporation by revenue. Sooooooo sad.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 15:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
What's your degree in again NWS? Economics? No? Oh.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 15:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | What's your degree in again NWS? Economics? No? Oh. |
Hi parasite! I missed you!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 15:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
Not being up on all the gibberish they are both tossing out, I can't pretend to comment with any credibility at all.
But I do know this.
Eduin is jealous of, and is constantly talking shit about the Mighty Omni-Power that is the United States of America.
And knowing this makes me wonder.
Why would anyone give weigh to his amateurish economic calculations.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Banzai
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 16:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
because you can only masterbate a few times a day and the internet has to be good for something else?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Eduin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1046
Location: Glasgow
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 17:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: |
And you STILL haven't provided what I asked for. You provided the incorrect assumption that you remember from your intro to macroeconomics textbook that simplifies the variables such that they are completely irrelevant. |
Oh f**k YOU, dumb stupid c**t.
OK, here is an academic paper which re-iterates my points, albeit in rather more detailed form. As they summarise, the continued propensity of government spending *must* be sustained. For some reason they assume this can be done through lump sum taxation, a strange assumption but I really can't be bothered with a detailed analysis of their work. I'm merely bringing it up to embarrass your stupid, simple minded, childish arguments.
Paper is here http://www.federalreserve.gov/events/conferences/irfmp2003/pdf/Revised/VallesFinal.pdf
Now if you look at foot note at the end of page 6, they give the government spending multiplier in the short term for the UNITED STATES economy as "roughly 5".
OOH, Eduin is right again, WheresNWS is a f*****g retard.
I know, you don't understand any of this and are lost - but STFU, I don't care about your b******g. Now, back to kindergarten, you're playing with the big boys now, fucktard.
Regards,
Eduin
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 17:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: |
And you STILL haven't provided what I asked for. You provided the incorrect assumption that you remember from your intro to macroeconomics textbook that simplifies the variables such that they are completely irrelevant. |
Oh f**k YOU, dumb stupid c**t.
OK, here is an academic paper which re-iterates my points, albeit in rather more detailed form. As they summarise, the continued propensity of government spending *must* be sustained. For some reason they assume this can be done through lump sum taxation, a strange assumption but I really can't be bothered with a detailed analysis of their work. I'm merely bringing it up to embarrass your stupid, simple minded, childish arguments.
Paper is here http://www.federalreserve.gov/events/conferences/irfmp2003/pdf/Revised/VallesFinal.pdf
Now if you look at foot note at the end of page 6, they give the government spending multiplier in the short term for the UNITED STATES economy as "roughly 5".
OOH, Eduin is right again, WheresNWS is a f*****g retard.
I know, you don't understand any of this and are lost - but STFU, I don't care about your b******g. Now, back to kindergarten, you're playing with the big boys now, fucktard.
Regards,
Eduin |
lol! Read the f*****g articles you post, you ignorant f**k. You're neglecting one very important factor to your whole tirade of nonsense...Inflation! Which was at approximately 1.7% this year, slightly greater than the federal increase! Not to mention the fact that this multiplier was again cited as an example...NOT reality! In fact, most other sites I search place it at 1.5. I've never known such a f****s to be so f*****g arrogant and ignorant at the same time! No wonder your f****d up country had a 7.8% reduction in manufacturing this year...It must be full of "fuckwits" like yourself!
| Eduin wrote: | | you're playing with the big boys now |
Oh, I know. We all know you're very fat.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 19:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Eduin wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | moron. I said I was wrong that it's in billions, not quadrillions. and that my argument still stands. |
Let's recap.
Kireol : USA rox, you sux0rZ, here's data.
Eduin : Your data is wrong.
Kireol : d*****s, I'm right.
Eduin : Your data is wrong, look at your link.
Kireol : f**k You, I'm right, I'm AMERICAN, I'm right.
Eduin : Nope, still wrong.
Rennol : Kireol, you're wrong.
Kireol : OK my reading of the data is completely wrong but the argument I made based on all that incorrectly interpretted data is still right.
You're f*****g *insane*.
Regards,
Eduin |
you are such a f*****g goober.
by me calling the units quadrillions instead of billions does not make the argument invalid. you've used the wrong word more times than i'm willing to count. heaven forbid i do the same once.
and yes, my argument still stands.
silly stupid dweeb
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 19:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
Eduin,
You make me want to fly to scotland and burn down my family castle and rid my past of that land if you represent antything even close to the avg scotsman.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Romey
Luke Warm
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 219
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 19:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
And tonight on Realpoor death-match we got WheresNWS vrs Eduin!! Who would win the boxing match??
-V 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 19:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Romey wrote: | And tonight on Realpoor death-match we got WheresNWS vrs Eduin!! Who would win the boxing match??
-V |
Probably Eduin. I would punch him and my fist would get caught in his gut. He would be free to pummel me, but might actually get too tired after one punch.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 20:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | I've never known such a f****s to be so f*****g arrogant and ignorant at the same time! |
Thats why we love him.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 21:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: |
Eduin is jealous of, and is constantly talking shit about the Mighty Omni-Power that is the United States of America.
|
Yeah, but I think hes a statistical economist or something which gives him a basis of credibility in the area, not that I care either way, I just was clearing up some mis-information presented by WheresNWS concerning Stalingrad along with my usual trollish posts.
| WheresNWS wrote: |
I've never known such a f****s to be so f*****g arrogant and ignorant at the same time!
|
I don't know what you look like, so I cannot comment on your physical appearances, however, you have demonstrated a great deal of arrogance and ignorance during your storied history here at Realpoor.com.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Starks
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 17 Oct 2002
Posts: 865
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 21:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I think WhereNWS is a junior republican just so he can be in a club
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spink
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 1599
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 21:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Janoth
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135
|
|
Posted: 11/11/03 - 22:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Banzai wrote: | | because you can only masterbate a few times a day |
Speak for yourself!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 11/12/03 - 04:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: |
Yeah, but I think hes a statistical economist or something which gives him a basis of credibility in the area, not that I care either way, I just was clearing up some mis-information presented by WheresNWS concerning Stalingrad along with my usual trollish posts. |
He's not a "statistical economist or something". He's a 30-year old underclassman attempting to apply example problems from his intro to macroeconomics textbook.
| Rennol wrote: | | I don't know what you look like, so I cannot comment on your physical appearances, however, you have demonstrated a great deal of arrogance and ignorance during your storied history here at Realpoor.com. |
Shut the f**k up, parasite.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 11/12/03 - 15:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
Here's a good read, breaking news today:
Government Outgrows Cap Set by President
| Quote: | Confounding President Bush's pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels....
Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion...
The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program," Penner said. "One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line."
Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: "This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It's probably the least fiscally conservative in history." |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4345
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 11/12/03 - 15:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | I don't know what you look like, so I cannot comment on your physical appearances, however, you have demonstrated a great deal of arrogance and ignorance during your storied history here at Realpoor.com. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 11/13/03 - 00:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Rennol wrote: | | I don't know what you look like, so I cannot comment on your physical appearances, however, you have demonstrated a great deal of arrogance and ignorance during your storied history here at Realpoor.com. |
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 11/13/03 - 00:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
i only masturbate once a week or so...
that way i'm horny non-stop.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 11/13/03 - 00:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
if you add more zinc to your diet, you'll be honry more often too. and can masturbate more.
WIN WIN!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
