Jimbo1337 said:
Real GDP fell 17% worldwide and 26% in the United States. During the Smoot-Hawley's passage, trade volume accounted for 9% of the world economic output. If ALL international trade was eliminated and there was no use for the previously exported goods, then the world GDP would have fallen by 9% as well. Meanwhile you make retarded statements like: "and other economists who have said it practically caused the whole thing." The fact that you actually still believe these economists when all it takes is for you to actually look at the numbers yourself! I'm not going to even bother going into it further because you simply wont understand, as you have said previously, what the data even means. Go read a book. I didn't read the rest of what you wrote because I realized that you have an inablility to comprehend data. I have a hunch that you are not an American citizien. At the end of the day, my opinion is the only one that matters since I get to vote while you cannot (thank god). Edit: Don't waste your time replying because I won't bother even reading it. |
Awwwww... don't take your bally and go home. I'm going to just take the liberty of translating your post so that other people could understand it. Thankfully I have my "guy who's flailing around in an argument to English" dictionary.
"Real GDP fell 17% worldwide and 26% in the United States. During the Smoot-Hawley's passage, trade volume accounted for 9% of the world economic output. If ALL international trade was eliminated and there was no use for the previously exported goods, then the world GDP would have fallen by 9% as well."
Translation- If ALL international trade was eliminated then the GDP would only fall by 9%. Because trade has no other ramifications beyond the immediate effect. If the GDP fell more than 9% than clearly the act had no effect. I am lord ya ya ya.
"Meanwhile you make retarded statements like:
"and other economists who have said it practically caused the whole thing."
Translation: I'm not going to take two minutes to look at google to see many economists propose this, and therefore your statement is true. And I'm not even going to quote the whole statement which was "I've read economists who say it did little, and other economists who have said it practically caused the whole thing. " That way I can attack a statement you didn't even make! Ha!
And now I'm going to call the statement you never made retarded. Because you used that word a lot. HOW DOES IT FEEL SUCKA!!!
"The fact that you actually still believe these economists when all it takes is for you to actually look at the numbers yourself! I'm not going to even bother going into it further because you simply wont understand, as you have said previously, what the data even means. Go read a book."
Translation: I'm just going to say you agreed with them even though you didn't and the quote in its full context clearly shows that. And even though you specifically asked for the source for the data I used, and said you could comment further once you had it, I'm not going to give it to you. Instead, I'm going to call you stupid for not being able to interpret data that you don't have. Plus, I'm going to make an ad hominen attack to try to save my ego. GO READ A BOOK!!!! OH BURNED!!!
"I didn't read the rest of what you wrote because I realized that you have an inablility to comprehend data. "
Translation: I read the rest of what you said, and I don't have a response to it. In fact, I haven't been able to at any point explain why the tax plan would be a good idea. Like I did with the issue of the mexican border, I'm just going to drop it completely.
"I have a hunch that you are not an American citizien. At the end of the day, my opinion is the only one that matters since I get to vote while you cannot (thank god)."
Translation: I don't know if you're an American Citizen or not. You've said nothing to indicate that one way or another. But I'm going to pretend you are not, because only Americans can have valid opinions on economics. HAHA!!! YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO VOTE!!! Uhhh... unless I'm making up random shit, but what are the odds of that?! MURICA!!!!!!!!
"Edit: Don't waste your time replying because I won't bother even reading it."
Translation: I stopped even defending the two points that were being discussed, because I realized I couldn't. I haven't provided any evidence to show that such a tariff will be beneficial, or that the wacky wall of Mexico can possibly work. I realize I'm standing on a mountain of nonsense, so I'm going to walk away. I used faulty logic, ad hominen attacks, intentionally (or otherwise) misinterpreted everything, and tried to change the subject at every single juncture. But... what if instead of adrressing your points and explaining why they're wrong I just say "Yer stupid! I'm not going to listen to you nemore! LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" Yes... that's brilliant. Those fools will never see through my ruse. BWAHAHAHAHA!
And I don't believe you're actually not going to read this. But now, even if you do read it, you can't comment because you'd have to admit you were bullshiting about that, and you haven't admitted to any other nonsense here, so I doubt you'll start. Which begs the question of why I posted this. Because I'm guessing some people are actually reading this, and I'm hoping they got a chuckle or two. If you did, let me know. Because I knew this guy was a lost cause from the start, and I was more intending to inform/entertain other people in the thread. I'd like to know if that actually happens and whether doing these kinds of debates are worthwhile in that sense.
Moderated - Leadified
