USA presidential elections 2016

[johnhemming2]

What it means is that I know what the consequences are of government running out of money.

[Automaton]

What it means is that I know what the consequences are of government running out of money.

No it doesn't.

Edit:
Look, I've explained why it doesn't. How about you explain why you think it does, rather than attempting to close down or avoid the issue? Simply repeating the same vague, possibly even cryptic comment that you've made before obviously makes no progress whatsoever, so why bother?

I'm very open to learning if I've got something wrong; can you say the same? It doesn't seem that way.

[johnhemming2]

My point is that reductions in GDP have an effect. Your argument appears to be that they don't.

Obviously the government can decide to do all sorts of things. However, when government budgets are cut they tend to cut a lot of things rather than just one big thing.

[Automaton]

My point is that reductions in GDP have an effect. Your argument appears to be that they don't.

No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying GDP is not a meaningful statistic; and in fact is downright misleading. As I've said previously, GDP can go up for all the wrong reasons, and it can also go down for good reasons - it isn't an honest representation of how well the government or the society is doing, or even of how much money it's got. Therefore any effect that seems to come from changes in GDP comes instead from government decisions based on false information (and they really should know better). Surely you'd agree that that's a problem?

[emordnilap]

(Sorry if you don't wear glasses, Automaton.)

[johnhemming2]

or even of how much money it's got.

GDP was measured as a a mechanism of working out how much tax can be taken from people. Hence we disagree on this basic fact of history.

[vtsnowedin]

Gross Domestic Product GDP is just that,, Gross. as in unrefined or further analyzed. Of course a dollar spent on a tank has a different effect then one spent on a children's hospital or a computer or down at the titty bar, but in a large economy the percentages spent in each category tend to even out so there is no need for further refinement when all you are trying to determine is if the economy is healthy or not. This has been especially true for the last century where we were happily mining and pumping resources out of the ground and turning them into everything from refrigerators to hula-hoops.
Perhaps in the future they will measure product delivered per unit of energy consumed to get a more sophisticated measurement of economic health.

[Automaton]

or even of how much money it's got.

GDP was measured as a a mechanism of working out how much tax can be taken from people. Hence we disagree on this basic fact of history.

I like facts! So if it IS a 'basic fact of history', then I'm sure we won't disagree on that at all; could we have a reference please?

However even if it is correct, it changes nothing about GDP being an unhelpful statistic for all the reasons that have been explained and that you've clearly chosen to ignore so far, INCLUDING the fact that it does not tell us how much money the government has got.

Edit: I'm done with this; emordnilap is right, and I really must work on resisting the urge to keep hitting my head against a brick wall....

My apologies for taking this thread so far away from 'USA Presidential Elections 2016' everyone. You can delete all my posts if you like, admin.

[Little John]

No. It is important that they are not deleted so that everyone reading this is informed as to the modus-operandi of John Hemming. Forewarned is forearmed.

[johnhemming2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

William Petty came up with a basic concept of GDP to defend landlords against unfair taxation during warfare between the Dutch and the English between 1652 and 1674.

http://www.theglobalist.com/warfare-and ... on-of-gdp/

[woodburner]

"The actual number for GDP is therefore the product of a vast patchwork of statistics and a complicated set of processes carried out on the raw data to fit them to the conceptual framework."[9]

This of course could be simplified as "bollocks" or even "total bollocks".

[johnhemming2]

"The actual number for GDP is therefore the product of a vast patchwork of statistics and a complicated set of processes carried out on the raw data to fit them to the conceptual framework."[9]

This of course could be simplified as "bollocks" or even "total bollocks".

Only if you could describe Jeremy Corbyn's train as "Ram packed".

[woodburner]

That would depend if you believed that the counter-evidence provided by a firm run by a tax exile who is opposed to nationalising the railway system as the firm is given a massive subsidy paid for be the hapless tax-payer.

[johnhemming2]

That would depend if you believed that the counter-evidence provided by a firm run by a tax exile who is opposed to nationalising the railway system as the firm is given a massive subsidy paid for be the hapless tax-payer.

Or indeed Jeremy Corbyn's confirmation that what Virgin said was right. Or the railway timetable (he sat down in a chair after 45 mins, the train does not stop until York which is further away).

Jeremy Corbyn claimed something about the particular train that is provably false and he knew it at the time he made that claim.

Facts are important. I personally am interested in working out what the true situation is in any circumstances.

That is because I research the truth.

If you find that your belief as to what is true is mistaken you should consider changing your analysis.

This is a good article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8d56f04-54a9 ... z4IT3JjVQc

[RenewableCandy]

The fact the article you recommend lurks behind a pay-wall says something, but I can't quite put my finger on what