Deficit Continues to Shrink

[bleeding heart]

We haven't lost our place in the world. That's one of Saint Jack's political talking points. That was part of the reason his letter to Canadians was so offensive.

Yes, everyone was so offended by it......

[Shady]

Yes, everyone was so offended by it......

Many thought using his death to promote partisan politics was very unbecoming.

[bleeding heart]

Many thought using his death to promote partisan politics was very unbecoming.

While I object to the very premise here, for the sake of argument I will ask: like who?

[Shady]

While I object to the very premise here, for the sake of argument I will ask: like who?

There were several editorials written about it at the time.

[punked]

Expenditure approach.

http://wps.prenhall.com/bp_casefair_econf_7e/31/7936/2031704.cw/index.html

The expenditure approach involves counting expenditures on goods and services by different groups in the economy. The four main components are consumption expenditures by households ©, gross private investment spending principally by firms (I), government purchases of goods and services (G), and net exports.

I agree I didn't add the exports part to my simplified definition but that was because that was outside the central argument of somehow we should only count private spending as part of our GDP.

Edited August 1, 2012 by punked

[CPCFTW]

First off, you didn't know what GDP meant, nor did punked. You made this VERY clear by your previous posts. What you might find funny, however, is that CPC FTW doesn't understand it very well either, which is really funny because he's sniping at you for it.

Sure thing.

Everything italicized there is wrong. You said you're referring to the expenditure approach, which is fine, but you're still completely wrong about how it's calculated. Pick whatever method you want, but you still only calculate the cost of final goods and services produced. If you add all of the spending, like you suggested, you're double counting everything, or worse. When you calculate the GDP value for Bombardier jet for example, you're only counting how much it finally cost for Bombardier to assemble and build the jet. You're not adding the original raw material cost, the cost to produce parts AND the final cost of the jet, because that's already all factored in to the final cost. Saying:

shows you don't really understand the term. That's fine. Most people don't. Just acknowledge it and move on though. Don't go google the definition and come back like you did here:

because you're still misinterpreting it and it looks silly.

Finally you actually explain something instead of just telling everyone they don't understand... Now why don't you do the same for my supposed misunderstanding of GDP (I'll admit I'm not an expert).

I'd also suggest that you re-read the thread to determine where the "sniping" began. Hint: it originated from you and punked, with WWWTT also taking some "snipes" before I even entered the fray. Not so funny now is it?

[cybercoma]

While I object to the very premise here, for the sake of argument I will ask: like who?

Oh god... stop feeding the troll already.

[bleeding heart]

There were several editorials written about it at the time.

You really think this response rises to even basic levels of evidence?

Or, as Most Outstanding Poster asked this very day:

Is backing up your assertion that difficult?

Edited August 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Oh god... stop feeding the troll already.

It might be wise. But I've never claimed to be wise.

[Shady]

You really this this response rises to even basic levels of evidence?

Or, as Most Outstanding Poster asked this very day:

So you want me to post editorials from 2 years ago? You don't believe that some people, some Conservatives took offense? That some people believe Canada still has its good standing in the world? Believe it or not, but many Canadians have pride in Canada, and don't think it deserves to be crapped on.

[punked]

So you want me to post editorials from 2 years ago? You don't believe that some people, some Conservatives took offense? That some people believe Canada still has its good standing in the world? Believe it or not, but many Canadians have pride in Canada, and don't think it deserves to be crapped on.

Wow. There it is. Lose an argument so you start yelling "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT". I think Bleeding Heart is a Canadian who loves his country but questions somethings about the way it is being governed. How about we tone the nationalism down for 2 seconds and actually respond to the man.

[Shady]

Wow. There it is. Lose an argument so you start yelling "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT". I think Bleeding Heart is a Canadian who loves his country but questions somethings about the way it is being governed. How about we tone the nationalism down for 2 seconds and actually respond to the man.

Perhaps Jack shouldn't have injected partisan politics into his letter to Canadians. It was inappropriate.

[punked]

Perhaps Jack shouldn't have injected partisan politics into his letter to Canadians. It was inappropriate.

Don't care what your opinion is on Jack's letter. Harper seemed to be AOK with it he gave him a state funeral. So how about you love it or leave it.

[Shady]

Don't care what your opinion is on Jack's letter. Harper seemed to be AOK with it he gave him a state funeral. So how about you love it or leave it.

I have no problem with Jack getting a state funeral. He was entitled to one. On the other stuff, we can agree to disagree.

[bleeding heart]

So you want me to post editorials from 2 years ago? You don't believe that some people, some Conservatives took offense?

I was asking only for evidence of your claim that "many" people took offense.

You decline, as is your right.

[Shady]

I was asking only for evidence of your claim that "many" people took offense.

You decline, as is your right.

No, you're just being rather obtuse. Anyways, Christie Bltchford wrote a great piece in the National Post that reflected how a great many Canadians, especially Conservatives felt.

[punked]

No, you're just being rather obtuse. Anyways, Christie Bltchford wrote a great piece in the National Post that reflected how a great many Canadians, especially Conservatives felt.

You can't say one reporter wrote a piece and thus everyone felt that way. Post a poll or stop talking.

[bleeding heart]

No, you're just being rather obtuse. Anyways, Christie Bltchford wrote a great piece in the National Post that reflected how a great many Canadians, especially Conservatives felt.

Blatchford? I have no doubt.

The fact is that it seems most people were likely not offended.

Of course a few mouth-breathers were...that's a given.

[Moonbox]

Expenditure approach.

http://wps.prenhall.com/bp_casefair_econf_7e/31/7936/2031704.cw/index.html

I agree I didn't add the exports part to my simplified definition but that was because that was outside the central argument of somehow we should only count private spending as part of our GDP.

You're absolutely right about that part, and in terms of your argument with CPC FTW and WWWTT you certainly held the higher ground. My original criticism on THAT part of the discussion was quoting a boneheaded post by WWWTT explaining what he thought GDP was: "GDP is mainly generated by consumers and consumer confidence."

For some reason, when I told he had no clue, you quoted me back and said, "GDP is all the spending that takes place in a nation." which is also false, and it still doesn't look like you understand why. GDP is not simply national spending, as you stated. Only spending on end-user goods and services within the country are part of the equation. Linking how the expenditure approach is calculated does not equate to an understanding of the subject either.

[Shady]

Blatchford? I have no doubt.

The fact is that it seems most people were likely not offended.

Of course a few mouth-breathers were...that's a given.

That's what I figured you'd do, move the goal posts. First, it's show you people that disagreed. Now you don't approve of them. Typical.

[punked]

You're absolutely right about that part, and in terms of your argument with CPC FTW and WWWTT you certainly held the higher ground. My original criticism on THAT part of the discussion was quoting a boneheaded post by WWWTT explaining what he thought GDP was: "GDP is mainly generated by consumers and consumer confidence."

For some reason, when I told he had no clue, you quoted me back and said, "GDP is all the spending that takes place in a nation." which is also false, and it still doesn't look like you understand why. GDP is not simply national spending, as you stated. Only spending on end-user goods and services within the country are part of the equation. Linking how the expenditure approach is calculated does not equate to an understanding of the subject either.

I was defining what GDP is for the sake of the argument. As for you assertion that that only end products count that is fine however all you are doing in that end is counting the value added to the original purchase. It is a different way of counting but in the end if you add everything from bottom to the top and I add everything from top to bottom we are still going to end up with the same number.

[bleeding heart]

That's what I figured you'd do, move the goal posts. First, it's show you people that disagreed. Now you don't approve of them. Typical.

You made a claim: "many."

You made another claim--maybe a backpedal, maybe not, depending on the evidence you were willing to supply: "editorials." (plural)

Now you suggest (without linking) one.

(Which you refer to now as "them, in an interesting rewriting of the rules of pronoun agreement.)

So I'd suggest that I'm not the one moving the goalposts.

Edited August 1, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

You made a claim: "many."

You made another claim--maybe a backpedal, maybe not, depending on the evidence you were willing to supply: "editorials." (plural)

Now you suggest (without linking) one.

(Which you refer to now as "them, in an interesting rewriting of the rules of pronoun agreement.)

So I'd suggest that I'm not the one moving the goalposts.

Im using my phone, so I can't link. But why does it matter? You've already unapproved of the person disagreeing.

[CPCFTW]

You're absolutely right about that part, and in terms of your argument with CPC FTW and WWWTT you certainly held the higher ground.

And yet you still haven't explained how I "misunderstood" gdp. All you've done is paint yourself as an expert, point out the obvious flaws in punked's understanding of gdp, and use that to make assertions about who is more right. You're not fooling anyone.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. Please feel free to explain how I misunderstood gdp.

[cybercoma]

some people believe Canada still has its good standing in the world

So what? The real question is do we, not whether or not people here believe we do.