Posted: 9/11/2012 5:54:20 PM EDT
 |
|
Hey but it's worth it, right? In 2001 we had 3,000 killed in a horrible terrorist attack. Since then over 4,000 have been killed and something like 40,000 wounded. Not to mention 10's of thousands none-combatant killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and the trillions of dollars worth of capital blown up, fired off, and burned. Isn't Progressive Foreign Policy GRAND!!!! If people knew the true numbers of GDP and inflation they'd be pissed. Both of these currently use calculations that are bullshit. They were "adjusted" to reflect lower inflation and higher GDP. Under the old methodology we haven't had positive GDP growth in America in years. |
|
Quoted: It's percent change. If something goes from $5 to $10 (doubles), that's a 100% change, not a 200% change. If something goes from $5 to $15 (triples), that's a 200% change.Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. Gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. Someone is using old figures or not updating them. ETA: Gold is also wrong. How are these percentages being calculated?? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's percent change. If something goes from $5 to $10 (doubles), that's a 100% change, not a 200% change. If something goes from $5 to $15 (triples), that's a 200% change.Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. Gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. Someone is using old figures or not updating them. ETA: Gold is also wrong. How are these percentages being calculated?? Hmm... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's percent change. If something goes from $5 to $10 (doubles), that's a 100% change, not a 200% change. If something goes from $5 to $15 (triples), that's a 200% change.
Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. Gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. Someone is using old figures or not updating them. ETA: Gold is also wrong. How are these percentages being calculated?? Math is for faggots. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. Two wars have been great on our economy. Don't you dare criticize the war on terror, or people will accuse you of being a commie, pinko faggot who loves Osama Bin Laden and hates freedom. but but the military industrial complex and all that |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's percent change. If something goes from $5 to $10 (doubles), that's a 100% change, not a 200% change. If something goes from $5 to $15 (triples), that's a 200% change.
Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. Gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. Someone is using old figures or not updating them. ETA: Gold is also wrong. How are these percentages being calculated?? Hmm... ^ This guy just learned something in GD. And they said it couldn't be done.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: WTF. The number of billionaires increased at nearly the rate of unemployment. Can someone explain that to me ? Trickle down effect Actually this is a product of government. If the economy was free there would be a trickle down effect. But BIG government favors the wealthy on both sides of the progressive political coin (Democrat and Republican) The small business owner (CEO) whose business succumbs to economic forces goes out of business and loses his job, the giant business CEO whose company succumbs to economic forces gets a government bailout and a golden parachute. The same as the individual whose 401k shrinks, and loses he job. He loses his house, and has to worry about his future. The government backed union, as well as government employees get their pensions and jobs preserved with unfunded liabilities, which are nothing more then future tax hikes. Choosing to pay is not an option. Men with guns will come for you, if you resist they will shoot and kill you. This is how it works. Government is evil, and the founding fathers knew it. We fucked it up by letting it get out of control. The ONLY effective thing to do now is start to get a handle on it. Start to roll back government by adopting the principals this country was founded on. THE ONLY purpose of the federal government is to protect individual freedom, no safety-nets, backstops, collars, ceilings, or redistribution. Where were supposed to be a country of free individuals with no guarantees save one. We would be free. |
|
Quoted:
WTF. The number of billionaires increased at nearly the rate of unemployment. Can someone explain that to me ? The government has been handing out cash to companies as "stimulus" without realizing there isn't work to be done, so money hits the coffers and no jobs are created. But the CEO bonuses are great! |
|
Quoted:
Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. It's nearly tripled hasn't it? And gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. ETA: Gold is also wrong. WUT? Quoted:
How are these percentages being calculated?? using math. ar-jedi |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's percent change. If something goes from $5 to $10 (doubles), that's a 100% change, not a 200% change. If something goes from $5 to $15 (triples), that's a 200% change.Debt has increased 278%, not 178%. Gasoline has increased 255%, not 155%. I only checked those two, others are probably wrong also. Someone is using old figures or not updating them. ETA: Gold is also wrong. How are these percentages being calculated?? Hmm... ^ This guy just learned something in GD. And they said it couldn't be done. That's the trouble with "percentage change". It's common but misleading. 100 to 300 is a 300% increase but a 200% "change". 100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. However, 300 - 100 = 200 which is a 200% "change". Media are notorious for reporting stats in the more vague and confusing "% change" expression instead of the more precise and informative format (% increase or decrease). |
|
Quoted:
100 to 300 is a 300% increase but a 200% "change". no. 100 to 300 is a 200% increase. you can even call it a change if you want. Quoted:
100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. Quoted:
However, 300 - 100 = 200 which is a 200% "change". like i said above, you can call the increase a change if you want. but it all comes to the same percentage. ar-jedi |
|
Quoted: It's almost like we're living in the Carter years. I hate to say it, but if inflation, GDP, and unemployment where calculated using methodology that reflected reality the last 10 years would be far worse, and right now you'd be screaming. They started fudging the numbers during the Kennedy administration and every administration since has fiddled with various aspects of the calculations to suit their political needs. The most evil tampering change came in the 1990's during the Clinton Administration when they screwed around with Inflation numbers. They started to use substitution, weighting, and hedonics in the calculations, the problem is all of these variables are tainted with subjectivity. Using substitution, and weighting was bad enough but hedonics really moved us into the "wizard of oz" realm of fantasy. People need to know this bullshit. The cumulative effect is the numbers we see are absolutely fudged. Once you understand this all the numbers that seem to surprise the talking heads make sense. It explains why the economic recovery is so weak in light of positive GDP, relatively low inflation, and "not as bad as they should be" employment numbers. So why did they do this? That's easy, for political reasons. Also since our economy is really depended on the "full faith and credit" they have to keep your faith high. So they lie to you. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. |
|
Quoted: What has ten years and billions of dollars of beating around the bush on who the enemy is gotten us? September 11, 2012 http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r24/86PlymouthQuest/flag.jpg We ALMOST have their hearts and minds. ALMOST. Forget that barbaric total war of the WW2 that actually produced positive results. This time around, we're in it for hearts and minds. |
|
Quoted: What has ten years and billions of dollars of beating around the bush on who the enemy is gotten us? September 11, 2012 http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r24/86PlymouthQuest/flag.jpg Those hooligans are not representative of most Muslims in the region. Most of the half billion muslims over there are quite tolerant and peaceful. Just ask Lara Logan. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. You're not going to win this. 300 is 200 larger than 100. 200 is 200% of 100. 300 is 200% more than 100. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. You're not going to win this. 300 is 200 larger than 100. 200 is 200% of 100. 300 is 200% more than 100. I understand the way it was calculated. That's why I started with the "Hmm..." Now, do you understand that 100 * 300% = 300? Or like the example I gave, it's much more efficient to calculate a "18% increase" in a stock priced at $51.12 by doing this: $51.12 * 118% |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. You're not going to win this. 300 is 200 larger than 100. 200 is 200% of 100. 300 is 200% more than 100. I understand the way it was calculated. That's why I started with the "Hmm..." Now, do you understand that 100 * 300% = 300? Or like the example I gave, it's much more efficient to calculate a "18% increase" in a stock priced at $51.12 by doing this: $51.12 * 118% Yes, I understand that 100 * 300% = 300. That means that 300 is 300 percent of 100. It is not 300 percent more. Those are different things. Here's a way of thinking about it: what is 100% more than 100? It's obviously not 100, since that's not more than 100 at all. It's the same as 100, obviously. It is 100% of 100. Not more. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. You're not going to win this. 300 is 200 larger than 100. 200 is 200% of 100. 300 is 200% more than 100. I understand the way it was calculated. That's why I started with the "Hmm..." Now, do you understand that 100 * 300% = 300? Or like the example I gave, it's much more efficient to calculate a "18% increase" in a stock priced at $51.12 by doing this: $51.12 * 118% Yes, I understand that 100 * 300% = 300. That means that 300 is 300 percent of 100. It is not 300 percent more. Those are different things. This side argument brings to mind: 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100 * 300% = 300. This is more mathematically efficient. The end value is 3X or 300% larger than the starting value. no. the end value is 200% larger than the starting value. What part of 100 * 300% = 300 don't you get? 300 is not two times larger than 100. It is three times larger. The DIFFERENCE (200) between an initial value of 100 and ending value of 300 is two times (200%) larger than the initial value. But the ending value of 300 is three times (300%) larger than the initial value of 100. You're not going to win this. 300 is 200 larger than 100. 200 is 200% of 100. 300 is 200% more than 100. I understand the way it was calculated. That's why I started with the "Hmm..." Now, do you understand that 100 * 300% = 300? Or like the example I gave, it's much more efficient to calculate a "18% increase" in a stock priced at $51.12 by doing this: $51.12 * 118% Yes, I understand that 100 * 300% = 300. That means that 300 is 300 percent of 100. It is not 300 percent more. Those are different things. This side argument brings to mind: http://thegnatural.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/pythag-gay-for-math.gif 
Some people can bong a beer in 3 seconds. I do math. And bong beers in 3 seconds. |