Cognitive_Shift said:

No need for a stroke here dude.

I'm the retard???

Just believing what ever you hear from NBC, CBS and ABC.  Now thats a retard.

---

typical shroomery. 

Crasher said:

Looks pretty sound to me.

Well, except the article from 1990 could be a little off.

Thanks for the perspective Meams.

---

Cognitive_Shift said:

No typical shroomery is a dialated eye avatar and a signature questioning the nature of reality.  Dude you see a report from the UN and IMMEDIATELY believe it, with out even showing evidence of where the study was conducted, who conducted it, how many people were sampled, where is the data coming from.  You can't just see things on the news and whole heatedly believe them.

---

Cognitive_Shift said:

I'm not believing things for no reason.  Only a fool would do that.  Okay so you gave me a link.  This link is from october of 2007, before the economy went down the shitter and so on.  Enjoy believing we are the "most productive" nation from old data

---

Quote:

justin_thyme said:

This, it seems, is a reference to the latest economic stimulus package scheduled to reach the House within the next 20 days. Known as the State Stimulus Package, the proposed four-hundred and twenty billion dollar bill will focus on assisting individual State Governments like California, as well as state parks and national highways.

The bill takes a similar form as those aimed at AIG, and potentially CITI Bank. Instead of just handing out the money, the Federal Reserve seeks to purchase state's deficit at significant interest. This allows them to avoid filing Chaper-23 Bankruptcy, and the resulting loss of work for thousands of state employees.

Even though the deficit is being purchased at less than 6% of its' market value, this will leave the Federal Government with a 51% share of those states assets, making them the majority shareholders. According to Obama's plan, this should allow for an easy restructuring of the state's policies to ensure they escape the financial meltdown.

The Stimulus also mentions pay cuts and transition of leadership in order to be eligible for the Stimulus Package. Democrats have already lauded this as the end to President Bush's "reign of golden parachutes."

Not everyone is happy about the bill though. Representative Peter Strausberg (R-OH) again criticized the Democrats excessive use of "pork" in the bill. "I know that building roads created a lot of jobs in the great depression," he said, "but I just don't see why we need a road from Canada to Mexico."

---

meams said:

Anybody with a half-working brain can filter through your garbage and see that my claims are valid.

---

Cognitive_Shift said:

No your giving me more than a year old data.  I would like to know what university you go to (if you do) because your professor would be disgusted with data that old.  You can tell yourself im wrong and your right and make a bunch of assumption about economics based off data from October 07'.  However im not claiming im right, im claiming that i disagree with those reports.  Those numbers are based off of guesses about population and work force of billions, there is no way that study has conducted as Valid as you claim.

---

hehe.  I graduated Cum Laude w/ a double major in Economics & Business Management from a university in virginia.  Econ GPA: 3.90.

The age of this data, while seemingly important, does not come into play regarding our debate.  My reasoning is as follows:


1.  I said the US was the most productive workforce in the world (I now change that to "one of the top two", based on that article I found that said we're #2). 

2.  You claim the old data brings the validity of my claims into question.

3.  I claim that any country that would be close to surpassing us in productivity (thus, proving my original claim to be false) is hurting just as bad, if not worse, than we currently are - and as a result of that, will NOT be overtaking our productivity levels during the time since that data has been acquired.

Those three bullets are solid, I don't see how you can argue against them.

Now, regarding your claim that the studies may not have been made in a manner that has the level of validity that I would think it does... 'meh.  Find a better way, and you can disprove my original claim, until then - I'm right



edit:  I know i know i know, i said i was done with this thread - but I just couldn't help it.  I LOVE arguing

F0SS1L said:

How someone can come to the conclusion that legalizing weed would cost us money is beyond me. You're retarded.

---

  I was going to keep going with stuff like

Quote:

2.  You claim the old data brings the validity of my claims into question.

---