In praise of (three) modern Doughface Northerners

vanity | 3/17/2012 | BroJoeK

[rockrr]

Not wasting my time at all. I’ve been following your posts with interest, but must admit that I’m not clear on your ultimate point(s) (either of you) as pertains to matters of tariffs.

Would both of you mind stating what your position is (I don’t wish to put words in your mouths)?

Thanks

[Ditto]

Thanks for the apology Pea Ridge, (not necessary BTW) but what’s your point? I guess I’m missing something here.

[PeaRidge]

My point was to correct his errors.

I was not supporting any point about tariffs but pointing out that Bro Joe drew conclusions from errors (his own), and that his insinuation was not supported by the data he quoted. After presenting the wrong data, he offered this conclusion:

“So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.”

Actually the data he used, if culled correctly, would superficially appear to support the opposite of this conclusion.

However, I pointed out the variables that would make year to year calculations and subsequent conclusions almost impossible to validate because as you know, the rules changed year over year on such issues as the inclusion of reexports in the tariff collection, warehousing law changes influencing the dates of tariff charges, variety of items being subject to tariffs, as well as others.

My apology was based on my assumption that this was boring to you.

[PeaRidge]

Be glad to.

Here was Bro’s point: “So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.”

Here is my point: You used the wrong data.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "...I’m not clear on your ultimate point(s) (either of you) as pertains to matters of tariffs.
Would both of you mind stating what your position is?"

Ditto: "...what’s your point? I guess I’m missing something here."

PeaRidge: "My point was to correct his errors....
Actually the data he used, if culled correctly, would superficially appear to support the opposite of this [BroJoeK's] conclusion....

"Big error."

PeaRidge is focused on pointing out the errors of using numbers from "column 3" instead of "column 1" in the linked data.

I've been trying to use that data to support several conclusions, including that "lower tariff rates lead to higher revenues."

In fact, the data from columns 1 and 3 are quite similar, typically 90% the same, and thus most of my points are still correct, even when supported by "column 1" instead of "column 3" data.

In two cases (1815 and 1835), the data from "column 1" falls to 50% of "column 3's" total and these are the dates which invalidate the entire argument, according to PeaRidge.

I'd say these are simply dates to which we must add historical explanations of the circumstances, and once those circumstances are understood, my basic points remain intact.

So PeaRidge is to be commended for making a somewhat valid point and then sticking to it -- he will not be drawn into the broader discussion.
But that broader discussion is what I applied this particular data to, and even with corrections, the data still supports it, imho.

[PeaRidge]

Look Bro....

You made an error. Why not drop the machinations and just redo your math? I am sure that all the others will be happy to see your conclusions.

[PeaRidge]

BroJoe, maybe it will help if you think of it this way:

Visualize Ducky leaving the morgue to find Abby in the lab. She is there, along with Gibbs, Dinozzo, and Probie.

Probie is explaining to everyone how Ducky's autopsy proves that the killer was a woman since lipstick was found at the scene.

Ducky reminds Probie that the red substance was not lipstick, but red acrilic paint.

Probie then says that that proves the killer was an artist and that since most women like the color red, it was still a woman who did it.

Abby says, “Well, I am a woman, and my favorite color is black”.

Probie says, “Well that only proves that you did not kill anyone”.

Gibbs slaps Probie on the back of the head and tells him to shut up.

Sound familiar?

[rockrr]

No. Are you suggesting that someone needs to cuff you one?

[PeaRidge]

Are you channeling Abby or Gibbs?