Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr; Ditto; PeaRidge
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.

225 posted on 04/13/2012 2:09:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK; rockrr; Ditto
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.

226 posted on 04/13/2012 8:27:11 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK; rockrr; Ditto
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?

227 posted on 04/13/2012 2:08:41 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson