>> “FACTS” (meaning, so far as I can tell, that the person who wrote the article is dead on the money).
FACTS don’t “mean” anything. Facts are, simply, facts. By definition, facts are “dead on the money”. You never refuted one single fact the author mentioned in your arguments. Nor did you employ any of the author’s facts in your own discussions. Why?
>> Have you been to both of these great cities?
Yes. Both.
>> That metropolitan Chicago has 275% of the Detroit metropolitan area’s GDP &etc
You’re going circular on me... we’ve already been here. There is no benefit whatsoever in comparing Chicago “pre-collapse” and Detroit “post-collapse”. None whatsoever.
Outside of the fact that Chicago has been downgraded, the article mentions, by my count, exactly four facts involving numbers having to do with debt, only one of which compared Chicago to any other city—the one noting that Chicago is second among the 10 largest cities with regards to general obligation debt.
The qualification “second” and limiting things to “10 largest” do not seem very helpful in making the case that Chicago will be NEXT (meaning first) among ALL major cities (unless by major cities you mean only the 10 largest and can make a case that the one that Chicago is behind has some other strengths). There is no particular need to refute any facts from the article because none of the facts actually make a real good case for NEXT.