You’ve already got it set in your mind, no amount of evidence from even western sources will change your mind, I get it.
But, hypothetically, it was proven to be 5%. Would you go back and question the sources that told you it wasn’t? Or continue to chug along as you are now, taking those sources at face value?
Chinese journalists who under reported figures 4.8% at the start of Jan found out they were wrong and retracted the articles because it was factually incorrect, western media pounced on it because “Wow China’s censoring journalists that says the economy is bad, therefore the only conclusion is their economy is bad, that’s the conclusion we’re implying here” and then a few days later even Reuters was like “oh yeah it was over 5%” and it’s crickets from the people that implied “China SCRUBS CLEAN ALL EVIDENCE OF BAD ECONOMY” you’ll continue to remember it as the latter for the rest of your life.
Also very cute to pretend to be having a regular conversation just to piss your pants a second later. How about this save this post hit me up in a year let’s see if you have the balls to admit you’re wrong.
I’m not one to argue small values, as far as I know this stuff will be better understood in retrospect, in the same way peer-reviewed scientific understanding is, years later.
I am curious though, do you think there would be evidence or just data that, for the time being (since, like I said, this stuff is better understood after the fact when enough data is gathered, disseminated, reviewed, etc.) would make you reconsider?
If the IMF or the relevant CPC association put out numbers much lower than 5%, I’d consider it plausible and keep it as a provisional value along with the forecasted ones and the current range alleged by different groups. If the Chicago School of Economics or Austrian School (lol, do they do math? jk) published something, I’d have to look at it before dismissing it.
So I’m just curious because clearly you put in effort, and I have a hard time understanding the bounds and methodology you use since 1. it’s different from the folks here, and 2. it’s different from contemporary orthodox/heterodox economists.
because that’s not how they do the math lol
there is a lot more than that. which is why the number you got and that number is wrong.
Weird right? You put actual thought in and realize that’s not truthful. Interesting huh?
Ok, let’s ignore Reuters because they’re probably Chinese shills or the IMF estimating 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the official CCP figure released in Jan because the International Monetary Fund are communist shills as well.
You’ve already got it set in your mind, no amount of evidence from even western sources will change your mind, I get it.
But, hypothetically, it was proven to be 5%. Would you go back and question the sources that told you it wasn’t? Or continue to chug along as you are now, taking those sources at face value?
Chinese journalists who under reported figures 4.8% at the start of Jan found out they were wrong and retracted the articles because it was factually incorrect, western media pounced on it because “Wow China’s censoring journalists that says the economy is bad, therefore the only conclusion is their economy is bad, that’s the conclusion we’re implying here” and then a few days later even Reuters was like “oh yeah it was over 5%” and it’s crickets from the people that implied “China SCRUBS CLEAN ALL EVIDENCE OF BAD ECONOMY” you’ll continue to remember it as the latter for the rest of your life.
Sure just read none of the articles I shared lol.
Also very cute to pretend to be having a regular conversation just to piss your pants a second later. How about this save this post hit me up in a year let’s see if you have the balls to admit you’re wrong.
Spoiler, you won’t
You didn’t link anything to me, did you confuse me for someone else?
https://hexbear.net/comment/4566817
literally you dumbass
Sorry, didn’t have notifications on and didn’t see the one with links, I’ve responded to that one.
I’m not one to argue small values, as far as I know this stuff will be better understood in retrospect, in the same way peer-reviewed scientific understanding is, years later.
I am curious though, do you think there would be evidence or just data that, for the time being (since, like I said, this stuff is better understood after the fact when enough data is gathered, disseminated, reviewed, etc.) would make you reconsider?
If the IMF or the relevant CPC association put out numbers much lower than 5%, I’d consider it plausible and keep it as a provisional value along with the forecasted ones and the current range alleged by different groups. If the Chicago School of Economics or Austrian School (lol, do they do math? jk) published something, I’d have to look at it before dismissing it.
So I’m just curious because clearly you put in effort, and I have a hard time understanding the bounds and methodology you use since 1. it’s different from the folks here, and 2. it’s different from contemporary orthodox/heterodox economists.