Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight Watch

    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    All you are doing is proving that you just don't understand the underlying facts of the matter. It doesn't matter that much that Europe's share of global trade is declining (remember one key point here, the UK is still part of Europe, and will never be able to change that), that is an inevitable part of the rest of the world developing. If you look at the historical facts you can see that the size of a region's economy is pretty much tied to it's population. Once you eliminate the advantages in health and technology, that Europe and North America have enjoyed over the past 200 years or so, the rest of the world catches up - but it's going to take a long time.

    None of this means that Europe's economy is shrinking - that's the fallacy of the "Project Fantasy". It also doesn't mean that we get a free growth boost from trying to have trade deals with developing nations - their economies just don't match what we can supply to them. It's great for China, because they are making fast moving consumer goods (mobile phones, microwaves, fridges…), 80% of our economy is services, which does not fit with that pattern..

    To put that in a better frame, I don't remember the actual data on it, but during the referendum campaign one of the facts stated about our service economy is that we sell more architectural services to a tiny country like Luxembourg (population 550,000) than we do to India (population 1,000,000,000). Those facts are not going to change for 30 or 40 years, at best.
    Our wages are barely growing, meaning as prices rises we won't be able to afford these goods, while millionaires and wealth rises in China and India.
    Yes we'll still be wealthier, but still more expensive to live.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Our wages are barely growing, meaning as prices rises we won't be able to afford these goods, while millionaires and wealth rises in China and India.
    Yes we'll still be wealthier, but still more expensive to live.
    Our wages are barely growing because the Conservative government has screwed up the economy for the past six years (no one seems to have really noticed this - the Conservatives are "strong on the economy", but if you look at the facts this is just a myth: Thatcher had the highest rates of unemployment, and the current mob couldn't organise a good session in a brewery).

    Millionaires in China and India are not going to save us. Again you are illustrating that you don't understand what is happening. They are millionaires because we are sending our money to them. They also represent a very, very small percentage of the population of those countries. Look at the underlying facts: more than 60% of Indians don't even have access to a toilet.

    http://indianexpress.com/article/ind...-toilet-study/

    So we won't be selling them rolls of Andrex.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Our wages are barely growing because the Conservative government has screwed up the economy for the past six years (no one seems to have really noticed this - the Conservatives are "strong on the economy", but if you look at the facts this is just a myth: Thatcher had the highest rates of unemployment, and the current mob couldn't organise a good session in a brewery).

    Millionaires in China and India are not going to save us. Again you are illustrating that you don't understand what is happening. They are millionaires because we are sending our money to them. They also represent a very, very small percentage of the population of those countries. Look at the underlying facts: more than 60% of Indians don't even have access to a toilet.

    http://indianexpress.com/article/ind...-toilet-study/

    So we won't be selling them rolls of Andrex.
    Not really completly due to conservative government, there private sector too, also the 1% rise was to get rid of debt.

    Did you read on BBC News that our generation is worse off than our parents? House prices are now 7/8 times higher unlike them 3 times higher, less money than last generation means less to spend. Less to spend when prices increases = poorer
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Well as a mathematician I can't help but point out that he did state 'trade area'.

    Now let's get mathematical, because that's what you were doing.

    The EU has a land area of 4.238 million sq. km and the world has a land area of 129.74 million sq. km.

    So in fact it is mathematically possible to cover a trade area of 10 times the size of the EU, or even 30 times.
    What moron uses the square area of a country to consolidate trade?

    And you divided 130 by 4, that does not make you a mathematician lmfao
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    What moron uses the square area of a country to consolidate trade?

    And you divided 130 by 4, that does not make you a mathematician lmfao
    I am a mathematician by degree and profession.

    I was simply deducting the facts from Mr Davis' statement. If you feel that he needs to expand on his statement then feel free to write him a letter. Don't try to target me for being factually correct, just because it might not suit your agenda.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    It is a fact that can be derived from logic - I know that's a weak spot for you, but try this: either Davis thinks we are too stupid to work out that he can't possibly do a trade deal that is 10 times the size of the deal that we currently have with the EU (in monetary terms) or that we are too stupid to work out that "land area" isn't a valid way of measuring the scope of a trade deal. Or Davis is too stupid to understand either of these things and is just spouting fantasy figures.

    Whatever way you look at it my first point is clearly made out. If you have another interpretation please put it forward.
    No, your weak spot is your lack of ability to differentiate between facts and opinion. Your rhetoric about 'Project Fantasy' is an opinion and you know this very well. Also I must say passive aggressive insult really isn't painting a good picture on you, if anything it shows more about you than me as a person.

    (Original post by typonaut)
    I think if he had said something that was within the bounds of reason, or was in some other way making sense (and you are not arguing that what he has said makes any sense), then I'd find it difficult to criticise what he had said. If he made the claim that he was going to double the size of trade deals (in monetary terms), I could argue that that would seem unlikely, but it wouldn't actually be impossible.

    That's my point - what he says is either impossible, or utterly meaningless.
    But what more do you want given that's the exact word he used and stated explicitly in his statement? You and I can interpret all we want but at the end that's what he said and he was factually correct. I have stated that I wouldn't use land area to quantify trade, but who are we to say he was saying it in a trade quantifying context?

    If you wish, write him a letter to ask him to expand on his comment's context. Just don't try to beat a dead horse and finding a bone to pick with when there really isn't any.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Not really completly due to conservative government, there private sector too, also the 1% rise was to get rid of debt.
    No, I don't mean that they restricted pay rises for civil servants, I mean that their whole ideology of austerity (and general cluelessness) has messed-up the economy generally. That's why wages overall are suppressed.

    Did you read on BBC News that our generation is worse off than our parents? House prices are now 7/8 times higher unlike them 3 times higher, less money than last generation means less to spend. Less to spend when prices increases = poorer
    Again this is largely due to government policy. The government has encouraged people with capital to put that money into property as an investment - to earn a living and to pay for their retirement. This is not just due to the current Conservative and previous coalition governments, but was happening under the Labour government too. But I think it has been most evident in the past 6-8 years, and the Conservatives have done next to nothing about it - thinking that giving first time buyers government help to buy solves the problem. It doesn't it just exasperates the issue.

    Then there's the whole overseas buyers issue. And the lack of government funded social housing - which leads to a vicious circle whereby the government ends up subsidising market rents to private landlords through housing benefit - I'd like to know how much that costs the country every week!

    Anyway, all this seems to be off-topic to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    No, your weak spot is your lack of ability to differentiate between facts and opinion. Your rhetoric about 'Project Fantasy' is an opinion and you know this very well.
    There is a very sound and logical argument there, that's my point. "Project Fantasy" is rhetoric, of course, but the more this goes on, and the people in charge illustrate that they really don't know what they are doing, the less rhetorical it gets.

    Also I must say passive aggressive insult really isn't painting a good picture on you, if anything it shows more about you than me as a person.
    I laid out the problem for you simply enough, you don't have the capacity to recognise the argument or the points being made - please don't place the burden of that failure upon me.

    But what more do you want given that's the exact word he used and stated explicitly in his statement? You and I can interpret all we want but at the end that's what he said and he was factually correct. I have stated that I wouldn't use land area to quantify trade, but who are we to say he was saying it in a trade quantifying context?
    You agree that using the area of land is pointless. I say that he either did not literally mean "area of land" and thus what he claims is impossible, or he thinks we are all stupid (which we're obviously not because we spotted his error), or he is stupid for using "area of land" in the first place (which doesn't bode well given that he is Minister for Brexit).

    This fully addresses your criticism of my original post.

    If you wish, write him a letter to ask him to expand on his comment's context. Just don't try to beat a dead horse and finding a bone to pick with when there really isn't any.
    It's not a dead horse, it's a live and kicking point - the Minister is a fool, and now we all know it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I am a mathematician by degree and profession.

    I was simply deducting the facts from Mr Davis' statement. If you feel that he needs to expand on his statement then feel free to write him a letter. Don't try to target me for being factually correct, just because it might not suit your agenda.
    If true, which I doubt, then its proof that a maths degree doesn't make you smart.

    As I said before, who on Earth refers to trade area as the physical square area of the country...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    There is a very sound and logical argument there, that's my point. "Project Fantasy" is rhetoric, of course, but the more this goes on, and the people in charge illustrate that they really don't know what they are doing, the less rhetorical it gets.



    I laid out the problem for you simply enough, you don't have the capacity to recognise the argument or the points being made - please don't place the burden of that failure upon me.



    You agree that using the area of land is pointless. I say that he either did not literally mean "area of land" and thus what he claims is impossible, or he thinks we are all stupid (which we're obviously not because we spotted his error), or he is stupid for using "area of land" in the first place (which doesn't bode well given that he is Minister for Brexit).

    This fully addresses your criticism of my original post.



    It's not a dead horse, it's a live and kicking point - the Minister is a fool, and now we all know it.
    I mean now it's a scenario of he said yes and you said no. He said one thing and you are saying he isn't talking about that thing.

    Seriously what are you trying to achieve here, apart from making yourself look bad with the passive-aggressive insults?

    Can you simply not see that I'm being purely factual here while you are still trying to find things to criticise?

    It's like you are trying to make me agree with you that he was implying something he didn't say. Also that is not the only thing he said about post-Brexit trade, since he was accurate in this statement why don't you find another statement to criticise with?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    If true, which I doubt, then its proof that a maths degree doesn't make you smart.
    Again, your comments show more about yourself than me as a person.

    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    As I said before, who on Earth refers to trade area as the physical square area of the country...
    Because that's the usual unit a geographic area is measured in? Unless you have some other definition of area?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Again, your comments show more about yourself than me as a person.



    Because that's the usual unit a geographic area is measured in? Unless you have some other definition of area?
    Says you who starts a pro-Brexit post with "I am a mathematician"...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I mean now it's a scenario of he said yes and you said no. He said one thing and you are saying he isn't talking about that thing.
    I've given you three alternative explanations, you don't appear to be able to grasp them. I can't help you with that problem - but it would probably help if you stop blaming me for your lack of comprehension and take another, long, look at what I have written.

    When you keep telling us that you are a mathematician you seem merely to be illustrating that you lack any other skills related to rational thinking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Again, your comments show more about yourself than me as a person.
    No, they show that you have a definite problem with understanding simple argument threads.

    Because that's the usual unit a geographic area is measured in? Unless you have some other definition of area?
    You are merely showing that you are lacking a proper understanding of English and its subtleties.

    Take a look at these thesaurus entries, and you will see that your narrow understanding of the term is not the only way the word "area" is used:

    area
    noun

    1 an inner-city area district, region, zone, sector, quarter, precinct; locality, locale, neighborhood, parish, patch; tract, belt; informal neck of the woods, turf.

    2 specific areas of scientific knowledge field, sphere, discipline, realm, domain, sector, province, territory, line.

    3 the dining area section, space; place, room.

    4 the area of a circle expanse, extent, size, scope, compass; dimensions, proportions.
    I've previously made this point, but you seem unable to grasp it. If one said "the size of the European Economic Area" for example, it is unlikely that one means literally the number of square kilometers of the member states. It's more likely that one means, depending on context, the population of the area or the economic output of the area.

    Please stop putting a really simplistic explanation on something when that explanation is obviously flawed. If Davis literally meant "area of land" then he is a fool, or he thinks we are - this is a point that you have already accepted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    No, they show that you have a definite problem with understanding simple argument threads.



    You are merely showing that you are lacking a proper understanding of English and its subtleties.

    Take a look at these thesaurus entries, and you will see that your narrow understanding of the term is not the only way the word "area" is used:



    I've previously made this point, but you seem unable to grasp it. If one said "the size of the European Economic Area" for example, it is unlikely that one means literally the number of square kilometers of the member states. It's more likely that one means, depending on context, the population of the area or the economic output of the area.

    Please stop putting a really simplistic explanation on something when that explanation is obviously flawed. If Davis literally meant "area of land" then he is a fool, or he thinks we are - this is a point that you have already accepted.

    So people who disagree with you cannot "understand simple arguments" and lack a "proper understanding of the english". Ever consider you may just be wrong?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    Says you who starts a pro-Brexit post with "I am a mathematician"...
    I stated that because he was doing some arithmetic, do you have some problem with simple maths or mathematicians?

    Or are you just trying to find something to hate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I've given you three alternative explanations, you don't appear to be able to grasp them. I can't help you with that problem - but it would probably help if you stop blaming me for your lack of comprehension and take another, long, look at what I have written.

    When you keep telling us that you are a mathematician you seem merely to be illustrating that you lack any other skills related to rational thinking.
    And I've told you how you are flogging a dead horse. The minister said what he said, he was factually correct. I mean if you want to rant about Brexit and future trades relation then feel free, but don't use a title like 'Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight' when it is you who got it wrong.

    Most of all, don't get passive aggressive when people set you straight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    I stated that because he was doing some arithmetic, do you have some problem with simple maths or mathematicians?

    Or are you just trying to find something to hate?
    I'm hating on you because you pretend to have a maths degree to support the crumbling arguments for Brexit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    I'm hating on you because you pretend to have a maths degree to support the crumbling arguments for Brexit.
    Here comes the personal insult. It's interesting to see that you cannot come up with a valid argument so you'd rather throw out insults.

    If you also pay attention I did not comment anything on Brexit, merely on the accuracy of the Mr Davis' statement.

    It seems that you are on attack mode today, and you are ready to shout down anyone who doesn't support your agenda.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Here comes the personal insult. It's interesting to see that you cannot come up with a valid argument so you'd rather throw out insults.

    If you also pay attention I did not comment anything on Brexit, merely on the accuracy of the Mr Davis' statement.

    It seems that you are on attack mode today, and you are ready to shout down anyone who doesn't support your agenda.
    Hahahaha I see no personal insults. You insulted yourself by pretending to have a maths degree to reinforce your hollow argument. And I know you're excessively pro-Brexit from a while back.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.