Withdraw from the discussion if you wish. I do believe I have proven the fundamental philosophical problems with your method of debate, discussion, and so forth.

It is apparent that while I have mentioned China and the US’s economic GDP situation in all of my previous comments, simply in order to forward the original topic for discussion, you have prefered to talk about irrelevant subjects instead. If this is your idea of “resolving disputes”, then I suppose resolving disputes implies that I have to agree with you. You don’t really expect that to happen just because, do you.

I won’t fault you for being unaware of standard language usage, but I will assert that your claim is false when interpreted using standard English usage

In the last 3 or 4 comments, that is the best you can do. Take a fallacious position by utilizing statistical lies about relative percentage growth to challenge the simple objective truth that China’s GDP is growing slower than the US’s, even when the percentages are different.

You cannot even admit the incorrectness of your position, so you pick and choose rationalizations and semantics to justify yourself. That is the best you can do. It is not good enough. It was never good enough. It wouldn’t even be good enough if the statistics and data used in Global Warming were actually true and not misleading, in reference to the Global Warming debate on the other threads.

If you want to be technical, then there are two statements, both of which are true:

1. The fractional growth rate of China’s GDP exceeds that of the USA.
2. The absolute growth rate of USA’s GDP exceeds that of China.

The last in a long line of serious problems with your position is this. How can my claim be “false”, when you yourself stated that my statement along with the other, in the two shown above, are both correct. Is technicality only valid in your view when it brings you advantages, or is there a nonbiased treatment of technicality you might wish to pursue. You interpret fact in such a way that it almost makes it seem that the actual GDP value does not matter, that what matters is the statistical lies and percentages used instead. Truth does not simply mean truth that you like or truth that justifies your arguments, if you ask me.

In the end, Bush’s economic policy brought the US out of a recession and China still has many economic reforms and tax changes to go through before they can equal Bush’s economic success.

Such a position outlined is innately more optimistic than the Global Warming fear factor, yet it is just not fashonable nor popular enough to attract many followers. That, of course, is irrelevant.

If you wish to disagree with Bush’s economic success, then you will obviously need something stronger than talk about China and the US’s GDP or economic growth.

I want you to correctly understand that my lack of response is indicative only of a desire to avoid wasted effort

If only you took as much care in trying to understand what other people’s positions are, as you did with writing this comment; if you used as much care as you use crafting moderate comments such as this, then you might come up with stronger arguments. At least in relation to what your counter-parts are forwarding.

Your lack of response is not primarily due to a desire to avoid wasted effort. Your lack of an adequate response is due to a difference in philosophy, resulting in not being able to accept objective truth over semantics and personal biases. This is not some minor accident or mistake, after all. It is one of the critical problems affecting every argument you make, including the popular Global Warming ones, whether such arguments involve statistics or science.

I have no desire to engage anybody in personal confrontations

Do you truly believe this or are you simply trying to rationalize your way out of facing the truth?

What I’m really saying is that the Chinese GDP is growing faster than US GDP, a well-documented fact.-Op

But it isn’t growing faster than the US’s GDP.-Y

Oh, really? You’d better rush right out and tell the CIA!-op

They’ll greatly appreciate your correcting them.-op

ymarsakar, you’re engaging in a debater’s trick. -Op

What was your attempt at back covering again, something about you not wishing to create confrontations?

Remind me again, who was it again that prefered to talk about their opponents rather than the legitimate subject being discussed?

I have often argued the point to conservatives as well as liberals that facts are not one dimensional. There are many different interpretations of any single fact. This incident with the GDP growth rate, as opposed to the absolute growth of the GDP, provides a very good example of the fact that facts have more than one interpretation. It is how you interpret facts that affect the strength of the arguments in play as well as setting the assumptions being used.

The best that can be said of your argument, Op, is that it only uses the logical fallacy of ad numerum.

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Defending your argument, your position, is in your eyes, Op, a personal confrontation. I suppose it is in a way, since the way you conduct yourself in these discussions is very closely connected to your self-identity.

Did you somehow think for some reason that I would stand around and take your evasions and logical fallacies, as if they were indisputable facts, uncontested? Come on, be serious here.

Well, of course! If you have a rickshaw and you build another rickshaw, your fractional GDP growth was 100%.

But your economy is two rickshaws in absolute terms.

However, if the US ever got serious about industrial espionage and International Tech Transfer Laws, we’d cut their GDP growth in half!

If you see concrete objective proof that backs up my claims as being a trick, then I suppose nothing is true to you, Op, except what you wish to be.

The catch is that, whenever economists, bankers, businessmen, or reporters talk about “growth rate of GDP”, they are ALWAYS referring to the fractional growth rate.

So were you simply clueless when I stated that China’s GDP was growing slower than the US, or were you simply wasting time for time’s sake? After all, if the catch is that most people talk in terms of percentage growth, then obviously my statement was either wrong or I was talking about the objective growth of wealth. You assumed the position that you were biased towards, which expressed itself in the form of telling me how I needed to tell the CIA about the GDP growth, when I was the one that linked to the CIA fact page in the first place.

All of this has nothing to do with the truth. It is nothing but a delaying tactic. You cannot defend your position that China’s economy will outpace or replace the US, and thereby put the US into a subservient position, which is somehow then linked to Bush’s bad tax and economic policies.

I won’t fault you for being unaware of standard language usage

You are in no position to be condescending.

But it isn’t growing faster than the US’s GDP.-Ymar

Oh, really? You’d better rush right out and tell the CIA!-You

Not only did you miss my real meaning, which is predictable of you in this discussion, but instead of discussing the actual figures in question, you go on about “standard language usage”. Are you dodging for the sake of dodging or are you simply practicing your skills at debate, with no interest at all in defending your position?

Have you ever asked yourself how you continuously miss what people are actually communicating in favor of what you want them to communicate, which coincidentally happens to be a weaker position than yours?

You cannot avoid defending your weak claim concerning the United States economy, Op. Although given such weak claims, it might be preferable to abandon it as you have, for more favorable topics.

1. The fractional growth rate of China’s GDP exceeds that of the USA.
2. The absolute growth rate of USA’s GDP exceeds that of China.

The catch is that, whenever economists, bankers, businessmen, or reporters talk about “growth rate of GDP”, they are ALWAYS referring to the fractional growth rate. I won’t fault you for being unaware of standard language usage, but I will assert that your claim is false when interpreted using standard English usage. (And if you don’t believe me, just Google a phrase like “growth rate of GDP” and see how many hits come back in percentage points and how many hits come back in dollars.)

GDP (official exchange rate):
$2.527 trillion (2006 est.)

and what is 2.9% of

GDP (official exchange rate):
$13.16 trillion (2006 est.)

I’ll do it for you. It’s 293 billion per year.

The US grows at 324 billion per year. And that’s without inflated currency and duplicitious trade policies.

This doesn’t really jibe with your worry that the US will be replaced by China’s economic power.

So like I said.

But it isn’t growing faster than the US’s GDP.

Oh, really? You’d better rush right out and tell the CIA!

11.6% GDP growth for China

2.9% growth rate for USA

They’ll greatly appreciate your correcting them.

But it isn’t growing faster than the US’s GDP.

Your contention is that China’s GDP is growing while the US is not, or at least the growth is not real or not a prosperous growth.

Aha! That’s the problem! You have misinterpreted my words. What I’m really saying is that the Chinese GDP is growing faster than US GDP, a well-documented fact.