Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Jobs do NOT Create Economic Growth

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 7:58:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

How would you define government jobs? So if government invest in some companies (small business loan for example), are the jobs created by such investments considered government jobs or non-government jobs?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 10:42:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 7:58:30 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

How would you define government jobs? So if government invest in some companies (small business loan for example), are the jobs created by such investments considered government jobs or non-government jobs?

I guess it would vary on how much the gov't owns the business, but even the gov't investing in the private sector doesn't create wealth, all it does is shift wealth.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 1:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 7:16:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
They simply shift money from one pocket to another. The private sector ultimately dictates how well the economy is, the government jobs are payed for by taxpayers, and since taxes aren't investments you get returns on, gov't created growth does not improve the economy, it just dips in to the pockets of taxpayers to pay for the jobs. Can someone logically refute this?

In a vast majority of cases, you are correct. But some government jobs do create economic growth. I work at My states transportation department and can attest to the fact that our roads and infrastructure have a significant impact on economic activity. Now the road construction jobs themselves dont generate any net ecomoc growth (by of the broken window fallacy), but the jobs planning and maintaining the infrastructure do in many ways.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:14:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

Didn't expect that response from you, although I agree with you. Has college officially liberally indoctrinated u :p?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:20:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:14:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

Didn't expect that response from you, although I agree with you. Has college officially liberally indoctrinated u :p?

No. I don't believe in economic growth via government spending but I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the fact that money from the government is still money in the economic system.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:23:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, the money multiplier effect -

If the money would otherwise have been saved, now only X% of the money would be saved leaving ((100 - X%) * e2) ...I think, it's been a while...as the amount of money that would actually grow the economy.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:26:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:20:36 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:14:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.

Didn't expect that response from you, although I agree with you. Has college officially liberally indoctrinated u :p?

No. I don't believe in economic growth via government spending but I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the fact that money from the government is still money in the economic system.

The VAST majority of "private sector" jobs in aerospace, and plenty of other industries are created via gov't contracts.

The economy would shrink ridiculously quickly without gov't spending. Ask McDonald Douglas...except you can't because they don't exist any longer.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:35:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

Well, if you buy am iPod or Nikes or whatever, the wages for the manufacture of those items goes to Haiti or Bangladesh or whatever other 3rd world country in which those companies have their plants. The rest goes toward overhead and profit, and little of the money multiplies and fuels the economy, with the exception of the portion dedicated to the distributor (Best Buy, etc).

A government employee will buy a basket of goods which includes housing, and this money necessarily has to remain in the domestic economy.

This is but one of the many ways gov't spending grows the economy.

Infrastructure is actually much bigger, in terms of growth.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:06:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.

What is it about the popularity of high speed rail in Europe and Asia that leads you to believe that it would be of no use here?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:06:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.

What is it about the popularity of high speed rail in Europe and Asia that leads you to believe that it would be of no use here?

You do realize that America is a different place than Japan or Europe, right?

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:08:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.

That's what I said, except I also explained the money multiplier effect. hmmm...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:12:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:08:21 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:06:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.

What is it about the popularity of high speed rail in Europe and Asia that leads you to believe that it would be of no use here?



You do realize that America is a different place than Japan or Europe, right?

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:08:21 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:06:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.

What is it about the popularity of high speed rail in Europe and Asia that leads you to believe that it would be of no use here?


You do realize that America is a different place than Japan or Europe, right?

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...

OMG!!! You're right!!! I mean, I had no idea this was the case, but now that I look at a map, I see that you are totally correct about that.

(yeah...no sh!t...I don't think anyone is proposing that these projects get moving in BFE North Dakota. Now, plot population density along the western coastline and the eastern seaboard where these projects would actually happen and see where the US falls on the graph.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:08:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.

That's what I said, except I also explained the money multiplier effect. hmmm...

Have no idea what you're equation was.

Money multipler is the equation:

Money multiplier = (Monetary Base)/(reserve requirements)

That's under ideal circumstances, if people do not take their money out, and the banks do not keep excess reserves.

Perhaps you're thinking of fiscal multiplier, which is the change in GDP based on a change in spending on any sector.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:14:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:12:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:08:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.

That's what I said, except I also explained the money multiplier effect. hmmm...

Have no idea what you're equation was.

Money multipler is the equation:

Money multiplier = (Monetary Base)/(reserve requirements)

That's under ideal circumstances, if people do not take their money out, and the banks do not keep excess reserves.

Perhaps you're thinking of fiscal multiplier, which is the change in GDP based on a change in spending on any sector.

actually just 1/(reserve requirement).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:14:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:12:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:08:21 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:06:44 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:01:08 PM, BigRat wrote:
Public investment can indeed enhance productivity, although most of the infrastructure projects that are being mentioned now would really just waste resources (High Speed Rail being case in point).

Typically, fiscal stimulus is pretty ineffective and often aimed at inefficient, but politically popular, uses. That is why private sector investment is usually superior.

Sure, if we were to spend massive amounts of money, the effect on GDP in the short run would be positive, but the effect on welfare and long term GDP would be negative.

What is it about the popularity of high speed rail in Europe and Asia that leads you to believe that it would be of no use here?


You do realize that America is a different place than Japan or Europe, right?

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...

OMG!!! You're right!!! I mean, I had no idea this was the case, but now that I look at a map, I see that you are totally correct about that.

(yeah...no sh!t...I don't think anyone is proposing that these projects get moving in BFE North Dakota. Now, plot population density along the western coastline and the eastern seaboard where these projects would actually happen and see where the US falls on the graph.)

Here's a real question. If high speed rail is so great, why has no business person thought of starting a high speed rail line here?

If it was so wonderful, there would certainly be plenty of money to make.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:14:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:12:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:08:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.

That's what I said, except I also explained the money multiplier effect. hmmm...

Have no idea what you're equation was.

Money multipler is the equation:

Money multiplier = (Monetary Base)/(reserve requirements)

That's under ideal circumstances, if people do not take their money out, and the banks do not keep excess reserves.

Perhaps you're thinking of fiscal multiplier, which is the change in GDP based on a change in spending on any sector.

actually just 1/(reserve requirement).

The equation (dM = dMB x m) links changes in monetary policy, i.e. changes in the MB (dMB = OMO), to changes in the money supply (M), through the money multiplier (m). For example, suppose that the reserve requirement (rD) is .05 and the C/D is .45, the money multiplier (m) would be:
m = (1 + .45) / (.05 + .45) = ( 1.45 / .5 ) = 2.9x. Therefore, for every $1 OMO (dMB), the change in the money supply (M) would be:

dM = dMB x m = $1 x 2.9x = $2.9.

http://spruce.flint.umich.edu...
....................................................

Just 'cause Wikipedia says it doesn't mean it's correct (I understand my equation was different. I was trying to simplify the TOTAL money multiplier effect over time so that it was understandable for a lay person, so I used e (natural number used in compounding) and a money less savings rate instead.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:32:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:14:21 PM, BigRat wrote:

Here's a real question. If high speed rail is so great, why has no business person thought of starting a high speed rail line here?


If it was so wonderful, there would certainly be plenty of money to make.

Business people are stupid (as demonstrated by their constant failure in the market)

Capital investment is a barrier to entry.

"business" has built commuter trains, but they use existing heavy rail lines.

If the freeway is so great, how come no business thought to build an interstate freeway system prior to Truman/Eisenhower?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:28:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:14:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:12:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:08:46 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:03:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:20:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:12:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
They can. The money, being taxed from the whole population, then distributed through government jobs is then again dispersed throughout the economy via buying and investing.

If government workers go invest their money or spend it on certain things it could indeed grow the economy.
If the money is taxed from the whole population, then they cant use it to invest in the economy. Where does the net economic growth come from with government jobs?

deficit spending. Plus if the taxed money is instead just going to savings, it isn't doing anything.

That's what I said, except I also explained the money multiplier effect. hmmm...

Have no idea what you're equation was.

Money multipler is the equation:

Money multiplier = (Monetary Base)/(reserve requirements)

That's under ideal circumstances, if people do not take their money out, and the banks do not keep excess reserves.

Perhaps you're thinking of fiscal multiplier, which is the change in GDP based on a change in spending on any sector.

actually just 1/(reserve requirement).

The equation (dM = dMB x m) links changes in monetary policy, i.e. changes in the MB (dMB = OMO), to changes in the money supply (M), through the money multiplier (m). For example, suppose that the reserve requirement (rD) is .05 and the C/D is .45, the money multiplier (m) would be:
m = (1 + .45) / (.05 + .45) = ( 1.45 / .5 ) = 2.9x. Therefore, for every $1 OMO (dMB), the change in the money supply (M) would be:

dM = dMB x m = $1 x 2.9x = $2.9.

http://spruce.flint.umich.edu...
....................................................

Just 'cause Wikipedia says it doesn't mean it's correct (I understand my equation was different. I was trying to simplify the TOTAL money multiplier effect over time so that it was understandable for a lay person, so I used e (natural number used in compounding) and a money less savings rate instead.

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:53:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.

Typically if you're going to square something it's best to express it with a ^, so it would be e^2, which makes more sense.

e can also be used for 10, 5e2 is equal to 500. I often write it down in that notation, since its easier to writhe 6e6 then 6*10^5.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:54:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.

Also, I'm lazy, so I made up the equation on the fly because I didn't feel like looking it up.

That wasn't the point of all this, though.

Point was, make sure I didn't say the exact same thing as you were going to as well before dismissing what I write.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:56:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.

Typically if you're going to square something it's best to express it with a ^, so it would be e^2, which makes more sense.


e can also be used for 10, 5e2 is equal to 500. I often write it down in that notation, since its easier to writhe 6e6 then 6*10^5.

thanks...never knew that. (the ^ part...I know the standard scientific expression)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:56:07 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:45:32 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:37:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The above equation makes sense, and agree with it. yours still doesn't.

As I said, it's been a while...shouldn't have squared e, but at .05 savings, my equation would have come to 2.7 without squaring e (it was a shortcut to get to an approximate...)

close enough.

Typically if you're going to square something it's best to express it with a ^, so it would be e^2, which makes more sense.


e can also be used for 10, 5e2 is equal to 500. I often write it down in that notation, since its easier to writhe 6e6 then 6*10^5.

thanks...never knew that. (the ^ part...I know the standard scientific expression)

i guess you don't use excel that much then.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...