2 ms·
"You’re ignoring information that you disagree with" You're the one saying information is "meaningless", and at the same time I don't see any alternative data
by perl4ever 7y ago
"You’re ignoring information that you disagree with"
You're the one saying information is "meaningless", and at the same time I don't see any alternative data that you've provided. You're just making general statements that sound to me like the fallacy that imprecision means no information.
In your first reponse to me, you wrote:
"It requires a very large decline to average out to ‘just’ 1%"
So, "very large" is subjective, but I don't think 10% is "very large" in the context of people talking about 100% of the economy being down.
- Retric 7y ago> imprecision means no information It’s imprecise enough that you’re better using other means to estimate the decline. I am between 1cm and 1 mile tall, is true but does not convey new information. Similarly without knowing how fast was the economy was growing or shrinking before the decline, the decline hit, when peak decline hit, it’s impossible to say how bad things where at the end of the quarter beyond well it’s worse. I mean presumably when news of the outbreak hit but before the shutdown there was some effect, but I don’t know if it was a net positive or negative. If you want numbers I would say 10+x larger is objectively a very large decline relative to 1%. Anyone talking about a 100% shutdown while still buying food is being using hyperbolic or simply does not understand what their words mean. It’s at best symbolically true in that net wealth is being destroyed so the engine of human progress has shut down.