In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language.
Things that aren't grammar include word choice, spelling, keyboarding and punctuation. But usually people with English as their second language don't quite understand the differences between those ideas, but then again, learning stuff is for nerds.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 11 2015 11:44pm

Thats some totally half baked short sighted, misleading info - what it fails to mention is that "smaller government" countries are third world countries that without any infrastructure and where any % of gdp spending would produce gains in economy. It's like buying some clothes for 2 men - one is completely naked and the other is wearing a 3 piece suit - who do you think will benefit more from you spending $5?

In actual fact - in a first world country like America - as Government spending goes up, so does GDP.



This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 12 2015 12:08am

Its comparing OECD countries.. several of which have seen improvements after making attempts to streamline government. Nice try.

GDP is generally going up for just about everyone. Your chart is irrelevant and your implication based off of it is facepalm worthy. At no point in time did I suggest increased government spending will completely shutter off all growth.
The link i posted goes over several reasons why too much government spending hurts the economy, and cites numerous studies and analyses.


"Thats some totally half baked short sighted, misleading info" at just about everything you just said.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 12 2015 01:36am

Well your chart is completely wrong, biased and complete bs. I challenge you to show and data from any specific OECD country where "public spending" varied from <> 25 - 60%.
And what is their definition of "public spending" - any social program? Looks like the data they used is very well cooked. It certainly not true in America

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/pam/pam48/pam4803.htm

Public Expenditures and Economic Growth

Many studies have aimed at estimating the effects of public expenditure on economic growth. Empirical studies have yielded conflicting results: some support the hypothesis that a rise in the share of public spending is associated with a decline in economic growth (Landau (1986) and Scully (1989)); others have found that public spending is associated positively with economic growth (Ram (1986)); and still other studies have found no significant relationship (Kormendi and Meguire (1985) and Diamond (1989)). Public expenditures were observed in one study to have no impact on growth in developed countries, but a positive impact in developing countries (Sattar (1993)). In general, studies of the relationship between aggregate public expenditure and economic growth have not yielded robust results, as the results of many are sensitive to small changes in model specification (Levine and Renelt (1992)).

This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 12 2015 02:54am

inc wall of text

He who believes in a spook no more assumes the "introduction of a higher world" than he who believes in the spirit, and both seek behind the sensual world a supersensual one; in short, they produce and believe another world, and this other world, the product of their mind, is a spiritual world...
Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!"

You not liking the results doesn't make it wrong or "bs".
Go to the link I posted and read what was said instead of making wild assumptions.
At no point was a complete consensus claimed among all studies ever done. They did however amass quite a bit of evidence and analyses, and talked about the reasoning behind it.

Your challenge is also irrelevant to what was posted and is not what the graph is displaying..
You are fundamentally not understanding what was posted and yet claim its bs..

You know what else came from the IMF?


all cited in the link i posted earlier...

It's almost halloween, time to get spooky with st. max

oh man i'd do it but i only know around 2 people who would get it. i'd just look silly to everyone else. the spookiest costume of all

OECD is a trade organization not some actual ratings system. It is just a group of people who agree to trade using lax rules. Belonging to the OECD doesn't mean you are free, treat your citizens well, or that rights exist, or that individual people themselves can trade freely or whatever....it has nothing to do with any of those.

There are some legitimately undemocratic and fascist states within the OECD, which has never bothered American free trade people before. They don't care if you start rounding up the Jews or Muzzies or Japs or Darkies, as long as you don't start redistributing wealth around Historically speaking ofc.