Moronic response that barely deserves another reply. If you don't think we should quote real value-added because people don't understand the definition then reporters should simply never discuss inflation, GDP, real wage growth, unemployment, or marginal tax rates either.
Patrick Fitzsimmons
 @pfitzsimmons
Oct 29
It’s time to rebut this completely, embarrassingly wrong and hostile thread. Link to article and long 🧵 below. Sorry for the delay, but quality writing takes longer than LLM-style writing that is superficially smart but uncomprehending and error-ridden.
8
10
3
75
Are you mentally deficient? This is what double deflation (of inputs and outputs) is for.
2
1
14
Basically boils down to "the vibes are wrong so I'm going to write a retarded wordcel argument that boils down to assuming that I'm right at the outset." OK, if you just axiomatically believe that people should primarily care about the number of cars produced then whatever.
1
15
Enjoy your chimpout, not worth my time responding further to this drivel - not like endlessly kanging about the retvrn of American manufacturing is going to do anything beyond further entrenching uncompetitive industries. Some people actually have work to do!

Oct 29, 2025 · 8:11 PM UTC

2
10
Replying to @sichuan_mala
You would be far better off saying "Life is short and I can't be assed doing another round of this" (which is quite understandable), rather than pretending @pfitzsimmons response is not serious and substantive, which it clearly is.
1
4
It is serious in the same way that a vixra crackpot proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is serious. You can output infinite quantities of "substantive" yet ultimately bullshit text that take arbitrarily large amounts of effort to refute.
1
2
more replies
Replying to @sichuan_mala
To a neutral observer like me who is curious about the argument, you haven’t conducted yourself in a manner conducive to persuasion especially when a former BEA economist appears to agree with Patrick. Are you just 19 or something?
2
2
Load more