I was arguing a pro-immigrant faggot online and he said Sweden is doing great cause their countrys GPD (not GPD per capita) is growing fast and tried to explain that its obvious that countrys GPD will grow if you import people and give them free money. It then asked for sources for my claim. Several other people agreed that I need to source it "even if its obvious" Was I retarded for thinking that such premise is obvious enough not to have source it ? How can you even argue with them when everything you say have to be sourced ? Inb4 "first mistake was arguing with leftist"
[citation needed]
Ayden Campbell
Other urls found in this thread:
sverigesradio.se
dn.se
svt.se
expressen.se
morklaggning.wordpress.com
thelocal.se
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Austin Powell
shameless self-bump. get in this slide thread.
Landon Ramirez
Always keep sources ready at hand, bonus points if they are sources considered reliable by leftists.
I'm not any expert on economics but, in order for immigants to beneficial for the country they need to be able to join the workforce, yes?
So you could have shown them the stats on immigrants (talking bout MENA) educational level. And immigrants unemployment numbers. They do not look great.
You could also point out that Sweden tax rate is one of the higher ones in this world. And people who don't work in Sweden, tend to live on welfare instead.
You could also point out that the cost for the migration department are getting way pout of hand.
sverigesradio.se
dn.se
svt.se
expressen.se
Also check out Tino Sandaji, he is a national economist and has written a whole book on the subject. The book is also a best-seller in Sweden atm.
Caleb Baker
As a sidenote, people tend to ask for sources when they are not sure how to respond to your argument.
Of course, that doesn't mean you should not base your arguments on facts that you can prove.
Landon Parker
>I'm not any expert on economics but, in order for immigants to beneficial for the country they need to be able to join the workforce, yes?
Yes I'd think that would be the case, but apparently increasing the countrys GPD from all the free gibs means Sweden is so lucky to have immigrants. But if they start insisting sources on such shit, where does it stop? They ask sources for stating that you can buy stuff with currency?
Ayden Robinson
I've actually notice that when a leftist is unable to respond to an argument they vehemently demand sources on the grounds of "then it's not true or real is it". They will even go as far as changing their stance on a source like ABC or CNN when their preferred "source" turn against them. I.e. in one arguement they'll site MSNBC amd once it stops confirming their bias will ask, "I thought you said MSNBC is fake, how can you use that as a source?" It's actually one of the more clever methods of dishonesty I have seen from the sub-human communist.
Matthew Parker
morklaggning.wordpress.com
Here, have a book.
Jason Sanchez
It's an easy way to discredit an argument. And if someone ends up posting the the source, then they can try to discredit the source as well.
Just keep as many links to, in their eyes, reliable sources as you can. Try not to make any statements you can't back up with facts. Also use their method against them. That's all I can think of.
It's very to hard to make someone accept an argument that does not conform with their worldview.
Robert Wilson
They always wan't sources, that's is the only rational thing you can except from them, when you ask them for sources or evidence they say shit like omg this has been discussed a thousand times, I don't wan't to waste my time on this again and then they remain silent or just ignore you
Christian Sanchez
Leftards will ask for source if you tell them implicit things like water is wet, the sky is blue, etc.
You now understand why it is so important to them to control not only what is being *said*, but also what is being *discussed* and to steer/throttle the direction of the "exchange" for fear of seeing it used as further reference.
The reason behind that is that leftism is a cult, and anything outside of the cult put their religious dogma in peril due to its weak premises.
Aaron Reed
Yeah, seems so. I wasnt really invested in the argument anyway and I dont really know about Sweden and seeing how your government censors alot of stuff, I wasnt going to try and find anything relating to Sweden.
Cognitive Dissoance is strong in leftists.
Colton Lee
Reminder that "source?" means:
- i'm out of counter-argument (shit-test, very much like cunts)
- something wrote by one of their own (they will be critical of alex jones but not cnn&all)
- it's the [current year + 2] and i still cant use google/yahoo/duckduckgo/etc
It's basically a slight improvement of the "dat's wayciss" whine.
-
Camden Anderson
Indeed, another point to notice is that leftist also enjoy being able to argue in spaces where you are not able to post a source. Be it on the chat log of Vidya, a conversation on the phone or in person, and even by text. This is where the leftist thrive, places where they can bid their time to alter their arguement against a source or set of them, or even wait out till the debate is forgotten..
Zachary Harris
Lurk more newfag
also
Brayden Walker
True and they also seem to want to argue on inane stuff usually and throw ridiculous claims and ask sources as to exhaust and make the other person not want to debate cause its pointless and then they can feel smug superiority.
Eli Diaz
>they will be critical of alex jones but not cnn&all
Oddly enough, not entirely true, as I stated earlier, they will have no problem changing their stance and "admitting" CNN is fake news if it means they don't have to say one of their sources disproves them.
Anthony Parker
>wanting to have a discussion based on facts means you are out of arguments
Jose Torres
>arguing with a pro-immigrant
Why?
You can't redpill these "people"
Brayden Price
asking for source makes sense, people want to confirm what is being said, so they dont have to trust it blindly, because people make shit up all the time
Ryan Martinez
When people ask for sources it is because you have a winning argument. It is a good time to end the discussion.
Julian Williams
>Was I retarded for thinking that such premise is obvious enough not to have source it ?
No. You were retarded for debating Destiny.
A good example, instead of just sourcing some abstract general claim, is asking them if they think China is better off than Switzerland. They have a much greater GDP. And if they're arguing for a need to grow the overall size of the economy, just ask them why. I guarantee you, they'll have to fall back on either pensions or empire building, if not some vague bullshit about the economy being built on infinite growth. You'll have a good time either way.
Adam Morris
you seem confused. the claim was his not yours
Camden Morris
That means they don't understand the basics of economics and aren't worth arguing with. Or they aren't arguing honestly and are going to move the goal posts as soon as you provide sources.
Charles Cox
he is a racist. call him a racist.
Colton Mitchell
Dunno, I was feeling like having a rage.
Sort-of but my claim was that its the effect from the gibsmedat that they use to spend money.
NA did something along those lines and Destiny went on autistic sperg about how stuff like that isnt comparable.
Nathan Morales
Literally their counter argument.
They LOVE to shift the burden of proof, even accusing others of doing the same. There's a reason we say 'liberals' love to project.
Josiah Wright
Don't argue with facts. No one cares.
Winning arguments and persuading others is mostly about establishing a favorable frame.
If you and your opponent argue about if immigrants are good for the economy, the take away for most people is that immigrants might be good for the economy, irrespective of any facts presented. You've already lost persuasively once you enter that frame.
Alternatively if you and your opponent argue about how immigrants might be terrorists or culturally hostile, you have already won persuasively, because most people will takeaway that immigrants might be terrorists.
Michael Roberts
>NA did something along those lines
Yeah, and it was fucking beautiful. Nigger had to tap out after it.
It's a ridiculous talking point, I don't see why anyone would want to bring it up. It's hard to be prepared for that, so just do what barbarossa of accurate polling said and make sure you never let them flip the burden of proof for their claims onto you. But this is a little too far, I don't think those sort of people are really worth arguing. If you have to, don't let them set the agenda, keep calm and come out looking like the better man. Just like Jared Taylor.
Aiden Morris
it seems both of you got confused. doesn't see your claim warrants a source nor it should harm his position (in fact that's his basis for an argument).
the thing about debating is that it's utterly pointless in regard to what people expect, someone being right, because ultimately there is no truth, only different perspectives and different ways of looking at the world
Jacob Sullivan
GDP is the value of the goods and services produced in a country.
If an immigrant comes and one day a week he polishes someones shoe, then he does work, which increases GDP.
But this does not mean that it raises the standard of living for people in the country, or the GDP per capita.
>Was I retarded for thinking that such premise is obvious enough not to have source it ?
No, you weren't. "SOURCES PLEASE" is a meme. You should obviously source controversial claims. But in a verbal discussion, this is not possible - you have to accept claims that appear likely on the face of it, or come back to them later. You cannot stop the debate every ten seconds because someone requests a source that an average pineapple tastes sweet. Still, the "SOURCES PLEASE" meme is strong and they exploited it.
Hence, you cannot approach leftists as honest debaters. Every situation is an act of war, from them.
Jason Diaz
you love to generalise, don't you?
good boy
Carter Rogers
This right here. If progressives cared about facts you wouldn't be arguing with their lies.
Brandon Mitchell
GDP has increased but GDP per capita has decreased. And then I'm not sure we have even accounted for inflation. The economy is deemed to be performing well in Sweden right now, but even then we are taking loans to afford state spending.
Michael Jenkins
Doesn't sweden have huge public sector and housing bubble.
Cooper Nguyen
whenever some leftie asks me to source my claims, i upfront tell them i expect them to source theirs just as well.
if they somehow claim they don't have to, or actively refuse, then tell them you have better things to do.
doesn't stop them from claiming your sources are "biased", however. i had one particularly dense case claim that, while the UK budget under Brown was "correct", it was "clearly corrupt" under Cameron only 2 years later, and hence the government website releases biased.
beyond the absurd. but she actually completely bought into her own idiocy.
Oliver Phillips
Sweden is doing great. We're wealthier than ever now that housing prices have doubled!
pls annex
Andrew Hill
A sufficient source on OP's claim is to merely link to the definition of GDP, and point out that as long as they're doing anything in the economy, then they're increasing GDP. Unless they're destroying more than they create. Now if they want to argue that they're destroying more than they create that's fine.
But that's obviously not what you're arguing.
Michael Nelson
Pls gib Varmland and Herjedalen.
Asher Perez
Yes "wealth" increase has mostly been house prices increasing inflated by loans.
Ryder Butler
He claimed immigrants are good for economy based on solely that the GPD is increasing. I said, well nah the thing is that GPD is increasing because they use the free money to increase the GPD.
The GPD also increases when they get free money and spend it on goods and services.
>B-but m-muh GPD!
Zachary Phillips
He's probably right about GDP going up, by the way. The reason is simple: GDP is simply the sum total of
>Personal Consumption
>Investment
>Net Exports (yes, it may be negative)
>Government spending
in a given region, usually country.
GDP is intended to capture the "economic activity" of a country, and it generally does. Countries with higher GDP are richer than countries with low GDP, although to determine standard of living it helps to use Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) to adjust for differences in prices in different countries.
Unfortunately it can be abused, and there are three main ways. The first is an econometric problem -- what counts as each category? If I buy a truck, is that consumer spending or investment? In reality this is solved by drawing often rather arbitrary lines to avoid double counting. Secondary sales are usually not counted (used cars, thrift stores) because their initial sale was already counted. The black market is not counted for practical reasons although some economists attempt to estimate its size. These problems are all well understood.
The second is monetization. If your wife stays at home and takes care of your children, this generates $0 GDP. However, if she gets a job at Wal Mart for $10/hr and then pays a caretaker $10/hr for daycare, now your nation's GDP has gone up. But governments love this because now they can tax that money -- in fact, both when your wife is paid and when she pays for daycare. Which brings us to why immigrants are so great for GDP.
The government takes money from people and spends it, which tautologically causes GDP to rise. Often that money is spent again, further increasing GDP.
Dominic Gomez
>The Swedish economist Tino Sanandaji, who himself has an Iranian-Kurdish background, recently described what’s happening in Sweden as “quite disastrous”. He said: “This is an irreversible social experiment that no wealthy state has ever attempted. There are almost no ideas or visions over how this can be solved. You can’t combine open borders with a welfare state […] It’s just mathematically impossible for a small country like Sweden to fund that”
>– in 15 years’ time, demographers say, indigenous Swedes will be in a minority in their own country, because the immigrants who arrive are allowed to send home for wives and children, who in turn will have their own children
>As for paying for all the newcomers, Sweden has dipped into part of its overseas aid budget but has also gone cap in hand to the EU, asking for additional emergency funding to cope with the ever-growing influx.
SWEDEN YES
Brayden Cox
>Värmland
Heartwarming.
>He claimed immigrants are good for economy based on solely that the GPD is increasing
Then it's really enough to just show a higher GDP doesn't mean better. China vs Switzerland, Congo vs Monaco or something.
Isaiah Lee
Brandon Young
>Give them free money
That's really not the point. If you did give free money to people you wouldn't necessary increase the value of produced goods of a country.
Thing is, if you imported a bunch of savages and had them produce labor worth 1 dollar per person, say giving handjobs, whatever, that finished service is considered GDP.
So, yes, you will increase GDP by importing savages assuming ANY of them do ANYTHING that is worth money of ANY amount.
What you should be arguing is whether or not GDP per capita is good; essentially are these foreigners producing goods and services at the same rate of the natives? If not so, why not? If they don't for whatever reason, why import them?
Jack Flores
This, it's a good rhetorical stall/go to argument when the claim is outside of a particular narrative. That said it is a good question for either side so expect that kind of response and be ready to google or have stuff ready.
All of that said, the reason we say "arguing with a leftist" is because once you get good at providing and finding statistics you'll quickly realize that they don't actually care about statistics and merely request them to pivot the conversation and keep you on your back foot. If you have stats then they don't want to hear them and scream and screech over you. Worst is online they just pick parts of your long comment and respond piecemeal which is frustrating. Finally, some are so bold that they'll actually argue your stats are wrong and throw up counter stats from lefty statistic mills like huff post, salon, etc.
This is why arguing with leftist idiots is a waste of time.
Owen Cox
Most things have probably been said, but watch out for the shit heads that argue semantics. They do that on purpose, shut it down quickly and focus on your point.
Ryder Smith
No Jimbo, you don't argue with traitors. You KILL them.
Jason Torres
Yes, I didnt ask sources for his claim I was just trying to point out that if you import people and give them free money to spend on stuff, the GPD is obviously going up.
Jeremiah Lewis
Dont they use the money to buy stuff? Or services?
Angel Hall
I heard your taking concsrition army back? Maybe now you can have new generation of less cucked men.
I can see how removing men from the most right leaning organization has been so harmfull.
Wyatt Flores
assuming you're right, he still has a point: it's good for the economy. your perspective falls into the trap of thinking wasting money is not good: that reveals a poor understanding of modern capitalism, a kind of a jew or skinflint mentality.
No, money is just money and utterly useless for the economy if it's not circulating
Nicholas Perez
>It then asked for sources for my claim.
>such premise is obvious enough not to have source it
What premise? Sources on what? You never even stated what your point was.
What the fuck, OP
Matthew Rivera
I feel dirty whenever I write "our army" or "our military". Feels like I'm lying, we effectively have none. They're planning to re-institute conscription for people born '98+ from what I've heard.
Anthony Green
GDP includes government spending, this is a ruse by the pinkos to make liberal economic policies seem more attractive than they are and cover the serious long term damage they do to the economy.
GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) or GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports - imports).
Government spending these days is no longer constrained by anything, money is created out of thin air and spent by the government. When this happens the total GDP goes up, because government spending (G) is a component of GDP. Unfortunately, GDP is measured in the same unit of currency as government spending. When the government spends money it does not have the total sum of money in the system increase. An increase in the total volume of money necessarily causes a decrease in the value of each monetary unit. So your GDP is going up in nominal terms (ie dollars) but going down in actual terms (ie value)
These jews are pulling the wool over your eyes, northern brother. Time to fire up the ovens.
Ayden Turner
>The GPD also increases when they get free money and spend it on goods and services.
The shoe example is better - the presumption is that the money that they receive would have been spent otherwise.
So the money that Pekka would spend on something to enjoy in his life, is instead taxed out of Pekka, and given to Abdul who spends it. The reallocation from Pekka to Abdul in a simple model doesn't increase GDP. If Abdul polishes a single shoe, it does.
But it still reduces the average living standard in the country, and the GDP per capita.
I am quite used to such discussions. Another point to make: If Finland merged with Somalia, that would increase GDP as well.
And: as an idealised example, let's say you had a magic button, and by pushing this button you completely transformed Finland into Malaysia, or India, or even Russia, with its much higher GDP. Would it be beneficial for the living standard of Finns to push it?
At the same time you must be constantly aware that its extremely hard to fully trace all the effects of even a single immigrant coming to a country (how does Pekka act differently when he sees the immigrant on TV?) - this can be used against you offensively when you make a claim, and is another distraction/demobilization technique, so you must be prepared to retaliate with this.
Leftists are militant soldiers and guerilla fighters in everything they do, so being prepared for their tactics is absolutely necessary if you engage them.
Gabriel Sanchez
>And: as an idealised example, let's say you had a magic button, and by pushing this button you completely transformed Finland into Malaysia, or India, or even Russia, with its much higher GDP. Would it be beneficial for the living standard of Finns to push it?
Maybe a better way to say it: "If Finland was Malaysia with its much higher GDP, would we all be better off, because our GDP was higher?" - quickness is important.
Christian Walker
Sure, its good if its circulating. But if its circulating in services that are good for the people of nation, then its good for the people of nation. Not when its cut from heatlh care, elderly care and stuff like that and given to shitskins. And then the government increase their debt even further to be able to keep them living in luxury.
That importing people and giving them free money obviously increases GPD but doesnt neccesarily mean that its good for the overall economy.
Kevin Harris
Lol bit the fgt.
You aren't wrifting a dissertation for the people you aren't with.
Logical conclusive assertions dismissing as LOL WEHERes UR source , CHEkmaeit bigot, does not an argument make
And even if you bring a source they say LOL ziTs Biased right wing crap/Russian propaganda LOL.
Don't fall for the libtard trap.
Never defend yourself
Always attack, ridicule and draw parallels to expose the idiocy of their reasoning.
Angel Rogers
Yeah, I get what you are saying but governments also take more debt to accomondate the increasing need of giving mudslimes more gibsmedats, not simply taxing my fellow Pekkas with puukkos.
Dylan Thomas
Say there are ten million Swedes. They earn on average 50k/yr, of which they are taxed 50%, save another 10% (9% invested), and spend 40%. They experience zero population growth -- births and deaths are equal in number each year. Sweden's GDP is 465b/yr.
Now Captain Sweden invites 1 million Somalis into the country. They earn on average 1k/yr, 0 taxes or savings. Immediately, GDP increases by another billion. But that's not even where the money is. You see, the government also pays money to the Somalis, in, say another $10k/yr.
They haven't raised taxes yet, and the New Swedes don't produce additional tax revenue. Previously the gov't had been spending the money on roads. When they do this, not only does the GDP go up, but the contractor then spends that money on capital & payroll etc, which raises GDP again; this is called the multiplier effect.
However, the government has empirically verified that the multiplier effect of giving money to Somalis is higher than using it to build roads, basically because the Somali savings rate is lower but also because they spend it faster and on higher margin goods. GDP rises.
The problem is that having a slight bump in GDP and a million Somalis is worse than just sticking with the old GDP numbers. (Unless your in debt, which is a whole different discussion).
Nathaniel Foster
>But if its circulating in services that are good for the people of nation, then its good for the people of nation. Not when its cut from heatlh care, elderly care and stuff like that and given to shitskins.
So another example:
Money spent on interpreters looks very much the same in the GDP calculation as money spent on teachers and doctors.
But for all practical purposes, money spent on an interpreter is effectively lost from the national standard of living.
Connor Morgan
If they got the money from the state, then you'd be double dipping.
Owen Thompson
>shitskins living in luxury supported by Sweden
>swedish health care cut because of shitskin support
I can see his point in asking for sources, it seems you're making stuff up.
If you just hate them, you can say it, there's no need to make stuff up. I think your difficulties in debating come from that lack of honesty of yours. You're bound to get caught if you just make stuff up instead of saying what you think
Kayden Fisher
They obviously get increased monetary support from EU when they take more refugees and they increase their loan rates.
Yes but pretty much as I stated above but I agree on >its lost from the national standard of living part.
Dylan Price
I dunno about state of Sweden but there has been huge cuts to health and elderly care here in Finland and there has been cuts which started pretty much right after migrant crises so I dunno, its kinda logical to make that claim.
Connor Turner
Is it at the rate that overcomes the GDP per capita decrease that comes from importing the poor?
Juan Gonzalez
Is the rape epidemic in Sweden at the hands of migrants a myth?
Josiah Howard
Over-represented by a factor of 5-7 depending on nationality.
Jeremiah Flores
GPD per capita wasnt discussed. GPD was only discussed as he claimed that and its good growth rate was good for Sweden.
Luis Walker
It's ironic how cucks like you need to rely on Kurds for information.
Ethan Scott
Do you have a SOURCE that you need sources in order to argue a point?
Ethan Gomez
That was my point, you fucking idiot.
Carson Gonzalez
you were talking about sweden, you can't bring up finland's economic problems.
Jose Taylor
Sorry I misread as Im at work.
Jackson Cook
Focus less on the government spending and more on the correlation between population growth and productivity. There are a bunch of studies widely available that you can google and research. What is happening when we allow mass immigration is that population growth is outpacing productivity - it can lead to economic growth, but at such a rate that GDP will increase and GDP per capita decreases.
Joseph Hernandez
Hunter Johnson
We'll take over as soon as we wipe NorK off the face of the earth.
Leo Reed
obviously they didnt want to let you win the arguement so they fall back on "sources" but when they make openly suspicious claims without sources then it is just "obvious". These people deserve to fucking die.
Kayden King
dont argue with a liberal, its like sitting down to have a game of poker with someone only to find out theyve been using UNO cards the whole time
Jackson Robinson
If you're still here, none of you can prove anything as Sweden have cencored everything since 2005.