Quote:
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't checked your facts on the GSP, but I'll give that too you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I'm right.
|
No, that is not what I said. I gave the very specific point of the GSP stastics being as you said they were for the sake of argument because for the overall argument this one point is not relatively by itself without a great deal of supporting documentation that you did not have to present or if you had it did not present. Sure the Civil War was a major event in the south, but so was it in the North as well. However to claim that it was such an overiding factor that all other factors combined paled to being trivial nuances in determining the comparative economic prosperity of the south versus other areas of the country is far from being established by your single reference and single stated economic statistic. I'm sure you read this in a book somewhere and thought it great, even if it is far from being accepted as a commonly accepted theory, much less fact. Further more you have defined recovery in an extremely narrow and not generally accepted manner. Most aknowledged historians would not define economic recovery so narrowly nor create a moving standard with so many possible outside influences. One man's far fetched ideas does not an accepted principle make.
And it would be ridiculous to say that Iraq isn't recovered until their GSP equals the US because they were never anywhere close to being equal before the war. Of course leftist extremists will use any idiotic argument to try and confuse the truth when they're flat out wrong. I see this is no exception.