Topic: Why Chosun's data stopped being interpreted in the West, and who makes up DPRK's statistics?
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs started this discussion 9 years ago#61,987
Economists' fetish with the GDP measure is in large part to do with it. The Chosun yearbook continued being published well after the 1980s, contrary to the CIA's claim that it had ceased being published in 1980; what happened was that it stopped being translated, which is where the key difference stems. Also, it was always very precautious about giving in to the economists' fetish for the Gross Domestic Product as a measure, poorly applicable to the natural structure of central-command economies, or the pretence that the service sector whether relatively or in absolute terms of monied size should mean anything.
There were only 2 times the CIA had thrown a ball-park figure into thin-air regarding the size of the DPRK's economy. Once in the 1970s, and once in the 1990s. They were rounded to the nearest $10 billion to a figure that was completely fictional, then a GDP deflator was used to come up with the new estimate based on domestic currency reforms they didn't even understand enough about the nuances of their system to grasp the significance of.
The BoK's estimates are even more farcical. What does one do when they ignore the domestic economic data of a country on an ideological disagreement about what rubrics are applicable, and as such, have no extant datum to hand from there? Back-inferrentially rely on trade figures to represent at an absolute index of the (putatively estimated) size of an economy, on a measure not even used domestically! Seeing as south Korea make a trifling fraction of all DPRK's trade, we can see the immediate methodological flaw.
So the degree of monitoring by either source is laughable, both from a scientific point of view, and a statistical one, in rigour as well as method.
The Soviet economy was underestimated to about 1/20th of its size thanks to similar tactics, by the by.
> It's been corrected. You're clearly a perfunctory, OCD retard.
Ok, then I'll read on...
> ...which is where the key difference stems.
You need a preposition here. "...from where the key difference stems".
Didn't read beyond that point, you're clearly an illiterate retard.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#781,321
@previous (C)
Nothing necessitated a preposition; the meaning is clear with or without it.
Yet you had disliked my hypercorrection "from whence", and lied that the operative preposition "from" had already been included in the definition "whence".
Now, transsexual liar Lorraine, why would we not have suspicion to assume your shtick is the only retarded and (emotionally) illiterate thing at play here?
You're clearly a perfunctory, OCD retard.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#781,322
> If the semantics don't entirely depend on syntactics, then the syntactics are superfluous and can be discarded.
I read this as "I'm a babbling spastic who can't express himself correctly".
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#781,328
@781,325 (Meta)
The recent performance of the DPRK's economy has most definitely been despite his incompetence and the intentional cutting off of his country from the main operator and organizer of new trade deals for Room 39 (formerly a role of Kim Jong Nam's), whom he has now killed.
There tends to be a phenomenon in the domestic economic planning of the DPRK where buffer years are heavily utilized in which nothing is done as a precaution, resulting in neither growth nor recession.
I'm speculating that, apart from state-sponsored projects, these are the effects of excess buffer years tiding over in the first part of the '10s decade.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#781,330
@781,326 (C)
"Hi, my name is Lorraine, and for what I can express, I'm completely vacuous in the meaning behind what it is I'm saying."
I'm not wrong when I say that neurotypical transsexuals are psychopaths. That is exactly a feature of their language. It's neat and tidy, but interpratively worthless on any level of actual content contained within it.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#781,332
> Economists' fetish with the GDP measure is in large part to do with it. The Chosun yearbook continued being published well after the 1980s, contrary to the CIA's claim that it had ceased being published in 1980; what happened was that it stopped being translated, which is where the key difference stems. Also, it was always very precautious about giving in to the economists' fetish for the Gross Domestic Product as a measure, poorly applicable to the natural structure of central-command economies, or the pretence that the service sector whether relatively or in absolute terms of monied size should mean anything. > > There were only 2 times the CIA had thrown a ball-park figure into thin-air regarding the size of the DPRK's economy. Once in the 1970s, and once in the 1990s. They were rounded to the nearest $10 billion to a figure that was completely fictional, then a GDP deflator was used to come up with the new estimate based on domestic currency reforms they didn't even understand enough about the nuances of their system to grasp the significance of. > > The BoK's estimates are even more farcical. What does one do when they ignore the domestic economic data of a country on an ideological disagreement about what rubrics are applicable, and as such, have no extant datum to hand from there? Back-inferrentially rely on trade figures to represent at an absolute index of the (putatively estimated) size of an economy, on a measure not even used domestically! Seeing as south Korea make a trifling fraction of all DPRK's trade, we can see the immediate methodological flaw. > > So the degree of monitoring by either source is laughable, both from a scientific point of view, and a statistical one, in rigour as well as method. > > The Soviet economy was underestimated to about 1/20th of its size thanks to similar tactics, by the by.
> Nothing necessitated a preposition; the meaning is clear with or without it. > > Yet you had disliked my hypercorrection "from whence", and lied that the operative preposition "from" had already been included in the definition "whence". > > Now, transsexual liar Lorraine, why would we not have suspicion to assume your shtick is the only retarded and (emotionally) illiterate thing at play here? > > You're clearly a perfunctory, OCD retard.
> If the semantics don't entirely depend on syntactics, then the syntactics are superfluous and can be discarded. > > If it is not how the laws of grammar work, it is definitely within the spirit of concise language.
> The recent performance of the DPRK's economy has most definitely been despite his incompetence and the intentional cutting off of his country from the main operator and organizer of new trade deals for Room 39 (formerly a role of Kim Jong Nam's), whom he has now killed. > > There tends to be a phenomenon in the domestic economic planning of the DPRK where buffer years are heavily utilized in which nothing is done as a precaution, resulting in neither growth nor recession. > > I'm speculating that, apart from state-sponsored projects, these are the effects of excess buffer years tiding over in the first part of the '10s decade.
> "Hi, my name is Lorraine, and for what I can express, I'm completely vacuous in the meaning behind what it is I'm saying." > > I'm not wrong when I say that neurotypical transsexuals are psychopaths. That is exactly a feature of their language. It's neat and tidy, but interpratively worthless on any level of actual content contained within it.
> You're Lorraine. I'm Sophie. > > I was using the hypothetical quotation in impersonation of you!
Didn't read.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,378
> refuses to work > happy to leach off the state > champions communism
damlol
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,379
@previous (G)
Mr. Gillon doesn't understand that under Juche he would be left to starve to death in the street.
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,380
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
He'd probably be tossed into a prison camp for malingering.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 44 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,397
@781,378 (G)
Juche isn't communism. It's National Socialism with a command economy; even the words 'Marx' and 'Lenin' have been consistutionally removed, as has "communism", replaced with "socialism" or "Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism".
Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism has frankly more analogues with Hitlerism than any of the delusional Eastern European or Ashkenazic screeds if you'd bother reading primary source materials.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,399
@previous (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Hitler would have sent you up the chimney, Mr. Gillon.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,401
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Don't speak so harshly about yourself, Haselgrove.
Anonymous G replied with this 9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#781,404
Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 16 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#781,947
@781,804 (Dw)
Laws as in theoretical principles, not literally governable mandates rooted in statute.
We call many theories "laws", not in that they entail legal principles, but are propositions of greater theories, especially in hard science disciplines like physics.
Dw replied with this 9 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#781,948
@previous (Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs)
I am aware. Literally no one has ever said grammar laws before your post though.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 9 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#781,983
> Laws as in theoretical principles, not literally governable mandates rooted in statute. > > We call many theories "laws", not in that they entail legal principles, but are propositions of greater theories, especially in hard science disciplines like physics.
lol
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#782,060
3 (4 if you count Computing) GCSE-equivalents (out of 7 total) and 2 A-Level equivalents (out of 2 more total) at reasonably high (not league-table beating but slightly better than average) grades. And in the former, I never got a mark below B (translated from our numerical score system to my best recollection of the grade bands for each).
I say equivalents because I'm not wasting time explaining the nuances between English and Scottish systems, marking schemas, qualification names and what they translate to when cross-comparing frameworks in the other, etc.
Then I discovered gang-science and their manipulation of research methodology and was disgusted from pursuing them further.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Cuntster !udXF0njnl. joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 18 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#782,642
You were never raped by your father and you're not a woman.
Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#782,646
@previous (Cuntster !udXF0njnl.)
You had consensual sex with your father and your transgenderism is basically an overglorified Black-power social experiment for which you displaced the GIC physician Mel to facilitate.
I can make up bullshit too, y'know. Sadly, on the latter claim I think I may be closer to something than I want to be.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 40 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#782,648
What are your thoughts on memes op?
Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#782,700
I only ever employ them meta-ironically. Anyone who thinks communication entirely comprising of memes is the best thing since sliced bread (and likewise with humour predominantly dependent upon it) is a flaming autist beyond redemption of their condition.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#782,701
@previous (Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs)
Spastic, why the fuck are you still alive?
Haselgrove !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#782,737