Originally Posted by Steely Dan
^ wow, all of that without even answering a simple question.
let's try this again, in your view, is milwaukee "just as important and integrated to the global economy" as detroit or is milwaukee "for its size, not too far off from Detroit" in that regard?
it can be one or the other, but not both.
Not to continue this stupidity, but those aren't mutually exclusive statements. Also, I never said that Milwaukee is "just as important and integrated for its size" I said that Milwaukee's export figures out perform Detroit's when adjusting for size (paraphrasing, but it was directly in response to Lawfin's attack regarding his export numbers, not just some random additional statement I made with no context as you are portraying it as). They are two completely separate points considering I've already rejected the absurd notion that "total exports" is the only and exact method of measuring such a broad term such as "integrated" or "important.
So yes, Milwaukee is:
A. Definitely just as integrated globally as Detroit. You can't deny this one since "integration" has nothing to do with the size of an economy, but rather how connected/reliant it is on global trade. Lawfin's numbers only support my argument on this one because they clearly indicate the Milwaukee economy has a greater reliance on / amount of exports when adjusting for the population difference. Therefore the Milwaukee economy, as a whole, is more integrated than Detroit's. I'm sure Lawfin will flip shit over this point, but would you really be willing to say that Shanghai's economy is not more integrated globally than China's economy as a whole just because the total exports of the Chinese economy are greater than just Shanghai's? Because that is essentially what is implied when you claim that I wasn't considering the size difference from the start. That's why I used the word "integrated" and not just "important".
B. Just as important globally as Detroits. This is the ONE point you might be able to get me on because you could argue this is a pure numbers game. However, my point was that "importance" isn't purely numerical, but based also upon how many sectors the economy is active in and many other factors (i.e. the economy of MKE not collapsing like Detroit's) other than just "Hurrr durr they have more total exports".
C. Milwaukee unquestionably outperforms Detroit across the board when you adjust for size of the metro. It's exports are growing faster, it's manufacturing base is more diverse, it's got more exports per person, etc. That was a seperate point I made to emphasize that, even when you consider Detroit is MUCH larger metro, Milwaukee, at a minimum
has an edge when you adjust for population.
Somehow you all magically decided that all of my statements are bound by the one and only measure of "importance" which is raw export numbers. Because obviously economics is completely one dimensional and extremely broad statements can be boiled down to one statistic...