You seem to be counting a great deal on common sense and “FACTS” (meaning, so far as I can tell, that the person who wrote the article is dead on the money).
Have you been to both of these great cities? I have. That metropolitan Chicago has 275% of the Detroit metropolitan area’s GDP (from the story posted by flag-lady) doesn’t begin to tell the picture. The Detroit metropolitan area, both form what I have read and what I have seen, is a big donut—there is a worthless hole in the middle which doesn’t have much value—and that is where the city debt must be paid from. I am sure that a much higher percentage of the metropolitan area’s GDP may be found within Chicago’s city limits.
>> “FACTS” (meaning, so far as I can tell, that the person who wrote the article is dead on the money).
FACTS don’t “mean” anything. Facts are, simply, facts. By definition, facts are “dead on the money”. You never refuted one single fact the author mentioned in your arguments. Nor did you employ any of the author’s facts in your own discussions. Why?
>> Have you been to both of these great cities?
Yes. Both.
>> That metropolitan Chicago has 275% of the Detroit metropolitan area’s GDP &etc
You’re going circular on me... we’ve already been here. There is no benefit whatsoever in comparing Chicago “pre-collapse” and Detroit “post-collapse”. None whatsoever.
>> You seem to be counting a great deal on common sense
Hieronymus, in post #33: “...the observations of someone with common sense... may be worth taking into account...”
So, which is it? Common sense is to be discounted? Or common sense is to be exalted?
Or would you prefer to choose either valuation for common sense, based on its utility to your argument at the moment? :-)