For those who just see this post and think TL;DR a quick summary of the post and the poster.
Harald is doing what you are doing is called "Motivated reasoning".
You tend to favor evidence that coincides with your current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence. (see my post above). You do this by inserting a new parameter (taxation,reinvestment).
When people point that out to you, you start by making personal statements like "is that too high for you" "liar" "fool" etc.
I refrain from such statements as they don't add anything to the discussion.
In short: if you agree you are fine, if you critize the post, you are a fool and/or liar.
Harald is doing what you are doing is called "Motivated reasoning".
You tend to favor evidence that coincides with your current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence. (see my post above). You do this by inserting a new parameter (taxation,reinvestment).
When people point that out to you, you start by making personal statements like "is that too high for you" "liar" "fool" etc.
I refrain from such statements as they don't add anything to the discussion.
In short: if you agree you are fine, if you critize the post, you are a fool and/or liar.
••
@LiamXi Summary of your post: Oh no he was right. Lets cry about it.
••