@owenbarder @alexcobham - I think the Zam figure is misunderstood. I hope its not framing. https://twitter.com/owenbarder/status/483924078534086656 …https://twitter.com/alexcobham/status/484426280654606336 …
-
-
Replying to @owenbarder
@owenbarder@alexcobham ok. Can i go back to original question: On the assumptions that underpin estimate of Zam revenue loss @ 80% of GDP..2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@owenbarder@alexcobham the number assumes that all swiss traded copper was sold at e.g 50 $/kg for copper cathode..pic.twitter.com/vrZRR9XSEE
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater There's no assumption, it's a simple conditional statement.@owenbarder2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexcobham
@alexcobham@owenbarder when@cgdev publishes analysis I assume there are assumptions!? We could make any number of conditional statements.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater@owenbarder@CGDev Indeed. You're talking about a paragraph in a Christian Aid report which includes a clear condition (1/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham
@MForstater@owenbarder Whereas you are quite familiar with the assumptions set out in the@CGDev piece of work on Swiss trade (2/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham
@alexcobham@owenbarder Models I,II&III same assumptions as the CA paper e.g. in 2008 Sw traders selling large amt copper cathode @ $50/kg?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater Assumptions vary by model and are fully laid out in the CGD paper.@owenbarder1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@alexcobham @owenbarder - when I looked at the data I was shocked. Have blogged on this here http://hiyamaya.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/swissploitation/ …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.