Users who Dugg This
Princess Leia
4148 Followers
Princess Leia
4148 Followers
subatomicdoc
2537 Followers
subatomicdoc
2537 Followers
eastwood24Jul 13, 2010
I think 'population' seems to be closely related to high GDPs.
dsmxJul 13, 2010
The UK kind of ruins that theory it only has a population of 60 million.
areallygoodnameJul 14, 2010
But then New Zealand has a tiny GDP and is a Constitutional Monarchy just like the UK.
You have to measure on GDP per capita. It's a pointless comparison any other way.
joejitsuJul 14, 2010
India would be a lot richer if that were true.
kjsatzJul 14, 2010
#4 on this metric.
norman619Jul 14, 2010
How well off a country is depends on MANY factors form of government and population are only 2 factors.
idbjoshmJul 14, 2010
following off of dsmx, as does Japan and germany. Indonesia, which is not listed and has the 4th largest population after the United States, has a GDP of 510 billion as of 2008, which puts them behind Saudi Arabia.
sanmanJul 14, 2010
still, China's per capita income is nowhere near that of the US or Japan
the UK is mostly a debtor nation these days anyway
timbo1970Jul 14, 2010
still, China's per capita income is nowhere near that of the US or Japan
the US is mostly a debtor nation these days anyway
/fixed
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Luxembourg: $65,994.27 per capita
# 2 Ireland: $40,087.90 per capita
# 3 United States: $39,319.40 per capita
# 4 Norway: $38,196.17 per capita
# 5 Switzerland: $33,062.09 per capita
# 6 Iceland: $32,338.40 per capita
# 7 Austria: $31,900.55 per capita
# 8 Denmark: $31,768.96 per capita
# 9 Netherlands: $31,749.74 per capita
# 10 Belgium: $31,131.32 per capita
# 11 Hong Kong: $30,537.76 per capita
# 12 United Kingdom: $30,314.72 per capita
# 13 Canada: $30,272.18 per capita
# 14 Australia: $30,161.37 per capita
# 15 Finland: $29,770.06 per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita
Rank Countries Amount Date
# 1 Luxembourg: $89,563.63 per capita 2006 Time series
# 2 Norway: $66,964.36 per capita 2006 Time series
# 3 Iceland: $53,029.30 per capita 2006 Time series
# 4 Ireland: $52,892.89 per capita 2006 Time series
# 5 Qatar: $52,239.72 per capita 2005 Time series
# 6 Switzerland: $51,032.66 per capita 2006 Time series
# 7 Denmark: $50,702.00 per capita 2006 Time series
# 8 United States: $44,155.00 per capita 2006 Time series
# 9 Sweden: $42,553.49 per capita 2006 Time series
# 10 Netherlands: $40,167.13 per capita 2006 Time series
# 11 Finland: $39,855.93 per capita 2006 Time series
# 12 Austria: $39,131.37 per capita 2006 Time series
# 13 United Kingdom: $38,849.97 per capita 2006 Time series
# 14 Canada: $38,439.78 per capita 2006 Time series
# 15 Australia: $37,433.85 per capita 2006
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Iceland: 94%
= 2 Sweden: 91%
= 2 Denmark: 91%
= 2 Netherlands: 91%
# 5 Australia: 90%
= 6 Ireland: 89%
= 6 Switzerland: 89%
# 8 Norway: 88%
= 9 United Kingdom: 87%
= 9 Venezuela: 87%
# 11 Belgium: 86%
# 12 Philippines: 85%
= 13 United States: 84%
= 13 France: 84%
# 15 Finland: 83%
Lifestyle Statistics > Freedom in decision making (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Finland: 7.7
= 2 Canada: 7.6
= 2 United States: 7.6
# 4 Sweden: 7.4
# 5 Switzerland: 7.3
# 6 Norway: 7.2
# 7 Ireland: 7.1
# 8 Denmark: 7
# 9 Germany: 6.9
# 10 Belgium: 6.6
# 11 Italy: 6.5
= 12 Netherlands: 6.2
= 12 France: 6.2
# 14 Austria: 6
# 15 Japan: 5.6
smacksawJul 14, 2010
@EarlOfLade
One thing always missing from those things is China itself being #2. You have prosperity, but how does it average out?
If one person is a 9 and the other is a 1 in wealth, if you average them out they're a 5 out of a possible 10, let's say.
We have a lot of money in the US, but I would argue that the shrinking middle class means that it's skewed.
The other thing is if we're happy with our government type. I'm happy with the type of government in Canada, I'm unhappy with our system of government in the US. You want a government that responds to you and gives you some direct say. We have too much corruption in the US government because of the type of government. It's easier to control politicians in a representative government with no direct input from the constituents.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
@smacksaw
What you need to look at is social mobility,e.g. the ease of moving up in social classes. This again is connected not only to GDP but to each individuals abilities to get education, health care, jobs, job security, financial security, retirement security etc.
BBC has an article about the topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162616.stm
It's based upon a study done by a Canadian professor, Miles Corak and some of the results are:
TOP
Denmark
Norway
Finland
Canada
BOTTOM
France
US
Italy
UK
canadaboyJul 14, 2010
I was about to say, useless without population division.
pbrbeerJul 13, 2010
F'n server is down..... is this infographic GDP per Capita or what???
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
But Chinese people weigh about 9 times less than Americans, so the two countries are actually roughly equal in GDP per pound.
slezzzterJul 14, 2010
Exactly. This is IG is almost useless.
angryfirelordJul 14, 2010
Plus, the Chinese manipulate their currency, so their economic growth is mainly due to their piggybacking on top of the US consumer spending.
wolfman6464Jul 13, 2010
Interesting but there really weren't any noticeable patterns.
badqatJul 13, 2010
GDP isn't a measure of prosperity for a nation's citizenry.
disparueJul 14, 2010
The best measure would be GDP per capita measured by PPP instead of exchange rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
tenioJul 14, 2010
GDP per capita isn't perfect but it does give a very good idea of how prosperous a nation's citizens are.
simbianJul 14, 2010
GDP per capita - even if it is PPP - is not a good indicator at all. Especially if the income gap is extremely wide.
austrologiJul 14, 2010
no one is prevented from the higher incomes, its a good measure definitely
gsm54321Jul 14, 2010
Austrologi, that's f**king retarded.
No, GDP Per capita, even PPP is not a good indicator of what the median income is.
You need to use averages and tools like the GINI.
What kind of logic says that because everyone can theoretically get rich we can use the wrong tool? That's like me saying how many people went to a store by counting the people who walked by on the street because they could have gone in.
You know about as much economics as Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
China has a fairly free market though. They've fully embraced capitalism and have even experimented with democracy in local politics, albeit only in rural townships.
denizen42Jul 14, 2010
Neither is neocon greed
brad3378Jul 14, 2010
Now how about a comparison between Government type and happiness?
taiboJul 14, 2010
I wouldn't know about that, the average Chinese seems to be surprisingly happy. Meanwhile, all the liberals and conservatives in America have nothing but utter disdain for one another.
pimptasticJul 14, 2010
no real pattern in that one either. going off the database im using for school the happiest nation is Venezuela while the US comes in 4th. in contrast the US is the most free society, vs Venezuela in the middle of the road as far as liberties and freedoms.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
I don't know which databse you're using but it seems quite flawed. EVERY study I've seen for over 10 yeas has Bhutan as the happiest nation. I don't think I've ever seen Venezuela anywhere near the top. On the other hand, the studies I've seen on freedom rank the US in the bottom half of the top 10 also. Having just returned from a US trip where I saw an astronomical number of signs advising that I could be searched for no reason(from airports to bustops, highways to toll gates), it's surprising the US ranks that high!
pinkgreenblueJul 14, 2010
Costa Rica and Bhutan are two countries that are surprisingly distinguished as having very happy populations despite not being economic powerhouses like the North American and European countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index
chuckdeesJul 14, 2010
You would think that a mainstream magazine would know that the EU has a 15 trillion dollar GDP.
llanowarJul 14, 2010
This would have been more interesting if done in GDP per capita.
I never understand those big number statistics.
Look, a big country makes more money than a small country... how surprising. Let's see what type of government they have and draw our conclusions from that.
erikerikerikJul 14, 2010
GDP-per-body would be a better way to visualize.
!
pimptasticJul 14, 2010
interesting enough that is the topic i am basing my research paper on. Modernization and democracies. using per capita GDP as the basis for modernization. well ok im trying to add on to the many theories and prove it with other variables.
One study i was reading puts GDP per capita as a tipping point for stabilizing democracies or autocracies. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timbo1970Jul 14, 2010
I'm curious how you'll explain Brunei and most of the Gulf States then...
It's more than just GDP per capita or PPP. But I think the point we can take from this Kiplinger info graph is that some idiot has no clue how to due proper comparisons.
pimptasticJul 14, 2010
I couldnt agree with you more.
The gulf states are interesting. You could take the easy route and just blame natural resources (oil). Or look deeper into what the GDP is comprised of (agriculture, industrial and service GDP). Look at the UAE and how they are building a city to force a boom in service related industries (finance, offices, tourism) rather than rely on the oil industry.
eksdJul 14, 2010
Digg seems to be full of political and economic experts lately.
dirtyfriesJul 14, 2010
lately?
llanowarJul 14, 2010
Nobody is saying they are an expert. We're just mentioning that GDP isn't an accurate way to measure the prosperity of a country's citizens.
One doesn't need to be an expert to figure that out.
moogleJul 14, 2010
Yep. People should look at GDP per capita, and also realize that GDP is often inaccurate for countries like Luxembourg, with a lot of non-citizen/permanent stay workers, etc.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Armchair Economist Flame Wars.
moogleJul 14, 2010
What if some of the people on Digg actually had degrees in economics? I would imagine that most Diggers study commerce or engineering. But, would I be wrong in my assumption?
gsm54321Jul 14, 2010
I think a more likely answer is that many people on Digg read wikipedia and now think that their very limited and shallow understanding is now flawless.
Pro tip: the "austrian school" is to economics as alchemy is to chemistry.
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
What the hell is a political expert? You mean like Karl Rove?
smacksawJul 14, 2010
Now why you gotta go and insult political experts by comparing them to Karl Rove?
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
Economic experts understand how economics works.
Political experts understand how politics works.
Karl Rove understands how politics works.
Karl Rove is a political expert.
I know there is a logical fallacy in there that (P->Q, Q, therefore P), but do you see where I am going with this?
gsm54321Jul 14, 2010
Economic experts my ass. 90% are people who only read the Cato institute or Misses.org. There understanding of economics isn't even as good as someone who spent three hours browsing Wikipedia's economics portal.
Pro tip: If someone is talking about the "austrian school," or the gold stranded, they probably don't actually know jack.
Pro tip: You sell on emotion and justify with logic, that's mainly what they are doing.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Pro tip: if someone misspells "standard," they are an idiot.
angryfirelordJul 14, 2010
I fail to see how the Mises Institute does not live up to "institutional economics." The government has been deficit spending for a long time, so you'd think that according to Keynesian ideology, we'd be in a never-ending boom. When you see key foundations such as the multiplier effect being disproven, you must question if other parts of the theory are still workable. The main flaw in the Keynesian thought is that everything must be quantified through models and people are nothing more than robotic consumers, but if those models are wrong, then the resulting public policy fails and we all suffer. You can't possibly tell me that Austrian economics doesn't work when we have trillions and trillions of debt and a non-existent free market.
Remember, economics is not a physical science, it is a social science. There isn't one equation that can quantify human behavior, yet that is what institutional economics tries to do and that's why economists constantly appear disconnected from the real world.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
Pro tip: You can write off 'gold stranded' as a typo & get away with it. Using 'there' instead of 'their' whilst berating people however indicates that you are indeed a rather ignorant moron!
gsm54321Jul 14, 2010
"The government has been deficit spending for a long time, so you'd think that according to Keynesian ideology, we'd be in a never-ending boom."
This is the best thing I have seen all week.
let's play actual economic theory. What do Keynesians say would happen if you engage in stimulus during times of full employment? Let's see, they would say that you'd have an investment bubble form as money pours into the short run markets which can not expand production, i.e. to much money chasing too few goods. That sounds kind of like what happened in this bubble. Tax cuts totaling a trillion dollars were given to the wealthy, tax cuts behave like a stimulus, to the wealthy investment vehicles are a form of consumption, and thus *boom* demand pull inflation on investment vehicles like MBS's, comodity prices go up, people are employed. And we get a huge bubble becuase monetary policy was full steam ahead as well.
So your critique of Keynesian economics is to point out how it's models work? Good job. Are you going to show me how my car is broken by driving it around the block next?
Here's the difference between Mainstream economics and Austrian voodoo magic economics: Empiricism. It is not that "everything must be quantified through models," but that theories must be empirically tested. The heterodox schools, which can even include sociology, fail this; which is why they stay on the internet and are not actually used. Thus my analogy that the Austrian school is to mainstream economics as alchemy is to chemistry. That isn't to say they don't have merit, but the people who come on digg and preach the gold *stranded* and Rand are in the throws of religious passion and not rational empiricism.
The problem we have is that the party of fiscal responsibility acted in the most irresponsible manner, and now we don't have enough money for stimulus. It's a scathing critique of bad governance, but hardly proof of the failure of Keynesian thought. Sadly, it shows just how powerful the effects of bad monetary policy and fiscal policy can be.
Oh yeah, and while Keynesian thought prospered from the 1940's until the 70's we did kind of have one long boom.
dragoon142Jul 14, 2010
I also think that american sanctions have a lot to do with gdp............ Which may be why countries with warm relations with the US tend to have a higher GDP. Libertarians all of a sudden forget the importance of participation in international markets to the power of a nation. Absolute rulers and one party states tend to get sanctions and trade restrictions.
duffguyJul 14, 2010
Wtf are you talking about? Libertarians support free trade and are against protectionism. Mind you that's free trade minus the corporate welfare/monetary policies we now have, which only hurts other industries and countries abroad.
tsuruchibrianJul 14, 2010
I don't know a single libertarian that is against free trade. By free trade, I mean actual free trade as opposed to NAFTA for example. Maybe there are some deeply confused libertarians out there who believe governments should manipulate the market in some way by regulating international trade, but I haven't met them yet.
I have however met quite a few deeply confused libertarians who think Bob Barr is a libertarian.
neutron7Jul 14, 2010
Per capita, along with how much of that per-capita the "capita" actually gets for their work.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Inaccurate. Russia is a one party state too.
toxicshokJul 14, 2010
that is true. There is Vladimir Putin and there is jail time for a trumped up charge.
voteforthebnpJul 14, 2010
Average national IQ is closely related to high GDPs, but you're not allowed to mention that, it's "waycist".
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Change "Average National IQ" (Which is pretty much impossible to determine) to "Education".
Also "waycist"? Your user name is the BNP, you've been called a racist enough times to know how to pronounce it.
dignan666Jul 14, 2010
China's GDP is under 5 trillion. Where did 8.8 trillion come from? India is also way high. Am I missing something?
llanowarJul 14, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
$4.99 trillion (nominal: 3rd; 2009)
$8.77 trillion (PPP: 2nd; 2009)
They seem to be using PPP, at least for China. Not sure if they use the same measure for each country.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
They must have used PPP because the figures for Russia & China are vastly different(100% or more higher) from their source(CIA World Factbook) with regard to GDP & their figures for most other countries are out by a few billion or so as well.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
since when is china a democracy?
mrkmrkJul 14, 2010
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
voteforthebnpJul 14, 2010
ex·cep·tion
/ɪkˈsɛpʃən/ Show Spelled[ik-sep-shuhn]
–noun
1.
the act of excepting or the fact of being excepted.
2.
something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.
3.
an adverse criticism, esp. on a particular point; opposition of opinion; objection; demurral: a statement liable to exception.
imiithJul 14, 2010
North Korea is... but there's one party.
toxicshokJul 14, 2010
good voter turn out though.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
lol i totally missed that.
protodonJul 14, 2010
Well, that settles it, it doesn't matter what kind of govt you have since the top four are all different. And of those top,number two is a communist country, although that is more of just a label these days.
libertarianslolJul 14, 2010
Why do we pretend that "Constitutional Monarchy" is anything different than a Parliament/Republic?
moogleJul 14, 2010
They are.
Constitutional Monarchy just implies that there is some monarch, and that he is bound to a constitution and does not operate above the supreme law. A country's legislative branch may still function under the model of PARLIAMENT (like a Westminster system), but it's different from a Republic.
Just the word "Republic" is very large and encompassing. It usually refers to a system of government that uses representative democracy, and the leaders are elected through a democratic process (or by the will of the people). It also implies different things socially, such as "Republican Virtue."
The United States is a Federal Republic, and its particular system differs in the sense that there is a greater distinction between the legislative and executive branches. In that way, there is a different set of checks and balances. In many parliamentary systems, it is not necessary to its definition that people be elected, so the upper house of a bicameral legislature is often appointed/nominated not through elections, but just at the will of the leading party / prime minister, etc. Like in Canada, all the senators are just chosen for whatever reason. They can be your best friend and have no sense of anything, but still be a senator.
And, by the way, a Federal Republic is different from a democracy, because it is based on the idea of protecting minority rights as well. Usually, there is some sort of document that protects "unalienable rights," or has some other form of appealing to minority interest... Whereas in a true democracy, ANYTHING can be voted away, including minorities' rights, and other ridiculous propositions, insofar as there is a majority.
Sorry for grammar / spelling / composition, I have to run!
danj484Jul 14, 2010
Parliamentary doesn't require a monarch. That seems to be the only real distinction.
jschubartJul 14, 2010
Things that suck:
This infographic
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
For 500 Alex.
heliumflashJul 14, 2010
I don't think the graphic was helpful to anyone besides those who didn't know where Swaziland was.
sheffneJul 14, 2010
There is no correlation between GDP and Type of government in these ratings. Type of government that works for the people in the country is the one that has the highest GDP. For US where no one speaks the same language has the same religion or heritage democracy works out the best. For China where vast majority of the people speak the same language and share the same history one party system works out. BTW US only has 2 parties, and currently only one is really in power.
corneljeJul 14, 2010
No one speaks the same language in the US? And most people speak the same language in China? I think you got that mixed up. People from different cities in China can barely understand one another, and almost every city/area has its own local language.
smacksawJul 14, 2010
*I thought the point was that type of government doesn't really matter, something we should probably remember
*China has many different dialects
*We have a zero-party system because the Democrats have a majority, but the Republicans are the ones in power.
pimptasticJul 14, 2010
Digg, get out of my mind.... This is similar to what my final research paper will be. though I laugh at the use of GDP. There is some correlation between GDP and a governments freedoms and civil liberties just not enough to be considered significant..
gsm54321Jul 14, 2010
The GDP thing was off, but so to was the government's measure.
I think a more telling correlation would be comparing the relative level of representation and power/access the average citizen has, and not just the govt. type on paper.
tymeJul 14, 2010
I like how China and USA look like they have the same GDP when you first look at the chart, despite a difference of ~5 Trillion.
joejitsuJul 14, 2010
$5 trillion? You're just splitting hairs.
kthoma22Jul 14, 2010
it's misleading to call UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan Monarchies. They have a monarchy but only for show.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
It's not misleading at all. They were all described as "Constitutional Monarchies" with the infographic having a clearly separate section for "Absolute Monarchies".
To claim these countries have a "monarchy but only for show" is to inherently misunderstand the political systems in said countries. That a head of state that is a monarch doesn't exercise day to day power in a constitutional monarchy in the same way as a President does in a country such as the US is as deliberate(& often more effective) than any executive power the President of any given country may yield.
negative4Jul 14, 2010
Freedom->High per capita GDP
Regardless of political system.
negative4Jul 14, 2010
Also of course having a government to protect people from fraud and other crimes is essential.
belthizeJul 14, 2010
Mostly what it shows is:
a) Being predominately in a temperate climate heavily effects GDP
b) Having a large population heavily effects GDP
c) Having access to a large land mass worth of raw resources heavily effects GDP
The US is rich not due to some God given right or because we're a democracy/republic. We're rich due to huge supply of raw resources and arable land.
Japan is the clear outlier.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
And Hong Kong and Singapore.
pimptasticJul 14, 2010
having a GDP based on services and industries rather than agricultural also helps.
schrutefanJul 14, 2010
Worthless without considering population. Buried.
moogleJul 14, 2010
I do not believe China will ever make that split between "democracy" and having a high GDP. Like others have been saying, the reason why they have a huge GDP is because of their labor force, but their actual GDP per capita is still s**t. GDP per capita is an indicator of how wealthy the average person is, and can you give you a look into how much of a middle+ class they have.
All throughout history, the cycle goes: People start getting richer > start wanting more political power > overthrow the government, or it is forced to change.
If China actually somehow resists this and has a large middle class, I would be very surprised. The thing is, however, the Communist government knows this very well; that's the whole point of controlling the media, education, etc., is to keep people silent. Furthermore, that's the point of keeping some people poor and having a complete grasp over the economy; they will be able to play with it whenever they like so that the middle class never grows too big, just to save their own skins and power. (This is what communism always degrades into -- no one becomes rich not only because of the economics behind it, but because of the politics behind it as well. It's better to keep people poor, but "not too poor," so that a political revolution won't happen. And plus, even if they are "too poor," they'll still be brainwashed and easily controlled by a relatively well equipped army anyway.)
The communist cycle... of perpetual poverty and oppression.
canadaboyJul 14, 2010
I would rather see GDP based on the number of different ruling parties in the last 100 years. Does a US 2 party system have any advantage over a system with multiple parties (or just one)? (also on per. capita)
misternilsJul 14, 2010
Love how all of Africa was barely included at all, except to show the very worst gdp.
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Buried for ignoring my country.
dontspamjayJul 14, 2010
Anyone else surprised to see Mexico at 11?
gotbannedagainJul 14, 2010
I'm no expert, but I've always held some pretty radical (at least via America's standards) government vs private sector beliefs.
I think that the systems that work best are those that have an equal balance of government and private sector competition. Let me explain. The government isn't out to turn a profit - and any profit that they do incur should go directly back to increasing the infrastructure for it's citizens. Think of the private sector as an entity in and of itself - and the entire economy a macro-organism that constitutes both private and public sector competition. The government doesn't, internally, compete with anyone - therefore, what they are capable of doing is left primarily up to the voters (or, at least it should be). With this separation, it means that there would be a decreased lack of lobbying between private entities to public positions. Why lobby a government entity for a contract or bid when you're directly competing with that same entity? (The only exception to this is if companies try to lobby to prevent the government from interfering - which would be, ideally, illegal).
Let's say there is a drilling contract for millions of gallons of oil somewhere in the United States. The US government's version of drillers offers up a bid, and then the private sector offers up another bid. Not only does this foster more competition (and prevents companies from going to bed with one another so that CEO's can be paid more money and workers less) - but it also allows a standard to be set by the government. If the government stipulates that, only X amount of dollars will be paid for the bid, then the private sector has to match or lower the bid - and then prove that they can do a better job than what the government is capable of. I think that, realistically, this is the definition of 'fair' wage in this country. You have one person set the standard - and the rest follow suit in order to compete openly with an entity that can be competitive.
This type of a system, ideally (I apologize for using that word a lot, but it's how I see the system operating) would allow the government to set the standard through the same competition that made America great, without all the greed at the executive and CEO levels by having to pay the people that actually perform the tasks more money. Otherwise, lose that money to a government body that can do the same task at X amount of dollars with Y amount of output.
Yes, yes - I know, socialism blah blah blah.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aFixedetourJul 14, 2010
This map is from the future, it shows oceans where countries once were!
fullbackJul 14, 2010
Wrong. This is crap "journalism."
The GDP numbers for Japan and China are virtually reversed when you calculate Nominal GDP.
jhsimpson0Jul 14, 2010
Wow this is a pretty terrible infographic. GDP doesn't show prosperity really at all, it just shows how big an economy is. GDP per capita may be a somewhat flawed metric, but it at least shows how big the economy for each citizen. Truncating the data at a certain point is very uninformative. Why bother differentiating between sovereign republics, parliamentary republics and constitutional monarchies that are really parliamentary republics? And lastly, it doesn't even really show the correlation between being a democracy and being prosperous, with a pretty incomplete range of data of the countries with the highest GDPs.
samuraipizzacatJul 14, 2010
what a waste of my time.
bakamasJul 14, 2010
Like everyone said so far. Use GDP per CAPITA (PPP). Anything else would be a waste of time.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
"Use GDP per CAPITA (PPP)" - I think you should look up the terms as 'GDP per capita' & 'PPP'(Purchasing Power Parity) are vastly different measures!
bakamasJul 14, 2010
no sir, I you're confused. PPP is a method of calculating GDP. So you can have GDP calculated in nominal terms, or ppp. A GDP per capita (PPP) is more useful than a GDP per capita (nominal.)
Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
fairdinkummateJul 15, 2010
GDP per capita is a countries GDP divided by its population.
PPP(Purchasing Power Parity) is a method of comparing what people can buy in their own country, taking into account costs of living. US$1 will buy more in Sri Lanka than it will in London. Therefore, someone earning US$25,000 in London may be relatively poor while someone earning US$25,000 in Sri Lanka may be quite comfortable.
PPP is NOT a method of calculating GDP.
PPP is often applied to per capita GDP figures to make comparisons of the 'real' value of GDP per capita between countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
Dividing by population doesn't help much because over 42% of the income in the US is in the hands of the wealthiest 1% of the population.
The next 19% of the wealthiest controls over 50% of the remaining money.
The bottom 80% of the population only gets about 7%
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
joejitsuJul 14, 2010
China and North Korea aren't one party states they are, "People's Republics."
botaxeroJul 14, 2010
China is very capitalistic actually if you're in their top 1%.
fairdinkummateJul 14, 2010
And that differs from the US how exactly?
pinskiaJul 14, 2010
But that is the point of a constitutional Monarch. This is also true of Spain too. I think there was some punish in Russia to bring back their Czars but I don't know what happened to that.
lohphatJul 14, 2010
Why did they avoid Scandinavia?
Closed AccountJul 14, 2010
China's economic prosperity in recent years is attributable to its free market system that it has adopted for various economic test zones. Some cities in China have been permitted to adopt free market policies and have witnessed overwhelming economic growth as a result, while the rest of China that is subject to socialist/communist economies is in poverty. The real determining factor when it comes to wealth of a nation is the extent to which the nation permits a free market economy, not whether the nation is coined as a "democracy" or one party system.
jayjaylolJul 14, 2010
GDP doesn't prove anything. It's well noted that a people are much happier in nations where there is more big government. Less freedoms correlates with a higher socioeconomic index, however backwards that may sound to a wingnut.
daninspokaneJul 14, 2010
FOR THE REPUBLIC!
dougman82Jul 14, 2010
Buried for "btwn"