Myths of our time: globalisation

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

NO YOU HAVEN'T! You dirty liar! On the other thread you said the war was simply about making corporations rich. Which is exactly counter to what che said!

Yes I have. I told you that both were linked, ie. a long and costly war would destroy the country, while in the same pleasing the political donators. It was a win-win situation and a no-brainer for the politicians of the time.

Well it's 2nd in the world (or 5th based on who is doing the measuring) ... so it's doing pretty good . Still doesn't matter because we were talking about GDP GROWTH per capita. Another attempt to lie your way home .

I was just teasing you, I know it's doing good anyway. And by the way, I suggest you take a look at "my" pissed off thread. I have put in some quotes just for you on the Quebec GDP thing.

(into Google type 'GDP Growth per capita' and 'GDP per capita'. You'll see a great divergence... while there is page on page on 'GDP per capita' there is hardly anything on 'GDP Growth per capita'. For such an "important" measure shouldn't it be measured more?)

Ha ha ha. If GDP per capita is important, then GDP growth per capita obviously is. And yes, I have seen it measured in many places- including the link comparing Quebec and Ontario that you provided.

Oh, and here are my results:
GDP per capita: 560 000 results
GDP growth per capita: 443 000 results
GDP: 4 070 000 results
GDP growth: 1 640 000

Seeing that going from GDP to GDP growth yields a very high diminution in the number of results, while the reduction is much less important between GDP per capita and GDP growth per capita, I wonder how unimportant the measure is?

Now, about google, I suggest you try: www.google-watch.org. Interesting reading (and no, this is a side suggestion, it has nothing to do with the current debate).

[JohnT]

Conspiracists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your mind!

[Kuciwalker]

They have minds?

[JohnT]

You can't lose what you didn't have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GDP per capita: 560 000 results
GDP growth per capita: 443 000 results

Why don't you take a look at those links before you start. After about 5 links in the 'GDP growth per capita' search you see links for 'GDP per capita'. Makes sense, since the words are similar in the search. So a great majority of the links for 'GDP growth per capita' are in actuality about 'GDP per capita', with no growth of it figured in.

This can be seen as you noted when you type in 'GDP growth'. 'Growth' drives the number of corresponding sites greatly downward.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why don't you take a look at those links before you start. After about 5 links in the 'GDP growth per capita' search you see links for 'GDP per capita'. Makes sense, since the words are similar in the search. So a great majority of the links for 'GDP growth per capita' are in actuality about 'GDP per capita', with no growth of it figured in.

This can be seen as you noted when you type in 'GDP growth'. 'Growth' drives the number of corresponding sites greatly downward.

Yeah, I knew I had it coming. Seriously now, let's proceed with a few logics will ya?

GDP per capita was important in 1960.
GDP per capita is still relevant in 2003.
Ergo there must be some importance in its variation between 1960 and 2003.

PS: I took a long time to write you a final, detailed explanation in my own thread. Are you going back to it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I knew I had it coming. Seriously now, let's proceed with a few logics will ya?

GDP per capita was important in 1960.
GDP per capita is still relevant in 2003.
Ergo there must be some importance in its variation between 1960 and 2003.

The problem is that GDP per capita is really only important to the UN in deciding standard of living, etc. And therefore has been picked up by them. I mean #1 in GDP per capita is Luxembourg. Switzerland is up there as well. Does anyone really consider them economic powers? On the other hand, France, Russia, Germany, etc with less GDP per capita are considered more important. That is the reason GDP growth per capita is not really measured, because GDP per capita is not considered a really important economic measure.

You can tell by the links. GDP has 4 million pages, GDP/capita has 1/2 million.

If you want to use it as a standard of living gauge, go for it, but it still won't prove that Quebec has been better economically than the rest of Canada.

An example: suppose we took at social security money for the elderly and threw it in the ocean, resulting in many seniors dying. GDP/capita would exponentially rise! GDP, of course, would stay the same. Therefore does GDP/capita actually mean anything?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


An example: suppose we took at social security money for the elderly and threw it in the ocean, resulting in many seniors dying. GDP/capita would exponentially rise! GDP, of course, would stay the same. Therefore does GDP/capita actually mean anything?

Money has nothing to do with GDP. In order to destroy GDP, you have to physically destroyed the goods, or stop producing the services. Then you would have a GDP per capita identical to what it was before your stupid experiment.

The only value of GDP per capita is to make possible certain comparisons over time in the same nation, and between nations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Money has nothing to do with GDP. In order to destroy GDP, you have to physically destroyed the goods, or stop producing the services.

I know that. Money had nothing to do with my example except for the fact that without money, seniors would die (no food and all).

See, GDP stays the SAME, but millions of seniors die.

[Whoha]

they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I know that. Money had nothing to do with my example except for the fact that without money, seniors would die (no food and all).

See, GDP stays the SAME, but millions of seniors die.

Actual GDP is made of the value of goods and services actually produced. If suddenly millions of elderly would disappear, they would no longer consume, and their consumption would no longer be produced. This would result in iddle factories and jobless workers, hence a reduced GDP.

For the GDP to stay the same, you have to substitute immediately, to your seniors an additional population consuming the same value of production; in that case, the GDP per capita would record a variation reflecting the difference in the number of seniors and the number of the new population. This would not render the GDP per capita useless.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Whoha
they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

True, but the effect on GDP would be the same.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
they probably won't die just from that, you'll need to ship them to france or something.

France has a far superior social net than the U.S. Shipping our seniors to France would be doing them a favor (while giving France a burden).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


France has a far superior social net than the U.S. Shipping our seniors to France would be doing them a favor (while giving France a burden).

Send the money first, please. We have to be so cautious with the US courts by these days.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actual GDP is made of the value of goods and services actually produced. If suddenly millions of elderly would disappear, they would no longer consume, and their consumption would no longer be produced. This would result in iddle factories and jobless workers, hence a reduced GDP.

Not if because of the lack of seniors the money they would have recieved goes back to the people in terms of tax cuts, giving people under 65 more money to spend, especially the poor, then factories would not have to close... but there would still be less people.