2019: US GDP per capita $65.000 (Russia: $11.400, China $10.000)

[Mista]

It didn't states that high population will lead to diminishing return.

Why are you inventing stuff? You can't understand economic concept, don't embarrass yourself.

LOL you're the one who claimed that, not me:

Second, production output is not 1-for-1 proportionate to head count.

^That's the concept of diminishing returns, and I'm actually trying to disprove you on that from the beginning.

Thanks for conceding to my argument then, I guess.

Only 4 or 5 are petro-states, far from "majority." So what if they are? Doesn't matter petro or finance driven economy, the argument is that GDP per capita metric favors smaller states less population.

It matters, because for petrostates their 'numerator' is fixed based on natural resources.

But not for countries in the modern economy depending on human resources. Every additional human adds numerator as well as denominator.

And it's factually proven top 10 highest GDP per capita are the smallest states with less than 10 million people.

The sample size for top 10 (out of 200+ countries) is too small. How about the top 20? How about taking away the petrostates?

//

Look, I don't want to argue just for the sake of argument like what the argument is transpiring to right now. There's no such thing as 'small countries tend to be richer' like you claimed, as I've shown statistically.

Out of that roughly 100+ states with small population (<10m), only around 25% are rich.
Out of 27 states (population >50m) the rate is also around 25%, basically the G7.

You can't choose selectively, such as using just the top 10, to come to the conclusion that 'small countries tend to be richer' without looking at the other side of the equation.

The top 10 Indians are richer than the top 10 Swiss, so can I say that the Indians tend to be richer than the Swiss? Obviously that's ridiculous right? There's a wide disparity in the number of Indians and the number of Swiss, just like the number of small countries vs large countries. What we should look at is the rate, not the top 10 which favors those with more numbers.

If you can't understand such a simple logic, then I see no point in further argument.

 

[925boy]

Tonga. Fiji. Really small countries. Not necessarily high standard of living.

Outliers! Even in West Africa, Ghana is more developed than Nigeria despite Nigeria having more of everything. why? smaller countries are easier to manage and propel forward.

 

[nature is]

LOL you're the one who claimed that, not me:

^That's the concept of diminishing returns, and I'm actually trying to disprove you on that from the beginning.

Thanks for conceding to my argument then, I guess.

Are you delusional? You're the one talking diminishing return, not me. I educated you what is growth accounting, that utilization of technology can increase output with no change in labor input.

Diminishing return is a general concept that can apply to everything, it's almost meaningless. Only a fool would counter a valid economic concept by citing "diminishing return." LOL.

It matters, because for petrostates their 'numerator' is fixed based on natural resources.

But not for countries in the modern economy depending on human resources. Every additional human adds numerator as well as denominator.

Petro-states still need machinery, method of production and types of technology increases output. You failed!

Modern economy is automation and digital, all the more it requires technology. Making a software or movie that sells billions is not dependent on number of labors, but just a few persons, the designer and director through their creativity and utilization of technology. You failed again!!

The sample size for top 10 (out of 200+ countries) is too small. How about the top 20? How about taking away the petrostates?

//

Look, I don't want to argue just for the sake of argument like what the argument is transpiring to right now. There's no such thing as 'small countries tend to be richer' like you claimed, as I've shown statistically.

Out of that roughly 100+ states with small population (<10m), only around 25% are rich.
Out of 27 states (population >50m) the rate is also around 25%, basically the G7.

You can't choose selectively, such as using just the top 10, to come to the conclusion that 'small countries tend to be richer' without looking at the other side of the equation.

The top 10 Indians are richer than the top 10 Swiss, so can I say that the Indians tend to be richer than the Swiss? Obviously that's ridiculous right? There's a wide disparity in the number of Indians and the number of Swiss, just like the number of small countries vs large countries. What we should look at is the rate, not the top 10 which favors those with more numbers.

If you can't understand such a simple logic, then I see no point in further argument.

Why do you need sample size for events that had already happened and proven?
Trump is elected. Who needs sample size of the poll/study? Your pathetic attempt to sound intellect only reveal your intellectual inadequacies.

It's indisputably proven, events taken place over the years, top 10 highest GDP per capita are the smallest states with less than 10 million people. No argument, GDP per capita metric favors small states.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Senang Diri]

Outliers! Even in West Africa, Ghana is more developed than Nigeria despite Nigeria having more of everything. why? smaller countries are easier to manage and propel forward.

Nonsense.

Most small countries are poor. There is no universal definition of a small country but let's say any country with less than 10 million people would be a good fit.

This reminds me of Dr M and his excuses for Malaysia's failure compared to Singapore. Same excuses as you. Typical of third worlders, might I add.

Dr M never answered whether he would like Singapore to annex all of East and West Malaysia, leaving Langkawi for him to govern. Would he?

Would you do the same? Let Ghana annex most of Nigeria leaving Ibadan, let's say, for Nigeria to govern?

Would China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia or Japan accept such a "deal"?

If not (which is the most reasonable and likely answer), then why not?

If it is really easier to govern smaller countries, then all big countries should voluntarily split up, shouldn't they?

Obviously, the benefits of governing a bigger country outweigh the costs, which is why European countries voluntarily decided to form a loose union (EU), which is why despite the myriad of differences, South East Asian countries tried to join ranks through ASEAN (no matter how useless it has been) and which is why throughout history and to this day, countries want to annex more territory and resources, not give them up voluntarily.

GDP per capita is meaningful comparison only if the population size are roughly similar. Smaller countries tend to have higher per capita. Simple math, smaller population means smaller denominator. Second, production output is not 1-for-1 proportionate to head count. E.g. Having more people working in farm or factory will not increase output if there's not enough machinery or efficient modern machinery.

Not surprising, highest GDP per capita are mostly countries with smaller population.

Nope.

I assume you meant smaller countries tend to have higher GDP/GNI per capita.

Blatantly not true.

Plenty of small countries don't.

Ergo, you are wrong.

N.B. Never mind the false flagger whose Singlish gave him away and whom I have chosen to ignore since then. He also made numerous other gaffes (some of which I have mentioned and some of them, I haven't) giving away his identity.

 

[Mista]

Are you delusional? You're the one talking diminishing return, not me. I educated you what is growth accounting, that utilization of technology can increase output with no change in labor input.

View attachment 544666

Diminishing return is a general concept that can apply to everything, it's almost meaningless. Only a fool would counter a valid economic concept by citing "diminishing return." LOL.



Petro-states still need machinery, method of production and types of technology increases output. You failed!

Modern economy is automation and digital, all the more it requires technology. Making a software or movie that sells billions is not dependent on number of labors, but just a few persons, the designer and director through their creativity and utilization of technology. You failed again!!



Why do you need sample size for events that had already happened and proven?
Trump is elected. Who needs sample size of the poll/study? Your pathetic attempt to sound intellect only reveal your intellectual inadequacies.

It's indisputably proven, events taken place over the years, top 10 highest GDP per capita are the smallest states with less than 10 million people. No argument, GDP per capita metric favors small states.

View attachment 544662

Okay then, according to your logic Indians tend to be richer than the Swiss because the top 10 Indians are richer than the top 10 Swiss. Indisputably proven.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

 

[nature is]

Okay then, according to your logic Indians tend to be richer than the Swiss because the top 10 Indians are richer than the top 10 Swiss. Indisputably proven.

10 richest Indians vs 10 Swiss don't represent their countries, but GDP per capita represents the country. Logically flawed. You failed again.

You can't come up with valid analogy, can't argue coherently, don't have the subject knowledge, yet tried to act intellectual. Right, asking for sample size for events that had already happened

Don't embarrass yourself further, you've been owned!

 

[Mista]

10 richest Indians vs 10 Swiss don't represent their countries, but GDP per capita represents the country. Logically flawed. You failed again.

You can't come up with valid analogy, can't argue coherently, don't have the subject knowledge, yet tried to act intellectual. Right, asking for sample size for events that had already happened

Don't embarrass yourself further, you've been owned!

So what statistics have you provided? Top 10 small countries can represent 120+ small countries?

Don't embarrass yourself further, you've been owned!

This post just reflected your maturity.

 

[OCguy]

China has a long way to go to catch up US over GDP, but as normal citizen we Chinese are always richer than American, we work hard and make alot of saving while American spend every penny they earned...wondering why American keep borrowing money and keep over spending?

Not even close on a per-Capita basis.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Low per capital nominal GDP is good for cheap labor. EU has carbon tax and expensive electricity so they build all their cars in Russia where there is no carbon tax and wage is low and electricity is cheap. They make free trade agreement with Russia so there is no import tariff.

 

[OCguy]

Low per capital nominal GDP is good for cheap labor. EU has carbon tax and expensive electricity so they build all their cars in Russia where there is no carbon tax and wage is low and electricity is cheap. They make free trade agreement with Russia so there is no import tariff.

The EU builds all of their cars in Russia? Ehh....no.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

The EU builds all of their cars in Russia? Ehh....no.

Not yet, but they are moving auto production to Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Serbia where wage is low, electricity is cheap, and no carbon tax. They have free trade agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production

 

[Jlaw]

He put up 4 videos you put up 2. He won.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

He put up 4 videos you put up 2. He won.

He has more free time on his hands to scour videos than I do.