The World Economy: Some Data - Page 3

On August 29 2013 13:13 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure it's just a really horrible diagram. Hopefully the numbers are right though...

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
1) Well Russia used to be an actual superpower, so I'm not too impressed that, one day, Russia may be a superpower again. Sure, it's recent success is due to selling commodities, but keep in mind that commodities tend to run in long cycles. Just because commodity prices had a long 15 year run higher doesn't mean that the next 15 will be so bright.

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
In 1990 South Korea and Russia both had roughly the same per capita income. Today, resource rich Russia's per capita income lags far behind smart South Korea's.

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
2) You have a fair point that land restrictions can lead to high land prices, but that's more of an issue of how income gets distributed throughout the economy rather than a restriction on economic activity.

On August 29 2013 19:49 GreenGringo wrote:
Russia was never a superpower; the Soviet Union was a superpower, which had approximately twice the population of Russia. To make it worse, Russia's population has since then remained stagnant.

That only reinforces the point I'm making about potential. Nobody doubts that Russia has more potential than South Korea. That is because of land and resources, not how "smart" they are relative to Koreans. There's only so far a country can grow, relative to other countries, with a very limited patch of land. South Korea is never going to become a global superpower, whereas Russia might and is probably only going to get stronger on the international stage. (Same applies with Brazil.)

No, it's a natural consequence of land ownership in a country with high population density. It's not because of more stringent rent controls that the USA has the cheaper rent (and bigger, more desirable houses, by the way). It's because the UK is overcrowded and in the UK the land has more value attached to it.

Potentially all the land could made public and rent could be abolished. That's not going to happen, and even if it did there'd still be more competition for land in a country with dense population and planning would still be inherently more difficult. Not to mention all the drawbacks that come with state control of the land if such a scheme were adopted -- and even the psychological effects of cramped living conditions, which aren't something to be sneezed at.

On August 29 2013 06:33 legor wrote:
Can you simply stop making those unbased assumptions?
1. There is no clear correlation between ressources and economic growth.
2. Please show evidence for positive impact of "modern city planning". Paris, London, Berlin weren't planned. They seem fine.
3. Please show evidence for positive impact of "many cheap places to build". That would give countries in Africa or Russia a huge advantage. How come they don't prosper?

Not always does our daily intuition transfer into such a complex field like economics. Even if there exists an example that fits your story.


If ressources lower economic growth comapred with countries that do not have those ressources. Rssources do harm by the very definnition of the concept.


Other countries have a lower population density than Australia. If you refuse to understand more difficult concepts, at least try to get the basics right. It is not that hard.

You are not reading into these findings in a correct way, resource rich countries have lower growth compared to other countries that have to find other ways of making money. That does not imply low growth in absolute terms.

Furthermore, the findings concern modern times, where true economic growth has mainly been from innovation and population growth.

Having _____________ do not automatically imply you are worse off, but if it is your only source of income or main source of income then it becomes harder to grow faster because you are constrained by price mechanisms. If you double your production prices will fall and your productivity per capita employed will be actually be reduced. [

On August 29 2013 12:51 SilentchiLL wrote:

Why is asia eastern europe?

On August 29 2013 23:31 legor wrote:
Absolute growth doesn't matter if you compare countries with each other. Of course you can have absolute growth, but if it lags behind the absolute growth of other countries you still have a net loss.


Quantitative analyses try to control for these factors.


You can fill in anything and the statement is true.

On August 29 2013 19:49 GreenGringo wrote:
Russia was never a superpower; the Soviet Union was a superpower, which had approximately twice the population of Russia. To make it worse, Russia's population has since then remained stagnant.

That only reinforces the point I'm making about potential. Nobody doubts that Russia has more potential than South Korea. That is because of land and resources, not how "smart" they are relative to Koreans. There's only so far a country can grow, relative to other countries, with a very limited patch of land. South Korea is never going to become a global superpower, whereas Russia might and is probably only going to get stronger on the international stage. (Same applies with Brazil.)

No, it's a natural consequence of land ownership in a country with high population density. It's not because of more stringent rent controls that the USA has the cheaper rent (and bigger, more desirable houses, by the way -- e.g. the type of houses you have in many ghettos in the USA and Australia can only be possessed by affluent families in the UK). It's because the UK is overcrowded and in the UK the land has more value attached to it.

Potentially all the land could made public and rent could be abolished. That's not going to happen, and even if it did there'd still be more competition for land in a country with dense population and planning would still be inherently more difficult. Not to mention all the drawbacks that come with state control of the land if such a scheme were adopted -- and even the psychological effects of cramped living conditions, which aren't something to be sneezed at.

On August 30 2013 01:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Well, the big difference between Russia and the Soviet's would be the more industrialized, densely populated western areas, yes? And why is Russia's current population falling if it has all that empty land and wonderful resources? There's just so many more important variables!

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Well Africa is one of the largest continents and very resource rich. Super long term, the potential there is huge. But for the past thousands of years that hasn't meant squat.

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Sure, Singapore will likely never be a world superpower. But on a per capita basis it's future is looking much better than the future of the average Russian.

On August 29 2013 09:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
So why does anyone live in Manhattan if you can just get a nicer, bigger, cheaper place in Connecticut? There's just much more to the story than just population density and overcrowding...

On August 28 2013 11:29 Verator wrote:
In regards to politicians, higher pay and renumeration wouldn't necessarily attract great leaders. It would attract leaders who create more money for themselves. Which is what is largely happening now, with politicians able to receive incredible benefits for being in office.

You'd have to tie politician reward in many categories to the country as a whole or the average citizen, their healthcare is that of the average citizen, their salary that of the average, etc.

Its the same problem with many CEOs trying to maximize short term gain, rather than long term stability.

On August 30 2013 02:11 Olferen wrote:


What evidence do you have for that? None? So you're implying that people are innately greedy? Where's your reputable paper on that? Nowhere?

On August 30 2013 02:13 GreenGringo wrote:
No evidence is needed to assert a well-known and common sense fact such as that lots of people are innately greedy. You'd actually need evidence to negate that claim.

On August 30 2013 02:17 Olferen wrote:


Common sense? Okay, enlighten me on how it's common sense that people are innately greedy. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this.

On August 30 2013 02:21 GreenGringo wrote:
A certain standard tends to be assumed on any forum on which nerds preponderate. If you're really so ignorant about the world you live in, it's time to stop posting on forums and read a book.

On August 30 2013 02:23 Olferen wrote:


Hahaha, you're asserting something without any evidence, YOU need to read a book, and YOU need to learn that assuming people are innately negative will get you nowhere.