Originally posted by @lundosBtw. Macro means aggregated in economic terms.
Only because you tend either communicate in a difficult maner or your claims aren't exactly reality.
Btw. Macro means aggregated in economic terms.
I was referring to the area of Norway, which is not economics. Once again, your attempt to appear clever by trying to correct me has only exposed your own poor reading comprehension.
Only because you tend either communicate in a difficult maner or your claims aren't exactly reality.
Here is what I wrote:
It really isn't. Aside from having the world's overall largest economy (by far), America's per capita GDP is the best in the world if you exclude city-states. The only macro-nations who can beat America's GDP per capita of 60000$ are Ireland (whose GDP figures are grossly inflated by the amount of American money that merely passes through Ireland into the EU for tax purposes but is not a reflection of Ireland's wealth, which is still poorer than Britain) and Norway (country of 5 million with a large area by European standards with massive oil and gas reserves as well as fish and GDP is still only 70000$, a mere 10000 more than America's.)
On top of this, the U.S economy grows at a rate that almost all developed economies (W Europe, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Oceania) can only dream of so I'm not sure how it can be said that they're closing the gap on America. They're not.
I understand my "maner" is "difficult" for you to understand (since you have bad reading comprehension and have failed in your attempts to correct me twice in a row).
My claims are not reality? Do you dispute that America's economy is the largest in the world? Do you dispute that its GDP per capita is 60000, that Norway's population is 5 million, that Norway's GDP per capita is 70000$? Forgive me, but these are facts, not opinions. They're not really up for debate even if they don't suit your agenda and they also are not difficult to comprehend for someone who's not an idiot. So I ask you, what is this elusive "reality" you speak of? You say that I'm not realistic but also fail to show a single figure showing I'm wrong. If I'm so wrong, show me why. Otherwise, I can only think you have nothing.
26 May 18
Originally posted by @ashiitakaWhen you discuss GDP or GDP pr capita the subject is macro economics. If you choose an area or a country within this subject, it's still macro economics.
[b]Btw. Macro means aggregated in economic terms.
I was referring to the area of Norway, which is not economics. Once again, your attempt to appear clever by trying to correct me has only exposed your own poor reading comprehension.[/b]
If you then use the word macro in the context of being 'big', it's just terrible communication skills.
If you want to mess up the way you communicate by using words in the wrong context, then that's your perogative. However, it doesn't seem ... well clever.
Originally posted by @lundosWhen you discuss GDP or GDP pr capita the subject is macro economics. If you choose an area or a country within this subject, it's still macro economics.
When you discuss GDP or GDP pr capita the subject is macro economics. If you choose an area or a country within this subject, it's still macro economics.
If you then use the word macro in the context of being 'big', it's just terrible communication skills.
If you want to mess up the way you communicate by using words in the wrong context, then that's your perogative. However, it doesn't seem ... well clever.
You're still wrong. Talking about the physical size of a country is nothing to do with economics (if you had good reading comprehension you would know that).
If you then use the word macro in the context of being 'big', it's just terrible communication skills.
No, you have terrible reading skills. (Or you don't know that the word "macro" can be used outside of economics)
perogative
That's "prerogative" for the literate.
26 May 18
Originally posted by @ashiitakaCalling a country for a macro-nation is terrible communication skills.
[b]When you discuss GDP or GDP pr capita the subject is macro economics. If you choose an area or a country within this subject, it's still macro economics.[.
You're still wrong. Talking about the physical size of a country is nothing to do with economics (if you had good reading comprehension you would know that).
If you then use th ...[text shortened]... you have terrible reading skills.
[b]perogative
That's "prerogative" for the literate.[/b]
Calling a country for a macro-nation in an economic context is terrible communication skills.
By the way this is what you wrote: Please read it again.
Aside from having the world's overall largest economy (by far), America's per capita GDP is the best in the world if you exclude city states. The only macro-nations who can beat America's gdp per capita of 60000$ are Ireland [...] and Norway (country of 5 million with a large area by European standards with massive oil and gas reserves as well as fish and GDP is still only 70000$, a mere 10000 more than America's.)
Originally posted by @lundosCalling a country for a macro-nation is terrible communication skills.
Calling a country for a macro-nation is terrible communication skills.
Calling a country for a macro-nation in an economic context is terrible communication skills.
By the way this is what you wrote: Please read it again.
Aside from having the world's overall largest economy (by far), America's per capita GDP is the best in the world if you exclu ...[text shortened]... nd gas reserves as well as fish and GDP is still only 70000$, a mere 10000 more than America's.)
You know what really is terrible communication skills? Saying "Calling a country for a macro-nation". I hope you can see just how horribly incorrect this sentence is. What a cruel irony.
Calling a country for a macro-nation in an economic context is terrible communication skills.
If you could read, you would see that nobody has done so. I guess you can't read.
Lundos has repeatedly shown that he's borderline illiterate.
Next time, think twice before writing a snarky correction (although I thought you would think twice after your last attempt failed)- all you have done is humiliate yourself, repeatedly.
26 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ashiitakaLol. What a guy.
[b]Calling a country for a macro-nation is terrible communication skills.
You know what really is terrible communication skills? Saying "Calling a country for a macro-nation". I hope you can see just how horribly incorrect this sentence is. What a cruel irony.
Calling a country for a macro-nation in an economic context is terri ...[text shortened]... hink twice after your last attempt failed)- all you have done is humiliate yourself, repeatedly.
I think we can all read what is going on here.
Just one last question. Are you still pretenting to have studied economy?
Originally posted by @ashiitakaWealth is not money.
[b]For one, I never said I was talking about GDP per capita, I was speaking of the standard of living.
Actually, the exact word you used was "wealth". Wealth is money, not standard of living. Your persistent misunderstanding of "standard of living" and what it means for an economy is quite beyond the pale.
Secondly, you're flat-out wrong unl ...[text shortened]... e didn't have a high GDP (still only 1/6th higher than America's) I would hold her in no regard.
http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=1022
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2014/09/30/money-is-not-wealth-but-it-helps-create-wealth/#288be647f910
Originally posted by @ashiitakaIncorrect. There are more "macro-nations".
It really isn't. Aside from having the world's overall largest economy (by far), America's per capita GDP is the best in the world if you exclude city states. The only macro-nations who can beat America's gdp per capita of 60000$ are Ireland (whose gdp figures are grossly inflated by the amount of American money that merely passes through Ireland into the ...[text shortened]... nd gas reserves as well as fish and GDP is still only 70000$, a mere 10000 more than America's.)
On top of this, the U.S economy grows at a rate that almost all developed economies (W Europe, Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Oceania) can only dream of so I'm not sure how it can be said that they're closing the gap on America. They're not.
Not pr. Capita as was the discussion above. Cherrypicking economic indicators?
Actually, the exact word you used was "wealth". Wealth is money, not standard of living. Your persistent misunderstanding of "standard of living" and what it means for an economy is quite beyond the pale.
Incorrect.
I specifically said that Norway is a macro nation. "Macro" means "big" in English. I also explained that Norway's high GDP per capita can easily be explained by massive oil reserves (which makes much of the middle east, Brunei and equatorial guinea have high GDPs). This phenomenon of GDP inflation because of oil is not unique to Norway. Also, the only reason Switzerland has any money is because they just kept all the assets of Jews who entrusted Switzerland with their money's safekeeping and then were subsequently murdered in the Holocaust.
Wow. And incorrect.
Originally posted by @lundosJust one last question. Are you still pretenting to have studied economy?
Lol. What a guy.
I think we can all read what is going on here.
Just one last question. Are you still pretenting to have studied economy?
I'm pretty sure you can study economics, or you can study an economy, but you can't study economy. Also, I'm not sure what "pretenting" is.
I would normally give provision for someone who is not a native speaker of English even if I disagree with them but your arrogant, snarky and repeated attempts to correct me when you are the one who has made the reading error means that I have no sympathy for your evident lack of education in English.
Originally posted by @athousandyoungIt's not living standards, either, but fair enough.
Wealth is not money.
http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=1022
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2014/09/30/money-is-not-wealth-but-it-helps-create-wealth/#288be647f910
27 May 18
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleCongratulations. How much have you made on your shares? (roughly)
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-tax-cut-surge-sp-500-companies-return-1t-to-shareholders
And how much higher is your share of national debt?
27 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ashiitakaThat is correct. I tend to translate directly from Danish when I'm tired and that doesn't work. At all.
I'm pretty sure you can study economics, or you can study an economy, but you can't study economy.
I would normally give provision for someone who is not a native speaker of English even if I disagree with them but your arrogant, snarky and repeated attempts to correct me when you are the one who has made the reading error means that I have no sympathy for your evident lack of education in English.
Your comments were false/incomplete. That's why I asked for links.
Macro in economics still means aggregated and a nation is therefore by definition macro. If you really want to use 'big' (or large) in a geographical sense as part of an economics discussion, you should never use macro. Ever. It messes up the understanding.
A sentence like this:
"The only macro-nations who can beat America's gdp per capita"
Is, of course, within an economic context as the subject is a macroeconomics indicator - GDP pr. Capita - and the use of macro here is ... terrible communication skills.
27 May 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @ashiitakaI missed this one.
I was referring to the area of Norway, which is not economics. Once again, your attempt to appear clever by trying to correct me has only exposed your own poor reading comprehension.
Why do you suddenly use a geograhic size limit? To get rid of Qatar and Switzerland?
I understand my "maner" is "difficult" for you to understand (since you have bad reading comprehension and have failed in your attempts to correct me twice in a row).
More than to times, actually, now. See my last post before this one.
My claims are not reality? Do you dispute that America's economy is the largest in the world? Do you dispute that its GDP per capita is 60000, that Norway's population is 5 million, that Norway's GDP per capita is 70000$? Forgive me, but these are facts, not opinions. They're not really up for debate even if they don't suit your agenda and they also are not difficult to comprehend for someone who's not an idiot. So I ask you, what is this elusive "reality" you speak of? You say that I'm not realistic but also fail to show a single figure showing I'm wrong. If I'm so wrong, show me why. Otherwise, I can only think you have nothing.
So now I'm also an idiot.
These weren't the onlly claims you made.
1. There are more nations than Norway and Ireland with better GDP pr Capita than the US (if you want to round it it should be 59.000 but that's not important). See above.
2. While you give simple explanations for Ireland and Norway, why don't you expound the issues for the US - e.g. the extremely rich distorting the US number. It's intellectually dishonest, as you probably know since you're not an idiot.
3. The US GDP growth in actual numbers are indeed pretty good. Dreaming about it is an unnecessary exaggeration. Especially since a lot of countries are growing faster in percent, e.g. the entire EU area.
4. The US economy have since the 1980s usually had higher growth rates than the EU. However, inequality rankings put the US around the 100 spot (corrected) and child poverty are way above other Western countries. Growth in itself isn't important. You also know this.