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

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

You're dreaming. China military technology isnt even as good as Russia's.

J-20 is better than any America plane out there. By far. Type 055 is better than any AB ship out there. By far. KJ-2000 is better than any America AWAC out there. By far.

 

[nature is]

Smaller population also means smaller numerator.




For every Luxembourg there's a East Timor. There are far more small countries than large countries in the world and therefore they make up the majority of the list of both rich and poor countries.

However people tend to look just at the list of highest GDP per capita and come to the wrong conclusion that small countries tend to be richer.

There is no evidence that a country with a small population tends to have higher GDP per capita.
Let's look at the correlation:

The regression is extremely weak.

You are not very mathematically inclined. Numerator had to be divided by denominator, bigger denominator is always a burden. As such, capita per metric will always favor smaller countries--By that, it's understood to mean, all things be equal, apple for apple comparison. Industrialized vs industrialized. Not Luxembourg vs East Timor where literacy hasn't even passed 60%.

Industrialized big vs small. The smaller ones will always have an advantage in per capita calculation.

Top 10 highest GDP Per Capita states are the smallest ones with less than 10 million population. Most industrialized G7 (fairly large population) don't even make top 10. Only two in top 20.

 

[Mista]

You are not very mathematically inclined. Numerator had to be divided by denominator, bigger denominator is always a burden. As such, capita per metric will always favor smaller countries--By that, it's understood to mean, all things be equal, apple for apple comparison. Industrialized vs industrialized. Not Luxembourg vs East Timor where literacy hasn't even passed 60%.

Industrialized big vs small. The smaller ones will always have an advantage in per capita calculation.

Top 10 highest GDP Per Capita states are the smallest ones with less than 10 million population. Most industrialized G7 (fairly large population) don't even make top 10. Only two in top 20.

View attachment 544220

Your post didn't address my points. Lesser population means BOTH lower numerator and denominator. Not just one or another exclusively. Talk about being mathematically inclined.

Small countries make up the majority of rich countries because there are far more small countries than big countries in the world. There are more poor small countries than poor big countries too, so? The smaller the country the poorer it is? There are like 120 small countries in the world with less than 10m people, and what percent of them are rich?

How about the regressive analysis in my previous post showing statistically insignificant relationship between population and GDP per capita? Why did you ignore the most important point?

Most industrialized G7 (fairly large population) don't even make top 10. Only two in top 20.

How many small countries are there in the world? How many countries are there in G7? Just based on sheer probability, small countries are more likely to be in the top 20. Because even if all G7 are in the top 20 they still make up less than half of the list.

 

[nature is]

Your post didn't address my points. Lesser population means BOTH lower numerator and denominator. Not just one or another exclusively. Talk about being mathematically inclined.

Small countries make up the majority of rich countries because there are far more small countries than big countries in the world. There are more poor small countries than poor big countries too, so? The smaller the country the poorer it is? There are like 120 small countries in the world with less than 10m people, and what percent of them are rich?

How about the regressive analysis in my previous post showing statistically insignificant relationship between population and GDP per capita? Why did you ignore the most important point?

My post addressed it, just that you're unable to grasp it. Lesser population means lesser numerator and denominator, but output (numerator) is not uniformly proportionate to per capita labor input. It's not 1-to-1. As I explained earlier, having more workers in the factory won't increase output (numerator) without adding more machinery or modern machinery.

In other words, adding investment and technology can generate disproportionately higher output(numerator) with the same or less per capita input(denominator)

Putting up charts without methodology and proper interpretation is a cheap trick to fool people . They are irrelevant, as it includes non-industrial countries. I'm talking apple-to-apple comparison. The example you cited, Luxembourg vs East Timor (60% literacy) LOL, Seriously it's not even worth a reply.

The fact is top 10 highest GDP per capita are the smallest states with less than 10 million population. Most industrialized G7 can't even beat them, due to denominator disadvantage. It's just how the maths work.

How many small countries are there in the world? How many countries are there in G7? Just based on sheer probability, small countries are more likely to be in the top 20. Because even if all G7 are in the top 20 they still make up less than half of the list.

Logically incoherent.
How many small countries in the world is irrelevant to my point that Per Capita metric works in small countries' favor. Most industrialized G7 don't top the chart because they have big denominator, large countries above 50 million in population.

 

[Mista]

Lesser population means lesser numerator and denominator, but output (numerator) is not uniformly proportionate to per capita input. It's not 1-to-1.
As I stated in my 1st post, having more workers in the factory won't increase output (numerator) without adding more machinery or modern machinery. This is called investment and technology input.

Nonsense. If you have studied introductory economics, you would know that larger factories in general are more productive and efficient than smaller factories due to economies of scale and division of labor. Similarly large farms are more productive per acre than small farms because of economies of scale.

What you're talking about is the law of diminishing returns on labor due to insufficient investments in capital (under-investment), which happens because of low savings rate. Reduce your population by half and your capital will be reduce by half as well, ceteris paribus. You must be obtuse if you think savings have a diminishing returns, ie the smaller the population the higher the saving rate.

The onus is on you show that the numerator/denominator is 'not 1-to-1', which I'm sure you simply pulled out of nowhere.

Like the example you cited, Luxembourg vs East Timor.

Precisely my point. There are both rich and poor small countries at extreme ends. You're practicing double standard if you look only at rich countries.

The fact remains, top 10 highest GDP per capita are the smallest states with less than 10 million population. Most industrialized G7 can't even beat them, due to denominator advantage.

What's the percentage of small states in the top 20? Around 15%?
What's the percentage of G7 in the top 20? Also around 15%?

There are more than 120 states with population smaller than 10m people, and just because of 14 small states in the top 20 you come to the conclusion of 'denominator advantage' lmao.

Your conclusion holds true only for states depending on natural resources, because the 'numerator' is fixed here. Take those petrostates away and compare again, whether small states have the 'denominator advantage' in the modern economy depending on human capital.

Most industrialized G7 don't top the chart because they have big denominator, large countries above 50 million in population.

Only 12% of states in the world have a population above 50m. Ignore productivity and look just at probability.

12%*20=2.4

Only 2 or 3 countries above 50m people should be in the top 20, based on proportion.

 

[nature is]

Nonsense. If you have studied introductory economics, you would know that larger factories in general are more productive and efficient than smaller factories due to economies of scale and division of labor. Similarly large farms are more productive per acre than small farms because of economies of scale.

What you're talking about is the law of diminishing returns on labor due to insufficient investments in capital (under-investment), which happens because of low savings rate. Reduce your population by half and your capital will be reduce by half as well, ceteris paribus. You must be obtuse if you think savings have a diminishing returns, ie the smaller the population the higher the saving rate.

The onus is on you show that the numerator/denominator is 'not 1-to-1', which I'm sure you simply pulled out of nowhere.

LOL if you're well versed in economics how can you not know I'm talking Factor of Production and Growth Accounting, it's elementary. Economic growth = land + labor + capita (technology)

In highly industrialized economic, technology is the kicker. With same or less labor, technology input can disproportional generate higher total output. With better machinery, worker can produce more. Say 1 unit of labor to 3 units of finished goods , instead of 1 to 1.

You don't understand economics, yet you want to argue on. it's not going to save you face.

Precisely my point. There are both rich and poor small countries at extreme ends. You're practicing double standard if you look only at rich countries.

You need to have your brain check. I stressed apple for apple comparison, industrial vs industrial, in reference to the point that capita per metric favor smaller countries. You tried to disprove my point by using Luxembourg and East Timor example. LOL.

What's the percentage of small states in the top 20? Around 15%?
What's the percentage of G7 in the top 20? Also around 15%?

There are more than 120 states with population smaller than 10m people, and just because of 14 small states in the top 20 you come to the conclusion of 'denominator advantage' lmao.

Your conclusion holds true only for states depending on natural resources, because the 'numerator' is fixed here. Take those petrostates away and compare again, whether small states have the 'denominator advantage' in the modern economy depending on human capital.

Only 12% of states in the world have a population above 50m. Ignore productivity and look just at probability.

12%*20=2.4

Only 2 or 3 countries above 50m people should be in the top 20, based on proportion.

It doesn't matter how many small states in the world or percentage of countries with 50 million or more people. Many are of them non-industrialized. Irrelevant.

The pertinent fact is, among all industrialized/developed states, the highest GDP per capita are smallest ones with less than 10 million people. Even countries that are far more industrialized and powerful like the G7 can't beat them in capita per metric.

You're losing the plot, unable to argue logically.

 

[master_13]

Smaller population also means smaller numerator.




For every Luxembourg there's a East Timor. There are far more small countries than large countries in the world and therefore they make up the majority of the list of both rich and poor countries.

However people tend to look just at the list of highest GDP per capita and come to the wrong conclusion that small countries tend to be richer.

There is no evidence that a country with a small population tends to have higher GDP per capita.
Let's look at the correlation:

The regression is extremely weak.

Being small country doesn't guarantee it will be rich, but being smaller country is certainly easier to be richer than a larger country. Take for example, a country A of 1 person vs a country B of 10 persons. The country A of 1 person found a job paying him 50K, boom, all the sudden this country went from 3rd world to $50k income per capita rich country. For country B of 10 persons, 5 people found jobs paying $90K, but rest of 5 persons didn't find any job, income per capita is roughly $45K. Even with all the effort that government put in that enabled 5x as many people found $90K job, country B is still poorer than country A in per capita income. This is why it is much easier to bring small country to wealthy level than a larger country.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Being small country doesn't guarantee it will be rich, but being smaller country is certainly easier to be richer than a larger country. Take for example, a country A of 1 person vs a country B of 10 persons. The country A of 1 person found a job paying him 50K, boom, all the sudden this country went from 3rd world to $50k income per capita rich country. For country B of 10 persons, 5 people found jobs paying $90K, but rest of 5 persons didn't find any job, income per capita is roughly $45K. Even with all the effort that government put in that enabled 5x as many people found $90K job, country B is still poorer than country A in per capita income. This is why it is much easier to bring small country to wealthy level than a larger country.

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

 

[master_13]

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

like I said, being small is easier than larger country to be richer, ONLY IF BOTH COUNTRIES IMPLEMENT SIMILAR ECONOMIC POLICY. There are other factors involved in being richer or not, if you are small country but implement idiotic economic policy, then no one can help you.

 

[Mista]

In highly industrialized economic, technology is the kicker. With same or less labor, technology input can disproportional generate higher total output. With better machinery, worker can produce more. Say 1 unit of labor to 3 units of finished goods , instead of 1 to 1.

And how does higher population lead to diminishing returns for labor again, when higher population also means higher capital if savings rate are the same?

You tried to disprove my point by using Luxembourg and East Timor example. LOL.

I don't see any logical fallacy there. You claimed that small states tend to be richer because of selection bias and I point out that for every rich small state there's a poor small state.

the highest GDP per capita are smallest ones with less than 10 million people.

And the majority of them are petrostates. So?

Being small country doesn't guarantee it will be rich, but being smaller country is certainly easier to be richer than a larger country. Take for example, a country A of 1 person vs a country B of 10 persons. The country A of 1 person found a job paying him 50K, boom, all the sudden this country went from 3rd world to $50k income per capita rich country. For country B of 10 persons, 5 people found jobs paying $90K, but rest of 5 persons didn't find any job, income per capita is roughly $45K. Even with all the effort that government put in that enabled 5x as many people found $90K job, country B is still poorer than country A in per capita income. This is why it is much easier to bring small country to wealthy level than a larger country.

If those countries depend on foreign capital and technology, then fair enough. It takes longer time to diffuse foreign technology in a larger country. It's easier to import a high value-added jobs per capita for small states.

However larger countries are more advantageous if it's dependent on domestic innovation for economic growth, due to economies of scale and a greater critical mass of talent. You can create your own high value-added job and diffuse the technology/knowledge, like investment from Shanghai to Guangxi. It's complementary.

Suppose the world is one country and we have only 20 million people on Earth. Many groundbreaking technologies may not have been discovered and adapt as rapidly, and all of us will be worse off.

 

[fallstuff]

Massive gap...US GDP per capita is 6 times bigger than Chine’s GDP.

GDP Per Capita: United States

GDP Per Capita: China

GDP Per Capita: Russia

China has a long way to go before catching up with the United States.

https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/richest-countries-in-the-world

https://knoema.com/pjeqzh/gdp-per-capita-by-country-statistics-from-imf-1980-2023?country=United States

Here is the flip side,
In 2017, the gross federal debt amounted to around 62,034 U.S. dollars per capita !!

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203064/national-debt-of-the-united-states-per-capita/

 

[Christina Chan]

China grows 6.6% in 2018, which was considered slowing down. And for the U.S. 3% is a miracle.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Nominal per capita GDP means nothing. China makes 3 times as many cars as the US does. China and Russia don't use USD. Only the US does.

 

[nature is]

And how does higher population lead to diminishing returns for labor again, when higher population also means higher capital if savings rate are the same?

Growth Accounting says technology can increase production output without any increase in labor input. Land + labor + capita (technology) 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.

I don't see any logical fallacy there. You claimed that small states tend to be richer because of selection bias and I point out that for every rich small state there's a poor small state.

I said GDP per capita metric works in the favor of smaller countries. By that, it's understood to mean in economics jargon, all things being equal. Apple for apple, industrialized vs industrialized country. Not Swiss standard Luxembourg vs East Timor (60% literacy)

Comparing apple with orange is fallacy of the highest order.

And the majority of them are petrostates. So?

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.

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

 

[nang2]

It isn't just a game of catching up. It is also a game of patience -- waiting for Americans to fall down. Based on the last century of changes in American political landscape, it is hopeful.