Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why does everyone think that the rise of one country means the decline of another?
Because it feeds into a mythological belief about the rise and fall of all empires.
But if you explain the fact that citizens of countries like Britain, France, The Netherlands and Spain are all far richer today than they ever were at the height of their respective empires, then you'll get a lot of shoulder shrugs and stares of disbelief. Why? Because it doesn't make for a good narrative and storyline to say so.
This is a useless argument. A country can have strong points other than high GDP per capita.
It is a useless thread. The OP is simply a statement of fact, for which there is no remedy, and which is not debatable. All that is being debated is the personal feelings forum users have about that fact---either wishing it were not true, or applauding that it is true.
they will pass us up too bek they practice fuel self suffiency and austerity.
we, on the other hand, feel that we can debt ourselves out of debt and that OPEC is our best friend.
strange-- john M. keynes never said that, but a bunch of rotten students say he did.
It is a useless thread. The OP is simply a statement of fact, for which there is no remedy, and which is not debatable. All that is being debated is the personal feelings forum users have about that fact---either wishing it were not true, or applauding that it is true.
Actually, the debate in this thread is more along the lines of - what is the significance of comparing GDPs of entire countries when their populations are vastly different? GDP per capita is a much better measure of the economic wealth of a country's population.
A previous post mentioned that Brazil's GDP per capita varies dramatically between the north and south. These kind of regional differences exist in practically all countries.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 11-10-2011 at 02:52 PM..
It just so happens that tourists from the BRIC countries are increasing every year. Mainly Chinese and Brazilian tourists are the fastest growing groups in the Hawaii tourism industry. Yea not all of them are going to come to Hawaii but the better their economies do the better Hawaii's economy does. Hell, Chinese tourists spend more money than any other demographic on the planet (an avg of $368 per day per person) and if you go to the local universities you will see many Chinese and Brazilian exchange students whose rich parents send them tons of money just so they can live and study in Hawaii.
A good example would be my ex girlfriend who was Shanghainese, her family was sending her $4,000 a month just so she could "survive" out here.
The more money these BRIC nations make the more money they spend on developed countries goods. Its a win win for everyone!
But then, what about the crime rates in Brazil?
(This category also includes commercial/corporate crimes)
Corruption level?
And the quality of education? (i.e. Any top-notch universities in comparison to other developed nations, etc.??)
% of the Brazilians being able to access health care/insurance and the level of medical care provided?
Gap b/w the rich and poor?
What those things have to do with the subject of this thread?
I tought the subject was the size of the economy. Brazil is the sixth largest economy in the world. Period. That's a lot. That's a huge achievement to a former "colony of exploitation" (not a "colony of settlement" like the USA).
If you want to discuss those points, we may discuss, but it has no direct relation with the subject of this thread.
Corruption? Yes. But there is corruption in many countries of the world, including the USA, not only in Brazil. Just ask the Italian judges corrupted by the Sicilian mafia.
Quality of education? It's very low on public schools, and very good in private schools. The public schools are underfunded, but, at least, 98% of the children in school age are going to the school, even if the quality of the education there is not so good. And regarding higher education, we have several very good Federal Universities where students can study totally for free, with no tuition, if they are classified in the admission test (a totally objective and impartial written test).
Health care? 100% of Brazilians have free healthcare from SUS (Sistema Unico de Saude - Unified Healthcare System). Not very good quality, but if you need to do a very complex and expensive surgery to save your life, you will do it for free on a SUS public hospital, and won't pay a dime for it. And you are free to pay for private health insurance if you want. About 30% of Brazilians have private health insurance, and go to private hospitals.
Gap between the rich and poor? Very wide gap. But Brazil is reducing it. In fact, between 2003 and 2010, Brazil was the country in the world that reduced the most the inequality gap. Between 2003 and 2010, Brazil was the world champion in reducing inequality. And was awarded by many international institutions for this.
But remember that those points have nothing to do with the subject of this thread...
Gap between the rich and poor? Very wide gap. But Brazil is reducing it. In fact, between 2003 and 2010, Brazil was the country in the world that reduced the most the inequality gap. Between 2003 and 2010, Brazil was the world champion in reducing inequality. And was awarded by many international institutions for this.
Some people here may be interested in reading the following (then again, maybe not )
Actually, the debate in this thread is more along the lines of - what is the significance of comparing GDPs of entire countries when their populations are vastly different? GDP per capita is a much better measure of the economic wealth of a country's population.
A previous post mentioned that Brazil's GDP per capita varies dramatically between the north and south. These kind of regional differences exist in practically all countries.
Inequality is everywhere. This includes inequality of the inequality of countries. Brazil, by most measures, has far greater inequality than the UK and even has greater inequality than many nations of similar or greater population sizes.
I'd say the significance is that even though the per capita means more for individual citizens, a total greater GDP can give a country much greater political leverage in a lot of things which could greatly influence many different facets of an individual citizen's life.
Take for example: China is poor per capita (lower per capita than Brazil), but as a nation it has a lot of clout and is able to dictate many terms of its trade policies to become more favorable to them in order to produce even more wealth and work. I think for Brazil, and much of Latin America in general, it's decidedly a good thing for them that they are growing at such a rate as the previous few centuries had many other countries dictating terms which were less than favorable (the British with Argentina and some others, the US with virtually the entire rest of the continents).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
