Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GNP by country
#1
Gross National Income by country

per Capita

(Warning: this seems to be from around 2005, a link to a newer table will be appreciated).
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#2
It would also be nice to have one, that shows the average 'per person' breakdown.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
How is Per person different from Per Capita?
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#4
mv Wrote:How is Per person different from Per Capita?

I missed the second link: sorry about that. Wink1 That is why I always add the "U" underline part to a link, so it is easier to see. I'm colour difficient, and seeing the link under normal circumstances is difficult for me.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
I'm amazed to see Ireland rank so high at #16 for per capita income.

On national stats, the USA not only overwhelms everybody else, but it exceeds the next four combined! Note that Mexico is now #10 in the world, exceeding India which has 10 times the population. For all the jokes we might make about little Italy, it has almost the GDP of China. Of course, if you could set these figures next to a chart of income disparity, you could make other observations.

Interesting that the per capita ratings place Mexico so far above Costa Rica. Thailand is #80, just above Bulgaria and......Russia!
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#6
Fit2BThaied Wrote:I'm amazed to see Ireland rank so high at #16 for per capita income.

On national stats, the USA not only overwhelms everybody else, but it exceeds the next four combined! Note that Mexico is now #10 in the world, exceeding India which has 10 times the population. For all the jokes we might make about little Italy, it has almost the GDP of China. Of course, if you could set these figures next to a chart of income disparity, you could make other observations.

Interesting that the per capita ratings place Mexico so far above Costa Rica. Thailand is #80, just above Bulgaria and......Russia!

If you look at Mexico's "per Capita", it drops to 47th place. This shows that the average citizen really isn't doing all that well, compared to their country's wealth.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
John L Wrote:
Fit2BThaied Wrote:I'm amazed to see Ireland rank so high at #16 for per capita income.

On national stats, the USA not only overwhelms everybody else, but it exceeds the next four combined! Note that Mexico is now #10 in the world, exceeding India which has 10 times the population. For all the jokes we might make about little Italy, it has almost the GDP of China. Of course, if you could set these figures next to a chart of income disparity, you could make other observations.

Interesting that the per capita ratings place Mexico so far above Costa Rica. Thailand is #80, just above Bulgaria and......Russia!

If you look at Mexico's "per Capita", it drops to 47th place. This shows that the average citizen really isn't doing all that well, compared to their country's wealth.
You're right about Mexico; privatization of the State-owned industry is what made Carlos Slim (real name!) one of the richest men in the world (plus hard work on the part of the companies). That's why I commented about income disparity. I'm just surprised that the bastion of democracy and capitalism, Costa Rica, ranks well below Mexico for GDP. Maybe CR has less income disparity, or maybe it's not the "Switzerland of Latin America" in every way.

Half of all Mexicans are below the poverty line set by the central government, I believe.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#8
No drugs in Costa-Rica?

More seriously, are the $ that illegal mexicans in the US send home counted toward GDP?
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#9
mv Wrote:No drugs in Costa-Rica?

More seriously, are the $ that illegal mexicans in the US send home counted toward GDP?
I'm not sure, but in recent years, that income has been roughly equal to oil revenues. That is, second largest income for the entire economy of Mexico (I think). It hardly seems logical to call it 'domestic product' though.

Just found this in my email inbox: "2. PETROLEUM RESERVES MAY BE EXHAUSTED IN TEN YEARS Pemex's proven petroleum reserves are expected to run out in about ten years at current production rates, according to government statistics. In 2001, Pemex estimated 32.6 billion barrels in proven reserves, while in 2006 estimates dropped to 11.6 billion barrels. The drastic decrease is due to increased production during the Fox administration combined with almost no new exploration, despite
strong indications of huge unproven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Pemex income provides almost 40% of the federal budget."
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#10
Fit2BThaied Wrote:Just found this in my email inbox: "2. PETROLEUM RESERVES MAY BE EXHAUSTED IN TEN YEARS Pemex's proven petroleum reserves are expected to run out in about ten years at current production rates, according to government statistics. In 2001, Pemex estimated 32.6 billion barrels in proven reserves, while in 2006 estimates dropped to 11.6 billion barrels. The drastic decrease is due to increased production during the Fox administration combined with almost no new exploration, despite
strong indications of huge unproven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Pemex income provides almost 40% of the federal budget."

Don't believe it, if you are smart. In case you have not kept up with things, oil is Not a fossil fuel. It is anarobic, and seeps up from the earth under high pressure. If you have not followed my earlier posts, about this subject, or about Dr Gold's thesis, then I can provide it for you. The fact is that US oil fields, thought drained, are suddenly filling up again. I wonder why.

If you listen to the Ludites, you are in for a real surprise in the future Frank. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
Suddenly filling up again, all around the places where the oil wells had previously been capped? That's not how I read your reference here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47618

Rather than mentioning that such wells had been uncapped because they were suddenly overflowing with fresh oil that had suddenly seeped in from the magma many miles below, it appears that that article is about wells having the same rough amount they had when they were capped, but new technologies can now recover it using secondary and tertiary methods (which can be quite extensive and expensive).

You may be correct that oil is really abiotic and anaerobic (what will Dr. Kenneth Cooper say about a campaign against aerobics? Shock ). But I fear the technology and the infrastructure to retrieve such deep, deep oil will not arrive in the first half of this century. Maybe we can built those nanotubes to the next galaxy and find some huge megasystem of galaxies brimming with 95 octane gasoline that will float down the space elevator in year 2011. Wink1
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#12
Fit2BThaied Wrote:Suddenly filling up again, all around the places where the oil wells had previously been capped? That's not how I read your reference here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47618

Rather than mentioning that such wells had been uncapped because they were suddenly overflowing with fresh oil that had suddenly seeped in from the magma many miles below, it appears that that article is about wells having the same rough amount they had when they were capped, but new technologies can now recover it using secondary and tertiary methods (which can be quite extensive and expensive).

You may be correct that oil is really abiotic and anaerobic (what will Dr. Kenneth Cooper say about a campaign against aerobics? Shock ). But I fear the technology and the infrastructure to retrieve such deep, deep oil will not arrive in the first half of this century. Maybe we can built those nanotubes to the next galaxy and find some huge megasystem of galaxies brimming with 95 octane gasoline that will float down the space elevator in year 2011. Wink1

You are mixing apples with oranges here Frank. The article talks about the reopening of fields that had been closed, not because of depletion. As stated, there are many fields, that were, but this is a different set of circumstances. Allow me present you with the economics of closing and opening existing fields in the US.

The fields were origionally closed, because the amount of profitability was negligable. This was caused by the lower cost of oil worldwide, AND government imposed windfall profits of the late 70s and early 80s. If domestic oil brings about the same amount of profit as foreign oil, what is the incentive to pump the domestic crude(which is already owned by the oil companies) from the ground, when for the same cost, it can be imported, leaving the domestic intact. Remember, the cost of drilling and investment have already been made, and the cost of processing domestic oil is very small.

However, with the price of oil going up worldwide, and windfall profits being dropped, it is to the advantage of oil companies to pump domestic oil, because the profit margin is so much more than importing foreign crude. And guess which oil company own so much of the domestic oil fields? If you say EXXON, YOU WIN!! Why do you think Exxon is making so much profit? It is because they have been pumping domestic oil, and making a larger percentage of the costs in profit. Now, if the cost in crude goes down, the pumping of domestic crude will dry up. Aaaannnnddd, if the GetEvenWithEmIsm Jackasses manage to push punishing laws reinstating a windfalls profit tax, then the domestic fields will be reclosed, until it pays to open them again. it's just good business, that's all.

Now, as to those OTHER fields that have been considered dry......................... Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#13
Yes, now, as to the oil that's being produced a million meters underground, for which we don't have much technology to even locate, let alone lift it up, and we're not sure how much of a conspiracy theory this is, and how much it's hard, oil-drilling science and fact. Gus Glasscock may have been the first to build an offshore platform, and he became rich from the oil he discovered. But this is a whole 'nother thing, an unmapped excursion into the unknown, while proven reserves dwindle.

I'm not saying we're on the eve of destruction; I just don't know where those incredible oceans of oil are, a million meters below us. Nor have you presented evidence - or proof - that wells are refilling. Even if they are slowly refilling, it may be due to normal pressures within the top of the earth's crust, in existing oil fields.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#14
Ah! John you've exhumed the late Dr Gold! :lol: Anyone interested in a broader understanding of the biotic/abiotic 'debate' might like to read these:

Energy Bulletin: The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy
The Oil Drum: Abiotic Snake Oil

It should be noted that petroleum geologists have been using the biotic model of oil formation to inform their approach to exploration with considerable success for the last sixty years or more,
none have switched to an abiotic model ~ go figure!
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#15
Lichtenstein, or is it Luxembourg, has bred some fine scientists, the Monsieur is an outstanding example.

You may choose to listen to the experts on this occasion, John. 8)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)