[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Monsterzuma]

the fact that the biggest upward divergence from the trend for the USA is a major world war shows you something is just terribly wrong with using GDP as a measure of wealth.

at best its a measure of cost and only derivatively of the capacity to pay it.

 

[Cutlass]

Spoiler :

 

[KMRblue1027]

Getting killed by lawnmowers . Do other counties even really use lawnmowers actively?

 

[Arwon]

the fact that the biggest upward divergence from the trend for the USA is a major world war shows you something is just terribly wrong with using GDP as a measure of wealth.

at best its a measure of cost and only derivatively of the capacity to pay it.

It isn't a measure of wealth. It's a measure of output.

 

[JohannaK]

I like Burma on that map

 

[Hygro]

the fact that the biggest upward divergence from the trend for the USA is a major world war shows you something is just terribly wrong with using GDP as a measure of wealth.

at best its a measure of cost and only derivatively of the capacity to pay it.

I'd argue quite the opposite. It's not GDP that's the problem, it's that we don't keep our economy in a full demand, full employment economy all the time. We did that during the war and it was so effective it not only pushed out our aggregate demand to the maximum but by directing money toward technology and automation it actually pushed out our aggregate supply which is pretty incredible.

What's wrong is that we only achieve our economic output best during wartime making weapons (and the tech/capital to build them).

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Romania #1 !
But i thought Korea beat us there.

 

[dutchfire]

the fact that the biggest upward divergence from the trend for the USA is a major world war shows you something is just terribly wrong with using GDP as a measure of wealth.

at best its a measure of cost and only derivatively of the capacity to pay it.

Point of divergence is the election of FDR.

 

[luiz]

Point of divergence is the election of FDR.

The story isnt't about what the US did, it's about how Argentina screwed up. After all the divergence was in relation to all developed countries. In fact it was in relation even to poor countries, since several who were much poorer than Argentina in 1900 are now richer (Chile, South Korea and the asian tigers in general, depending on the measure even Mexico).

 

[Tahuti]

The story isnt't about what the US did, it's about how Argentina screwed up. After all the divergence was in relation to all developed countries. In fact it was in relation even to poor countries, since several who were much poorer than Argentina in 1900 are now richer (Chile, South Korea and the asian tigers in general, depending on the measure even Mexico).

Wasn't Argentina on par with the wealthiest developed countries in the early 20th century? AFAIK, they screwed up because of protectionism and the like.

 

[Cutlass]

Wasn't Argentina on par with the wealthiest developed countries in the early 20th century? AFAIK, they screwed up because of protectionism and the like.

Argentina was well positioned economically around 1900 or so. But multiple factors ruined that. One was that Argentina relied on raw materials exports, and that is a notoriously fickle foundation for economic property in the long haul. The aftermath of WWII also didn't help, as Western European agricultural imports were then dominated by the US and Canada, costing Argentina markets. But the biggest and longest term problem Argentina had was near a century of failed governments.

 

[luiz]

Wasn't Argentina on par with the wealthiest developed countries in the early 20th century? AFAIK, they screwed up because of protectionism and the like.

What went wrong with Argentina was, in a word, Perón. Or more accurately, Peronism.

 

[Cutlass]

What went wrong with Argentina was, in a word, Perón. Or more accurately, Peronism.

It started well before Peron, and encompassed a lot more than him as well. It was essentially every leader of Argentina over the 20th century.

 

[luiz]

It started well before Peron, and encompassed a lot more than him as well. It was essentially every leader of Argentina over the 20th century.

Perón was the one who ruined it for them, though. I mean, Germany had Hitler and they recovered; Japan had the crazy militarists who destroyed the country and they recovered.

The problem with Peronism is not only the leader itself; the above countries had far worse leaders. The problem with Peronism is its state of mind; it continues to plague Argentina decades after the man's death. Argentina is so locked within Peronism that even the main opposition to the current Peronist president is also to be found within the Peronist party.

Countries can recover from wars, from maniac dictators and genocide. It's very hard to recover from such a rotten and persistent state of mind.

 

[Cutlass]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ter-concentration-of-conservative-christians/

 

[Cutlass]

Perón was the one who ruined it for them, though. I mean, Germany had Hitler and they recovered; Japan had the crazy militarists who destroyed the country and they recovered.

The problem with Peronism is not only the leader itself; the above countries had far worse leaders. The problem with Peronism is its state of mind; it continues to plague Argentina decades after the man's death. Argentina is so locked within Peronism that even the main opposition to the current Peronist president is also to be found within the Peronist party.

Countries can recover from wars, from maniac dictators and genocide. It's very hard to recover from such a rotten and persistent state of mind.

The place I got the graph had a lengthy discussion on the topic. Peron was not the biggest part of the problem. It both predates him, and has many factors unrelated to him. http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vj9oj/what_happened_to_argentina/

 

[luiz]

The place I got the graph had a lengthy discussion on the topic. Peron was not the biggest part of the problem. It both predates him, and has many factors unrelated to him. http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vj9oj/what_happened_to_argentina/

Of course, but every country had big problems throughout the 20th Century, including the US.

Argentina just couldn't cope with theirs, in huge part due to Peronism. I think a lot of the discussion there is misguided; some posters seem to think the problem was ISI wasn't taken far enough, while in reality the problem is they attempted ISI to begin with. A country with vast natural resources and a very low population density such as Argentina should embrace it's position as a commodity exporter, they were and could remain incredibly prosperous with that role - see Australia. Naturally some industry would develop around the main commodities, such as meat and minerals. Instead, they subsidized industries where they had no competitive advantage whatsoever, because Perón and co. believed that's what it takes to become a developed nation.

Argentina is rich by nature - it takes a big effort to keep them poor.

 

[El_Machinae]

Urg. Cannot find a median income graph for Argentina.

 

[Gigaz]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ter-concentration-of-conservative-christians/

This might not be much of an issue in this study but the divorce rate is obviously connected to the marriage rate. So does religion make people marry or does it make them divorce?

 

[Terrance888]

Maybe a better indicator is Divorces per Marriage? Even so, religion might force marriages to happen before the couple really gets to know each other. The average amount of time of courtship might also be an interesting statistic.