[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Takhisis]

What is that, El_Mac?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Change in average temperature from 1900 levels, I would assume.

 

[Domen]

No change in Antarctica?

 

[madviking]

Change in average temperature from 1900 levels, I would assume.

they have a lot of resolution for probably iffy data at best?

i mean who recording temperatures in siberia in the 1920s? americans?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I assume there would be weather stations in Siberia. Unfortunately we weren't given much more background on how they got the measurements.

 

[El_Machinae]

TED talk

 

[luiz]

Ireland: since the 2008 crisis, the public debt of this country has grown from 25% to now 120% of GDP. if this is an example of a strong recovery I'm at a loss to conceive of what a weak one looks like.

Italy: Italy is composed of more than just its Northern part; if you handpick sub-regions to argue a point you can do it to argue the opposing case just as easily.

France: it's also not wealthy enough to buck the trend significantly.

Austria, Belgium, Switzerland: this never was about catholicism

Ireland: GDP is growing, exports are growing, unemployment is high but finally going down, and the deficit is being tacked. Yes, it's still in a difficult situation, but fact is it is an extremely rich country with a per capita GDP on par with Europe's richest. How is that not an economic success story?

Italy: Fact is non-Germanic Northern Italy is very rich. If the Non-Germanic Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia had not been incorporated into Italy it would rank as one of Europe's richest (and even Italy overall is still a rich country). So if "Latin" or "Non-Germanic" culture is to blame here for economic failure I don't see how to explain Piedmont-Sardinia and the other northern Italian "republics".

France: It is bigger than the UK and just as rich on a per capita basis. That alone throws your theory under the bus, IMO.

 

[Mise]

I couldn't find median wages in the amount of time I was willing to spend looking, but here are the average annual wages per capita at PPP:

src: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AV_AN_WAGE

I would say that wages are a good indicator of how rich a nation is. I might even use actual wage rather than PPP, too.

EDIT: here is that too:

I can't figure out which of these two graphs is better, as they both place the UK above France

EDIT: I suppose the proper way of doing this is to download them to excel, label them all by their language group and take the population-weighted average of each group to see who wins.

 

[luiz]

I can't figure out which of these two graphs is better, as they both place the UK above France

First one if you want to know how rich the people actually are. Making a lot of money isn't that good if you have to spend it all just on rent and taxes. That's why it's much better to make 55K per year in the US than in Norway, even more so if you live in a cheap state like Texas.

 

[Monsterzuma]

are healthcare and tuition accounted for in the purchasing power adjustment?

and yes, rent/housing?

 

[Mise]

Probably not, but we're talking about Ireland vs Germany vs Italy etc aren't we? I don't think it's obvious that Ireland is poorer than Germany or the UK, despite its recent economic troubles. Both graphs put Ireland a long way ahead of most major European nations.

 

[luiz]

are healthcare and tuition accounted for in the purchasing power adjustment?

and yes, rent/housing?

They are, which is why the US is on the top of the first graph even though other countries have higher nominal wages. The average american wage can buy more stuff despite not being the highest in nominal terms.

But Mise is right, the main point here is that Ireland is a very rich country.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was looking for median wage growth in France the other day, but I couldn't find it!

And then there's the super-hard adjustment of 'after tax and redistribution' stat. Try putting universal health care on that! Old age pension? Easy peasy.

 

[Domen]

Coming back to Polish GDP per capita - growth in period 1989 to 2011 / 2012 (where 1989 level = 100):

So if 1989 level was 100 then 2012 level was 200 - and here is how it compares with other EU countries:

When it comes to funds from the EU - Czech Rep., Hungary and Slovakia are all receiving more funds per capita than Poland.

So the fact that Poland receives (since 2004) some EU funds doesn't explain the extraordinary growth speed of its economy.

Other states are receiving more funds per capita, but their GDP per capita is growing slower than Polish.

 

[Monsterzuma]

They are, which is why the US is on the top of the first graph even though other countries have higher nominal wages. The average american wage can buy more stuff despite not being the highest in nominal terms.

But Mise is right, the main point here is that Ireland is a very rich country.

You've got it backwards, accounting for tuition and healthcare costs would lower the purchasing power of dollars earned in the US, as those are typically disproportionally high there.

As to Ireland, it's a mystery why it even gets so much attention in this discussion because it's not in any of the language blocks that were alleged to be economically challenged. And these statistics only demonstrate a fact I've expressed from the start: it's a finance sector economy with inflated GDP. The flipside of those high income figures is the debt growth on the basis of which it is generated. Ireland has over twice the level of debt of a typical European country in all sectors:

http://www.businessinsider.com/port...levels-are-far-worse-than-ever-greece-2010-11
http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2013/05/Raab-debt.png
http://images.forbes.com/media/maga...-sovereign-debt-bank-assets-chart_398x325.jpg

It's "reflation" has been achieved by a growth of public debt from 25% to 120% since the 2007-2008 crisis, so to say it's out of the woods is an absurdity. It's barely at all impressive that it's managed to stay on it's feet by suffering such treasury expenses.

 

[Cutlass]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...how-americas-poor-can-still-be-rich-in-stuff/

 

[El_Machinae]

Wild! It certainly has felt like car repair has gotten more expensive.

 

[Mise]

How are TVs at -110% points or so? How does this work? All goods have gone up by +23%, but TVs have gone up by +23-110 = -87%? TVs are 87% cheaper than they were in 2005???

Wait, are they looking at literally an identical TV model? So, say, a TV that in 2005 would have cost $1000 now costs ~$230 for the same 2005 model?

 

[El_Machinae]

I hate when people go backwards with multiplication. I find it so confusing. What's 87% cheaper? 13% the original cost?

My pet peeve: I'm twice as short as you.
What?!? And then, there are so many variants of that, where I tilt my head trying to figure out what they're saying.

Mise: it's gotta be that you can now buy a 2005 TV for pennies on the dollar. TVs were $80 back then, and are still $80 when you buy the modern model.

My cell service is now more expensive than it was back then, but now I have unlimited texting, unlimited photos, unlimited daytime longdistance (within Canada), so that's hella hard to measure..

 

[Mise]

I take "x% cheaper" to mean "x% reduction in price", so yeah, 13% of its original cost.