Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 May '09 10:25
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    (oil economies are the occasional exceptions for brief periods of time)
    Even the Scandanavian countries that socialists love to cite have been reforming their economies and Sweden is one example of an economy that has privatized pensions.

    Not to blame them. The rankings of income per capita worldwide correlate with capitalism and freeom.

    http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx

    ...but enough of my own assertions and analysis to start the debating, the question is:

    WHY THE CORRELATION?

    Capitalists, socialists, everyone please strike with your best shot.
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 May '09 10:59
    An interesting exercise:

    Go to their data explorer, select all countries and sort by score on Government Size. High values indicate small government size. The top ten are:

    1. Burma
    2. Liberia
    3. Cambodja
    4. Bangladesh
    5. Central African Republic
    6. Haiti
    7. Singapore
    8. Cameroon
    9. Turkmenistan
    10. Guatemala
  3. 18 May '09 11:42
    Originally posted by Palynka
    An interesting exercise:

    Go to their data explorer, select all countries and sort by score on Government Size. High values indicate small government size. The top ten are:

    1. Burma
    2. Liberia
    3. Cambodja
    4. Bangladesh
    5. Central African Republic
    6. Haiti
    7. Singapore
    8. Cameroon
    9. Turkmenistan
    10. Guatemala
    And so tiny countries signify what?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 May '09 11:48
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    And so tiny countries signify what?
    A flaw in your argument, perhaps. Bangladesh is the 7th biggest country in the world.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    18 May '09 11:48
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    And so tiny countries signify what?
    You like to change the rules of the game, don't you?
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    18 May '09 12:16
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    And so tiny countries signify what?
    I rest my case.
  7. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    18 May '09 12:21
    PWNED! Lulz
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 May '09 05:47
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    Capitalists, socialists, everyone please strike with your best shot.
    Ouch!

    This Thread died a death and didn't hang about doing so.

    I give eljefejesus currently a 4 on a scale of 1-10. If he stops taking talking pure boggle-eyedish for a moment and takes a slightly more mature view of the world and of the perceptions and experiences of his interlocutors, he could easily become a 6 or 7 almost instantly.
  9. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    19 May '09 07:25
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    (oil economies are the occasional exceptions for brief periods of time)
    Even the Scandanavian countries that socialists love to cite have been reforming their economies and Sweden is one example of an economy that has privatized pensions.

    Not to blame them. The rankings of inc ...[text shortened]...

    WHY THE CORRELATION?

    Capitalists, socialists, everyone please strike with your best shot.
    Does the correlation take into account the 10% elite who own 90%
    of the wealth? If so, how would it look with these people taken out?
  10. 19 May '09 08:22
    Originally posted by FMF
    A flaw in your argument, perhaps. Bangladesh is the 7th biggest country in the world.
    LOL! and if they're mostly tiny countries, but you find a couple of big ones, then that makes his weak argument somehow less subject to exposure?
  11. 19 May '09 08:22
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You like to change the rules of the game, don't you?
    Let's state the rules. How about the correlation I pointed out, why are all of you avoiding discussion on the main initial point? Scarrrrred?
  12. 19 May '09 08:24
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I rest my case.
    It's best that you do, since you avoided the correlation I pointed out by making a meaningless list of predominantly emerging countries from area like africa and south asia. What size governments did you expect them to have? That is not the same as economic freedom or capitalism.

    I challenge you, let's look where they fall on the index of economic freedom, shall we?
  13. 19 May '09 08:25
    Originally posted by Seitse
    PWNED! Lulz
    What Seitse? You speak of nothing. You're tired of losing at debate, I see.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 May '09 08:27
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    LOL! and if they're mostly tiny countries, but you find a couple of big ones, then that makes his weak argument somehow less subject to exposure?
    Yes it does. You put it better than I did. Thanks
  15. 19 May '09 08:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    Ouch!

    This Thread died a death and didn't hang about doing so.

    I give eljefejesus currently a 4 on a scale of 1-10. If he stops taking talking pure boggle-eyedish for a moment and takes a slightly more mature view of the world and of the perceptions and experiences of his interlocutors, he could easily become a 6 or 7 almost instantly.
    LOL, I knew you would take that quote of mine about your debating ranking of 4 personally.