Usually divided into a nations GDP we get some number based on the size of the population and then compare it to another nation apparently this is supposed to show the health of the economy and standard of living of the population in reality this number tells us nothing.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP based on a nations total economic activity representing the monetary value of all goods and services produced within that country.

As an example let’s take one element of GDP in Australian wine exports year ending 2017 were $2.56 billion.

Australia’s population 24 million.

Now if we divide the wine exports by Australia’s population what do we get….???

2,560,000,000 / 24,000,000 =  106.7

Are we all richer by $106.7 dollars…?? Because of the wine exports, were the dividends distributed evenly to the Australia population…??

It’s meaningless number that tells us nothing about the health and state of the population, the wine or the money.

There's my con....!!!

Where's your pro...???

Own words please.

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? You can import any wine they don't make locally, if you can afford it.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 12:33pm:

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? You can import any wine they don't make locally, if you can afford it.

It all depends on the size of the population as well as how high the GDP.

Australia GDP 1.2 trillion

Australian Population 24 million

1200,000,000,000 = 50,000
       24,000,000

Average wage in Australia = $80,000 per annum

Qatar GDP 152.5 Billion

Qatari Population 2.52 Million

152,500,000,000 = 60515
       2,520,000

Average wage in Qatar = $138,000 per annum

Nigeria GDP 405.1 Billion

Nigerian Population 186 Million

405,100,000,000 = 2178
       186,000,000

Average wage in Nigeria = $3600 per annum


Not convinced.

So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:07pm:

So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person?

Never said that, all I'm saying is as the title suggests its a meaningless statistic as the following proves.

USA GDP 18.57 trillion

USA Population 325.7 million

18,570,000,000,000 = 57015
       325,700,000

Average wage in USA = $81,000 per annum

GDP per capita is a far more accurate measure than the flat GDP that is currently used.
Politicians currently use immigration to artificially inflate the GDP figure.
Is GDP per capita perfect? No, but it is more useful than just a GDP figure

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:07pm:

So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person?

wouldn't that only be meaningful if the country was communist and every person got the same share......A few really rich getting heaps and everyone else crap will still be the same gross wont it ?
so a more equal gross product thats lower would be better for all , than a high gross product when only a few get it all the rest a crumb... wouldnt it ?
. ;) ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

GDP per capita is a far more accurate measure than the flat GDP that is currently used. Politicians currently use immigration to artificially inflate the GDP figure. Is GDP per capita perfect? No, but it is more useful than just a GDP figure

How is it more useful....???

What does it tell me more than just the total GDP figure...??

Current Australian labor participation rate is 65.6%.

Panther's calculation GDP per capita factored by labor participation rate $50,000/0.656 = $ 76, 219 (Panther's AUD 80,000 is the median wage, not the average wage).

From Wikipedia Australia GDP per capita 49,927.82 USD = 65,693 AUD (2016)

You don't have to calculate GDP per capita it is already provided on the internet.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-per-capita

Average wage is around AUD 74,000 (AUD 1432.6 per week, 52 weeks) https://www.businessinsider.com.au/average-australian-weekly-pay-2018-2

There are still discrepancies between the various values which are not explained.

Could it be double counting of Two-headed Tasmanians?

Ajax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 1:07pm: So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person? Never said that, all I'm saying is as the title suggests its a meaningless statistic as the following proves. USA GDP 18.57 trillion USA Population 325.7 million 18,570,000,000,000 = 57015        325,700,000 Average wage in USA = $81,000 per annum

So all you are prepared to say is what you suggested with the title of the thread? Why not just answer the question?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000?

Does it really depend on the size of the country? If so, how?


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 1:07pm: So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person? wouldn't that only be meaningful if the country was communist and every person got the same share......A few really rich getting heaps and everyone else crap will still be the same gross wont it ? so a more equal gross product thats lower would be better for all , than a high gross product when only a few get it all the rest a crumb... wouldnt it ? . ;) ;)

Another one who cannot possibly answer the question?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

So all you are prepared to say is what you suggested with the title of the thread? Why not just answer the question? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? Does it really depend on the size of the country? If so, how?

The simple answer fd is i would like to live in a country which i do with a big GDP turnover and a low population.

Like some of the examples i have given above.

Ajax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 6:46pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:22pm: So all you are prepared to say is what you suggested with the title of the thread? Why not just answer the question? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? Does it really depend on the size of the country? If so, how? The simple answer fd is i would like to live in a country which i do with a big GDP turnover and a low population. Like some of the examples i have given above.

So to back up the idiotic claim in your thread title you will feign inability to answer a hypothetical question?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 6:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:22pm: So all you are prepared to say is what you suggested with the title of the thread? Why not just answer the question? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? Does it really depend on the size of the country? If so, how? The simple answer fd is i would like to live in a country which i do with a big GDP turnover and a low population. Like some of the examples i have given above. So to back up the idiotic claim in your thread title you will feign inability to answer a hypothetical question?

Ok plain answer is of course I would choose a country with GDP per capita $100,000 over a country with GDP per capita $100.

BUT it doesn't necessary mean life will be good because this statistic doesn't tell you very much as has been my point all along.

Ajax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 7:12pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:52pm: Ajax wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 6:22pm: So all you are prepared to say is what you suggested with the title of the thread? Why not just answer the question? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? Does it really depend on the size of the country? If so, how? The simple answer fd is i would like to live in a country which i do with a big GDP turnover and a low population. Like some of the examples i have given above. So to back up the idiotic claim in your thread title you will feign inability to answer a hypothetical question? Ok plain answer is of course I would choose a country with GDP per capita $100,000 over a country with GDP per capita $100. BUT it doesn't necessary mean life will be good because this statistic doesn't tell you very much as has been my point all along.

Is it meaningless?

Ajax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 12:01pm:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP based on a nations total economic activity representing the monetary value of all goods and services produced within that country. As an example let’s take one element of GDP in Australian wine exports year ending 2017 were $2.56 billion. Australia’s population 24 million. Now if we divide the wine exports by Australia’s population what do we get….??? 2,560,000,000 / 24,000,000 =  106.7 Are we all richer by $106.7 dollars…?? Because of the wine exports, were the dividends distributed evenly to the Australia population…??

I think you should think of it like the wine industry making the $2.5 billion dollars. Which means that the employees creating the wine are able to spend/invest that $2.5 billion dollars throughout the country.

We are richer overall in an average. But the money is still in the hands of the wine industry.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 1:07pm: So living in a large country with a GDP of $100 per person would be preferable to you to living in a small country with a GDP of $100000 per person? wouldn't that only be meaningful if the country was communist and every person got the same share......A few really rich getting heaps and everyone else crap will still be the same gross wont it ? so a more equal gross product thats lower would be better for all , than a high gross product when only a few get it all the rest a crumb... wouldnt it ? . ;) ;)

That is basically how oil producing countries are with their GDP. The rich CEOs are living in luxury. Meanwhile, the oil workers are on a wage equivalent to what $10/hr would be here. Working long hours week in and week out to make a reasonable living. Whilst the company sells the oil for cheap, though making good profits, the importers slap their taxes and all the associated costs for the sake of making themselves rich.

Nigeria and Saudi Arabia do that.

The Saudis are doing OK. They rank 26 on median income - about a third of what ours is.

Valkie wrote on Jun 12^th, 2018 at 7:40pm:

If you look at Australia's emissions And compare them to China The United States England How much do we put out in comparison? That's all that matters Not some twisted ideology about per capita. Wake up and smell the roses

It's not an ideology Valkie. It's an equation.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

It's not an ideology Valkie. It's an equation.

It has no meaning in the real world. Saudi princes get megamillions from the sale of oil. Of course the workers get less. Working out per capita income would mean the workers on paper would be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

No it wouldn't. It would tell you what the per capita income is. It comes to about a third of ours. You have to be pretty desperate for that to be your wildest dream.

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 7:23am:

No it wouldn't. It would tell you what the per capita income is.

The per capita income includes that income of the Saudi princes. Which is then generously, on paper, spread to the workers.

Unless of course the Saudi princes are exempt from being included in the income stakes.

So what? No-one is saying that per capita income implies communism.

Saudi Arabia ranks 36th in the world on per capita GDP, and 26th in the world on median income. So they actually share their wealth more evenly than what is typical.

Do you have an actual criticism of per capita GDP, or do you just like pointing out the bleeding obvious?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 3:22pm:

So what? No-one is saying that per capita income implies communism.

Wow. talk about things not said. ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 3:22pm:

Saudi Arabia ranks 36th in the world on per capita GDP, and 26th in the world on median income. So they actually share their wealth more evenly than what is typical.

So they get up to 36th, when they include the Saudi princes income. What would it fall to if they didn't?

As to your last statement that is supposition. Bye.

Quote:

As to your last statement that is supposition. Bye.

What other conclusion would you draw? Do you know what median means?

Saudi Arabia ranks 36th in the world on per capita GDP, and 26th in the world on median income. So they actually share their wealth more evenly than what is typical.

Quote:

Limitations of Income Per Capita Because income per capita is the overall income of a population divided by the number of people included in the population, the figure does not always give an accurate representation of the quality of life due to the function's inability to account for skewed data. Specifically, the metric does not account for the effects of income inequality. For instance, if there is an area where 50 people are making $1 million per year, and 1,000 people are making $100 per year, the per capita income is $47,714, but that does not give a true picture of the living conditions of the entire population.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-per-capita.asp

Back to stating the obvious eh? Do you agree that this is BS:


lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2018 at 9:53pm:

It has no meaning in the real world.

Lees post sums it up perfect.

See below.


lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 5:49pm:

Quote: Limitations of Income Per Capita Because income per capita is the overall income of a population divided by the number of people included in the population, the figure does not always give an accurate representation of the quality of life due to the function's inability to account for skewed data. Specifically, the metric does not account for the effects of income inequality. For instance, if there is an area where 50 people are making $1 million per year, and 1,000 people are making $100 per year, the per capita income is $47,714, but that does not give a true picture of the living conditions of the entire population. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/income-per-capita.asp

So why are unable to give a straight answer?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000?

Quote:

For instance, if there is an area where 50 people are making $1 million per year, and 1,000 people are making $100 per year, the per capita income is $47,714, but that does not give a true picture of the living conditions of the entire population.

So you believe in the median?


An example -

4000, 6000, 20,000, 150,000. 4,800,000.

The median is the middle number of the group. IE  20,000.

Quote:

So you believe in the median?

This isn't religion lee. Can you at least try to make sense?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

This isn't religion lee. Can you at least try to make sense?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 4:30pm:

Saudi Arabia ranks 36th in the world on per capita GDP, and 26th in the world on median income. So they actually share their wealth more evenly than what is typical.

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:25pm:

So you believe in the median? An example - 4000, 6000, 20,000, 150,000. 4,800,000. The median is the middle number of the group. IE  20,000.

Means you speak Bull sh!t. 

If a country had a per capita GDP of $100 and my income was $100,000; I could probably live comfortably.

Of course per capita income has no bearing on living expenses.

Quote:

If a country had a per capita GDP of $100 and my income was $100,000; I could probably live comfortably.

Still can't give a straight answer eh? How is it that you are able to say anything at all about the country if the statistic you are given is meaningless?

Assume you have to rely on your own wits rather than wishful thinking to earn a living and you are born into this country.

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000?


Quote:

Of course per capita income has no bearing on living expenses.

Are you honestly claiming that a country with a per capita income of $100 will have the same living expenses as one with a per capita income of $100,000? What rock are you living under?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Still can't give a straight answer eh?

Why should I it has no meaning. I live in Australia, I am happy to live in Australia.

If you want advice on immigration go to someone who either cares or for the right money pretends to care.


freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

How is it that you are able to say anything at all about the country if the statistic you are given is meaningless?

As I and others have pointed out it doesn't say anything about the country. That's your obsession.

Quote:

As I and others have pointed out it doesn't say anything about the country.

So how do you know you could live quite comfortably on $100000 in a country with a per capita income of $100?

Let's try again for a straight answer shall we? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

Have you painted yourself into the idiots corner to make some kind of point about climate change?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:19pm:

Quote: As I and others have pointed out it doesn't say anything about the country. So how do you know you could live quite comfortably on $100000 in a country with a per capita income of $100? Let's try again for a straight answer shall we? Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

Do you uphold the use of straight answers in your campaign against the Muselman? Do you uphold the right to be a pathetic spineless jellyfish?

We're curious. We're keen to hear your thoughts.

You?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:

Have you painted yourself into the idiots corner to make some kind of point about climate change?

Have you been thrown onto a wall and landed with a splat?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:

Have you painted yourself into the idiots corner to make some kind of point about climate change?

Why? What metric would you look for? Temperature increase per capita? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:19pm:

So how do you know you could live quite comfortably on $100000 in a country with a per capita income of $100?

You did notice the qualifier? "probably". That denotes uncertainty. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2018 at 9:19pm: So how do you know you could live quite comfortably on $100000 in a country with a per capita income of $100? You did notice the qualifier? "probably". That denotes uncertainty. ;)

So when you say you are uncertain, you mean you know nothing at all?

Why are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 10:06pm:

So when you say you are uncertain, you mean you know nothing at all?

About as much as you apparently. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee is a troll!

go lee, you make the internet baby yay!

Lee why are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2018 at 12:19pm:

Lee why are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

Who denies the climate changes? it has done so for millions of years.

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!
NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!




NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!







NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!





NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!
NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!




NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!







NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!


NO STATISTIC IS MEANINGLESS!

YES, I WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN!!

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2018 at 12:19pm: Lee why are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier? Who denies the climate changes? it has done so for millions of years.

Do you know what a climate change denier is Lee?

Why are you incapable of giving a straight answer? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Do you know what a climate change denier is Lee?

A "climate change denier" must by its very definition be a person who denies climate changes.

Of course you are free to submit your own definition. It won't hold water. But it may make you fell comfortable. ;)

Why are you incapable of giving a straight answer Lee? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2018 at 8:22am:

Why are you incapable of giving a straight answer Lee? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier?

I told you what a climate change denier is. You have posted no proof of me being anything.

It seems you are not capable of logical thought.


freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2018 at 8:22am:

Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living?

I already answered that question. Too bad if the answer didn't agree with your preconceptions.

lee thinks he's a big swinging d*** but he just loves daddykins a bit too much and gets away with a doing nothing his whole life  ;D

Ajax wrote on Jun 11^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2018 at 12:33pm: Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000? You can import any wine they don't make locally, if you can afford it. It all depends on the size of the population as well as how high the GDP. Australia GDP 1.2 trillion Australian Population 24 million 1200,000,000,000 = 50,000        24,000,000 Average wage in Australia = $80,000 per annum Qatar GDP 152.5 Billion Qatari Population 2.52 Million 152,500,000,000 = 60515        2,520,000 Average wage in Qatar = $138,000 per annum Nigeria GDP 405.1 Billion Nigerian Population 186 Million 405,100,000,000 = 2178        186,000,000 Average wage in Nigeria = $3600 per annum Not convinced.

Qatar's a Muslim country, Ajax. You need a different measure.

Can you post the inbreeding map please, FD?

lee wrote on Jun 15^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2018 at 6:18pm: Do you know what a climate change denier is Lee? A "climate change denier" must by its very definition be a person who denies climate changes. Of course you are free to submit your own definition. It won't hold water. But it may make you fell comfortable. ;)

It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes.
Don't  try to be cute.

lee wrote on Jun 16^th, 2018 at 11:50am:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 8:22am: Why are you incapable of giving a straight answer Lee? Is this idiocy something to do with being a climate change denier? I told you what a climate change denier is. You have posted no proof of me being anything. It seems you are not capable of logical thought. freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 8:22am: Would you rather live in a country with a per capita GDP of $100 or $100000, assuming you have to actually work for a living? I already answered that question. Too bad if the answer didn't agree with your preconceptions.

You invented a different question to answer instead Lee. Now why would a climate change denier be so afraid to answer this one?

Freediver people who don't agree with the AGW hypothesis are not climate change deniers, climate change has been with us from day dot when we were a molten piece of rock.

Climate change will be with us until the sun becomes a red giant and the Earth as we know it ceases to exist in about 5 billion years.

We don't deny that climate changes its been happening in all of our history, how can someone deny climate change.

The crux of the argument is does the trace gas CO2 increase global mean average temperature.....??

Once again if we look into our history there is strong evidence that CO2 and temperature don't correlate.

So when these people on the AGW gravy train tell us that CO2 and temperature do correlate its like they are pissing down your back and telling you keep looking straight ahead its just raining............. >:(

https://image.ibb.co/cQ2VZd/iceage_01.jpg

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 8:31am:

You invented a different question to answer instead Lee. Now why would a climate change denier be so afraid to answer this one?

Which question? You have asked so many and I have answered so many.

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 11:41am:

freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2018 at 8:31am: You invented a different question to answer instead Lee. Now why would a climate change denier be so afraid to answer this one? Which question? You have asked so many and I have answered so many.

lol, and lee can add so many strawmans the internet explodes into a million pisstakes of fake journalism,... I mean OPINION!

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN BLAME THE DREGS OF COURSE... WE'RE ALL TROLLS!

GO COPPER INTERNET FOR INSTANCE  :D :D

     ***  (DID I JUST WIN THE INTERNET AGAIN  ;) YAY ME!!!)

Frank wrote on Jun 16^th, 2018 at 10:39pm:

lee wrote on Jun 15th, 2018 at 6:22pm: freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2018 at 6:18pm: Do you know what a climate change denier is Lee? A "climate change denier" must by its very definition be a person who denies climate changes. Of course you are free to submit your own definition. It won't hold water. But it may make you fell comfortable. ;) It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes. Don't  try to be cute.

DREGS ARE CUTE: AFTER ALL WE'RE ALL SCUM WHO HAVE KIDS FOR NO REASON AREN'T WE?

Frank wrote on Jun 16^th, 2018 at 10:39pm:

It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes.

So you are giving the phrase special meaning. Not one where the words are used in its normal pattern.

But - please quote where I have said that man has not impacted climate.

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 10:39pm: It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes. So you are giving the phrase special meaning. Not one where the words are used in its normal pattern. But - please quote where I have said that man has not impacted climate.

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D





Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D








Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently yet knows everything else about scientific method,... once again apparently  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently

You mean like "you are a d*ck" that's nomenclature.

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 17th, 2018 at 1:12pm: Lee has never heard of nomenclature apparently You mean like "you are a d*ck" that's nomenclature.

lee always had nothing on me!

:D

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 1:18pm:

lee always had nothing on me!

Thank god for that. Never wanted to.

Lee and Ajax, did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing.

Does that have any meaning?

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 1:07pm:

Lee and Ajax, did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing. Does that have any meaning?

What meaning do you want it to have? ;)

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 1:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2018 at 1:07pm: Lee and Ajax, did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing. Does that have any meaning? What meaning do you want it to have? ;)

Anything other than zero  ;D

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 1:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2018 at 1:07pm: Lee and Ajax, did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing. Does that have any meaning? What meaning do you want it to have? ;)

You feel challenged, we can see that.

And have no idea what the politikalli korrekt response is.

Can't think for yourself, you can only parrot the received party line.  Pathetic.

Frank wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

You feel challenged, we can see that. And have no idea what the politikalli korrekt response is. Can't think for yourself, you can only parrot the received party line.  Pathetic.

Thank you for your considered input. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe you would like to respond to freediver; it is an open forum after all. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 17^th, 2018 at 1:10pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 10:39pm: It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes. So you are giving the phrase special meaning. Not one where the words are used in its normal pattern. But - please quote where I have said that man has not impacted climate.

At ease, Bwian.

You are getting lost in your own confusion.

Frank wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 8:33pm:

At ease, Bwian. You are getting lost in your own confusion.

What a dick. No clue. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 1:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2018 at 1:07pm: Lee and Ajax, did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing. Does that have any meaning? What meaning do you want it to have? ;)

Ah, another question the climate change deniers cannot answer.

So tell us Lee, do you think we should increase immigration because it increases GDP? Or decrease immigration because it is reducing per capita GDP?

What does the idiots guide to climate change tell you?

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

Ah, another question the climate change deniers cannot answer.

You haven't shown me to be anything. Just more nonsensical blather.


freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

So tell us Lee, do you think we should increase immigration because it increases GDP? Or decrease immigration because it is reducing per capita GDP?

Seeing as Australia is an ageing nation, with a low birthrate, I see no problem with sustained immigration.


freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

What does the idiots guide to climate change tell you?

That you were looking at it. I don't know where to find it.

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/clip_image002_thumb-5.jpg

Satellite temperatures Australia 1978 - 2018. UAH.

Frank wrote on Jun 18^th, 2018 at 8:33pm:

lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2018 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 10:39pm: It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes. So you are giving the phrase special meaning. Not one where the words are used in its normal pattern. But - please quote where I have said that man has not impacted climate. At ease, Bwian. You are getting lost in your own confusion.

Is lee actually brian?

No smacking wonder the c-words a retard ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  ::)

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 19^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 18th, 2018 at 8:33pm: lee wrote on Jun 17th, 2018 at 1:10pm: Frank wrote on Jun 16th, 2018 at 10:39pm: It means someone who doesn't  accept human responsibility for climate change, not someone who denies that the climate never changes. So you are giving the phrase special meaning. Not one where the words are used in its normal pattern. But - please quote where I have said that man has not impacted climate. At ease, Bwian. You are getting lost in your own confusion. Is lee actually brian? No smacking wonder the c-words a retard ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  ::)

They are ALL Bwian.

Quote:

Seeing as Australia is an ageing nation, with a low birthrate, I see no problem with sustained immigration.

Do you understand what this means Lee?

Did you know that while Australia's GDP has been slowly increasing, because of high immigration, the per capita GDP has been decreasing.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Do you understand what this means Lee?

Yes. Why don't you. Australia has an ageing population . Means they are getting older. That more people are retiring than entering the workforce. That we need more immigrants so that we older Australians can get a pension otherwise it will fall on fewer and fewer.

I know what it means. I'm just not sure how you know what a meaningless statistic means.

Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

lee wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2018 at 3:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2018 at 8:50pm: Do you understand what this means Lee? Yes. Why don't you. Australia has an ageing population . Means they are getting older. That more people are retiring than entering the workforce. That we need more immigrants so that we older Australians can get a pension otherwise it will fall on fewer and fewer.

We need more immigration because ?

TheFunPolice wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2018 at 3:17pm:

We need more immigration because ?

We need more workers to pay for more civil servants. ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2018 at 3:06pm:

I know what it means.

BLOODY MARVELLOUS. ;)


freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2018 at 3:06pm:

I'm just not sure how you know what a meaningless statistic means.

Is an ageing population a meaningless statistic?


freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2018 at 3:06pm:

Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

How does a per capita GDP help your personal quality of life if your actual income is one third of per capita GDP.

Quote:

How does a per capita GDP help your personal quality of life if your actual income is one third of per capita GDP.

Hmmmm. Tricky question there. I think you got me. Tell me, which would you prefer, a third of $100,000 or a third of $1000?

Let's try again for a straight answer eh?

Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 8:38am:

Hmmmm. Tricky question there. I think you got me. Tell me, which would you prefer, a third of $100,000 or a third of $1000?

Well, I for one would prefer the $100,000. But that isn't per capita; is it? There is no relationship to GDP either.


freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 8:38am:

Let's try again for a straight answer eh?

They have been straight answers, they just don't fit into the ones YOU want.


freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 8:38am:

Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

My income gives me a very good indication of my quality of life. Per capita doesn't even rate.

lee wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 12:23pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Hmmmm. Tricky question there. I think you got me. Tell me, which would you prefer, a third of $100,000 or a third of $1000? Well, I for one would prefer the $100,000. But that isn't per capita; is it? There is no relationship to GDP either. freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Let's try again for a straight answer eh? They have been straight answers, they just don't fit into the ones YOU want. freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP? My income gives me a very good indication of my quality of life. Per capita doesn't even rate.

::)

lee wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 12:23pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Hmmmm. Tricky question there. I think you got me. Tell me, which would you prefer, a third of $100,000 or a third of $1000? Well, I for one would prefer the $100,000. But that isn't per capita; is it? There is no relationship to GDP either. freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Let's try again for a straight answer eh? They have been straight answers, they just don't fit into the ones YOU want. freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2018 at 8:38am: Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP? My income gives me a very good indication of my quality of life. Per capita doesn't even rate.

Still can't manage a straight answer eh? Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

Which do you think is a better indicator of our quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

Hey FD I think you are a fanatic when it comes to neo liberalism.

Below is why the per capita statistic is as useless as the tits on a bull.


Quote:

For instance, if there is an area where 50 people are making $1 million per year, and 1,000 people are making $100 per year, the per capita income is $47,714, but that does not give a true picture of the living conditions of the entire population.

Ajax that doesn't explain your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Which do you think is a better indicator of quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

Ajax that doesn't explain your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question. Which do you think is a better indicator of quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

Not too keen to read through six pages of diatribe, but has anyone mentioned the multiplier effect yet?

Ajax wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 11:07am:

Hey FD I think you are a fanatic when it comes to neo liberalism. Below is why the per capita statistic is as useless as the tits on a bull. Quote: For instance, if there is an area where 50 people are making $1 million per year, and 1,000 people are making $100 per year, the per capita income is $47,714, but that does not give a true picture of the living conditions of the entire population.

Wow, localised stories,.... made up ones at that: yeh, you've a sharp tool bruther!!!!!!

Ohhhhhhhhhh, loooooooooook out: batman with a crack pipe might be on the prowl replete with his mating laughing his ass off at him!


  *** oh, why doesn't everyone aspire to be like batman in a crackpipe I wonder  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 12:27pm:

Ajax that doesn't explain your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question. Which do you think is a better indicator of quality of life? Total or per capita GDP?

Ajax has a razor sharp tool at his dispoal brospeh so I'M JUST WARNING YOU TO LOOK OUT BRA... that biatch has claws (...oh lookout, mmmmmm mm!  ::)  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?  ;D :D ;) :)  ;D ;D) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :D

Imrah wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2018 at 12:27pm: Ajax that doesn't explain your fear of giving a straight answer to a simple question. Which do you think is a better indicator of quality of life? Total or per capita GDP? Not too keen to read through six pages of diatribe, but has anyone mentioned the multiplier effect yet?

Yeh, go name dropping: you're like a bomb you are cuz   :D