#11
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
In rec.arts.sf.science Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
You're correct, but you use words with many syllables, which may, in this case, hamper understanding. Here's my take: When a statistic says that a chinese makes $500 when you correct for purchasing-power, what it means is this: The chinese gets a salary that -in-china- buys aproximately the same amount of items and services as $500 would in USA. It does -not- mean that he could exchange his salary for dollars and end up with 500 of them. Infact where he to do that he'd end up with aproximately $170. $170 in china buys about the same amount of -stuff- as $500 in USA, that's what purchasing parity means. Thanks, that is a good explanation. Offcourse this depends -hugely- on what items an services are included in the standard basket, so it's not really an objective measurement. I'm certain a haircut costs -less- than 1/3rd in china from USA, while the price-difference for for example a modern computer is much smaller. It's not objective, but for comparing relative wealth it is still better than comparing nominal GDP. Knowing how much you each can buy is much more useful than knowing what you each can exchange your money for, even if it's still vague. Like any comparison between countries, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. To illustrate, when I'm in China I hardly think about the cost of eating in a restaurant because it's ridiculously cheap, whereas I try to avoid it in the US. On the other hand, I have an expensive hobby, and on a really bad weekend I can easily spend more than my Chinese waiter would make in a month on it, but it doesn't drive me into bankruptcy (yet!). Somehow it doesn't surprise me that our enterprising multi-billionaire is unaware of this. Seems about par for the course. His modus operandi seems to be to choose the assumptions and statistics which are most favorable to his cause. The fact that some of them end up being just plain wrong when used for those purposes is just a trifling problem. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Laws of Nature | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 0 | January 2nd 07 10:31 PM |
80/f5 For the In-Laws | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 3rd 05 12:55 AM |
IP in china worse than no laws at all | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 24th 05 03:02 AM |
Kepler's laws and trajectories | tetrahedron | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 27th 04 05:31 AM |
Kepler's laws | Michael McNeil | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 23rd 04 04:45 PM |