It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would love to disprove the GDP comparisons.

As I'm sure you would.



deconstructing disinformation may be appropriate.

can you help ?





posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I've provided all the information required:

he GDP of the UK in 2012 was 2.435 TRILLION USD. (Source)

California is the US state with the highest GDP which is listed at 1.95 TRILLION USD. (Source)

That second list shows that technically the UK is the 7th most productive country in THE WORLD.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And that first source also says;



GDP per capita
38,919.60 USD ‎(2012)



Nelson has that same number somewhere.

Hmmm.

maybe we need to look at just what all these percentages mean in the first place ?




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

And that first source also says;



GDP per capita
38,919.60 USD ‎(2012)



Nelson has that same number somewhere.

Hmmm.

maybe we need to look at just what all these percentages mean in the first place ?



What help do you require?

GDP divided by population yields the raw figure of GDP per capita.

US GDP per capita by state

By several diffrent measures, UK per capita is better than 13 US states.

Your OP is still grossly incorrect. And you know it.
edit on 19Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:39:02 -050014p072014866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
GDP is not a measure of the standard of living or personal income in an economy. It is the measure of the size of the economy, via the value added through production etc. It can be assumed that people would benefit from an economy that spends more on heightening production, but this isn't always the case. In fact sometimes a growing GDP is not the best thing for the country. For instance if people wanted the GDP to rise that badly they could just let the country be filled by immigrants:

Unacceptable cost of British GDP growth


The threat of Islamic terrorism within Britain, for example (a consequence of a very small but dangerous number of immigrants), has brought about unprecedented costs of security both at home and abroad, with such costs showing as a positive in the GDP national statistics.

Is such a GDP increase a benefit to society? Obviously not.

Abu Qatada, the now deported suspected Islamic terrorist, cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds in security protection, legal costs and social welfare for his extended family. Those costs showed up in the national statistics as a positive increase in GDP, yet the British people would have been far better off with no Abu Qatada and a lower GDP. However, such costs are minor compared with the costs of health, education and housing that overly rapid and uncontrolled immigration can in some instances lead to.


In the USA there is far more land to population, therefore there will be far more money ploughed into industries such as pollution, environmental, energy than UK. All of which will increase the GDP but won't necessarily represent the wealth of the population.

So the initial data comparing UK to states is relatively questionable, whilst the author is right that the table with Purchasing Power Parity included is revealing, but not in the way he argues. It shows that the differences become stark when considering the 90% and above bracket; once at this stage the USA has significantly more purchasing power. Also, the bottom 5% is still a lot of people (around 2.6 million Brits) and shows that USA poverty goes lower than UK. I think they're the only two significant statistics that can be drawn from the table, especially as the article above implies, UK GDP is due for an upside.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: twfau

Makes sense.

Thanks




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But Nelson is somehow factoring in "Purchasing Power Parity"

How can we explain that ?




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Your OP is still grossly incorrect. And you know it.


Actually I was questioning the whole thing wasn't I.

And you still need to "answer" the question at the bottom.





posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Must be these these million dollar shades that tipped the balance:



edit on 25-8-2014 by Granite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
twfau just told you ... AND YOU JUST AGREED.


originally posted by: twfau


So the initial data comparing UK to states is relatively questionable, whilst the author is right that the table with Purchasing Power Parity included is revealing, but not in the way he argues. It shows that the differences become stark when considering the 90% and above bracket; once at this stage the USA has significantly more purchasing power. Also, the bottom 5% is still a lot of people (around 2.6 million Brits) and shows that USA poverty goes lower than UK. I think they're the only two significant statistics that can be drawn from the table, especially as the article above implies, UK GDP is due for an upside.


This is a prime example of just how specious some posts here can become.


edit on 19Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:52:31 -050014p072014866 by Gryphon66 because: fixed



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66


Your OP is still grossly incorrect. And you know it.


Actually I was questioning the whole thing wasn't I.

And you still need to "answer" the question at the bottom.




No, you weren't. And you know it.

You were intentionally trying to mislead regarding 1) Socialism and 2) Economy of the UK.

If this post is allowed to stand as is, even in the The Mud Pit, this is a complete farce.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, let it stand because it displays the levels of ignorance some members possess.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hallelujah Yes.

A reasonable opinion.




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

I was going to comment something similar but that said how it is.

Capitalism of our resources was the sell out that sold the people to corporate slavery. Certain things should be immune to capitalist enterprise, such as water, fuel, education, transport.

I said it recently on another thread and many times before. The UK government should make amends and sort it, like that would ever happen, IMO it is the way forward for the UK economy.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
originally posted by: xuenchen


Fraser Nelson of The Spectator did some number crunching recently and found a shocking fact: Britain is poorer than every State in the USA but one.

As Nelson wrote on August 22, “if Britain were to somehow leave the EU and join the US … we’d be the 2nd-poorest state in the union, poorer than Missouri. Poorer than the much-maligned Kansas and Alabama. Poorer than any state other than Mississippi, and if you take out the south east we’d be poorer than that too.”

This is both shocking and disheartening, especially to American liberals. The liberals all assume that Great Britain is still the jewel of Europe ..........................


Yet the states he mentions are amongst those with the lowest homeless rates, while the "richest" states have the highest.
edit on 25-8-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: horseatemymoney
Just to look at an, in my opinion, more socialist country than the UK, Norway, A country with a fiscal reserve of about $850 billion. What state in the capitalist USA can beat that figure.


Norway has a population of 5 million. 75% of the GDP is produced by one city. Taxes may be high, but then so are the salaries, house prices and rents. Luxury apartments downtown rent for £1500/month.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Two more years of people who think they know what socialism is.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: rupertg

And then the Republicans are gonna come along and fix everything huh?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

THE classic REPUBLICAN is currently dying an overdue death as fast as they can be chipped away and as soon as the current LOON in chief gets caught,MAYBE the left will figure out THEY have been lied to as well.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: horseatemymoney

except it looks like Norway is deep in debt....

$115 billion worth.

$22,000 per head of sheep.


Norway Deep Debt


World Debt Clocks


Progressive.Bank.Systems.BustingOut



edit on Aug-25-2014 by xuenchen because:




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join