10-03-2005 17:25									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by el freako I have posted facts proving otherwise (although France and Germany certainly have not performed as well as the EU15) Why should I ignore the facts just based on your opinon? If you have any data that proves your point feel free to do so and I will comment on that.

You keep BAMing over and over again. It isn't my fault.

saras, you get a clue.

And who the **** is fez? do you people drink acid?

	10-03-2005 17:29									#32
	Support Apolyton

Fez is quality entertainment

	10-03-2005 17:33									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo You keep BAMing over and over again. It isn't my fault.

Actually it's the data which is providing the same results again and again Giancarlo, how can I help but report on it?

I note that you refuse to provide any data to back up your points.

You have also shown yourself in the past to be unwilling to risk anything for your beliefs - again, you care for a little wager?

	10-03-2005 17:34									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by el freako Well I note that you refuse to provide any data to back up your points. You have also shown yourself in the past to be unwilling to risk anything for your beliefs - again, you care for a little wager?

BAM!

	10-03-2005 17:36									#35
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo BAM!

Please excuse this oldster but what do you mean by BAM!?

	10-03-2005 17:37									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by el freako Please excuse this oldster but what do you mean by BAM!?

you are a bald assertion man.

	10-03-2005 17:40									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

* Ironymeter goes off-scale ...

	10-03-2005 17:43									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Giancarlo, please be quiet.

El freako, I still have no idea what do those figures mean. Income growth during a single year? If so, the US is still growing much faster than either EU15 or EU25, only it's growth has slowed a bit. I don't see how that is supporting the thread title.

And why use randomly picked years to prove your points, anyway? You can easily manipulate the image by picking years which were recession years in some countries -- why not use 5 (or 10) -year period averages?

	10-03-2005 17:49									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

el freako has already pointed out at least twice that the numbers are adjusted for the economic cycle.

	10-03-2005 17:50									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by VJ El freako, I still have no idea what do those figures mean. Income growth during a single year? If so, the US is still growing much faster than either EU15 or EU25, only it's growth has slowed a bit. I don't see how that is supporting the thread title.

The figures are the level of income relative to the EU15 average - I can't use the EU25 as there is no data for the accession countries for output gap, EKS PPPs or net property income for 1990.
So if a country like Canada shows as +8% (+17%) that means that it had an income 8% above the EU15 average in 2002 but it was 17% higher in 1990 - meaning that it grew slower.

quote: Originally posted by VJ And why use randomly picked years to prove your points, anyway? You can easily manipulate the image by picking years which were recession years in some countries -- why not use 5 (or 10) -year period averages?

Well 1990 and 2002 are the earliest and latest years that EKS PPPs where are available for (they are calculated trienually), I could use GK PPPs but that would mean less comparability.

The data is already corrected for the economic cycle so it makes no difference whether some countries were in recession or not (a problem you would still have with 10 or 5 year averages)

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo You are a bald assertion man.

Let's see I have posted data, with links to the sources, whilst you have just baldy asserted that I am wrong.

I can see why Last Conformist's Irony meter has gone off the scale

	10-03-2005 17:56									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: So if a country like Canada shows as +8% (+17%) that means that it had an income 8% above the EU15 average in 2002 but it was 17% higher in 1990 - meaning that it grew slower.

Thanks, it's all clear now.

quote: Sorry for the confusion, would it be easier for everyone if I just posted the income figures with the US=100%?

Could be. I think it'd be easier if you'd add that Canada-example of yours to your opening post, the %'s sure do confuse someone who's economic knowledge is limited to memorising unadjusted GDP growth rates.

	10-03-2005 17:57									#42
	Re: Europe's incomes outpaced the rest of the west in 1990-2002 Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by el freako As you can see many poorer members of the EU15 caught up significantly with the average, whilst every non-european state saw a fall relative to that average.

Income harmonisation across Europe.

	10-03-2005 18:02									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by VJ Could be. I think it'd be easier if you'd add that Canada-example of yours to your opening post, the %'s sure do confuse someone who's economic knowledge is limited to memorising unadjusted GDP growth rates.

Okay here is the data with the US=100%, for 2002 and 1990

Canada: 78% 76%
United States: 100% 100%

Australia: 75% 70%
Japan: 78% 74%
New Zealand: 57% 57%

Austria: 79% 70%
Belgium: 79% 71%
Denmark: 80% 72%
Finland: 75% 66%
France: 77% 74%
Germany: 72% 67%
Greece: 51% 41%
Ireland: 71% 45%
Italy: 71% 67%
Netherlands: 79% 69%
Norway: 99% 77%
Portugal: 50% 40%
Spain: 61% 49%
Sweden: 76% 72%
Switzerland: 92% 92%
United Kingdom: 79% 67%
European Union (15): 72% 65%

Total income for the EU15 went from 94.7% of the US level in 1990 to 95.2% in 2002 - within the EU there was a lot of variation with Germany falling from 21.3% to 20.5%, France from 16.8% to 16.0% and Italy from 15.2% to 14.1% whilst Britian rose from 15.3% to 16.3% and Spain from 7.6% to 8.7% (putting it ahead of Canada)
Japan fell from 36.6% to 34.6%


edit: got the 1990 and 2002 figures the wrong way around duh!, this has been corrected
furthur edit: added total income figures

	10-03-2005 18:06									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Europe went DOWN from 72% in 1990 to 65% in 2002?

	10-03-2005 18:07									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

OK, now I am confused. In the US=100%, is a lower figure better? 'Cos otherwise it looks like the gap is growing, not closing.

Edit: Makes sense now.

Last edited by Last Conformist on 10-03-2005 at 18:33

	10-03-2005 18:09									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I put got the 1990 and 2002 figures the wrong way around, sorry for the confusion - that'll teach me not to preview a post eh?
The above post is edited.

	10-03-2005 18:09									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Ireland: 45% 71%

It's because he mixed up the years. Seems to me that, bolded is 1990, cursive 2002.

	10-03-2005 18:10									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo bald assertion man.

Which, ironically enough, was Fez's nickname for quite sometime.

	10-03-2005 19:25									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

With the mobility of capital and the ability to outsource due to information technology gains, I would expect income harmonization across the globe.

	10-03-2005 19:28									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yup. Globalisation

	10-03-2005 21:07									#51
	Put an end to popups!

Excuse my ignorance but how does one "correct for the economic cycle"?? . . .. and why should one do that? Is it the assumption that a country currently in a recession will improve more than a country not currently in a recession??

	10-03-2005 22:02									#52
	Tired of ads?

The economic cycles have to be taken into account, because some countries may be in recession whilst others at the peak preformance. If the figures compared to the US, always showed the US in recession and the EU at its peak, it could not be considered a fair reflection.

Im not certain how you go about correcting for it, im assuming some form of averaging takes place???

	10-03-2005 22:11									#53
	Suffering from ads?

It should be noted that correcting for business cycles is something of a black art. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it. Because of this, I'm somewhat skeptical about a time period with 2 recessions, but only 1 expansion for the US.

That said, as pchang states, I wouldn't expect anything different from this analysis and in fact I'm somewhat surprised that Europe didn't gain even more ground than it did. It should have gained more ground.

	10-03-2005 22:18									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy The economic cycles have to be taken into account, because some countries may be in recession whilst others at the peak preformance. If the figures compared to the US, always showed the US in recession and the EU at its peak, it could not be considered a fair reflection. Im not certain how you go about correcting for it, im assuming some form of averaging takes place???

I could undeerstand WHY you would want to do it-- you want to measure real change and not some blip arising from a recession (temporary). Thats why I wondered exactly how it is accomplished.

I suspect like DanS indicated, that it is somewhat of a black art. After all, if Canada grew really well for 5 years, is that a "boom" that needs to be adjusted ?? Or was it the new reality based on changed world circumstances and was the economy really curtailed compared to how it might perform when other nations that it sells products to begins to boom ?

	10-03-2005 23:24									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

wow, these numbers are very interesting freako. thanks a lot. where do you work btw?

	10-03-2005 23:35									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

@ Fezzing in this thread

	11-03-2005 01:02									#57
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia wow, these numbers are very interesting freako. thanks a lot. where do you work btw?

I'm a freelance programmer, that said I only work around 100 hours a month (but at £35 an hour why should I work more )

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I suspect like DanS indicated, that it is somewhat of a black art. After all, if Canada grew really well for 5 years, is that a "boom" that needs to be adjusted ?? Or was it the new reality based on changed world circumstances and was the economy really curtailed compared to how it might perform when other nations that it sells products to begins to boom ?

Well measuring GDP itself is something of a black art as well, with lots of fudges and estimates.
You can make rough-and-ready estimates of the economic cycle by comparing the growth in the capital stock and labour force with historical averages - that said the estimates of 'trend' growth tend to be off a bit around the peak of a boom.

quote: Originally posted by DanS Because of this, I'm somewhat skeptical about a time period with 2 recessions, but only 1 expansion for the US.

Well the basic GDP figures for the EU15 show a rise from 97.4% of the US level in 1990 to 97.8% in 2002 (and a per capita rise from 67% to 74%), so even in ignoring the economic cycle Europe managed to grow faster than America.

quote: Originally posted by DanS In fact I'm somewhat surprised that Europe didn't gain even more ground than it did. It should have gained more ground.

Well you have to ask yourself why Europe gained more ground than Canada, Australia or Japan don't you?
What is europe doing right that those others are not?

	11-03-2005 01:07									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Discuss the topic, and NOT the posters...

And Giancarlo... I highly suggest you check your PM's!

	11-03-2005 01:13									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I have recently done a study on relative incomes for most of the OECD with the primary emphasis being on studying income (as opposed to production which is used in GDP) and making the data as comparable as possible. I chose the datum years of 1990 and 2002 as these are the earliest and latest set of EKS PPPs that I have for the region (prior to 1990 the OECD used GK PPPs which gave different results). To correct for the effects of the differing economic cycle I adjusted the GDP using the OECD's estimates for the output gap. And to convert from production to income I then added net property income from abroad (the main component of this is remitted profits and wages).

1. so first you took EKS PPP, which is a productivity/GDP number
2. where did you get the OECDs estimate for output gap, and what formula did you use to adjust it?
3. where did you get net property income from abroad, and in what way did you add it.

	11-03-2005 01:25									#60
	Got spare money?

I find it highly suspicious that they chose the end date of 2002, when the US was in recession, to make their comparison. Why not do a ten year comparison between 1990-2000 or use the latest numbers available 1990-2004? Unless of course there is something to hide and someone is trying to make one party look good and another party look bad?