GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Yeah, that place out 'there'. Anything not really Cambodia related should go here.
wackyjacky
Expatriate
Posts: 1640
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:40 pm
Reputation: 1

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by wackyjacky »

Here's a good explanation of the study in Forbes which states that the GB is poorer than Mississippi too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ssissippi/
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 17
United States of America

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by OrangeDragon »

Secret Squirrel wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote:
One point is awarded for a title match win, no points are awarded for a draw or loss. Teams are ranked numerically then alphabetically. Point totals have been combined for sides that have officially played under different names and are recognised as doing so by FIFA, these being Germany and West Germany, Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland and Ireland, Russia and USSR, Serbia and Yugoslavia, and Curacao and Dutch Antilles.
how is that data manipulated then? what was the exact part where they pulled the wool over readers' eyes?

had it been some sort of convoluted percentage based on total games played vs wins vs draws/etc... then you might be on to something... but that's a pretty straight forward statistic. only gripe might be that it doesn't show them by points scored, but 1 point over the other team is really all it takes to make a win.
The data was not manipulated. That is the whole point. They have used real data, selectively chosen by themselves to generate a result that bears little relation to what any sane person would consider reality. That is statistics. A different use of the data on the same topic could show a very different result depending how you chose to use it.
So you don't think "who won more matches" is a sane way to evaluate a team's abilities? seems quite sane to me.

Seems like you're exhibiting the polar opposite to confirmation bias. Guess that would be "conflict rejection"? Any data that conflicts with your views is thus rejected as unreliable/manipulated data?
Secret Squirrel
Expatriate
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm
Reputation: 2
Great Britain

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by Secret Squirrel »

OrangeDragon wrote:
Secret Squirrel wrote:
OrangeDragon wrote:
One point is awarded for a title match win, no points are awarded for a draw or loss. Teams are ranked numerically then alphabetically. Point totals have been combined for sides that have officially played under different names and are recognised as doing so by FIFA, these being Germany and West Germany, Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland and Ireland, Russia and USSR, Serbia and Yugoslavia, and Curacao and Dutch Antilles.
how is that data manipulated then? what was the exact part where they pulled the wool over readers' eyes?

had it been some sort of convoluted percentage based on total games played vs wins vs draws/etc... then you might be on to something... but that's a pretty straight forward statistic. only gripe might be that it doesn't show them by points scored, but 1 point over the other team is really all it takes to make a win.
The data was not manipulated. That is the whole point. They have used real data, selectively chosen by themselves to generate a result that bears little relation to what any sane person would consider reality. That is statistics. A different use of the data on the same topic could show a very different result depending how you chose to use it.
So you don't think "who won more matches" is a sane way to evaluate a team's abilities? seems quite sane to me.

Seems like you're exhibiting the polar opposite to confirmation bias. Guess that would be "conflict rejection"? Any data that conflicts with your views is thus rejected as unreliable/manipulated data?
I am not rejecting or disputing the data or results presented. I am merely stating that the data analysed in a different way could show a different outcome.if you took london as a state where GDP and PPP would be significantly different this might show an interesting variation. How about extracting Yorkshire and presenting it alone. Also using a different source of data e.g. Taking the World bank instead of IMF GDP figures which show a smaller difference between US and UK. Which measure of PPP is applied. There is not a single measure..
With regards to winning most matches yes that is valid. However in this case they have used a selection of matches that ignores much of the significant data. . If you created a league table from all matches played the ranking would look different to the one presented. Or do you use total matches played or won. Or how about percent matches won? How many points for a win and how many for a draw?
If you consider this years F1 championship, the introduction of double points in the final race would have changed the outcome in several previous championships. Does that make the outcomes any less valid? It's just what rules you select and how you choose to apply them.
User avatar
Cowshed Cowboy
Expatriate
Posts: 2033
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:25 pm
Reputation: 978
Thailand

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by Cowshed Cowboy »

Secret Squirrel wrote:Classic lies, damned lies and statistics. If you look at the original article which was in the Spectator it shamelessly states the source as Wikipedia! If you need to know anything about this publication consider Boris Johnson used to be Editor.
Because the actual GDP figures did not give the desired result they were manipulated by PPP. You could manipulate them different ways to generate pretty much any result you desire.
Statistics can show when used selectively that Scotland have the greatest football team the world has ever seen. Actual evidence on the other hand presents a slightly more depressing tale. (See unofficial Football world champions)
http://www.ufwc.co.uk/rankings/
Actual evidence, actual evidence - don't believe that old chestnut, of course we've got the greatest football team ever we're just perennially unlucky. :D
Yes sir, I can boogie, I can boogie, boogie, boogie all night long.
OrangeDragon
Site Admin
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm
Reputation: 17
United States of America

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by OrangeDragon »

Secret Squirrel wrote: I am not rejecting or disputing the data or results presented. I am merely stating that the data analysed in a different way could show a different outcome.if you took london as a state where GDP and PPP would be significantly different this might show an interesting variation. How about extracting Yorkshire and presenting it alone. Also using a different source of data e.g. Taking the World bank instead of IMF GDP figures which show a smaller difference between US and UK. Which measure of PPP is applied. There is not a single measure..
With regards to winning most matches yes that is valid. However in this case they have used a selection of matches that ignores much of the significant data. . If you created a league table from all matches played the ranking would look different to the one presented. Or do you use total matches played or won. Or how about percent matches won? How many points for a win and how many for a draw?
If you consider this years F1 championship, the introduction of double points in the final race would have changed the outcome in several previous championships. Does that make the outcomes any less valid? It's just what rules you select and how you choose to apply them.
You very clearly rejected the results presented...
Classic lies, damned lies and statistics. If you look at the original article which was in the Spectator it shamelessly states the source as Wikipedia! If you need to know anything about this publication consider Boris Johnson used to be Editor.
Because the actual GDP figures did not give the desired result they were manipulated by PPP. You could manipulate them different ways to generate pretty much any result you desire.
Statistics can show when used selectively that Scotland have the greatest football team the world has ever seen. Actual evidence on the other hand presents a slightly more depressing tale.
The GDP figures were "damned lies". And despite them being the top score in the presented data your view on Scotland was a "slightly more depressing tale".
Soi Dog
Expatriate
Posts: 2236
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:53 am
Reputation: 5

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by Soi Dog »

wackyjacky wrote:
Soi Dog wrote:That article uses PPP (purchasing power parity) which best sums up the relative living standard of a country compared to others. $30,000 per year income in Cambodia might be more than adequate to live on for many people. But it's a different story to earn $30,000 per year some place where the median cost of housing alone is $36,000 per year (ie San Francisco, London or Manhattan). The same goes for GDP per capita. The numbers mean nothing without context.
Really ? ........"The ranking, determined by Fraser Nelson, an editor of The Spectator magazine, was made by dividing the gross domestic product of each state by its population, and it took into account purchasing power parity FOR COST OF LIVING. "
Yes...REALLY!!! I was stating how the article presented the stats reasonably well, as opposed to using just GDP per capita, which can be misleading.
Secret Squirrel
Expatriate
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm
Reputation: 2
Great Britain

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by Secret Squirrel »

OrangeDragon wrote:
Secret Squirrel wrote: I am not rejecting or disputing the data or results presented. I am merely stating that the data analysed in a different way could show a different outcome.if you took london as a state where GDP and PPP would be significantly different this might show an interesting variation. How about extracting Yorkshire and presenting it alone. Also using a different source of data e.g. Taking the World bank instead of IMF GDP figures which show a smaller difference between US and UK. Which measure of PPP is applied. There is not a single measure..
With regards to winning most matches yes that is valid. However in this case they have used a selection of matches that ignores much of the significant data. . If you created a league table from all matches played the ranking would look different to the one presented. Or do you use total matches played or won. Or how about percent matches won? How many points for a win and how many for a draw?
If you consider this years F1 championship, the introduction of double points in the final race would have changed the outcome in several previous championships. Does that make the outcomes any less valid? It's just what rules you select and how you choose to apply them.
You very clearly rejected the results presented...
Classic lies, damned lies and statistics. If you look at the original article which was in the Spectator it shamelessly states the source as Wikipedia! If you need to know anything about this publication consider Boris Johnson used to be Editor.
Because the actual GDP figures did not give the desired result they were manipulated by PPP. You could manipulate them different ways to generate pretty much any result you desire.
Statistics can show when used selectively that Scotland have the greatest football team the world has ever seen. Actual evidence on the other hand presents a slightly more depressing tale.
The GDP figures were "damned lies". And despite them being the top score in the presented data your view on Scotland was a "slightly more depressing tale".
I don't reject the results in any way. From the data used and in the way it is presented it is correct. But it is simply a statistical measure and by no means definitive and representative of the actual situation. I therefore don't accept their conclusion as fact. Political opinion polls are statistics formulated in similar ways using samples of data, so why do we bother having elections is these measures are so defining? They compare a nation to small states such as Mississippi which should be compared to Norfolk or merseyside. It's apples and oranges. Why don't they include standards of healthcare or education in this. I am sure the people of Alabama would delight at free healthcare provided by the state or higher education at a much lower cost in some of the worlds leading institutions. It just doesn't tell the whole story. Did Germany win both world wars. If you only consider certain battles then they sure did.
As stated GDP figures are far from hard definitive information. As I am sure you know there are many different measures within which there can be significant variations. Do we therefore have to accept all of them as correct. Of the 4 principle measures at least 3 of them must be wrong. Thr GDP source used in this case is the one which presented the most pessimistic view and thus the best illustration for which is a highly politicised publication. You may not be aware but it is essentially the magazine for the Conservative Party and its modus operandi is the advancement of their views.
Returning to the Scotland team a statistical demonstration has shown them to be the greatest most successful team ever to grace the planet. Within Glasgow there are a few diehard alcoholics who genuinely believe this and I salute their loyalty. Compare this to actual performance where they have repeatedly found themselves incapable of dispatching that footballing powerhouse The Faroe Islands. To compound this there are many other humblings which those who care such as cowshed coy boy will find too traumatic to recollect. Any who believe the statistics over clearly demonstrated actual performances are deluded and gullible, exactly as political parties wish the electorate to behave.
User avatar
The Add Jay
Expatriate
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:10 pm
Reputation: 4
Location: Nung river
Libya

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by The Add Jay »

Is it True anybody can go to a Hospital in the UK and get treated free of charge?
You're a nobody in the gutter with a Smartphone in your a hand.


Ordinem ad Imperium
Secret Squirrel
Expatriate
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:22 pm
Reputation: 2
Great Britain

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by Secret Squirrel »

The Add Jay wrote:Is it True anybody can go to a Hospital in the UK and get treated free of charge?
Essentially yes. If you show up and are sick they will treat you without question and without asking for you Amex card. This applies to emergency treatment but they will continue to treat you until discharged. There are numerous cases of health tourism where people with disease or ailment travel there and pitch up at a hospital. Going there to give birth is pretty common.
If they require immediate treatment they will receive it. Those that have medical insurance I guess this is charged to the insurer but the many that don't are never presented with a bill. This is contrary to the whole ethos of the system.
UK has reciprocal arrangements with other EU members where UK citizens can receive free healthcare in any EU nation. We are issued small cards that allow us to do this.
Only charge UK citizens ever make is a prescription charge for medicines from pharmacy. Those administered in hospital are not charged. However in reality the charge is a modest flat fee with no relation to the true cost and there are a myriad of exemption such as old people, young people, disabled, those on welfare, low income. These are the majority of people medicines are administered to. The percentage who pay is fairly low and can afford it.
Provisions can also extend to free personal care at home for elderly, disabled etc.
All costs are met from General taxation the component of which is called national insurance and also covers welfare levied at 11%. Approx health budget is $200 Bn USD which is about $3000 per member of population.
Still want to be richer in Alabama?
User avatar
The Add Jay
Expatriate
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 8:10 pm
Reputation: 4
Location: Nung river
Libya

Re: GB Would Be The 2nd Poorest US State

Post by The Add Jay »

I never been to Alabama nor England. I think both have its pros and cons. Prob have far more economic freedom in Alabama but its Alabama Cmon now. Some pommy wanted me to go to London and work for him but after looking into rents and just moving cost it wasn't economically viable.
You're a nobody in the gutter with a Smartphone in your a hand.


Ordinem ad Imperium
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post