Interesting and Humour - page 4956
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Short and unsubstantiated. Look up wikipedia in different languages, different data from World Bank, IMF, CIA and OECD.
And you can read about the difference in Russian and Western calculation methods on the web.
WB, IMF and OECD are the three methodologies used for all countries. Everything else is the ramblings of children on the Net.
"If the stars are lit, then someone needs it".
"if the stars are lit, then someone needs it".
WB, IMF and OECD are the three methodologies used for all countries. Everything else is the ramblings of children on the Net.
To the phrase "3 agencies count differently" you answered "no". And now it's "yes, three methodologies". That's a discrepancy.
And, by the way, all these agencies calculate according to official data from these countries. For us they take Rosstat's data. There are a lot of figures on various items, and you can take or not take what you like.
We have seen all sorts of political tricks many times before, so we take a critical approach. Note that I am not saying that in this case the place of our countries in these rankings is wrong. I am talking about some relatively small discrepancies with our calculations.
To the phrase "3 agencies count differently" you answered "no". And now it's "yes, three methodologies". That's a discrepancy.
And, by the way, all these agencies count according to official data from these countries. For us they take Rosstat's data. There are a lot of figures on various items, and you can take or not take what you like.
We have seen all sorts of political tricks many times before, so we take a critical approach. Note that I am not saying that in this case the place of our countries in these rankings is wrong. I am talking about some relatively small discrepancies with our calculations.
Bullshit again.
I wrote no about the existence of any national methodology for calculating GDP to compare different countries.
One methodology - one figure for all countries.
This is nonsense.
I wrote no about the existence of any national methodology for calculating GDP to compare different countries.
One methodology - the same figures for all countries.
3 basic ways of calculation (and nuances) + in different countries what counts as "transactions accounted for in GDP" is different, the composition is slightly different. For the U.S. at all @pa - exactly from our favorite forex dollar through which everything, a huge proportion of financial and non-productive services and much there is difficult (rather impossible) to identify as purely financial/non-productive transactions. Obviously GDP is big, but +serious tolerances.
3 basic ways of counting (and nuances) + what counts as "transactions accounted for in GDP" varies from country to country, the composition differs somewhat. For the US at all @pa - exactly from our favourite forex dollar through which everything, a huge share of financial and non-productive services and much there is difficult (rather impossible) to distinguish as purely financial/non-productive transactions. Obviously GDP is big, but +serious tolerances.
No, it is not different. And the composition is not different. Financial transactions stand out easily - what is the problem there?
No one in the world criticises GDP because it is wrong or complicated to calculate - the methodology there is simple and straightforward.
They criticise the use of GDP as the best indicator of countries' economic development
A debt increase of 1 million occurs in less than 1 minute.