3 ms·

> There are many natural economic reasons for GDP-per-capita to vary between jurisdictions (e.g. places rich in oil and gas tend to have high GDP-per-capita fig

> There are many natural economic reasons for GDP-per-capita to vary between jurisdictions (e.g. places rich in oil and gas tend to have high GDP-per-capita figures). However, it is increasingly being recognized that tax havens, or corporate tax havens, have distorted economic data which produces artificially high, or inflated, GDP-per-capita figures. > ... > In 2017, Ireland's economic data became so distorted by U.S. multinational tax avoidance strategies (see leprechaun economics), also known as BEPS actions, that Ireland effectively abandoned GDP (and GNP) statistics as credible measures of its economy, and created a replacement statistic called modified gross national income (or GNI*) Source: Wikipedia on GDP per capita, PPP I don't think your conclusion about governance is warranted, given the important other factors you aren't accounting for in your list (also presence of large oil & gas natural resources).

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
What are you saying then, that you wouldn't want to live in Monaco (assuming you had median Monaco income)? That you think large oil & gas resources is good (Venezuela)? I'm struggling to figure out which side you're on
- NetMageSCW 9mo ago
  Thinking there is a side to be on is evidence of the problem.
- wasabi991011 9mo ago
  I'm on the side of "looking at top 10 GDP per capita PPP countries is not good evidence for what type of government is better for a country's economy, at least not without far more analysis"
  - CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
    OK can you share more? You called out per capita GDP as not a great metric but you didn't seem to deny that living in Monaco on a Monegasque income (for example, or any of these other monarchies) would be a bad thing, despite their type of government. And you called out vast oil & gas resources as essential, or scale-tipping, for the goodness of a monarchy but I'm assuming you are against the US intervention in Venezuela for the purposes of securing such resources for American interest. Did you have other factors in mind that you did not mention?
    - wasabi991011 9mo ago
      > OK can you share more? No, I don't really care to. I feel like the two confounding factors I've given are sufficient to cast doubt in your attempted causal inference. I'm also not interested in continuing with you since you don't actually seem interested in the truth, with things like "figuring out which side I'm on" and the absurd non-sequitur: > but I'm assuming you are against the US intervention in Venezuela for the purposes of securing such resources for American interest. like what the hell are you talking about.
      - cindyllm 9mo ago
        [dead]

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago

What are you saying then, that you wouldn't want to live in Monaco (assuming you had median Monaco income)? That you think large oil & gas resources is good (Venezuela)? I'm struggling to figure out which side you're on

NetMageSCW 9mo ago
Thinking there is a side to be on is evidence of the problem.
wasabi991011 9mo ago
I'm on the side of "looking at top 10 GDP per capita PPP countries is not good evidence for what type of government is better for a country's economy, at least not without far more analysis"
- CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
  OK can you share more? You called out per capita GDP as not a great metric but you didn't seem to deny that living in Monaco on a Monegasque income (for example, or any of these other monarchies) would be a bad thing, despite their type of government. And you called out vast oil & gas resources as essential, or scale-tipping, for the goodness of a monarchy but I'm assuming you are against the US intervention in Venezuela for the purposes of securing such resources for American interest. Did you have other factors in mind that you did not mention?
  - wasabi991011 9mo ago
    > OK can you share more? No, I don't really care to. I feel like the two confounding factors I've given are sufficient to cast doubt in your attempted causal inference. I'm also not interested in continuing with you since you don't actually seem interested in the truth, with things like "figuring out which side I'm on" and the absurd non-sequitur: > but I'm assuming you are against the US intervention in Venezuela for the purposes of securing such resources for American interest. like what the hell are you talking about.
    - cindyllm 9mo ago
      [dead]