As an indonesian myself, and live mostly in island of java, our country is actually economically great, but i admit there is a big gap with the other island especially in outer isolated territory, where u probably hear that poverty news come from
Other way around for me, Kalbahamut. It was easy to guess the main countries in Oceania and N. America, but the 4th and 5th nations were just me guessing countries in those continents. Whereas for Europe and Asia I got them all first time, as they're so dominant.
I wasn't saying anything about how easy they are to guess... just that being top 5 on any of the other continents isn't very impressive. Algeria's economy is tiny compared to Italy's or South Korea's, to say nothing of Cuba or the Solomon Islands. And, actually, I think those countries are harder to guess for that very reason. So you got my comment backwards...
just as an aside, though, the top 5 in Europe and Asia aren't *that* dominant. Saudi Arabia trails South Korea by less than 200 million. Spain trails Italy by about 500 million.
Using purchasing power parity generally means guessing the most populous countries. All forms of GDP measurement have problems, but PPP skews things to shrink the appearance of inequalities.
Indonesia is in considered to be part of both Asia and Oceania; however, it is usually considered to be part of Asia because its capital Jakarta is located in Asia. This is similar to Russia being counted as Europe rather than Asia due to Moscow and Turkey being counted as Asia rather than Europe due to Ankara.
It's more a cultural and economic association...PNG was administered by Australia until 1975. There is no universally accepted dividing line between these regions
Politics, power and money tend to determine how these borders are drawn up, often with scant concern for the wishes of the indigenous peoples. There have been countless protests in Irian Jaya(West Papua) for independence, but they are always suppressed by the Indonesian military. A similar problem can be seen on Bougainville Island, which is culturally more akin to the Solomon Islands, but was made a part of Papua New Guinea so Australian mining companies could exploit it. Armed rebels took over an Australian mine there a few years back. East Timor is another example. They fought a war for independence largely ignored by Australia and the UN for 25 years. Easier to maintain the status quo, carve up the Timor Sea gas and oil reserves, and hope the problem goes away.
I totally blanked on Dominican Republic. I knew it, and I could think of Hispaniola, Santo Domingo, and Haiti, but the correct name just wouldn't connect to my typing fingers. Grrrr!
I was about to guess Ethiopia but apparently, some part of my brain wanted me to believe Ethiopia was extremely poor when compared to other countries so I ignored it, completely forgetting its high population. Thanks, brain.
I’m pretty sure that China is going through a heavy blow to its economy right now, due to Covid-19, sanctions and increased unemployment rates, due to this, I’m pretty sure the forecast of the economic measures will be quite obsolete despite this year
being 2020. But hey, they’re just hiding their weaknesses as of now. Just saying.
These figures are profoundly off. For instance: Japan has a GDP of over US $5 trillion while that of India is just US $2.8, but the quiz has it listed as over 10 trillion! Furthermore, South Korea's GDP is nearly $1.65 trillion and Indonesia's is under US $1.2 trillion.
These are just the Asian examples! Europe's numbers are also way off, with Russia being listed ahead of the UK and France despite their much higher GDPs in real life.
The WorldBank is my source for all of this. I suggest using it instead of whatever website where these bizarre figures were published.
Purchasing Power Parity. Which means that a few more things are playing into this e.g. the cost of living, etc.
This means that usually the numbers for "poorer" countries are higher. This is trying to reflect, especially if used as "per capita", how big the gaps between countries is when it comes to buying stuff. Not the best form of measurement but I like the idea
As many have said, this quiz uses Purchasing Power Parity (PPP).
It's a better measure, in my opinion. So how does it work?
Let's say there are two countries whose economy consists solely of producing apples. Both countries produce exactly one million apples, alike in every way. Which country has the bigger economy?
According to PPP, both countries have the same size economy since they both make the same number of apples. But according to your measure, nominal GDP, it depends on how much the currencies of each country are worth.
I hope you can see why PPP makes more sense intuitively. It also seems to do other things better as well. For instance, it's more consistent year over year, and it is more strongly correlated with life expectancy. When it comes to measuring the size of the economy, PPP just makes more sense.
Except that no two countries produce exactly the same apples. There are differences in the value of the local currency, as well as differences in the type and quality of apples - how hardy they are, how easy they are to grow, the environment that they are growing in, differences in the transportation costs to get the apples to market due to many factors, differences in labor costs for growers/pickers/teamsters/vendors, differences in the quality of materials that go into fertilizer/pesticides/packaging, differences in the rigor of government health inspections or food safety standards which impact how much taxes one pays on the apple, differences in construction standards for the building in which the apples are stored or sold, and differences in the markets in which the apples are sold and the consumers that the apples are being sold to, and MORE. All of these things impact the value and end price of the apple in important ways. Ignoring them all produces nonsensical results.
PPP makes a lot of sense when comparing the average subsistence income for very poor people from place to place (which greatly impacts life expectancy). It makes some sense when looking at things like different countries' minimum wage. It makes absolutely no sense used to measure the size of an entire country's economy and using it for that is a gross misuse of the concept and not what it was originally intended for.
just as an aside, though, the top 5 in Europe and Asia aren't *that* dominant. Saudi Arabia trails South Korea by less than 200 million. Spain trails Italy by about 500 million.
being 2020. But hey, they’re just hiding their weaknesses as of now. Just saying.
These are just the Asian examples! Europe's numbers are also way off, with Russia being listed ahead of the UK and France despite their much higher GDPs in real life.
The WorldBank is my source for all of this. I suggest using it instead of whatever website where these bizarre figures were published.
This means that usually the numbers for "poorer" countries are higher. This is trying to reflect, especially if used as "per capita", how big the gaps between countries is when it comes to buying stuff. Not the best form of measurement but I like the idea
It's a better measure, in my opinion. So how does it work?
Let's say there are two countries whose economy consists solely of producing apples. Both countries produce exactly one million apples, alike in every way. Which country has the bigger economy?
According to PPP, both countries have the same size economy since they both make the same number of apples. But according to your measure, nominal GDP, it depends on how much the currencies of each country are worth.
I hope you can see why PPP makes more sense intuitively. It also seems to do other things better as well. For instance, it's more consistent year over year, and it is more strongly correlated with life expectancy. When it comes to measuring the size of the economy, PPP just makes more sense.
Or, am I thinking about this wrong?