So... I went digging for better information that included both domestic and international tourists and counted them the same. On this quiz 1 tourist = 1 tourist regardless of nearby geography and geopolitics. However, it's hard to find data like this, thus the small size of the quiz and the fact that the data is not up-to-date.
1. Everything in Poland - accomodation, food, especially alcochol and prostitutes - is cheaper than in other countries. 1 euro = 4,12 zloties actually. In fact most Poles are poor and the prices are still raising, but for tourists they are funny.
2. Poles spend vacations mainly in Poland, because they can't afford an abroad trip. We've got Baltic Sea, Sudetes, Carpathian Mountains, the province Masuria with many lakes and beautiful views. We don't have to go abroad if we want to admire nice landscapes or spend time in more active ways. But if we would want to go abroad, we have to accumulate money for a long time.
I don't know the trends of Spaniards or other nations, but Poland becomes more and more attractive for tourists, however the society becomes rather poorer every year, mainly because of the government making running a business more and more difficult and unprofitable, what is generating unemployment.
Sorry for my weak english
While, of course, in the abstract you are right. For instance, just because Kosovo uses the Euro (1 eur = $1.10 USD) and Japan uses the Yen (1 yen = approx $0.01 USD), it does NOT follow that Tokyo is 100x cheaper than Pristina! :D
On the other hand, if you are looking at recent trends, such as how the strength of the US dollar has increased 100% versus the Ukrainian grivna in the last couple years, then it can actually make a big impact because inflation tends to lag behind currency depreciation somewhat. It's complicated. Often a devalued currency means a place is very cheap for tourists. Other times not. I don't think Pawel was implying that exchange rates are exactly correlated to value of goods. Though I am surprised at how often I encounter people who believe that. As if a cheeseburger costs 1 rupee in India and 1 dollar in the USA even though it's about 50 rupees to the dollar. That's just not how it works. But India (and Poland) are very cheap.
" Data are mostly in the form of number
of trips to destinations beyond a non-
negligible distance from the place of residence, an
d involving at least one overnight stay. For
some countries such data format was not available,
and we resorted to either the number of
registered guests in hotels, campsites, hostels etc
., or the ratio between the number of
overnight stays and the average length of stay. The
latter formats underestimate domestic
tourism by excluding trips to friend and relatives;
nevertheless we included such data for
Russia and Thailand both get a sizeable number of tourists and I'm also a bit surprised they didn't do better in the rankings. I think there are a combination of factors. Thailand doesn't generate a lot of domestic tourists, that's one. Even though there are a lot of people living in Thailand, most of them don't have the money to go on vacation. Also, Thailand is just as isolated from the major source countries of international tourists (Europe and North America) as Japan is. As China becomes an increasingly important source country for international tourism, a trend we've seen happening in a big way the last couple years, this may change.
I blame this on positive word of mouth... all those single guys going to Thailand, having an amazing time, then going back home and telling all their friends that Thailand is the best country on Earth. And also the tourism booms of China, Russia, and the Middle East. Used to be only Americans and Western Europeans (plus a few Ozzies etc) there, not so anymore.
A tourist is a tourist. That's all I'm saying. If city A receives 10,000 domestic tourists a day and 3,000 international tourists, and city B receives 1,000 domestic tourists and 3,500 international tourists (with similar definitions of tourist used for each type), you think it is "profoundly dishonest" to say that city A receives more tourists? Sorry, but that's profoundly stupid.
The UK entertains more domestic tourists and more international tourists than Poland does. Not sure why you are confused about that one.
Indonesia, a country of 250 million people, entertains many more domestic tourists than either Spain or Italy.
Not hard to understand. Many of these small European countries show up on lists that only count international tourists because of the political nature of Europe. That being that there are very many very small countries that border many other very small countries, traveling between them is simple, within the Schengen Area it's as easy as driving between U.S. states- no border checkpoints or passport control or anything. However, when you live in such a small country surrounded by other small countries, when you go on vacation you're probably going to leave the country. Thus, their domestic tourism numbers are smaller.
Conclusion: you are either a hypocrite guilty of the bigotry and bias you project onto others, or a complete idiot. Probably both. The USA exists. Grow up and get over it.