• @Aceticon
    link
    12
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s not by chance that in big countries official economic numbers are listed for the country as whole (independently of the number of people) or at best using the arithmetic average for per-capita numbers rather than the mode.

    Countrywide numbers sound great until you merelly divide it by the number of people (i.e. the average, which still has problems) were for example the US falls from #1 in wealth to #15 in wealth per person.

    Further, it’s way too common for governing politicians in countries with strong population growth to only talk about total economic numbers, because total country GDP will grow simply from adding more working adults (due to immigration or higher birth rates) even if it’s actually falling per-capita (if, for example, the working adults added have lower productivity) hence the economic position of most people is getting worse.

    As for arithmetic averages, they suffer from not really representing the experience of most people when there is high inequality. For example, if there are 10 people, 1 with 10 chickens and 9 with zero chickens, that average tells us each has 1 chicken whilst in reality most people’s chicken-ownership experience is of having non chickens. The mode would tell it’s zero chickens because that what most individuals have.

    And don’t get me started on the actual ways to rig official economic figures (such as understating Official Inflation, which because of how it’s produced results in a higher Official GDP number)

    For at least 2 decades now, Official Economic Figures have been complete total bollocks, and you should be especially suspicious of the figures quoted by government politicians as (as I explained above) they’re generally cherry-picking and presenting figures which bare little resemblance to what’s happenning for most people.