Great Nepal wrote:Arkolon wrote:I didn't say we were. I said we weren't first world. I made no other claims. We're also in Central America, so we won't have the same political consensus as we can find in Western Europe or the US.
The problem is how do we defend our extravagant wealth.
Who are you defending it against? We agreed for purposes of RP that we have modest GDP per capita, thats all the defence a modest GDP per capita needs.
GDP per capita isn't "just there". It's not a tangible, physical thing. It's not a lone, isolated variable that just decides "how rich we are" overall. GDP is the sum of all consumption by the whole economy; all the money spent. It is but a representation of the economy, and takes in family budgets, government expenditures, business expenses, investment from the same parties, as well as international trade. We are trying, for thw purposes of the RP, to be like our neighbours, and when the money in those countries is about
half of that of ours, it means there is something
fundamentally different about the way people spend money in Calaverde, about how much money people have in Calaverde, how people get their money in Calaverde, or how money is treated in Calaverde. We cannot say that we can be like our neighbours but there is a "single difference" that our GDP is higher. GDP isn't just a "one thing". It is a multitude of factors representing how much money is used, so, in effect, a richer per capita economy would mean that Calaverde is
fundamentally different, based on
completely different principles, operating at a
completely different level as our poorer neighbours.
At this stage, I would much rather buy the notion that we were a Kenyan exclave until 1997, or that our sky is actually yellow as opposed to blue, than pretend that Calaverde can be extremely similar to its neighbours when its GDP per capita is far greater than its neighbours. We have to justify this perk.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:45 am