|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 5, 2005 3:13:54 GMT -5
These are the maps of The Economist:
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 5, 2005 4:04:13 GMT -5
Not that this should mean necessarily anything, but it seems quite clear from the maps that wealth is stricly connected with ethnolinguistic groups.
All the Germanic (including English of course) languages speaking countries are at the top worldwise. In Europe is pretty evident the pattern Northern Euros- Meds- Slavs. In Africa the difference between SSA and Northern Africa. In Asia the uniqueness of Japan. In South America the states where the presence of Amerindians is more relevant are aslo the poorest.
Other trends are also shown, as the nice red/gray of Corea (communism= misery) and the big cities/rural areas contrast, but the association between ethnolinguistic groups and wealth is by far the most important.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jul 5, 2005 4:36:33 GMT -5
It's quite simple: With the exception of the Persian Gulf oil exporter countries the richests countries are the ones which have were industrialized first, have now reached the post industrial stage and have benefitted both from the free market economy and democratic political system.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jul 5, 2005 4:50:44 GMT -5
I see Italy is veery neatly tricolor ;D
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 5, 2005 5:21:47 GMT -5
This would just move the question on why such pattern follows a ethnolinguistic pattern, or better, it is just a way of rephrasing the statement “richness (substitute industrialisation) follows and ethnolinguistic pattern”. Besides I doubt that it is factually true. Japan industrialised late. What’s up with Bolivia and Paraguay, did they industrialise later than China? Why Latvia is richer than Ukraine, China than India? There may be some distortion effect, maybe the income is calculated before tax, I expected to see the north (as Scandinavia) richer. Actually this is a big problem But it dramatically proves my ethnolinguistic pattern assumption, so it's good in the end!
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jul 5, 2005 5:30:05 GMT -5
Actually this is a big problem But it dramatically proves my ethnolinguistic pattern assumption, so it's good in the end! I didn't mean to be mean (pun is accidental ) I just found it a bit uncanny that it was so precisely devided into 3 parts... if they used green, white and red, the thing would be hilarious... Anyway, I'm not sure I follow your ethno-linguistic reasoning here... Are you saying that language spoken somehow correlates with the productivity of a country?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 5, 2005 5:38:30 GMT -5
I meant that ethnicity/cultural capital/wealth are very strongly linked. Actually this is no news. Italy is a linguistic unity (after many efforts of central government) but not an ethnic unity (as you know). The tricolor follows a well known ethnic "gradient". The relative wealth of the central regions is artificially exaggerated by the "capital" effect (that can be seen in all Europe) which shows incomes that are not the result of real production of useful goods or services, but are the wages of government officers.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jul 5, 2005 5:43:49 GMT -5
Well, Finland, France and Luxembourgh kind of shatter the linguistic theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jul 5, 2005 5:47:03 GMT -5
I meant that ethnicity/cultural capital/wealth are very strongly linked. Actually this is no news. Gotcha, thanks I thought you might be proposing that certain lanugages influence mentality in such a way that it is reflected on the GDP of a country, which sounded a bit far fetched to be honest... Mea culpa, I haven't read your post carefully Anyway, that much about the next ones to carry the torch of Europe ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jul 5, 2005 5:58:08 GMT -5
The relative wealth of the central regions is artificially exaggerated by the "capital" effect (that can be seen in all Europe) which shows incomes that are not the result of real production of useful goods or services, but are the wages of government officers. It's actually interesting that there isn't any peak in Lazio, but that the effect extends as far North as Tuscany and Marche. Therefore I think that the wages of the government officers can't be the only reason for the National Income being higher than the EU average also in Central Italy. Well, they actually are. Don't be fooled by the large red areas both in Sweden and Finland. They are usually very sparcely populated. The majority of the population is actually living in areas with an above average National income.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 5, 2005 9:11:25 GMT -5
It's actually interesting that there isn't any peak in Lazio, but that the effect extends as far North as Tuscany and Marche. Therefore I think that the wages of the government officers can't be the only reason for the National Income being higher than the EU average also in Central Italy. No, you are right. But as you can see comparing the EU map with the World map, there is some "spreading" of the results, so the uniform gray of Central Italy if was more detailed may show higher income in Tuscany (culturally North), around Rome (umbelievably big number of government officers) and lower in the less prosperous Marche. This is just speculating however. Thanks. Yes the big city areas in the north are black in the map, as you say. As for the linguistic connection, I guess the misunderstanding is clarified already. France speaks a romance language but clusters with Germany with almost any ethnicity parameter. Same goes for Romania and Slav world. Language is only a tool to identify a possible kinship, not the good one in all cases.
|
|