The per capita statistic is useless and misleading - especially for CO2 emissions

Thank you Dom, you have just proven to all the forumites (including Mr. Textbook the Lepper), what I have been saying all along, and that is,

Get any number that is any number,

it may be the countries CO2 emissions, it could be how many people have cancer in that country, it could be how many crispy creams shops there are in that country etc. and you divide this number by the population of that particular country.

What does it give you?....It gives you that number divided by the population!

The per capita (per head statistic).

What does it tell you!!!!!!!!!!

Well to start with you must know the total amount of that particular number that you are going to divide by the total population of that country.

So you must already know the total amount be it volume, mass, force whatever!!!!!

As an example let’s look at the GDP per capita of Australia.

We know that the total population of Australia is 22,500,000 (22.5 million).

And we know that Australia’s total GDP is approximately 900,000,000,000 (900 billion).

Therefore:

900,000,000,000 / 22,500,000 = $40,000 per capita (per head)

What does this tell you?

Does it tell you how the wealth is distributed amongst Australians?..................NO
Does it tell you how much households earn?.....................................................NO
Does it tell you how much governments spend on infrastructure.......................NO
Does it tell you how much Australians consume?..............................................NO
Does it tell you the ratio of goods to services for GDP?.....................................NO
Does it tell you what type of life style the people have?....................................NO
Does it tell you how much debt we owe?..........................................................NO

I could go on but you get the picture right it contains no meaningful or useful information as a statistic.

It’s just a number divided by the amount of people in that country.

I could apply to the gum tree outside my house, if I knew the total number of leaves on the gum tree I could divide that number by the population of Australia.

Once I get that number what does it tell me about the tree and what does it tell me about our population?

Get the picture??!!??!!

Just one last thought!

Question: Do you know who created the per capita statistic?

Answer: The World Bank.

Nuff said.

Ok dude you may find it useful to choose which country you may want to live in, but as for me the per capita would be one of the last methods I would use for such a decision.

Per Capita statistic invented by bankers so they can show us meaningless and useless bits of information.

Eg, Julia Gillard – we are one of the worst polluters per capita in the world.

Julia you liar we only emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

BTW Dom thanks for taking the time to write som much i have read it and yeas i do understand what the per capita statistic is.


.

 

What is your arguement, all you do is post text book quotes that are full of sh!t.

How is the per capita statistic an indicator of the average standard of living of individual members of the population - what a load of malarkey.

And further down it says it doesn't tell you about prsonal income.

Hey Lep if you want to debate learn about it and how it works and then come on here in your own words and have a crack with references of course.

 

Seriously? Obviously I'm countering your own argument so mine would be that per capita has a use and isn't misleading.

Some countries with a high GDP have lower (even far lower) standards of living than countries with a high GDP per capita and vice versa. Neither are infallible but they both clearly have a use. I posted the article because I'm conceding that it has it's faults, and I'll concede that the way people use the information (not the term or information itself) can be misleading, but your statement that it is "useless and misleading" has been shown to be demonstrably false.

You think your incoherent rants could be considered debate? Heh, you are far more deluded than I thought.

 

Yes seriously, your counter has never really produced a good example for per capita?

You lost me a little here, cause i'm of the opinion that you acnnot get that information from a per capita statistic or even by just looking at the GDP of a nation.

At least we agree on something!

I thought they were decent examples of why a per capita statistic is useless.

I luvs ya Lep.........

 

What are you even doing talking if you don't know what you are arguing against?!? That's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

So you agree that what you said is demonstrably false? Sweet. We're done here.

Even if they were your argument would still be refuted because you have been given examples of the per capita statistic being useful.

 

You must be a woman, always have to get the last word in.

Still luvs ya Lep....Let the readers decide.

 

Don't ask questions if you don't want a reply. If anybody's a woman for getting the last word in it's you. You didn't even counter anything I said. Literally the sole purpose of your last post was to "get the last word in".

I'll take this as tacit admission of defeat.

 

Give it up Lepp. Your argument is shot full of more holes than a second hand fly screen.

- - - Updated - - -

Give it up Lepp. Your argument is shot full of more holes than a second hand fly screen.

 

Seeing as nobody has refuted my arguments, what you just said is demonstrably wrong....But nice try considering you failed to present any coherent argument in this thread and have been reduced to sniping childishly from the sidelines

 

Actually Dumb it is exactly what it tells you. The average of anything.

It is still crap because it does not tell you anything else. It is a political tool use to convolute the average Joe into believing anything the pollies want you to believe. As you can see here, many are deluded into believing that CO2 will rise in constant with increases of population.

The use of China is brilliant on their part as they do not realise that a considerable amount of the population are not a contributing fact into the gross production of CO2 emissions of that country. IF you actually look to the distribution of the CO2 emissions across china and then consider per capita of that population, it will surprise them. BUT it is just figures that you manipulate to make what you want to sound drastic.

Using Australian GDP as an example is considerably stupid, as most of the growth on GDP comes from one area, mineral wealth. If you consider that the increase in GDP is providing better living standards for ALL Australians, They really are fools.

Only the FOOLS consider that PER CAPITA figures are a true indicator of anything. China shows in itself how stupid the figures actually are. The fact that the country has obvious great wealth in small area as the poor sector is considerably large.

 

Ok Lepper you argue that the ‘per capita figure’ is not misleading? That is essentially your argument?

Perhaps you could explain to me how misleading the Average Wage is Australia is totally relevant to the wages that are earned by individual people?

The government has already admitted as being misleading due to the fact that some people are being paid enormously outrages wages compared to the average Joe thus putting the per capita (average income) wages into misleading figures.
Tell us all, how is averaging something across the entirety tells us anything of substance of reality?

 

No, go read the thread before trying to post in it. I've conceded that the information can be used in a misleading manner (not the info itself). The term per capita itself isn't misleading as it literally means "by head".

Uhh, sorry, what? How misleading the average wage is relevant to wages earned by indibiduals? Speak english or die.

Comparing per capita statistics from different countries is undeniably useful. You've been given plenty of examples but I've got another.

If we were to look at a large country with a large population of fat people we would think, okay, they are the fattest nation in the world. Then we might look at a smaller country with a smaller amount of fat people and think, okay, they aren't as fat. This would be misleading because when you use per capita it becomes apparent that the smaller country has more fatties per capita than the large. The large only looked like it had more because their population was so much bigger.

Per capita is most definitely useful when it comes to comparing statistics that require a countries population to be taken into account.

 

So in other words an average, fair enough.

LOL... How do you consider that the average wage is detiremind?

Let us look at it more closely.

A 10 people group have 4 obese people
A 4 people group have 2 obese people
So therefore in your example the group 2 is fattest?

However, how is this to determine who is fatter? By weight? By statistics? No, we have decided that because they are over the general threshold YOU consider to be the obesity line, they are fatter.

But if you consider that group 1 Has 4 people 100 kg over the obesity line and group 2 only has 2 people 20kg over the obesity line. Who has the fattest group then? Your larger group?

No, your example only goes to show that people will attempt the use of 'per capita' results to hide the truth of the reality of the situation created. It is only useful to generalising results.
If you actually consider that most politicians use this indicator in attempt to show how great they are preforming. The real question is why people of deluded understanding, actually believe they indicate anything of the real situation.
As with real wages compared to average wages, the figure is misleading due to the fact that small amount of people earn great amount of income in comparison to the majority. You are then including their statistical information to create a ‘per capita’ resources that is actually untrue to the majority.

 

M8, your arguments have been refuted into oblivion. You just haven`t worked that out yet.

 

It can't be. This has already been dealt with. Again, read the thread.

It determines they have more obese people per head than population one. What don't you understand about this?

Does this make per capita useless as a statistic? No, not at all. Yeah, those individuals are excessively fat but the per capita statistic demonstrates an obesity trend in the broader population. I would also say that group 2 is still the fattest group as half of their group is overweight. How far you are over the obesity level is irrelevant at this point. The fact still remains that group 2 has more fatties in their population than group 1.

Uhhh yeah, what were you arguing again?

Yeah, people using the per capita statistic to mislead has already been dealt with. The fact is that even though per capita has it's flaws it still has a use.

Uhh yeah, that can be true, but you are committing a fallacy when you assume this to be true in all cases. This also doesn't refute the fact that per capita can be an indicator of standards of living. Something which is easily proven by comparing per capita GDP with the quality of life index.

Besides, there's a thousand real economists who would probably disagree with you on per capita being useless and misleading. I'm sure they'll agree it can be useless and misleading, but to argue it is unequivocally so is redundant.

 

Really? As average wages are worked out by using the 'per capita' of the working population, it can't be?

The attempted usage of 'Per Capita' as an attempt to show substantial circumstances.

The obesity line is the most relevant point. It is totally irrelevant to attempt to illustrate the point of who is fatter when you have no indication of the measure what is considered to be obese. The question would be, what the obesity level of either group being measured is?

relevance to the OP that attempting to use 'per capita' as a measure of CO2 indicates that Australia is far worse than anybody else. In assumption of that very point is that increases in CO2 levels are the same as population increases.

As stated, yes it does have a use. To convolute the general public into believing whatever the politicians want you to think.

No, still does not indicate standards of living. They simply indicate that the standard of living as an average could be. As far as each and every individual some would be well above the average showing just as many below the average. Again, it simply attempts to disillusion all on the realities of the situation.

I do not argue it is redundant. Fact is, it is a useful tool to show the average of any standard or wealth is higher than another or that something on an average is lower. But realistically it is useless as some justification to create policy or rule for a population as it fails to account anything of substance.

So tell me, what use is it to learn that Australian's have the one of the highest land per capita of most of the world? Sounds great until you realise it is actually a useless statistic, but it still sounds great.

 

Just face it lep its a statistic that on its own tells SFA, thee are no details.

And as you yourself admit it has its shortcomings.

Like Gary's example about the fat people, all you get is that number divided by the population, it doen't tell how much each individual is overweight by etc etc.

Its like the CO2 per capita my my doesn't Australia look bad if we use it on our selves.

Australia = 20 tonnes per capita

China = 4.91 tonnes per capita.

But guess what lep,

Australia has 23 coal fired power stations.

China has 620 coal fired power stations.

Thats why its a useless piece of junk.

The per capita statistic is stupid and dumb has no useful purpose and its deceiving at best, a good weapon for lieing politicians like Gillard.

Maybe thats why the world bank created it for us, to confuse us.

Gary's example on average wages is also a good method to prove the per capita statistic is garbage.

 

Ah sorry, I thought you said "individual wages". I'm still confused as to the question and it's purpose.

It doesn't have to "show substantial circumstances" to have a use. Try again.

Of course the obesity line is the most relevant point. The point is that it doesn't matter how far over the obesity line individual people are when trying to determine which population has the most fatties per capita. Once crossed, you're obese. Stop trying to complicate the issue by bringing each individual kilogram into it...and like I said, "the per capita statistic demonstrates an obesity trend in the broader population".

Sorry, I don't think you got it. I was just asking that because you admitted per capita has a use....Although your argument here doesn't work either. All that indicates is that we use more CO2 per capita than other countries. That's it. It's not misleading at all, it's just that some people don't seem to understand the term or know the relevant information to keep it in perspective. This is not the same as per capita being misleading. This is ignorance.

Ignorance of all evidence to the contrary = epic fail

Well yeah, obviously it varies for individuals dude....And it isn't a direct measurement but it certainly is an indicator. I think you are getting confused about the word "indicate".

Also, this doesn't make sense.

"No, still does not indicate standards of living. They simply indicate that the standard of living as an average could be."

So it doesn't indicate standards of living but it indicates standards of living as an average? ..... You better be trolling, son

This should've been the opening post in this thread. A much more sensible argument to make.

Yeah, that is a useless example.

 

So i have read the posts and all I see is your answer to everything is

That means it is useful? A useful economic tool? LOL... No it only tells you what it is. As we have agreed 'Per capita' is simply the averaging of whatever statistic. Averaging a statistic is simply an attempt to mislead the group into believing the average is the normal.

As I have attempted to indicate, (unsuccessfully) and Assie has stated, the per capita statistic can only be considered between populations where all variables are equal. Per capita does not consider variance in anything between the growth of population. used in the terms of what you believe makes it useful the term would be:

"all things being equal ...per capita is higher in ... than ...." fill the dots as you like

But they are not equal at all are they? So tell us what other accounting trick do you consider should be useful?

So far you have not answered any question of the people before, claiming that you have covered them previously in the thread. The recurring question being.

What meaningful statistic can you get from the per capita statistic? So far it is the average standard of living by combining them with another index, which simply gives you another misleading statistic because your basis is misleading to begin with.
No, you have covered nothing to point except continued belief that ‘Per capita’ or the average of the population is actually a misleading assumption that accounts for nothing.

 

Says the guy who just ignores the last post and instead replies to an old comment that was made on the last page which I was admittedly confused over

Clearly you didn't read the thread because there have been multiple examples of why it is useful and you are yet to respond to my counter to your counter of my obesity example.

Fact is it's useful when it comes to making certain comparisons between countries. Like even though it says nothing about personal income, it is still useful in comparing the wealth of different nations. Seriously, I'm getting tired of trying to explain such a simple concept to you people.

The statistic we get gives us a better perspective on a nations wealth. That is undeniably useful.

 

Sorry guys that 620 power stations for china is outdated.

Its more like 1370.

http://www.platts.com/Products/chinacoalpowergen

Now here is a statistic i'm hanging out to see coal fired power stations per population. should make lep happy.

Australia's population is 22,500,000 (22.5 million)

we have 23 coal fired power stations

22,500,000 / 23 = 978,261 people per power station


China's population is 1,344,000,000 (1 billion 344 million)

China has 1370 coal fired power stations

1,344,000,000 / 1370 = 981022 people per power station

So lep where does the above leave CO2 emissions per capita??????????

When we have roughly about the same number of people per power station.


.

 

Protip: Using per capita in a redundant manner doesn't make the term useless.

 

Imo below is a good example why the per capita statistic is useless and meanigless and misleading.

Hence only used by liars like Julia Gillard.

Suck eggs lep, they both lack in supplying valueable information, for instance not all power station have the same output.

 

What? it does not have to show substance?

If you are using it to compare substance, then yes it does have to show substance.

Ok let us make it less complicated. You cannot compare the two as you do not know what the line of obesity actually is. If it was 90kg at one point and 150kg at another, changes your average statistic completely as both are averaged at different rates.

LOL... So the figure is relevant, because it shows that an average of CO2 across the population is higher than China? So your actually not arguing that the 'per capita' statistic is of use or not. Your just arguing pedantically about the term of 'Per Capita' let us see, what does it take into account:
The population who create the CO2?...No
The population who create no CO2?...No
Perhaps distribution of cause of CO2?... No
Maybe the cause of CO2?...No
That increases in the lower population group will increase equally per capita?... No

No, All it tells anybody is the average across the population of CO2 emitted by the country is X amount. It does not indicate that it is either a relative small amount or a large amount of the population actually producing the CO2. Is it useful to strategies economy simply on this average? No, it is simply used as indicators for the everyday people who have no idea what it actually indicates.

LOL… What evidence? YOUR assumption that Per capita actually is good tool for economic strategies? Perhaps your belief it actually indicates some measure of how economies or anything else is going against others? LOL… no the evidence only indicates you do not know what the term is actually used for.

But you claim it has substance? The fact that you have actually decided that economist and politicians use this as a useful tool, meaning that it is helpful to build economic strategies? Or is the realistic presumption of the so called indicator?
I am not confused; it would seem it is you who consider important. Fact is, it is a misleading representation of figures, used to “indicate” Whatever the politicians want you to believe. They have no reflection on individual and do not account for those well above the average or those below the average. They only average things out so people like you and me can decide the relevance in comparison to what we believe.

Perhaps I should say. If 90% of the population is living in the streets( you know POOR) and 10% have such a great standard of living that it shows an increase “per Capita” then how can one say that the standard of living has raised? But YOU assume it has.

But even the politicians like to wheel it out occasionally to “indicate” how great the economic wealth of individual Australians are. Fortunately, you can see it is useless.

- - - Updated - - -

What? it does not have to show substance?

If you are using it to compare substance, then yes it does have to show substance.

Ok let us make it less complicated. You cannot compare the two as you do not know what the line of obesity actually is. If it was 90kg at one point and 150kg at another, changes your average statistic completely as both are averaged at different rates.

LOL... So the figure is relevant, because it shows that an average of CO2 across the population is higher than China? So your actually not arguing that the 'per capita' statistic is of use or not. Your just arguing pedantically about the term of 'Per Capita' let us see, what does it take into account:
The population who create the CO2?...No
The population who create no CO2?...No
Perhaps distribution of cause of CO2?... No
Maybe the cause of CO2?...No
That increases in the lower population group will increase equally per capita?... No

No, All it tells anybody is the average across the population of CO2 emitted by the country is X amount. It does not indicate that it is either a relative small amount or a large amount of the population actually producing the CO2. Is it useful to strategies economy simply on this average? No, it is simply used as indicators for the everyday people who have no idea what it actually indicates.

LOL… What evidence? YOUR assumption that Per capita actually is good tool for economic strategies? Perhaps your belief it actually indicates some measure of how economies or anything else is going against others? LOL… no the evidence only indicates you do not know what the term is actually used for.

But you claim it has substance? The fact that you have actually decided that economist and politicians use this as a useful tool, meaning that it is helpful to build economic strategies? Or is the realistic presumption of the so called indicator?
I am not confused; it would seem it is you who consider important. Fact is, it is a misleading representation of figures, used to “indicate” Whatever the politicians want you to believe. They have no reflection on individual and do not account for those well above the average or those below the average. They only average things out so people like you and me can decide the relevance in comparison to what we believe.

Perhaps I should say. If 90% of the population is living in the streets( you know POOR) and 10% have such a great standard of living that it shows an increase “per Capita” then how can one say that the standard of living has raised? But YOU assume it has.

But even the politicians like to wheel it out occasionally to “indicate” how great the economic wealth of individual Australians are. Fortunately, you can see it is useless.

 

LOL... I have answered all your posts in order. Do you sujest that your later posts are different to your original? Are you that frivilous?

No, I have many examples that YOU say are useful. Fact is, they seem only useful to the general Joe to use in attempts to discuss issues they have no real knowledge on.

How can you be tired of explaining anything, you haven't explained a thing. All you have touted as being the great all suppressing answer

But you are yet to explain how this makes it a useful statistic other than misleading the populace.

LOL... As it has already past, Apparently China is a very wealthy nation isn't it. Shame the general population is not as wealthy as the 'Per Capita' figure 'indicates', isn't it. No, it only gives YOU an assumption of wealth of a nation’s economy, it does not give the real understanding. As the figure actually does not indicate what the level of wealth is. Your Assumption just goes to show, how you superficially use averaging to equate your understanding of your comparison against other nations.

- - - Updated - - -

Protip: Pretending the term is the point of the issue does not mean you are correct.