Relative size of countries

[Luddly Neddite]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

 

[Indeependent]

One must also consider arability and other uses of land.
If the majority of territory is either unusable or unconquerable then it only looks good on a map.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

Good illustration. First became aware of this watching an old "The West Wing" episode where some organization of cartographers were at the White House. They wanted to replace Mercator maps (from 1569) with more accurate 'projection' style maps which depict relative size more realisticly. Looking into it to verify, it's a really fascinating issue and technical problem. Since the Earth is round, any flat map will be inaccurate from the get-go. Some are better and more accurate than others, but few if any show things as if viewed from space/orbit. But the issue usually raised isn't inaccuracy so much as how the inaccuracy fosters prejudicial attitudes. Very interesting stuff and worth a look. As the line from the show put it, shown a more accurate map, "What the hell is that?!" - "It's where you've been living this whole time."

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I remember that episode. As always, they used that to make some important points.

If you've ever flown across either ocean, you've seen the little real-time animated video showing where you were. Surprising to me was just how far north you fly in order to 'go straight' across the ocean. We saw the same thing when planes had to be re-routed when the volcano erupted.

Size doesn't always matter. Look at tiny UK and consider just how much of the world they used to control. Look at how much we spend on defense - as we know, more than the next 13-15 countries combined - and yet, these days, we get relatively little in return for that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Related -

Americans Were Asked To Place European Countries On A Map. Here?s What They Wrote: | Bored Panda

The images won't c/p but well worth a look.

Its true that war is nature's way of teaching Americans geography.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I always loved geography and maps. Still do. Ironicly, when I was on walk-about I just headed east from California. Figuring the ocean'd tell me when I got to the other side. And it did. But since I wasn't headed anywhere in particular that was fine. Then headed south and went all the way to Key West, then turned around.

Maps kinda bug me though with how everything's lined off and this is our country, that's their's. Be nice if all the lines disappeared some day.

 

[Vox]

what idiot composed this

there is no such country as "Eastern Europe "

but an American does not know that

 

[norwegen]

what idiot composed this

there is no such country as "Eastern Europe "

but an American does not know that

I wonder what the weather is like in the Part 2 countries this time of year (India and China). And it looks like Ireland is part of the UK now.

I understand the intent, though. The real problem, I think, is the slight misleading of size differences. The image is missing parts of the United States.

 

[Vox]

what idiot composed this

there is no such country as "Eastern Europe "

but an American does not know that

I wonder what the weather is like in the Part 2 countries this time of year (India and China). And it looks like Ireland is part of the UK now.

I understand the intent, though. The real problem, I think, is the slight misleading of size differences. The image is missing parts of the United States.

it is not a slight misleading. it is a display of total ignorance. Instead of feeding the puree to the people's ( or student's heads) how about letting them compare by themselves the countries measurements - including the population, the capitals, the parts of the globe and so on

but that is the subject of political/economic geography. which nobody studies in this country in high school. even physical geography, which is one of the most interesting subjects possible for studying is barely present.

 

[BobPlumb]

Where's Russia?

 

[Toro]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels.

Why?

 

[auditor0007]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels.

Why?

It should fascinate us all, because that is where much of future cheap labor will potentially come from. As Asian countries see their middle classes grow, the labor situation will change. Zimbabwe could be the next Thailand; Nigeria could become the next China, and so on.

 

[kaz]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

So seriously, you believe the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending? That's just sad. They seriously need to make economics a core course in American high schools.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

So seriously, you believe the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending? That's just sad. They seriously need to make economics a core course in American high schools.

Gosh. I've read that post several times and I just can't find where I wrote that blanket statement, "... the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending".

Here's what I wrote: "... some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money".

 

[kaz]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

So seriously, you believe the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending? That's just sad. They seriously need to make economics a core course in American high schools.

Gosh. I've read that post several times and I just can't find where I wrote that blanket statement, "... the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending".

Here's what I wrote: "... some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money".

Seriously? You just quoted what you said you can't find. Who is "they" in the second sentence? The implication of the first sentence is that "they" refers to government.

 

[Katzndogz]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

I found this fascinating because you don't know the difference between a country and a continent.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

I found this fascinating because you don't know the difference between a country and a continent.

Which of those is not a country?

And, just as the map shows, they all do fit in the continent of Africa.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So seriously, you believe the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending? That's just sad. They seriously need to make economics a core course in American high schools.

Gosh. I've read that post several times and I just can't find where I wrote that blanket statement, "... the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending".

Here's what I wrote: "... some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money".

Seriously? You just quoted what you said you can't find. Who is "they" in the second sentence? The implication of the first sentence is that "they" refers to government.

Which is not the same as saying "... the wealth of countries is driven by their government spending".

Government spending contributes. The amount or percentage varies from one country to another. In point of fact, many country's governments do more for their citizens on a smaller tax base than other countries. And, it does depend on how that country chooses to spend the tax payer's money.

Needless to say, you're free to disagree with those statements but that won't change reality.

 

[theHawk]

I remember that episode. As always, they used that to make some important points.

If you've ever flown across either ocean, you've seen the little real-time animated video showing where you were. Surprising to me was just how far north you fly in order to 'go straight' across the ocean. We saw the same thing when planes had to be re-routed when the volcano erupted.

Size doesn't always matter. Look at tiny UK and consider just how much of the world they used to control. Look at how much we spend on defense - as we know, more than the next 13-15 countries combined - and yet, these days, we get relatively little in return for that.

Oh gawd, are you liberals still using that lame argument about the US defense spending being so much higher than everyone else? Well several of those other 13 countries have US forces in them to protect them, to include some of the biggest economies of the world - Germany, UK, Japan. Other countries are so dirt poor that comparing how much currency is spent is totally unfair, when Chinese soldiers get paid pennies compared to a well paid US military member.

The reality is China's army is almost double the size of the US military forces. India, North Korea, Russia all have armies nearly the same size of the US.

So please, stop XXXXXXX making it sound like the US military is so much bigger than everyone else's combine, because it isn't.

If we paid our soldiers virtually nothing, had another bigger country helping protect us, and had Chinese slaves making all of our equipment, we'd be in line with those other countries.

Personally I'm glad we pay our soldiers as much as they get(they deserve more IMO), I'm glad we're the ones helping protect other nations from aggressors, and that we pay Americans to build most of our military equipment instead of using slave labor.

But hey, that's just me. Obviously folks like you wish we did things differently.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought this fascinating on a lot of levels. The most obvious is that China just fits in the southern end. Another is that some very small countries are able to do well by their citizens on a much smaller tax base. Just depends on how they choose to spend their money.

I found this fascinating because you don't know the difference between a country and a continent.

Which of those is not a country?

And, just as the map shows, they all do fit in the continent of Africa.

I think that the point is the comparison is meaningless. How many fit in Asia? How about North America? What does it mean or what is your point? Basically, its not interesting because the comparison is meaningless.
Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2