World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illitera

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi


Click on the 'economy' tab

Been a reliable source for many for years, also used by world-renknowned and respected institutions.

Alternatively, you could of course make up your own.

[RichD]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

STATIN Figures put it at around $3300

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">STATIN Figures put it at around $3300 </div></div> CIA Fact book had it in the 3000 range too during the PNP administration.
So with negative growth since then, it is now 7,400 according to them a and that is on one year. Well they have use d thes acrobatics to tailor their decisions without acknowledging that it is aoll about politics.

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries. The measure is difficult to compute, as a US dollar value has to be assigned to all goods and services in the country regardless of whether these goods and services have a direct equivalent in the United States (for example, the value of an ox-cart or non-US military equipment); as a result, PPP estimates for some countries are based on a small and sometimes different set of goods and services. In addition, many countries do not formally participate in the World Bank's PPP project that calculates these measures, so the resulting GDP estimates for these countries may lack precision. For many developing countries, PPP-based GDP measures are multiples of the official exchange rate (OER) measure. The differences between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the wealthy industrialized countries are generally much smaller. </div></div>

The value is based on how much those goods or services would be valued at in the US. <span style="font-weight: bold"> The same approach is used for all coutries, so it is comparable</span>. (RPI prices = the country 'shopping basket'). (see my PPP esample above).

But yes, the JA. institute based on the value in Ja Dollars, then converted using Ex rate at the time.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries. The measure is difficult to compute, as a US dollar value has to be assigned to all goods and services in the country regardless of whether these goods and services have a direct equivalent in the United States (for example, the value of an ox-cart or non-US military equipment); as a result, PPP estimates for some countries are based on a small and sometimes different set of goods and services. In addition, many countries do not formally participate in the World Bank's PPP project that calculates these measures, so the resulting GDP estimates for these countries may lack precision. For many developing countries, PPP-based GDP measures are multiples of the official exchange rate (OER) measure. The differences between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the wealthy industrialized countries are generally much smaller. </div></div>

The value is based on how much those goods or services would be valued at in the US. <span style="font-weight: bold"> The same approach is used for all coutries, so it is comparable</span>. (RPI prices = the country 'shopping basket'). (see my PPP esample above).

But yes, the JA. institute based on the value in Ja Dollars, then converted using Ex rate at the time.

</div></div> I think we all kniw that. But how does this account for such a vast dufference between what the same fact book and the woirldbank use with the Jamaican statical institute? I mean you don't believe thatthe 3300 is Jamaican dollars, do you??
And how would that compute with what you just posted?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">STATIN Figures put it at around $3300 </div></div> CIA Fact book had it in the 3000 range too during the PNP administration.
So with negative growth since then, it is now 7,400 according to them a and that is on one year. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Well they have use d thes acrobatics to tailor their decisions without acknowledging that it is aoll about politics.</span> </div></div>
Again it was the same personnel at PIOJ and SATIN during the PNP Administration.
You should write to the GOJ point out this mistake and request that all personnel be fired from both places. Until you do this you have not right to infer that it political, it could be gross incompetence, or they all functionally illiterate.

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries. The measure is difficult to compute, as a US dollar value has to be assigned to all goods and services in the country regardless of whether these goods and services have a direct equivalent in the United States (for example, the value of an ox-cart or non-US military equipment); as a result, PPP estimates for some countries are based on a small and sometimes different set of goods and services. In addition, many countries do not formally participate in the World Bank's PPP project that calculates these measures, so the resulting GDP estimates for these countries may lack precision. For many developing countries, PPP-based GDP measures are multiples of the official exchange rate (OER) measure. The differences between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the wealthy industrialized countries are generally much smaller. </div></div>

The value is based on how much those goods or services would be valued at in the US. <span style="font-weight: bold"> The same approach is used for all coutries, so it is comparable</span>. (RPI prices = the country 'shopping basket'). (see my PPP esample above).

But yes, the JA. institute based on the value in Ja Dollars, then converted using Ex rate at the time.

</div></div> I think we all kniw that. But how does this account for such a vast dufference between what the same fact book and the woirldbank use with the Jamaican statical institute? I mean you don't believe thatthe 3300 is Jamaican dollars, do you??
And how would that compute with what you just posted? </div></div>

Sorry, I would have thought it was obvious (perhaps a little too self-indulgent on my part).

The 3300 figure you gave, I assume was in US$ - (as it would have been far greater in JA$)
If the goods that JA provides would fetch a higher price in US, then that price is applied instead. (this is not just for JA, but for all the countries in the index).

So going back to the example again of bread - costs Ja$35.00 in Jamaica, in converting it to US$, the Ja institute would convert this to US$0.50 (50Cents) using a straight exchange rate of Ja$70/US$

But if that same bread would sell for US$1.50 in the US, then the index would put a value of $1.50 to the Jamaican bread. We are NOT importing it, so please ignore import duty, etc.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Same example for teachers' salary.</span>
If teachers are paid - Ja$600,000.00 each year in Jamaica, in converting it to US$, the Ja institute would convert this to US$8,571.43 using a straight exchange rate of Ja$70/US$. But if that same teacher would get US$30,0000 in the US, then the index would put a value of $30,000 to the salary of that teacher.

Risk is - as the index says, if there is not the equivalent type of product in the US, so a broader definition would be used.

But remember this is applied to the macro-economic output (Bauxite, Agriculture)

So again, if we are comparing the GDP of Ja. to the US or anywhere else, you would also need to get into the conversation about whether it is a fair comparison if people pay more for those goods in that country, than they would in the Ja. Standardisation of statistics removes this factor.

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">STATIN Figures put it at around $3300 </div></div> CIA Fact book had it in the 3000 range too during the PNP administration.
So with negative growth since then, it is now 7,400 according to them a and that is on one year. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Well they have use d thes acrobatics to tailor their decisions without acknowledging that it is aoll about politics.</span> </div></div>
Again it was the same personnel at PIOJ and SATIN during the PNP Administration.
You should write to the GOJ point out this mistake and request that all personnel be fired from both places. Until you do this you have not right to infer that it political, it could be gross incompetence, or they all functionally illiterate.
</div></div>

Don't know, or think their figures are wrong, just not converted for purchasing power parity(PPP).

If China wanted to look at it, it would be different again still, because the PPP is different compared to Ja, or the US, but the <span style="font-weight: bold">basis </span>would be the JA institute's figures.

When reading, just have to look at the basis, make sure it's consistent, then use the same source/index from one country to the next.

[RichD]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries. The measure is difficult to compute, as a US dollar value has to be assigned to all goods and services in the country regardless of whether these goods and services have a direct equivalent in the United States (for example, the value of an ox-cart or non-US military equipment); as a result, PPP estimates for some countries are based on a small and sometimes different set of goods and services. In addition, many countries do not formally participate in the World Bank's PPP project that calculates these measures, so the resulting GDP estimates for these countries may lack precision. For many developing countries, PPP-based GDP measures are multiples of the official exchange rate (OER) measure. The differences between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the wealthy industrialized countries are generally much smaller. </div></div>

The value is based on how much those goods or services would be valued at in the US. <span style="font-weight: bold"> The same approach is used for all coutries, so it is comparable</span>. (RPI prices = the country 'shopping basket'). (see my PPP esample above).

But yes, the JA. institute based on the value in Ja Dollars, then converted using Ex rate at the time.

</div></div> I think we all kniw that. But how does this account for such a vast dufference between what the same fact book and the woirldbank use with the Jamaican statical institute? I mean you don't believe thatthe 3300 is Jamaican dollars, do you??
And how would that compute with what you just posted? </div></div>

Sorry, I would have thought it was obvious (perhaps a little too self-indulgent on my part).

The 3300 figure you gave, I assume was in US$ - (as it would have been far greater in JA$)
If the goods that JA provides would fetch a higher price in US, then that price is applied instead. (this is not just for JA, but for all the countries in the index).

So going back to the example again of bread - costs Ja$35.00 in Jamaica, in converting it to US$, the Ja institute would convert this to US$0.50 (50Cents) using a straight exchange rate of Ja$70/US$

But if that same bread would sell for US$1.50 in the US, then the index would put a value of $1.50 to the Jamaican bread. We are NOT importing it, so please ignore import duty, etc.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
Same example for teachers' salary.</span>
If teachers are paid - Ja$600,000.00 each year in Jamaica, in converting it to US$, the Ja institute would convert this to US$8,571.43 using a straight exchange rate of Ja$70/US$. But if that same teacher would get US$30,0000 in the US, then the index would put a value of $30,000 to the salary of that teacher.

Risk is - as the index says, if there is not the equivalent type of product in the US, so a broader definition would be used.

But remember this is applied to the macro-economic output (Bauxite, Agriculture)

So again, if we are comparing the GDP of Ja. to the US or anywhere else, you would also need to get into the conversation about whether it is a fair comparison if people pay more for those goods in that country, than they would in the Ja. Standardisation of statistics removes this factor.
</div></div>this seem to me to be a significantly flawed calculation and comparison.

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this seem to me to be a significantly flawed calculation and comparison.



</div></div>

How so...?

[RichD]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this seem to me to be a significantly flawed calculation and comparison.



</div></div>

How so...? </div></div>

it seems to me that it woudl portry a economy as being much better off than it actually is...I dont see how you can apply a external value to service that is already priced at a certain level.

[Amberal37]

Re: World Bank points finger at Jamaica's 'functionally illi

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this seem to me to be a significantly flawed calculation and comparison.



</div></div>

How so...? </div></div>

it seems to me that it woudl portry a economy as being much better off than it actually is...I dont see how you can apply a external value to service that is already priced at a certain level. </div></div>

Hear what you are saying, and it is one of the arguments that is often applied, but the only constant is the end product, Bauxite, is bauxite...paper is paper, textile is textile...etc.
The US$ is applied as a standard, but another method would be to allocate points, depending on the product (but I think that would get similar result), unless you also take account of the &quot;green&quot; (environmental) factor...never mind, I could discuss for days

But as you mentioned the possibiity of something appearing overvalued, it also works the other way. For example, one country - which the index values GDP at about US$50,000, where elsewhere - based on exchange rate, it is valued it around US$70,000. I would also agree that adjustment, I know things there cost significantly more that you would pay in US/UK, but the argument is that salaries are also more.