Some interesting information...

**julie*mango** · 09-23-2009, 06:22 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

Thank you so much for this link. If you don't mind I would like to copy paste some of these statistics.

**julie*mango** · 09-23-2009, 06:25 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

<span style="font-size: 17pt">Poorest Countries</span>

Rank Countries Amount Date
= 1 Liberia: 80% 2000
= 1 Gaza Strip: 80% 2007
= 1 Haiti: 80% 2003
= 1 Zimbabwe: 80% 2004
= 1 Chad: 80% 2001
# 6 Sierra Leone: 70.2% 2004
= 7 Suriname: 70% 2002
= 7 Mozambique: 70% 2001
= 7 Angola: 70% 2003
= 7 Nigeria: 70% 2007
# 11 Swaziland: 69% 2006
# 12 Burundi: 68% 2002
= 13 Tajikistan: 60% 2007
= 13 Bolivia: 60% 2006
= 13 Rwanda: 60% 2001
= 13 Comoros: 60% 2002
# 17 Guatemala: 56.2% 2004
# 18 Malawi: 55% 2004
= 19 Senegal: 54% 2001
= 19 São Tomé and Príncipe: 54% 2004
# 21 Afghanistan: 53% 2003
# 22 Honduras: 50.7% 2004
= 23 Kenya: 50% 2000
= 23 Namibia: 50% 2002
= 23 Ethiopia: 50% 2004
= 23 Madagascar: 50% 2004
= 23 Eritrea: 50% 2004
= 23 South Africa: 50% 2000
# 29 Colombia: 49.2% 2005
# 30 Lesotho: 49% 1999
= 31 Cameroon: 48% 2000
= 31 Nicaragua: 48% 2005
= 33 Guinea: 47% 2006
= 33 Venezuela: 47% 1998
# 35 Burkina Faso: 46.4% 2004
# 36 West Bank: 46% 2007
# 37 Yemen: 45.2% 2003
# 38 Bangladesh: 45% 2004
# 39 Peru: 44.5% 2006
# 40 Dominican Republic: 42.2% 2004
= 41 East Timor: 42% 2003
= 41 Côte d'Ivoire: 42% 2006
= 41 Djibouti: 42% 2007
= 44 Cambodia: 40% 2004
= 44 Sudan: 40% 2004
= 44 Mauritania: 40% 2004
= 44 Kyrgyzstan: 40% 2004
# 48 Ecuador: 38.3% 2006
# 49 Ukraine: 37.7% 2003
# 50 Benin: 37.4% 2007
= 51 Panama: 37% 1999
= 51 Papua New Guinea: 37% 2002
= 53 Mongolia: 36.1% 2004
= 53 Mali: 36.1% 2005
# 55 Tanzania: 36% 2002
= 56 Pakistan: 35% 2001
= 56 Uganda: 35% 2001
# 58 Belize: 33.5% 2002
# 59 Uzbekistan: 33% 2004
# 60 Burma: 32.7% 2007
= 61 Grenada: 32% 2000
= 61 Paraguay: 32% 2005
# 63 Bhutan: 31.7% 2003
= 64 Brazil: 31% 2005
= 64 Georgia: 31% 2006
# 66 Nepal: 30.9% 2004
= 67 El Salvador: 30.7% 2006
= 67 Laos: 30.7% 2005
# 69 Botswana: 30.3% 2003
= 70 Turkmenistan: 30% 2004
= 70 Cape Verde: 30% 2000
= 70 Philippines: 30% 2003
= 70 Dominica: 30% 2002
# 74 Macedonia, Republic of: 29.8% 2006
# 75 Moldova: 29.5% 2005
# 76 Virgin Islands: 28.9% 2002
# 77 Ghana: 28.5% 2007
# 78 Lebanon: 28% 1999
# 79 Uruguay: 27.4% 2006
# 80 Belarus: 27.1% 2003
# 81 Micronesia, Federated States of: 26.7% 2000
# 82 Armenia: 26.5% 2006
= 83 Algeria: 25% 2005
= 83 Romania: 25% 2005
= 83 Albania: 25% 2004
= 83 India: 25% 2007
= 83 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 25% 2004
= 88 Azerbaijan: 24% 2005
= 88 Tonga: 24% 2006
# 90 Argentina: 23.4% 2007
= 91 Anguilla: 23% 2002
= 91 Guam: 23% 2001
# 93 Sri Lanka: 22% 2002
# 94 Israel: 21.6% 2005
= 95 Slovakia: 21% 2002
= 95 Maldives: 21% 2004
= 97 Egypt: 20% 2005
= 97 Turkey: 20% 2002
# 99 Spain: 19.8% 2005
# 100 United Arab Emirates: 19.5% 2003
# 101 Bermuda: 19% 2000
# 102 Chile: 18.2% 2005
= 103 Iran: 18% 2007
= 103 Portugal: 18% 2006
# 105 Indonesia: 17.8% 2006
= 106 Poland: 17% 2003
= 106 Trinidad and Tobago: 17% 2007
# 108 Costa Rica: 16% 2006
# 109 Russia: 15.8% 2007
# 110 Belgium: 15.2% 2007
= 111 Morocco: 15% 2007
= 111 Korea, South: 15% 2003
= 113 Jamaica: 14.8% 2003

Countries Compared by Economy > Population below poverty line. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line

National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.

**neutral** · 09-23-2009, 06:26 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

Total MURDERS per capita tells a different story.

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
# 3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
# 4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
# 5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
# 7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
# 9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
# 10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# 11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
# 12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# 13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# 14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# 15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# 16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# 17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# 18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
# 19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
# 20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# 21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
# 22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
# 23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
# 26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
# 27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
# 28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
# 29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
# 30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
# 31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
# 32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
# 33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
# 34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people

Countries Compared by Crime > Murders > Per capita. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Number of convictions for intentional homicides in the given year. Per capita figures expressed per 1 million population.

**julie*mango** · 09-23-2009, 06:55 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

<span style="font-weight: bold">Richest Countries</span>

# 1 Luxembourg: $89,563.63 per capita 2006
# 2 Norway: $66,964.36 per capita 2006
# 3 Iceland: $53,029.30 per capita 2006
# 4 Ireland: $52,892.89 per capita 2006
# 5 Qatar: $52,239.72 per capita 2005
# 6 Switzerland: $51,032.66 per capita 2006
# 7 Denmark: $50,702.00 per capita 2006
# 8 United States: $44,155.00 per capita 2006
# 9 Sweden: $42,553.49 per capita 2006
# 10 Netherlands: $40,167.13 per capita 2006
# 11 Finland: $39,855.93 per capita 2006
# 12 Austria: $39,131.37 per capita 2006
# 13 United Kingdom: $38,849.97 per capita 2006
# 14 Canada: $38,439.78 per capita 2006
# 15 Australia: $37,433.85 per capita 2006
# 16 Belgium: $37,384.34 per capita 2006
# 17 Bermuda: $36,960.66 per capita 2003
# 18 France: $36,546.72 per capita 2006
# 19 Germany: $35,270.36 per capita 2006
# 20 Japan: $34,022.94 per capita 2006
# 21 Kuwait: $31,860.60 per capita 2005
# 22 Italy: $31,495.95 per capita 2006
# 23 Macau: $30,847.02 per capita 2006
# 24 Man, Isle of: $30,324.50 per capita 2003
# 25 Singapore: $30,082.46 per capita 2006
# 26 United Arab Emirates: $28,611.84 per capita 2005
# 27 Spain: $28,107.74 per capita 2006
# 28 Hong Kong: $27,071.62 per capita 2006
# 29 New Zealand: $25,179.09 per capita 2006
# 31 Taiwan: $23,386.28 per capita 2003
# 32 Virgin Islands: $22,975.83 per capita 2002
# 33 Greece: $22,041.90 per capita 2006
# 34 Cyprus: $20,841.24 per capita 2004
# 35 Guam: $20,594.27 per capita 2000
# 36 Greenland: $19,520.85 per capita 2001
# 37 Slovenia: $18,674.21 per capita 2006
# 38 French Polynesia: $18,421.02 per capita 2003
# 39 Korea, South: $18,340.76 per capita 2006
# 40 Portugal: $18,184.92 per capita 2006
# 41 Israel: $17,827.95 per capita 2005
# 42 Bahrain: $17,773.38 per capita 2005
# 43 Bahamas, The: $17,497.16 per capita 2003
# 44 Brunei: $17,120.55 per capita 2005
# 45 Puerto Rico: $16,815.88 per capita 2003
# 46 Equatorial Guinea: $16,630.43 per capita 2006
# 47 Trinidad and Tobago: $15,213.69 per capita 2006
# 48 Martinique: $14,360.30 per capita 2003
# 49 New Caledonia: $13,990.49 per capita 2003
# 50 Czech Republic: $13,877.02 per capita 2006
# 51 Malta: $13,803.35 per capita 2005
# 52 Netherlands Antilles: $13,700.01 per capita 2003
# 53 Saudi Arabia: $13,399.31 per capita 2005
# 54 Estonia: $12,236.60 per capita 2006
# 55 Antigua and Barbuda: $11,503.73 per capita 2006
# 56 Barbados: $11,465.29 per capita 2005
# 57 Hungary: $11,226.70 per capita 2006
# 58 Slovakia: $10,223.34 per capita 2006
# 59 Saint Kitts and Nevis: $10,056.45 per capita 2006
# 60 Croatia: $9,611.68 per capita 2006
# 61 Oman: $9,583.86 per capita 2004
# 62 Poland: $8,887.73 per capita 2006
# 63 Chile: $8,864.73 per capita 2006
# 64 Latvia: $8,797.00 per capita 2006
# 65 Lithuania: $8,770.09 per capita 2006
# 66 Seychelles: $8,743.98 per capita 2006
# 67 Libya: $8,435.53 per capita 2006
# 68 French Guiana: $8,297.80 per capita 2003
# 69 Mexico: $8,051.92 per capita 2006
# 70 Guadeloupe: $7,980.66 per capita 2003
# 71 Palau: $7,784.69 per capita 2006
# 72 Russia: $6,932.33 per capita 2006
# 73 Gabon: $6,790.59 per capita 2006
# 74 Venezuela: $6,730.41 per capita 2006
# 75 Botswana: $5,875.09 per capita 2006
# 76 Uruguay: $5,827.86 per capita 2006
# 77 Malaysia: $5,780.37 per capita 2006
# 78 Réunion: $5,757.64 per capita 2003
# 79 Brazil: $5,659.74 per capita 2006
# 80 Romania: $5,645.24 per capita 2006
# 81 Lebanon: $5,603.50 per capita 2006
# 82 Turkey: $5,521.47 per capita 2006
# 83 Argentina: $5,471.76 per capita 2006
# 84 Saint Lucia: $5,457.35 per capita 2006
# 85 South Africa: $5,380.60 per capita 2006
# 86 Panama: $5,205.49 per capita 2006
# 87 Mauritius: $5,144.63 per capita 2006
# 88 Costa Rica: $5,046.90 per capita 2006
# 89 Kazakhstan: $5,045.50 per capita 2006
# 90 Grenada: $4,801.37 per capita 2006
# 91 Dominica: $4,141.34 per capita 2006
# 92 Belize: $4,094.42 per capita 2006
# 93 Bulgaria: $4,089.22 per capita 2006
# 94 Jamaica: $3,954.33 per capita 2006

Countries Compared by Economy > GDP > Per capita. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita

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 difference between the OER- and PPP-denominated GDP values for most of the weathly industrialized countries are generally much smaller. Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.

**Wahalla** · 09-23-2009, 07:14 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independcen in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland

**Dr.Dudd** · 09-23-2009, 07:23 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

Jamaica was never ahead of Ireland in reality.

It may be propped up like many other favoured states at the moment are propped up.

The advantage with being propped up and given favoured status, is higher credit ratings and lower interest on loans.

So this hammer is used against those countries that does not act in favour of foreign and against the better interest of the locals.
They are punished with artificially low credit scores,similar to the way they do with blacks in the US.

This whole economic evaluation is very subjective.

It is all about control, by a few powerful colonizers and very little to do with reality.
A lot of what is presently posted on that page has been drastically changed, but it may never be recorded.

Lets face it. The Us used credit extended to it citizens and overpriced property to prop up their figures. and it is not limited to them either.
this is all about making favourites look good and the wayward struggle under high interest rates due to artificially suppressed credit scores,based on artificial GDP earnings.

They all know that Jamaica has an unreported GDP of as much as the reported figures. They know that.
That is why Digicel was shocked at the ability pf the population to generate such a high earnings rate con a constant basis for the company.

The value of the housing stock and property ownership is also a shocker to the economic community. they know all this, but they still keep Jamaica's rate suppressed.
Why??
because they people will not allow them to use the country as a means to use slave labour to enrich themselves.

The only countries that get high credit ratings are the ones that the colonials are black. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independence in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland </div></div>

**foolya** · 09-23-2009, 07:24 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

Every one notice the top 10 countries for:
1: Most Corrupt
2: Fattest

They are white own country.

**Wahalla** · 09-23-2009, 07:33 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jamaica was never ahead of Ireland in reality.

It may be propped up like many other favoured states at the moment are propped up.

The advantage with being propped up and given favoured status, is higher credit ratings and lower interest on loans.

So this hammer is used against those countries that does not act in favour of foreign and against the better interest of the locals.
They are punished with artificially low credit scores,similar to the way they do with blacks in the US.

This whole economic evaluation is very subjective.

It is all about control, by a few powerful colonizers and very little to do with reality. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independence in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland </div></div> </div></div>

Doc if we use these sources as validation of our current postion.. it is only logical to apply the same criteria to the past for our relative postion...

my old man visted spain, ireland back in the early mid 20th centuary and his opnion was our qualuty of live was superior,,,, n

**Dr.Dudd** · 09-23-2009, 07:42 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

The problem is that Jamaicans had very little to do with the difference. Since Jamaica was a colony.

The problem why Jamaica could not maintain it either after independence, was because the colonial masters <span style="font-weight: bold">took all the reserves,when they left.

So The day Jamaica got independence it was dead broke. </span>

It was also tied up in an agreement in which it had to sell it's export at prices that did not allow it to develop that reserve.
Without the reserve it simply could not maintain the levels.
So it is not a miracle.
It is just that the leaders were not as prepared as they should have been. And still are not.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jamaica was never ahead of Ireland in reality.

It may be propped up like many other favoured states at the moment are propped up.

The advantage with being propped up and given favoured status, is higher credit ratings and lower interest on loans.

So this hammer is used against those countries that does not act in favour of foreign and against the better interest of the locals.
They are punished with artificially low credit scores,similar to the way they do with blacks in the US.

This whole economic evaluation is very subjective.

It is all about control, by a few powerful colonizers and very little to do with reality. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independence in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland </div></div> </div></div>

Doc if we use these sources as validation of our current position.. it is only logical to apply the same criteria to the past for our relative position...

my old man visited spain, ireland back in the early mid 20th century and his opinion was our quality of live was superior,,,, n </div></div>

**julie*mango** · 09-23-2009, 07:47 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It is just that the leaders were not as prepared as they should have been. And still are not.</div></div>

Mi glad yu say it Doc!

**Wahalla** · 09-23-2009, 07:50 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that Jamaicans had very little to do with the difference. Since Jamaica was a colony.

The problem why Jamaica could not maintain it either after independence, was because the colonial masters <span style="font-weight: bold">took all the reserves,when they left.

So The day Jamaica got independence it was dead broke. </span>

It was also tied up in an agreement in which it had to sell it's export at prices that did not allow it to develop that reserve.
Without the reserve it simply could not maintain the levels.
So it is not a miracle.
It is just that the leaders were not as prepared as they should have been. And still are not.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jamaica was never ahead of Ireland in reality.

It may be propped up like many other favoured states at the moment are propped up.

The advantage with being propped up and given favoured status, is higher credit ratings and lower interest on loans.

So this hammer is used against those countries that does not act in favour of foreign and against the better interest of the locals.
They are punished with artificially low credit scores,similar to the way they do with blacks in the US.

This whole economic evaluation is very subjective.

It is all about control, by a few powerful colonizers and very little to do with reality.

Originally posted by Wahalla

absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independence in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland </div></div> </div></div>

Doc if we use these sources as validation of our current position.. it is only logical to apply the same criteria to the past for our relative position...

my old man visited spain, ireland back in the early mid 20th century and his opinion was our quality of live was superior,,,, n </div></div>

Doc there was no rationalisation of other relative postions in any other countries in the table... if we apply the same identical tools of rationalisation to every single county on the list that reduces the information..

we can then say what was the impact of WWII on Soviets, the US embargo fo Cuba, the US embargo of Mexico, the civil war on spain, the invasion of cezokosolvakia by the germans, the war on croatia, ect.. you cant simple put the additional information to adjust Jamaicas postion.... if you want to input that fine how bout from 72 0nward where was Jamaica then compared to now ??? has it moved up or down ??? relative postion where are we relaivet are we movung up or down ????

**Dr.Dudd** · 09-23-2009, 07:59 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

So you are saying that if you were completely wiped out today of all your worldly assets, and tomorrow we should be compared in value.

although I have all my assets,it should an objective evaluation of our achievements without regard to your loss??
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that Jamaicans had very little to do with the difference. Since Jamaica was a colony.

The problem why Jamaica could not maintain it either after independence, was because the colonial masters <span style="font-weight: bold">took all the reserves,when they left.

So The day Jamaica got independence it was dead broke. </span>

It was also tied up in an agreement in which it had to sell it's export at prices that did not allow it to develop that reserve.
Without the reserve it simply could not maintain the levels.
So it is not a miracle.
It is just that the leaders were not as prepared as they should have been. And still are not.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Originally posted by Dr.Dudd

Jamaica was never ahead of Ireland in reality.

It may be propped up like many other favoured states at the moment are propped up.

The advantage with being propped up and given favoured status, is higher credit ratings and lower interest on loans.

So this hammer is used against those countries that does not act in favour of foreign and against the better interest of the locals.
They are punished with artificially low credit scores,similar to the way they do with blacks in the US.

This whole economic evaluation is very subjective.

It is all about control, by a few powerful colonizers and very little to do with reality.

Originally posted by Wahalla

absolute information means nothing.. Where was Jamaica 10 years ago, 20 years ago and at independence in those tables ??? I suspect ahead of Ireland </div></div> </div></div>

Doc if we use these sources as validation of our current position.. it is only logical to apply the same criteria to the past for our relative position...

my old man visited spain, ireland back in the early mid 20th century and his opinion was our quality of live was superior,,,, n </div></div>

Doc there was no rationalisation of other relative positions in any other countries in the table... if we apply the same identical tools of rationalisation to every single county on the list that reduces the information..

we can then say what was the impact of WWII on Soviets, the US embargo of Cuba, the US embargo of Mexico, the civil war on spain, the invasion of czekoslovakia by the germans, the war on croatia, ect.. you cant simple put the additional information to adjust Jamaica's position.... if you want to input that fine how bout from 72 0nward where was Jamaica then compared to now ??? has it moved up or down ??? relative position where are we relaivet are we moving up or down ????

**Wahalla** · 09-23-2009, 08:12 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

no doc I am saying the tables are there... You are rationalising our postion fine.. But that is not what I am asking .. I am asking is our position rising or falling releative to outehr countries our competitors ???? Bangladesh is rising for instance despite high corruption levels....

**Dr.Dudd** · 09-23-2009, 08:27 PM

Re: Some interesting information...

Jamaica Will not really grow until the economy is open to all. The Jamaican economy was never allowed to grow.
It has been managed on the basis of maintaining control.

As long as that is the primary goal of the captains of the economy the jamaican economy will never grow.

Reason is that those who are in control does not need any growth to live they way they want.
It is not in their interest. So!!<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wahalla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no doc I am saying the tables are there... You are rationalising our position fine.. But that is not what I am asking .. I am asking is our position rising or falling relative to other countries our competitors ???? Bangladesh is rising for instance despite high corruption levels.... </div></div>

Some interesting information...

Some interesting information...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads