The point is not that 1.5 is a large number, in terms of single variables—it is—the point is that 2.7x is a ridiculous number.
But 1.5 also isn’t such a huge effect within the full scale of what’s measured. The maximum value in the data is just over 8. Even something “huge” like 1.5, out of a total of 8, is less than twenty percent. If, as the more accurate model suggests, GDP is only making up a small piece of the total, then that suggests it’s far more likely that if a country were to take the same effort that would be required to triple their gdp, and put those resources instead into the other variables, they’d get a far larger return.
Can you specify what you mean with “2.7x is a ridiculous number”?
I ask because it does happen that economies grow like that in a fairly short amount of time. For example, since the year 2000:
China’s GDPpc 2.7x’d about 2.6 times
Vietnam’s did it ~2.4 times
Ethiopia’s ~2.1 times
India’s ~1.7 times
Rwanda’s ~1.3 times
The US’s GDPpc is on track to 2.7x from 2000 in about 2029, assuming a 4% annual increase
So I assume you don’t mean something like “2.7x never happens”. Do you mean something more like “it’s hard to find policies that produce 2.7x growth in a reasonable amount of time” or “typically it takes economies decades to 2.7x”?
I think I captured my intended meaning fairly well with my ending comment:
“If, as the more accurate model suggests, GDP is only making up a small piece of the total, then that suggests it’s far more likely that if a country were to take the same effort that would be required to triple their gdp, and put those resources instead into the other variables, they’d get a far larger return.”
If you’re asking because you didn’t find that convincing though, I’m happy to elaborate.
The point is not that 1.5 is a large number, in terms of single variables—it is—the point is that 2.7x is a ridiculous number.
But 1.5 also isn’t such a huge effect within the full scale of what’s measured. The maximum value in the data is just over 8. Even something “huge” like 1.5, out of a total of 8, is less than twenty percent. If, as the more accurate model suggests, GDP is only making up a small piece of the total, then that suggests it’s far more likely that if a country were to take the same effort that would be required to triple their gdp, and put those resources instead into the other variables, they’d get a far larger return.
Can you specify what you mean with “2.7x is a ridiculous number”?
I ask because it does happen that economies grow like that in a fairly short amount of time. For example, since the year 2000:
China’s GDPpc 2.7x’d about 2.6 times
Vietnam’s did it ~2.4 times
Ethiopia’s ~2.1 times
India’s ~1.7 times
Rwanda’s ~1.3 times
The US’s GDPpc is on track to 2.7x from 2000 in about 2029, assuming a 4% annual increase
So I assume you don’t mean something like “2.7x never happens”. Do you mean something more like “it’s hard to find policies that produce 2.7x growth in a reasonable amount of time” or “typically it takes economies decades to 2.7x”?
I think I captured my intended meaning fairly well with my ending comment:
“If, as the more accurate model suggests, GDP is only making up a small piece of the total, then that suggests it’s far more likely that if a country were to take the same effort that would be required to triple their gdp, and put those resources instead into the other variables, they’d get a far larger return.”
If you’re asking because you didn’t find that convincing though, I’m happy to elaborate.
2.7x isalmost exactly the amount world gdp per capita has changed in the last 30 years. Obviously some individual countries (e.g. China) have had bigger increases in that window.30 years isn’t that high in the grand scheme of things; it’s far smaller than most lifetimes.(EDIT: nvm this is false, the chart said “current dollars” which I thought meant inflation-adjusted, but it’s actually not inflation adjusted)