Jump to content

Harper Conservatives 'stifling' innovation


waldo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

STIC methodology:

A number of indicators used in this report (e.g., business enterprise expenditures on research and development, or BERD) are expressed as a percentage of the size of each country’s economy—that is, gross domestic product (GDP). This approach is a commonly used and accepted international convention, and allows the comparison of STI indicators across countries of different economic sizes. As with many measures, such ratios are to be interpreted with some care, as they could be influenced by changes either in the indicator under examination (e.g., BERD) or in the relative size of each economy (i.e., GDP) in the comparator group. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canada’s international rankings on the indicators cited herein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STIC methodology:

As with many measures, such ratios are to be interpreted with some care, as they could be influenced by changes either in the indicator under examination (e.g., BERD) or in the relative size of each economy (i.e., GDP) in the comparator group. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canadas international rankings on the indicators cited herein.

It's a good thing I wasn't comparing the size of the GDPs for each country, I was comparing the amount of change in GDP for each. If the government is supposed to match funding to GDP then it helps if it's not a moving target. As I showed, the countries that had large changes in GDP showed decreases in GERD. Those with smaller changes showed no change or even increases.

It is interesting to note the change in some countries GDP alone was multiple times larger than other countries entire GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STIC methodology:

Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canadas international rankings on the indicators cited herein.

Look....I can repost too

It's a good thing I wasn't comparing the size of the GDPs for each country, I was comparing the amount of change in GDP for each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key word: nerd.

Everyone knows that Harper is a nerd. This Suzuki English CBC "anti-science" meme won't stick to Harper.

I suspect that before the 2015 election, the CBC crowd will drop it for another meme. Harper as Wife beater?

I think Laureen could take him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, with the Global Recession ongoing since 2009, the GDP for many countries has probably shrunk - and if they maintain levels of R & D, their ratios go up - without doing anything - and as you've pointed out, ours goes down. What do they say about statistics.....a phrase with a "damn" in it that I can't remember....

I took a better look at the seven countries ahead of Canada and the seven countries behind Canada and found this to be very true. Prior to 2009, every country had steadily increasing GDPs. However of the 15 countries, 7 countries had declining GDPs from 2009-2011 thus making their 2011 GERD better assuming they put the same amount in. 3 countries had a massive decrease in 2010 and then a minor recovery in 2011 but NOT a recovery past their 2009 levels. In the end, any country that showed a decreasing GDP from 2009 to 2011 either stayed at the same GERD intensity or increased. In total there were 10 of these countries.

There were only three countries that had a drop from 2009 and then a large enough recovery in 2011 to have the GDP be stronger than the 2009 number. Those countries were Australia, Singapore and Canada. If you look at the graph waldo provided, Australia showed a minor drop from their 2008 GERD but Singapore and Canada showed MAJOR drops...Singapore being even worse than Canada. In the end, any country that showed an increasing GDP from 2009 to 2011 all showed decreasing GERD intensities.

The only country that was a complete anomoly in the group of 15 was China as their GDP has continuously grown in the past five years. Again...easy to determine your path if the targets aren't moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"assuming that they put the same amount in"

... quite the broad based assumption to be making in order to presume to discount the STIC report findings and the repeated report caveat concerning GDP! "Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canada’s international rankings on the indicators cited herein."

"2009-2011"

... per the supplied graphic showing comparative country positioning, GERD as a percentage of GDP milestones were shown for 2006, 2008 and 2011. Given the previously highlighted report statements, "Analysis shows that Canada’s total R&D funding has declined from its peak in 2008 and, when measured in relation to the size of the Canadian economy, since 2001. In contrast, the GERD and GERD intensity of most other countries have been increasing."... just why were the years 2009-2011 chosen?

in any case, per the referenced/chosen "2009-2011" timeframe, citation request:

- GDP type categorization

- GDP data source

- GDP data to support statements made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... basic research... the cornerstone/driver of innovation! Federal funding for basic research... down under Harper Conservatives...

Whatever your graphs show, many Canadian voters (LIV if you wish) think that Harper is a nerd - he's not cool but he's a smart guy.

IMHO, if the Liberals/NDP want to defeat Harper - science (global warming, train derailments etc) is not the way.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... quite the broad based assumption to be making in order to presume to discount the STIC report findings and the repeated report caveat concerning GDP! "Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canada’s international rankings on the indicators cited herein."

It's not broad at all. It's fundamental math, most of these countries stayed close to their previous GERD numbers or increased slightly. We know that all of these countries had decreasing GDPs. By the given GERD formula, these countries either decreased their funding (to remain at the same Gerd level) or left it the same ( and saw and increase).

As for your caveat that you are so desperately clinging to....have another look at the "considerations" again. They said that any considerations of the size of GDP meaning it doesn't matter that China's GDP is a thousand times larger than say Estonia. In both cases the formula will work. What it does not say, is that these considerations don't take into account rapidly changing GDP which we saw in 2009-2011.

... per the supplied graphic showing comparative country positioning, GERD as a percentage of GDP milestones were shown for 2006, 2008 and 2011. Given the previously highlighted report statements, "Analysis shows that Canada’s total R&D funding has declined from its peak in 2008 and, when measured in relation to the size of the Canadian economy, since 2001. In contrast, the GERD and GERD intensity of most other countries have been increasing."... just why were the years 2009-2011 chosen?

in any case, per the referenced/chosen "2009-2011" timeframe, citation request:

- GDP type categorization

- GDP data source

- GDP data to support statements made

This formula works when the GDPs are steady or somewhat steady. And as per my comment above, the GDPs of all nations were steadily increasing up to 2009....thus the real focus is on the time after that. Furthermore, the drop from 16th place (2006) to 17th place (2008) is not front page material. In fact most would pass it off as statistical deviation. The real concern comes in with the big drop to 23rd place. As such we focus on that area.

I got my GDP numbers from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp

They have a number of GDP variables. I stuck with GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

considering someone here gave the STIC the 'Steven Harper seal of approval' earlier, considering these are, effectively, National reports intended for the Government of Canada... and appear referenced here, there & everywhere. My questioning the/your assumption that "R&D contributions being the same", reflects on the fact that assumption, in turn, assumes the STIC did not factor changes in respective countries R&D contributions into its report and summary findings, particularly in relation to GDP. That assumption, in turn, assumes the STIC didn't factor it into the overriding caveat the STIC applied to its findings. Oh wait... what is GERD intensity again? The caveat you're simply wishing to discount... cause, apparently, the STIC wasn't as astute as... you!

as for the 2009-2011 years you chose to focus on, there are 3 milestones referenced on that, "GERD as a percentage of GDP" country comparison graphic; 2006, 2008, 2011. Given this repeated statement that Canada was, "down from 16th position in 2006 to 17th in 2008 and then to 23rd in 2011", it seems most questionable not to compare from milestone-to-milestone; ideally, 2006 and 2011 milestones. When you simply "eyeball" the graphic, it appears very few countries have their 2011 milestone lower than 2006/2008... unlike Canada, where the 2011 milestone is below both the Canadian 2006 and 2008 milestone references. And yet... interestingly... you chose to stay away from the earlier milestone dates. Interesting.

figure3-2e.jpg

as for my citation requests, I trust when you say, "I stuck with GDP", you mean 'GDP - current prices'. Of course, 'Purchasing Power Parity adjusted GDP' would be more representative. Throwing me a go-fetch link to a data source... isn't providing the data per citation request.

in any case, per the following, in regards the/your chosen 2009-2011 time period and your chosen 7 countries before Canada and 7 countries after Canada (I also added in the U.S./Germany/France for additional reference):

s5ls92.jpg


as claimed (although the actual countries weren't fully named, as the actual associated data wasn't provided):

"However of the 15 countries, 7 countries had declining GDPs from 2009-2011 thus making their 2011 GERD better assuming they put the same amount in.

3 countries had a massive decrease in 2010 and then a minor recovery in 2011 but NOT a recovery past their 2009 levels." (3 countries identified as Australia, Singapore and Canada)



per the above data graphic:


- only Spain (and only in the GDP-current prices category) has a lower GDP from 2009-to-2011... a somewhat minimal drop at that... almost static. (grey shaded highlight)

- only Iceland, within PPP-GDP, has a lower GDP from 2009-2010... which rises again in 2011 (red text highlight) (re:edit note)

- only 5 countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain & Italy... and only in GDP-current) have a drop between 2009-2010. And again, only one of those 5, Spain, continues that drop on through to 2011... again, minimally, almost static. (red text highlight)

- the claim that, "Prior to 2009, every country had steadily increasing GDPs", isn't a particularly clear statement... almost all countries drop GDP from 2008-to-2009.


even without any country comparison, the STIC states: Canada’s gross domestic expenditures on R&D(GERD) declined from their peak in 2008"

"Canada’s gross domestic expenditures on R&D(GERD) declined from their peak in 2008 and, when measured in relation to gross domestic product (GDP), since 2001. In contrast, the GERD and GERD intensity of most other countries have been increasing. Canada’s declining GERD intensity has pushed its rank down from 16th position in 2006 to 17th in 2008 and to 23rd in 2011 (among 41 economies). Since 2001, however, despite the growth in R&D funding in Canada, GERD intensity has been declining, to the point where it reached a low of 1.7 percent in 2011."

"By comparison, most other advanced and emerging economies have increased their total funding of R&D over the 2006 to 2011 period, with a corresponding rise in their GERD-to-GDP ratio. Canada’s declining GERD intensity has, as a result, pushed its rank among 41 OECD and leading developing economies down from 16thposition in 2006 to 17th in 2008 and then to 23rd in 2011. At that point, Canada’s GERD-to-GDP ratio stood at 1.7 percent, more than 1.5 percentage points below the 3.3 percent threshold of the world’s top five performers on GERD intensity."
.


(on edit: corrected table graphic... replaced Iceland with Ireland)

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

considering someone here gave the STIC the 'Steven Harper seal of approval' earlier, considering these are, effectively, National reports intended for the Government of Canada... and appear referenced here, there & everywhere. My questioning the/your assumption that "R&D contributions being the same", reflects on the fact that assumption, in turn, assumes the STIC did not factor changes in respective countries R&D contributions into its report and summary findings, particularly in relation to GDP. That assumption, in turn, assumes the STIC didn't factor it into the overriding caveat the STIC applied to its findings. Oh wait... what is GERD intensity again? The caveat you're simply wishing to discount... cause, apparently, the STIC wasn't as astute as... you!

I would really like it if you could rewrite this in English as I am not fluent in jibberish. My assumption above has nothing to do with my final claim about the effect of a changing GDP on GERD. I only mentioned it as I was isolating the GDP variable, showing that a negative change in GDP will have a postive change GERD...."assuming the GERD funding (R&D) remain constant". If that assumption is false, then any country putting in more funding with a decreasing GDP will see a much larger increase in GERD. Any country putting in less funding is off setting the drop in GERD and will most likely stay the same or not see a major change. Either way, its too their benefit when trying to climb the ol' GERD ladder.

as for the 2009-2011 years you chose to focus on, there are 3 milestones referenced on that, "GERD as a percentage of GDP" country comparison graphic; 2006, 2008, 2011. Given this repeated statement that Canada was, "down from 16th position in 2006 to 17th in 2008 and then to 23rd in 2011", it seems most questionable not to compare from milestone-to-milestone; ideally, 2006 and 2011 milestones. When you simply "eyeball" the graphic, it appears very few countries have their 2011 milestone lower than 2006/2008... unlike Canada, where the 2011 milestone is below both the Canadian 2006 and 2008 milestone references. And yet... interestingly... you chose to stay away from the earlier milestone dates. Interesting.

I already answered this. The major drop happened after 2008. Why look at 2006 when its not in the equation. Glad you found it interesting though. However I will change it up to measure from 2008 to 2011 to make you feel better....ok?

as for my citation requests, I trust when you say, "I stuck with GDP", you mean 'GDP - current prices'. Of course, 'Purchasing Power Parity adjusted GDP' would be more representative. Throwing me a go-fetch link to a data source... isn't providing the data per citation request.

in any case, per the following, in regards the/your chosen 2009-2011 time period and your chosen 7 countries before Canada and 7 countries after Canada (I also added in the U.S./Germany/France for additional reference):

Why on earth would you think that PPP would be more appropriate? Is that because you like being wrong? You might want to check the glosssary where it says they base GDP on current and constant prices. So which one of these two is it for the GERD intensity? Well....if we look back to the data source used, they clearly show Canada calculates its GERD Intesity based on GDP - Current Dollars in Local Currency....not PPP or Current Prices USD. This of course makes sense as GERD Intesity is a percentage, which means the units must be equal and cancel out. If the funding was spent in local currency in current dollars, then the GDP must be expressed that way. Measuring in USD is a way to compare GDPs of two or more countries in a given year but not over multiple years as we are doing. Again....don't believe me on this. The proof is in the pudding with the pudding being Table 1-1 below. You just need to compare the GDPs being used to the IMF or World Bank and you will see they are the GDP - Current prices in local currency.

2l8uqzs.jpg

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/88-221-x/88-221-x2013001-eng.pdf

As for me not providing the data.....do I really need to hold your hand on this??? I provided the link to where all the data could be found by simply a push of the button. But since its clear that I do need to hold your hand, I will provide you with the CORRECT data (unlike your GDP data) for the 7 countries before Canada and the 6 Countries after. I have removed New Zealand because their GERD data is only for 2005, 2007, 2009 which does match up with the other countries milestones and thus doesn't make for an accurate comparison.

Here is a table with data from the World Bank, showing the GDPs for each country by year based on current prices with that countries currency.

11h82a9.jpg

GDP info can be found at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CN

GERD Ratios (Intensity) can be found at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/gross-domestic-expenditure-on-r-d_2075843x-table1

In this table, I have sorted the data in descending order based on % GDP change (2008-2011)....with 2008 and 2011 being used as the milestones. As you will see, I have highlighted Australia, Singapore, Luxembourg and Canada as all four of these countries had double digit increases in GDP from 2008-2011. These four countries also showed significant drops in their GERD Intensity. The actual GERD Intensity numbers weren't available from the OECD library, but the previous Figure 3-2 allows one to eyeball that a signifcant drop occurred.

As I have been saying, the change in GDP can't be discounted from the equation. You see it in the 2008 to 2011 numbers but its even more prevalent in the 2008-2010 numbers. (I would suggest that this may be important as most funding allocation for a given year is acutally done in the previous year. As such when a country sees its GDP is lowering, it may in turn fund less for the next year.). In the 2008-2010 numbers, all four of the yellow shaded countries showed POSITIVE changes in GDP. The non-yellow countries showed very minor increases or NEGATIVE changed in GDP with the only exception being Belgium. Belgium showed a significant increase in GDP and GERD intensity. Good work Belgium! You now have something else to be proud of in addition to your fine chocolate.

The bottomline is that the initial State of the Nation report is a great tool to measure Canada against other countries and to try and improve our place in the world. However, the results should be taken with a grain of salt based on the changing GDP values due to the recession.

even without any country comparison, the STIC states: Canada’s gross domestic expenditures on R&D(GERD) declined from their peak in 2008"

Yes...Canada's overall GERD declined from 2008, however the point that you keep ignoring or just keep stumbling on is the fact that the Federal government funding for GERD has actually increased (as per Table 1-2 below). That funding has gone up from 5.709B in 2008 to 6.123B in 2011 (7.3%).

The reason for the decreases is largely due to the decrease in Business Enterprise funding (-3%). Now...-3% may not seem that large but when 50% of your funding comes from this one area, then a 3% drop is more significant than a 7% gain from the Feds.

Bottomline is that the OP and your continued nattering about Harper 'stifiling' innovation is completely foolish and clearly shows your logic (or lack there of) is highly influenced by your distaste of the CPC. By the way....have you decided on who you're voting for in 2015. I saw that you never did answer the other MLW members when they asked you which party you side with. Easy to throw the peanuts from the cheap seats...

3492ur7.jpg

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/88-221-x/88-221-x2013001-eng.pdf

Edited by Accountability Now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no time to play at the moment; however, in passing... and isolating on your original focused time period (2009-2011) and the following statements you made:

"However of the 15 countries, 7 countries had declining GDPs from 2009-2011 thus making their 2011 GERD better assuming they put the same amount in.

3 countries had a massive decrease in 2010 and then a minor recovery in 2011 but NOT a recovery past their 2009 levels." (3 countries identified as Australia, Singapore and Canada)

and with the data you finally provide (again, isolating on 2009-2011), could ya help a brother out, hey? Could you correlate your statements to the actual data you now (finally) provide?

As for me not providing the data.....do I really need to hold your hand on this??? I provided the link to where all the data could be found by simply a push of the button. But since its clear that I do need to hold your hand, I will provide you with the CORRECT data


e9c809.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no time to play at the moment; however, in passing... and isolating on your original focused time period (2009-2011) and the following statements you made:

"However of the 15 countries, 7 countries had declining GDPs from 2009-2011 thus making their 2011 GERD better assuming they put the same amount in.

3 countries had a massive decrease in 2010 and then a minor recovery in 2011 but NOT a recovery past their 2009 levels." (3 countries identified as Australia, Singapore and Canada)

and with the data you finally provide (again, isolating on 2009-2011), could ya help a brother out, hey? Could you correlate your statements to the actual data you now (finally) provide?

Crap. I was sure that I posted an edit explaining this but apparently I didn't save it. The original site from where I got GDP values was the Trading Economics (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp) and it has the years posted in a deceiving manner. If you look at the site, you will see the years on the x axis are a year later than what they should be. I think they are showing it as the start of the next year rather than the end of the previous year. So when they say it's 2009, it was actually referring to 2008. Ultimately I was trying to show the change in GDPs pre-recession, recession and post recession which is why I chose 2009-2011 when it should have been 2008-2010. Even though I had the years labelled incorrectly, the data and the results remain the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: "Even though I had the years labelled incorrectly, the data and the results remain the same."

pleaaaase! So... you didn't save your posted edit. That's gold Jerry, real gold. As for your original source, there was nothing "deceptive" about it's presentation... it offers a half-dozen different graph options and they all maintain the same data-to-year placement, regardless of graphing option. Just admit you screwed the pooch! Your original source claims the data presented is, in turn, sourced from the World Bank... where you went directly to once I pressed your nonsense claims. Why say the, "data and the results remain the same".... cause they don't (your original results/claims)!

you already threw up a questionable statement on why you chose 2009-2011, one that had nothing to do with the recession, pre, post or within... now to suggest you actually were, "trying to show the change in GDPs pre-recession, recession and post recession which is why I chose 2009-2011 when it should have been 2008-2010"... is just a weasely play... just pathetic nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My assumption above has nothing to do with my final claim about the effect of a changing GDP on GERD. I only mentioned it as I was isolating the GDP variable, showing that a negative change in GDP will have a postive change GERD...."assuming the GERD funding (R&D) remain constant". If that assumption is false, then any country putting in more funding with a decreasing GDP will see a much larger increase in GERD. Any country putting in less funding is off setting the drop in GERD and will most likely stay the same or not see a major change. Either way, its too their benefit when trying to climb the ol' GERD ladder.

in the context of considering the relative size of GDP, STIC states Canada's country placement, its international OECD rankings on the cited indicators (e.g., GERD), is not materially affected. Yet somehow... you're feverishly trying to concoct some gleaned interpretation of that GDP data to counter the over-riding STIC critical summation on Canada's performance and its associated comparative (and dropping) country placement. Yet, somehow, you never actually speak to that comparative country placement in terms of what you maintain your data concoction says about Canada (or the other most-selective country choices you've made) and relative country placement. Where's your revised country rankings... your more complete/accurate comparative country placements?

and now, you cover all the bases with your multiple assumptions on equal, more or less funding... and you do it all by isolating on 4 countries, 2 of which you don't have the data for and must rely on "eyeballing" the comparative country-placement graph! Apparently, not only can you simply discount/override what is, effectively, an official report intended for government and its summary performance/placement statements, you do so while openly acknowledging your associated equal/more/less funding assumptions. More pointedly, and to highlight you're avoiding actual country placement, one of your four selected countries places lower than Canada in the STIC/OECD country rankings. Most pointedly, in regards your own supplied data, once you look beyond your selected 4 countries (half of which you don't have data for)... your claims simply don't hold! Apparently, those buffoons at STIC (and OECD), aren't as sharp as you!

.

I already answered this. The major drop happened after 2008. Why look at 2006 when its not in the equation. Glad you found it interesting though. However I will change it up to measure from 2008 to 2011 to make you feel better....ok?

which version of why you originally chose 2009-2011 are you going with here? :lol: My point was the data choice should encompass milestone-to-milestone... of the 3 milestones (2006, 2008, 2011), either 2006-2011 or 2008-2011.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would you think that PPP would be more appropriate? Is that because you like being wrong? You might want to check the glosssary where it says they base GDP on current and constant prices.

beauty... it was a 'throw-away' single sentence comment, one isolated to GDP, in the context of GDP; one you clearly bit on!! Are you saying you don't understand nominal versus PPP? Are you saying "current and constant prices" implies nominal... only? Are you saying PPP can't be expressed in both current and constant prices? Perhaps you should correct the OECD in their presentation of these 2 data tables, hey => Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at current prices and PPPs ...... Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at 2005 prices and PPPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for me not providing the data.....do I really need to hold your hand on this??? I provided the link to where all the data could be found by simply a push of the button. But since its clear that I do need to hold your hand, I will provide you with the CORRECT data (unlike your GDP data)

:lol: well yes, clearly... when pressed, you finally revealed your data source... only to come up with a lame excuse that it's presentation was apparently, to you, "deceptive". Now, again after you're pressed and you realize you can't use your own originally supplied data/source (the one I apparently needed your hand-holding with!!!), you jump to a new data source (the World Bank) and have the temerity to brazenly chide me for your original failed data/source. Beauty!

of course, as contained within my data table presentation, I identified my data as being sourced from the International Monetary Fund... if you care to follow that money trail... you'll also see the IMF attribute that data to the World Bank. But, of course, only your data (and only after a do-over on your part) is "CORRECT data"! Of course!!!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a table with data from the World Bank, showing the GDPs for each country by year based on current prices with that countries currency.

11h82a9.jpg

In this table, I have sorted the data in descending order based on % GDP change (2008-2011)....with 2008 and 2011 being used as the milestones. As you will see, I have highlighted Australia, Singapore, Luxembourg and Canada as all four of these countries had double digit increases in GDP from 2008-2011. These four countries also showed significant drops in their GERD Intensity. The actual GERD Intensity numbers weren't available from the OECD library, but the previous Figure 3-2 allows one to eyeball that a signifcant drop occurred.

yes, as before, I highlighted your (again) acknowledged "eyeballing". Again, you choose a minimal number of countries to highlight and compare - 4 countries... and, you don't have data for 2 of those 4 countries. No biggee, hey?

your presented data table doesn't include 2011 GERD Ratio data for Australia; doesn't include both 2008 & 2011 GERD Ratio data for Singapore. Hence, your claimed "eyeballing" of the Figure 3-2. Unfortunately, for you, you can't read... or purposely misread... that Figure 3-2. In both 2 of the 4 countries that you so pin your concocted "expert analysis" on... your eyeballing on... the caption attachment for both Australia and Singapore identifies the data (and the graph indexing) as being associated with the years 2006/2008/2010. That's 2010, not 2011. So, for Australia, you're attempting to eyeball 2011 from 2010 data! Nice! And for Singapore, you don't even have any reference point data (since your linked OECD table reference obviously won't provide you data for Singapore, a non-OECD country). Your, "significant GERD intensity drop occurred" summation, is quite the statement, particularly with respect to Australia.

2mcu7i9.jpg

But why should any of this stop your most astute and definitive analysis! Oh my! :lol:

.

As I have been saying, the change in GDP can't be discounted from the equation. You see it in the 2008 to 2011 numbers but its even more prevalent in the 2008-2010 numbers.

huh! "Can't be discounted"??? If it is being discounted, you certainly haven't shown that to be the case... that it is being... discounted! Of course, again, per the over-riding STIC caveat, in the context of considering the relative size of GDP, STIC states Canada's country placement, its international OECD rankings on the cited indicators (e.g., GERD), is not materially affected.

you've not shown that the STIC is discounting GDP, that the STIC is discounting the relative size of GDP, that the STIC (OECD country rankings) are materially affected by your presumed discounting of GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes...Canada's overall GERD declined from 2008, however the point that you keep ignoring or just keep stumbling on is the fact that the Federal government funding for GERD has actually increased (as per Table 1-2 below). That funding has gone up from 5.709B in 2008 to 6.123B in 2011 (7.3%).

nice! Funding allocations became your nattering distraction point. I certainly have spoken of much more than funding. You simply chose to ignore the meat of targeted critique of Harper Conservatives; you simply chose to ignore the role of the federal government, any federal government, in supporting, facilitating and motivating innovation... you simply chose to ignore the many performance indicators within that STIC report. Of course you did! It's much easier for you to show your "astute analysis expertise" in concocting/manufacturing data in your big-time failed attempt to discredit the STIC GERD report/findings.

in any case, in this your latest missive, in this your latest data supply... and in the context of the STIC report, why are you so selectively pulling out 2008-2011. I mean, you're supplying more data beyond 2011... and the STIC report provides more data... why limit yourself, unless you don't want to focus on/highlight the most immediate 4 years (including what was the 2013 projection):

- as the performing sector, Harper Conservative funding down for 2008-2012 & 2010-2012/2013 projection)

- as the funding sector, Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012 & down for 2010-2012/2013 projection)

2gww08o.jpg

but again, it's not all about funding... as much as you'd like to distract away from the actual STIC report, its critical findings, the report's performance indicators/results, the report recommendations, etc. Yes, clearly, in your "non-partisan" view, Harper Conservatives have done/are doing a bang-up job... clearly, to you, that STIC report is a glowing testimony to that end! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you already threw up a questionable statement on why you chose 2009-2011, one that had nothing to do with the recession, pre, post or within... now to suggest you actually were, "trying to show the change in GDPs pre-recession, recession and post recession which is why I chose 2009-2011 when it should have been 2008-2010"... is just a weasely play... just pathetic nonsense.

The only thing weasley here is your feable attempt at a response. You know I have you and this is the best you can do. I'm loving this....it makes it five now! Oh how you must just hate the defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the context of considering the relative size of GDP, STIC states Canada's country placement, its international OECD rankings on the cited indicators (e.g., GERD), is not materially affected. Yet somehow... you're feverishly trying to concoct some gleaned interpretation of that GDP data to counter the over-riding STIC critical summation on Canada's performance and its associated comparative (and dropping) country placement. Yet, somehow, you never actually speak to that comparative country placement in terms of what you maintain your data concoction says about Canada (or the other most-selective country choices you've made) and relative country placement. Where's your revised country rankings... your more complete/accurate comparative country placements?

and now, you cover all the bases with your multiple assumptions on equal, more or less funding... and you do it all by isolating on 4 countries, 2 of which you don't have the data for and must rely on "eyeballing" the comparative country-placement graph! Apparently, not only can you simply discount/override what is, effectively, an official report intended for government and its summary performance/placement statements, you do so while openly acknowledging your associated equal/more/less funding assumptions. More pointedly, and to highlight you're avoiding actual country placement, one of your four selected countries places lower than Canada in the STIC/OECD country rankings. Most pointedly, in regards your own supplied data, once you look beyond your selected 4 countries (half of which you don't have data for)... your claims simply don't hold! Apparently, those buffoons at STIC (and OECD), aren't as sharp as you!

.

which version of why you originally chose 2009-2011 are you going with here? :lol: My point was the data choice should encompass milestone-to-milestone... of the 3 milestones (2006, 2008, 2011), either 2006-2011 or 2008-2011.

.

As usual....you say write paragraphs but yet say nothing. Constant deflection.

The world went through a recession and I was able to show a correlation responding to the GERD Intensities based on that recession. All you can do is pick away at the data source....man....this is so typical waldo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, as before, I highlighted your (again) acknowledged "eyeballing". Again, you choose a minimal number of countries to highlight and compare - 4 countries... and, you don't have data for 2 of those 4 countries. No biggee, hey?

your presented data table doesn't include 2011 GERD Ratio data for Australia; doesn't include both 2008 & 2011 GERD Ratio data for Singapore. Hence, your claimed "eyeballing" of the Figure 3-2. Unfortunately, for you, you can't read... or purposely misread... that Figure 3-2. In both 2 of the 4 countries that you so pin your concocted "expert analysis" on... your eyeballing on... the caption attachment for both Australia and Singapore identifies the data (and the graph indexing) as being associated with the years 2006/2008/2010. That's 2010, not 2011. So, for Australia, you're attempting to eyeball 2011 from 2010 data! Nice! And for Singapore, you don't even have any reference point data (since your linked OECD table reference obviously won't provide you data for Singapore, a non-OECD country). Your, "significant GERD intensity drop occurred" summation, is quite the statement, particularly with respect to Australia.

2mcu7i9.jpg

But why should any of this stop your most astute and definitive analysis! Oh my! :lol:

.

huh! "Can't be discounted"??? If it is being discounted, you certainly haven't shown that to be the case... that it is being... discounted! Of course, again, per the over-riding STIC caveat, in the context of considering the relative size of GDP, STIC states Canada's country placement, its international OECD rankings on the cited indicators (e.g., GERD), is not materially affected.

you've not shown that the STIC is discounting GDP, that the STIC is discounting the relative size of GDP, that the STIC (OECD country rankings) are materially affected by your presumed discounting of GDP.

You're actually joking here right? You have to be because no one can be this obtuse. You present a graph that compares various countries based on their GERD intensities full well knowing that the data years don't match up but then you try to call me out on using the data from that? You have lost it....if you ever really had it.

Of course, all you need to do is look at the 2008-2010 change in GDP for Australia and it AGAIN backs up my point that the increase in GDP lead to a decrease in GERD intensity. I even spoke on how the 2008-2010 change was more prevalent than the 2008-2011 change. Yikes. I get that your narcisstic ways won't allow you to admit you're wrong, but this is ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

beauty... it was a 'throw-away' single sentence comment, one isolated to GDP, in the context of GDP; one you clearly bit on!! Are you saying you don't understand nominal versus PPP? Are you saying "current and constant prices" implies nominal... only? Are you saying PPP can't be expressed in both current and constant prices? Perhaps you should correct the OECD in their presentation of these 2 data tables, hey => Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at current prices and PPPs ...... Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at 2005 prices and PPPs.

A throw away? You constructed a freaking CHART for a throw away???? Wow. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You messed up SOOOOOOOO bad here and this backpeddle is priceless. GDP based on PPP.....too funny.

I'm saying that they don't use GDP based on PPP when calculating GERD Intensity. Again. you screw the pooch by offering me an example of GERD alone. Show me an example of them calculating GERD Intensity based on GDP-PPP. You do know what the difference between GERD and GERD intensity is? How about GDP? Do you know how to spell GDP?

This one will go down as classic waldo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: well yes, clearly... when pressed, you finally revealed your data source... only to come up with a lame excuse that it's presentation was apparently, to you, "deceptive". Now, again after you're pressed and you realize you can't use your own originally supplied data/source (the one I apparently needed your hand-holding with!!!), you jump to a new data source (the World Bank) and have the temerity to brazenly chide me for your original failed data/source. Beauty!

of course, as contained within my data table presentation, I identified my data as being sourced from the International Monetary Fund... if you care to follow that money trail... you'll also see the IMF attribute that data to the World Bank. But, of course, only your data (and only after a do-over on your part) is "CORRECT data"! Of course!!!

.

And if you would have followed the Trading Economics site you would have seen that they get their GDP from the World Bank too. I know you can't deal with another loss but the data I have is correct (and of course, not your GDP -PPP data that you tried so hard to push...lol). The issue I had was a labelling issue....very similar to you saying it was Iceland when it was Ireland. Now you didn't see me chirp about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...