I figured it was just easier to govern, which is probably true.
But, I did "math" (it actually involved numbers, it was weird). Turns out, Britain makes 10x more money per square mile than the US does. I imagine the same is the case with other top GDP countries. I'm not quite bored enough to dig much deeper, maybe over summer.
Thought it was interesting.
Numbers from Google, hence using "miles" instead of km. Sorry for that.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
As I recall, three quarters of our GDP is the product of our financial district, in around a single square mile of London....
The UK's not a great country though, and I think there are probably other factors you're missing out on. Inflation, gini coefficients, per capita income....
Value/area is clearly an average. The US's is also highly concentrated in particular areas, as it is with any country.
I know there are factors I'm missing, as I stated in my post. I don't have the time to dig into it any deeper ATM. :(
Y u no discuss, rather than try to tell me things I already know and stated?
15th September 2004
Making more money per area doesn't make them better especially if there is a very askew distribution of wealth.
It's because the grass is always greener on the other side. Other than Africa. No one wants to live in Africa.
This has nothing to do with grass! It has to do with efficiency of land use, particularly how it is divided between nations. If the US was split into several countries, their combined GDP would likely be greater that it is now. Someone stop supposing their ideas and go research this. Write me a 7 page essay, kthnx. I'm now quote curious about the reasons this.
24th October 2007
I don't know if by smaller counties you mean smaller population, or actually geographically smaller.
I can think of too many small countries I wouldn't go. =p
don't worry, it'll fit
14th August 2004
Hmmz, deriving that logic, The Netherlands and Belgium must be super nice...
Obankobi;5630464This has nothing to do with grass! It has to do with efficiency of land use, particularly how it is divided between nations. If the US was split into several countries, their combined GDP would likely be greater that it is now. Someone stop supposing their ideas and go research this. Write me a 7 page essay, kthnx. I'm now quote curious about the reasons this.
Everyone's happier with some grass. :p
You people need to work on your listening skills. :cort: I specifically specified land mass, not pop. Imma spank you now, Scho. I limited it to first world nations, and showed I only examined two countries. Of course its not a rule. Now srsly, someone go find a country or two that break or agree with this trend. I call Sweden and Germany. We shall do one of those distributed research things.