PPP vs Nominal

>>1679830
http://www.economist.com/node/10209215
>The raw dollar numbers are distorted by big currency swings. For instance, the devaluations in East Asian economies in 1997-98 grossly exaggerated the drop in their output. Measured at PPP, emerging economies' share of world output has more realistically risen since 1980—and even if China's economy is smaller than thought, it is still a mighty beast. PPP data may be imperfect, but they give a better picture of the relative size of economies than market exchange rates do. In the words of John Maynard Keynes, “It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

>>1679831
None?

>>1679840
Anyone?

You autists will argue over anything. Why not this?

>>1679844
Anyway, PPP is slightly more accurate than nominal.

>>1679830
Nominal is am measure of the total buying power of the income of a nation in international markets. This is mainly determined by how much people want to buy what they make (making said nation's currency more valuable relative to others in real buying terms) vs. how much that nation wants to buy things others make (making said nation's currency more plentiful and therefore less powerful in foreign markets).

PPP measures (or attepts to measure) the real buying power of a currency in local markets.

PPP is a better measure of people's standards of living, nominal is a better measure of a country's ability to leverage its economic power to influence other countries.

>>1679830
ppp & bezmenov tactics $#

PPP for domestic market.

Nominal for global market.

For comparison between countries, you have to take into account of both sets of number.

>>1681202
>For comparison between countries, you have to take into account of both sets of number.
id look at number and productivity of silver mines and historical KDR, for axamples.

>>1680019
>Nominal is am measure of the total buying power of the income of a nation in international market.
[citation needed]
>nominal is a better measure of a country's ability to leverage its economic power to influence other countries.
[citation needed]

For example, what if I artficially hold down the value of my currency like China did in the past?

>>1681202
>PPP for domestic market.
Why?
>Nominal for global market.
Why?

In some cases, market players don't look at the value of the good in dollars. They look at what that good can buy them in the country.

Also, what if your country is holdibg the currency artificially low?

What if, instead of the central bank set ¥100 to $1, the real price was ¥10 to $1?
Would Japan's economy really be 10 times less important on a geopolitical scale?

What if my central bank holds it artificially high? Like Russia in 2013-2014?

>>1681647
i think a better internal marker would be ppp pc
where as external is a relative comparison of gdp, but in terms of something that isnt usd, like gold or silver or both or some other metric like humanxquotient sum

neither is better. They're two different measurements used for different reasons.

>>1681722
No. They literally both try to measure an economy's size.

Also>>1679831

>>1681685
For example, the SDR.

A basket of currencies instead of just the USD.