Indonesia has 265 million people, yet is poorer than Australia with 25 million people

Indonesia has 265 million people, yet is poorer than Australia with 25 million people.
How?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's a South Asian third world shit hole.

White people plunder and hold countries down

Is this what Islam does?

They are also shit at every single sport.
You can blame your weak asiatic genes till a certain extent, those guys are just lazy twink faggots.

>implying

But isn't Australia a south asian third world shithole with giant spiders?
They're literally part of the same Austronesian island chain.

you stole my wh*te blame comment

Yet Malaysia and China have hundreds of gold medals?

What exactly went wrong in Indonesia? Killed all the competent Chinese?

Netherlands plundered the shit out of Indonesia

Fuck you

Australia isn't third world.

one australian is worth 10 indonesians

Australia has a GDP per capita of $51,593 and a population of 24,684,200 people.
$51,593 x 24,684,200 = $1.273 trillion

Indonesia has a GDP per capita of $3,895 and a population of 261,115,456
$3,895 x 261,115,456 = 1.017 trillion

Stop asking stupid questions and use your brain

It got anglo'd

The state I live in only has 4m less people than the entire country of australia. I cannot believe how small your countries are, you guys live in tiny little "countries" that I could drive my car through in a day. Same goes for you tiny euro countries.

Autistic fuck

You took the question too literal

big country with small population > big country with big population

ops sorry, i meant

Because australians are wh*tes and spend all day sucking BIG BLACK BULL COCK fuck americans :DDDDDDD

And why were they able to do that? How could a tiny country from practically the other side of the world subjugate an entire country?

The reason most countries are poor compared to western countries is because Europe surpassed the rest of the world technologically by leaps and bounds. The entire objection "x European country did Y to Z" rest assumption that had only Europeans not interfered their countries would've developed at a roughly similar pace which which, considering the massive technological difference, is highly unlikely.

Oh, and let's not forget that it was Europeans that, often at their own expense, ended slavery and brought about the very concept of human rights.

I don't deny that there have been atrocities committed by Europeans, but I'm also not so naive as to think the exact same thing wouldn't have happened if some other people had taken our place.

What does population has to do with area? Australia is at least 4 times bigger than Alaska, but of course is almost everything there is a desert.

Having a big country with a small population is so dumb. There's a lot more land to defend

Same reason China and India have a smaller economy than the USA

pff

hehe y-yeah big countries is for l-losers

>my country is a big desert wasteland :DDDDD
pic related is 2% of the population

>Not having both

mate we have single farms bigger than your 'country'

Purchasing power says otherwise, Australia is still richer, of course.

You're oversimplifying here, the US consumes roughly 20% of the world's total resources while representing something like only 5% of the population, obviously someone is getting shafted on trade here. I'm willing to bet Europeans would have similar numbers to the US and this takes many forms eg most of the money made by European chocolate bar makers, say in Switzerland, stays in Europe despite the fact the commodity is produced in Africa, where there's cocoa farmers who have literally never tasted a chocolate bar in their whole life. Palm oil which gets used in everything from Dove soap bars to Nutella is produced in countries like Madagascar which are destroying precious and unique rainforest ecosystems (sending their country's future resources down the drain) in order to make a missery growing a cash crop. Children are literally wasting away as slaves producing cheap clothes for the West in Bangladesh or even footballs in Pakistan. Thailand is wrecking it's own coastline and ecosystems on shrimp farms and it does literally enslave people to live years on fishing boats under snuff porn conditions all so Americans/Euros get cheap seafood buffets. I'm not talking the colonial era, or the huge fucking headstart Europe got through exploitation of other continents, but the state of the world today.

Those advances in Europe were only possible because the surplus they got from the age of discovery allowed for a large, leisurely educated class.

Yes, human rights are a European concept, the world isn't black and white good and bad guys.

do australians really farm sand?

anglos and their jews

>You're oversimplifying here
We're on a Taiwanese tea sampling forum in the middle of the night, so obviously some less important details have be sacrificed.

>obviously someone is getting shafted on trade here
That's not at all necessarily true. It assumes the economy is a zero-sum game, which it is not.

The world has seen a completely unprecedented reduction in poverty and increase of living standards virtually everywhere on earth. Human history up until only just recently has been mostly hard work from dusk till dawn, or you'd quickly end up starving to death. It hasn't at all been pretty. So why do you assume that getting to the point where that started rapidly decreasing is any different?

Working in a sweatshop while only earning a very modest amount of money, but at least have enough to buy necessities and perhaps even pay for your kid's education sure beats having no job at all or being pushed into much more unsavory lines of work. This moral outrage rich westerners have over sweatshops is ironically making it worse for a lot of people that now stand without any income at all. But at least you can pat yourself on the back for having bought non-sweatshop produced products.

>Those advances in Europe were only possible
This is completely wrong. Yes, they absolutely accelerated some of it, but were by no means the sole reason for it. Europe have several geographical advantages combined with essentially perpetual warfare, forced countries to compete or die. Necessity is the mother of invention after all. Not to mention a history of several great civilizations existing long before to the age of discovery.

...

I like denmrak

I'm so so so sorry.

Stop being a german tier cuck

¡TETONA!

Calculating at purchasing power parity is a much more realistic analysis.

> arguing with a m*xican
lol its like you people never learn

Why did your post turn me on?

He's right though. Keep on licking first world boot for pats in the back you canalcuck.

> youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw

because SEA's low IQ.

indonesia literal shithole.

Australia has 24 million people
Indonesia has 265 million.
That's what stuns me

It's almost like a high population doesn't automatically correlate to success and everybody is being memed. Hmmmm

>Money laundering; the nation
STFU flag of convenience

>We're on a Taiwanese tea sampling forum
fair enough

>It assumes the economy is a zero-sum game
Not necessarily, it does assume some people are losing under the current rules for the game which can arguably be demonstrated, I made a sepecific case in my comment for people working under de facto slavery conditions, they're certainly not better off than they would have been as subsistence farmers or similar contexts, And while yes, I do believe in progress it certainly hasn't been brought under fair conditions, the Chinese argument about developing countries being forced to curb their emissions during their industrialization phase while developed nations have already benefited, and largely created the global warming mess in the meantime, does have some validity. While I'm certainly not arguing countries like mine should be allowed to pollute freely, the reality is the world's resources are not being used equitably and that proposals for change for the most part mantain a rigged game on many fronts. Europe and the US do disproportionately benefit from the brain drain of what best minds developing nations are able to produce on spare resources, which in turn helps them mantain their edge. I'm not blaming you for the world's problems but a large part of those do derive from this systemic unfair advantage and the recent case of the US whitdrawing from free trade does exemplify principles fly out the window when it comes to mantaining status quo.

>Working in a sweatshop
The current exchange model is not sustainable, Africa is the best example, and charity is no solution. Those workshops also keep corrupt governments running and entrench dependency on a global system in which developing nations subsidize the high living standards of the developed world.

>This is completely wrong
No, it's not. The Mexican silver Spaniards so liberally spent in Europe to artificially mantain themselves CONT

But how is it possible to be that poor? Do people eat each other?

sadly idk

CONT in feudalism also provided the resources through investment and lending to transform the European economy. It was this same silver that was used to create the backbone of current global trade as it was used to trade with Asia. Yes, Europe does owe much of its advancement and success to its own specific circumstances but it was the fortunes of colonialism which not only allowed the investment necessary for England's industrial revolution but that provided many of the necessary costumers which those factories required, India was treated brutally in this regard destroying its own traditional industries only to become a destination for European textiles and other goods. It was also colonialism which was important in allowing conditions for scientific advancement, like the Beagle expedition in which Charles Darwin participated. You can't have one without the other, there siply would not have been the resources for so many educated people on Europe's surplus alone, keep in mind even so one of the continent's main exports was poverty, as immigrants, up until the early to mid twentieth century.

We used to be the top of the world in in badminton, now we're only 5th

They actually have a system where 1/5 of your land must be used for dutch cash crops, that sounds like plundering to me.

21% obesity is not that bad, its Vietnam that is starving.

multiculturalism

Well, Indonesians have PRETTY low iq

average IQ doesn't make collective wealth.
fear and greed does, chinese know this thats why the start to flood africa.
a nation would be starting to go down the drain once the average IQ meet the available information therefore its no longer belong to several elites.
you're completely dumb if you think a nation with that total population and density would be more successful if the average IQ is high, you should expect civil anarchy.
now i won't even start on scientific basis on intellect, because im not sure how it works either, but really, its not that i expect anything else from Sup Forumstard half-assed opinion

Indonesia is basically cheap bars for westerners and detention centres for people trying to boat it to said western countries.

We sell our sand and send them to places like Hawaii. You can find sand from Bondi beach on Waikiki beach.

at least singapore is doing pretty ok

Australia has efficient value adding service jobs, Indoniggers are not worried about added value.
So we have a situation where in money talk, an hour of work from an australian generates ten times more wealth than an hour from an indonesian.

fatlaysia

Look here
Says the chinko sucking (((murigan))) cocks.
It's (((the system))). The more you suck cocks, the more (((wealthier))) you are, given the same amount of hardwork to the non-suckers, such as Indonesia.

Says the chinko sucking (((murigan))) cocks meant for

Many Euros cunts have way higher population than Aus (such as all western euros) - yet Australia is bigger than the whole of Europe. High population isn't good for quality of life. Actually Australia is kind of fucked in that regard because capitalists push for increased population, so heavy immigration and fairly high birth rates. Their wealth and "growth" is dependent on it. However this in turn makes everyone poorer and fucks up general quality of life. It also further exacerbates wealth inequality. It needs to be gradual and heavily planned but instead, at the current rate, we will have over 100 million by the end of the century. It is possible that it will increase, making that figure higher.

If USA had a lower population, you wouldn't have half your population living in third-world conditions.

It would have been just as shit without the dutch

only Bali
the rest of the country is an islamic shithole that you'd have to be retarded to visit

This guy gets it

>4m less people than the entire country of australia. I cannot believe how small your countries are, you guys live in tiny little "countries" that I could drive my car through in a day.
You can drive your car through Australia in a day?

How are you going to fit 100 million people in Australia when you already now have drought problems?

when will wypepo learn

there's a balancing act between population and country size. that's why the government literally paid for people to move over here during the post war period

the south west of Australia can hold a lot of people. as it stands now there's 2 million odd people in the entire western half of the country, with 80% of them living in and around Perth. areas like Busselton, Mandurah, Albany and Denmark can all hold a lot of people and actually have quite good rainfall

We'll probably export less food. Also eat less meat.

sorry mate didn't you get the memo? We're full

not him, but alaska is basically our australia, in certain ways, such as its huge and no one lives there

Thats rigjt nigga....when honkys are around youll always be second bestWelll what about nature