![](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2014/06/blogs/graphic-detail/20140628_gdc925_0_0.png)
Q: What do you mean, “good”? Surely all countries are partly good and partly bad?
A: Try thinking of “good” as a measure of how much a country contributes to the common good. So in this context “good” means the opposite of “selfish”, not the opposite of “bad”. The Good Country Index isn’t trying to make any moral judgments: it just measures, as objectively as possible, what each country contributes to the common good, and what it takes away.
www.buttcountries.poop
Edited by TheIneff ()
![](http://i.imgur.com/zGJ2Fkz.png)
RBC posted:lol the bottom 6 cultural countries are all in africa, also the economist is literally run by decendents of cecil rhodes
I know it kind of sounds like it is, but Yemen is not in Africa.
deadken posted:love all that good Belgian Culture to enrich my life
Lessons posted:I don't think this has anything to do with The Economist besides the fact they're reporting on it and probably made the chart based on the data.
hear hear
Lessons posted:I don't think this has anything to do with The Economist besides the fact they're reporting on it and probably made the chart based on the data.
the guy that made it is an "independent consultant" who considers himself an expert in "brands" who is published by the economist.
Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()
Bablu posted:international peace and security is the funniest one
It's definitely environment. They have Canada in 2nd place despite being a major oil producer and the world leader in both tar sands and fracking, while last place is reserved for Zimbabwe which has <2% of Canada's CO2 emissions per capita.
Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()
Lessons posted:Bablu posted:international peace and security is the funniest one
It's definitely environment. They have Canada in 2nd place despite being a major oil producer and the world leader in both tar sands and fracking, while last place is reserved for Zimbabwe which has <2% of Canada's CO2 emissions per capita.
his rationale for this is because canada has a lot of remaining resources. like there is probably i dunno a lot of bauxite or whatever up in the middle of nowhere that we know is there but isn't economically viable or is protected by what shreds of environmental protections remain. that's why congo, australia and brazil score well.
getfiscal posted:Lessons posted:Bablu posted:international peace and security is the funniest one
It's definitely environment. They have Canada in 2nd place despite being a major oil producer and the world leader in both tar sands and fracking, while last place is reserved for Zimbabwe which has <2% of Canada's CO2 emissions per capita.
his rationale for this is because canada has a lot of remaining resources. like there is probably i dunno a lot of bauxite or whatever up in the middle of nowhere that we know is there but isn't economically viable or is protected by what shreds of environmental protections remain. that's why congo, australia and brazil score well.
That is a completely nonsensical reasoning for rating someone highly on the environment.
Lessons posted:How does it help the environment for other countries to buy Canada's tar sands exactly?
would you believe me if i said he rationalizes this by calling that category "Planet and Climate" instead of "Environment"?
(as in, Resources and Environment)
Lessons posted:How does it help the environment for other countries to buy Canada's tar sands exactly?
It helps the environment that Canada has refrained from digging up every last drop of dino diarrhea and turning the entire earths crust to sand, which would be justifiable, if they really wanted to capitalize on their earths resource. Meanwhile you have Mauritius that half its species have been wiped out in the last century... fucking idiots!!
![](http://i.imgur.com/XLnT6QP.jpg)