Idk about a game industry in Brazil, but I do know about the 98% of the gamers that are annoying and purposefully ruin games because of language barriers.

Call me a stereotypical lunatic, Id say Im a realist ;o

Those random people in the Wikipedia articles are far more qualified on the subject than you are on the matter. Statistics aren't everything, population mentality, foreign relations, and other unquantifiable variables also come into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita
Luxembourg the new world superpower?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 17 2010, 10:14 pm by phlemhacker.

I believe the topic at hand is about the video game industry and Brazil's role in it, right? Let's keep this on topic.

And like I figured before, this is swaying from a SD topic to something that should belong more in Lite Discussion .

Later this year Xbox LIVE comes to Brazil, Russia, Poland, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Hungary, South Africa & Czech Republic. See you in matchmaking, nubs!

What now!! Updated from waypoint on Facebook lol.

Lite Discussion? Never seen such section, but I'll understand if you feel like moving this topic.

It doesn't exist, and there is a topic talking, a lot, about creating an LD.

-We are not the only country that needs oil
-Contractors are the responsibility of the company. There is a huge discussion in business with most contractors of whether a project should be done in house (risks being are they qualified) and outsourcing it (risks being quality control).

BP is a multinational. However the public face of the company (and a rather idiotic one at that) is Tony Hayward, a man who is very much a British businessman and apparently something of a comedian, in that he thinks it's appropriate to be rather flippant in a crisis, and go sailing.

An ex-Clinton adviser came on British TV the other night and was pretty aggressive in debate about the whole disaster.

Kame, one thing, you mentioned that you thought that Brazil had 9% quarter-growth - I'm fairly sure this is inaccurate. I think your source meant on-year growth, meaning that if growth continued at the rate of that quarter, then the economy would grow 9% in one year. It can get confusing because some sources don't really differentiate between that and you kind of have to guess what they mean (I'm looking at BBC here).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704256604575294962898273450.html

Ya...Wall Street Journal sure is confusing. Since the title is "Brazil's GDP Grew 9% in First Quarter"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/brazil-1q-2010-gdp-shows-strongest-economic-growth-and-investment-in-15-years-95881899.html
Oops, guess I was right.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

My article is comparing the first quarters of 2009 and 2010. First quarter 2010 was 9% higher than first quarter 2009. Your article is comparing forth quarter 2009 with first quarter 2010. So technically we are both 'right.' However, it is better to compare the same quarter of different years to each other, because it removes seasonal bias. Buying behavior last quarter of the year and first quarter of the year are drastically different. Unfortunately I don't know buying behavior in Brazil that well, but for most of the western world the first quarter has been historically slow: its right after a plethora of holidays which has led to gift shopping and extravagant travel. So naturally, people aren't pumping as much money into the economy in January as they would be in December. A lot of companies screw themselves by not paying heed to periodicity and seasonally adjusting forecasts. It leads to strange answers...for example, the ski industry.

Company A sells:
Q1: 10 sets of skis
Q2: 4 sets of skis
Q3: 6 sets of skis
Q4: 25 sets of skis

If you add them all and divide them, you get approx. 12 sets of skis a quarter. Let's say the previous years have grown by 10% annually, so we'll add 1.2 sets to get approx. 14 sets a quarter. You are doubling your expectations for Q2 and Q3 as what could be reasonably expected, and slicing expectations for Q4 nearly in half. This could literally ruin a business, and it has many times. Granted, the company has other issues if they can only sell 25 skis a quarter at best, but I digress. If you have a problem with the numbers, add a couple of zeros.

However, let's say you analyze the last four years of data by quarter. So Q4 for the past four years generated...oh I don't know...18, 21, 24, 25. Even though the growth rates are variable, you're probably going to end up at a better forecast using those numbers instead of mixing in Q2 and Q3. Besides, set up your MA = 3 and you should not have too much of a problem. ya da ya da. Did I business you to death?

If you interpret yours as growing relative to Q1 2009, then you saying "Economy grew by 9% in one quarter" is simply wrong. If my apple is comparing to Q4 2009 and your orange is comparing to Q1 2009, then you cannot claim something absolute like the economy having grown 9% in one quarter.

However, I'm pretty sure that that's bullshit anyway. You said "Brazilian economy expanded by 9% in one quarter", not "Expanded by 9% in last quarter relative to a year before".

New article: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=BRL
"The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Brazil expanded at an annual rate of 2.74 percent in the last quarter."

How more straightforward can you get? The Brazilian economy expanded by an annual 2.7%. This is even slower than I thought, since annual implies (I could be wrong here) that it would grow 2.7% if the same growth continued, making it an actual .6% expansion.

Thus, you simply cannot claim that the Brazilian economy grew 9% in one quarter. Which is all I said. Countries definitely don't have seasonal fluctuations in growth of the same magnitude on the ski industry, so with your figure the Brazilian economy would've grown maybe 30% this year total, which is an insanely high number.

Centreri XD I worded it confusingly originally? I went back and explained myself. So relax...isn't that the point of this forum? Not to beat something to death after someone has explained themselves?

Originally I said:
so...yes...there was 9% growth for the first quarter. Its a strange way to word it, alright But I do maintain that who cares if it grew by 2.76 from Q4 to Q3...unless its been adjusted to remove bias those are just numbers to me. That's what I'm saying. Besides, even YOUR article says "first quarter of 2010 Brazil's economy expanded 9%" If you had a problem with that wording, why did you choose that article? o.O

I think its becoming clear that you don't understand how to interpret these numbers. Actually, 9% is typically considered out of control growth. It looks like a bubble has formed in some sector, meaning something that can very easily crash (for example, real estate as it did in Japan earlier and the USA later). The world's annual growth last year, I believe, was about 3%. So Brazil is right in the ballpark if its annual growth was 2.7%. But if you're talking about this year so far growth - there is nothing to average it. So the "annual growth" is only data from Q1.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to convince me of at this point, lol. However, you "explaining yourself" isn't convincing, since what you explained is very, very different from what you said, in straightforward terms, before. Especially because it took you until the 2nd reply to correct yourself. More likely you looked at an actual source with the number 9% in there and said what it said.

9% isn't inherently unstable. There can be arguments over this, but until China, India or the many, many smaller countries with very high growth show that there are huge bubbles in their economy, you really can't say that 9% is always overheating. The further away a country is from Western development, the faster it will grow. And keep in mind that the world average 3% includes the recession-or-slow-growth Europe and slow-growth United States as well as other countries like Russia whose economies actually shrunk substantially. For that to average out to 3% means that many countries also experienced a lot of growth.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 22 2010, 10:07 pm by Centreri.

Cent.. again like I stated before. You are just wrong on this one! Just leave it lol...
Kame is saying you don't compare quarters with the next quarter you compare it yearly...
Just like retail/stores when they give you your store numbers they are not giving you the day before.. they are giving you that exact date the year before.