Do not know, I never heard it like that. It is usually net, when you say the biggest salmon exporter or the biggest cereal exporter is always net values since no one cares if it is per capital or not, everyone cares on how much of the market someone has.
It is one of those metrics that makes little sense per capita, except maybe as a reason why a country has a lot of money. Has a lot of export vs number of citizens. But the discussion was not around why they have a lot of money.
Crime statistics, income, wealth, homelessness, education - this seem very relevant as per capital.
If you said the amount of weapons sold locally would be important per capital.
Both have their places. Net shows their actual impact on the world, per capita shows how much a country focuses on the industry relative to other ones.
I guess, but do to automation and outsourcing the size of an industry relative to the population makes less sense,
A top exports of the country relative to the global market share would be better.
If it is the 15th largest weapon exporter in the world and is like their 20s top export of the country then it is not that important. Even if per capita they are third.
Maybe weapon exports in money vs their GDP vs market share?
I guess if you fail to understand the stat, sure. If one guy on an island produced 100,000 guns per year that would be a significant arms producer because it's one guy doing it. Doesn't matter that all the companies combined in the US produce a million guns.
That seems like a strange metric to have as per capita.
Why? They're a small country and don't make and sell small arms on the American civilian market.
The fact is that they produce a large amount relative to their population size.
Do not know, I never heard it like that. It is usually net, when you say the biggest salmon exporter or the biggest cereal exporter is always net values since no one cares if it is per capital or not, everyone cares on how much of the market someone has.
It is one of those metrics that makes little sense per capita, except maybe as a reason why a country has a lot of money. Has a lot of export vs number of citizens. But the discussion was not around why they have a lot of money.
Crime statistics, income, wealth, homelessness, education - this seem very relevant as per capital.
If you said the amount of weapons sold locally would be important per capital.
Both have their places. Net shows their actual impact on the world, per capita shows how much a country focuses on the industry relative to other ones.
I guess, but do to automation and outsourcing the size of an industry relative to the population makes less sense,
A top exports of the country relative to the global market share would be better.
If it is the 15th largest weapon exporter in the world and is like their 20s top export of the country then it is not that important. Even if per capita they are third.
Maybe weapon exports in money vs their GDP vs market share?
So does a guy alone on an island, but he’s not changing the world. Per capita is a STUPID metric for weapons production and sale.
I guess if you fail to understand the stat, sure. If one guy on an island produced 100,000 guns per year that would be a significant arms producer because it's one guy doing it. Doesn't matter that all the companies combined in the US produce a million guns.