jamescfm wrote:I might be misreading your response, apologies if that's the case, but I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Possible that it was poorly phrased so let me try and say it a bit clearer. My main point is that at the moment 95% of countries are ranked in the dynamic economic rankings from the same starting point, a population of ~100 million. From this point, that will no longer be the case and I just wanted to clarify what that means for the rankings.
If we take an example, say that Barmenia (pop. ~40 mil) and Beluzia (pop. ~80 mil) were in the same tier of the economic rankings. If the rankings reflect total GDP then they both have a similar size economy but the average Barmenian is going to be much better off because the same resources are being split between half as many people (distributional questions left aside). If the rankings reflect a per capita measure, then the average Barmenian and Beluzian are about as well off as one another even though the Beluzian economy is twice the size. Neither of these is necessarily a better measure but it would probably be easier from a moderation standpoint that to use the latter (since you wouldn't have to worry too much about poulation size when doing the rankings).
An unrelated question, are we free to determine the distribution of people within our country however we like?
I think for the sake of fairness and simplicity, when it comes to differences in population and economic rankings, we will simply go in the tiers of economic rankings. Meaning, if you're considered "Very Strong" and your nation has a population of 10 million whereas another has a population of 40 million, it will be considered the same. It's a little janky and perhaps not the most realistic but I think in the concept of fairness, it works.