.
>>155094248International Trophies since 1990: Denmark: 1England: 0Yeah, we didn't make the WC this time. Form is temporary. Class is permanent.
>>155094248ITS COMING HOME
>>155094260good luck buddy :)
>>155094258>Yeah, we didn't make the WC this time.Good. Froholdt needs to rest and stay unknown
ME OWN FOKIN SON COMIN HOME
It will be cumming home lads!
>>155094248WE QUALIFIED, YOU DIDNT?
>>155094248>>155094258sing with me lads :>you're stayin home!>you're stayin home!>shitters stayin home!
when the absolute FUCK is gookmoot/rapeape enabling the separate bong flags?I want to mercilessly ridicule Cymru and British Isles posters.
>>155094535I'd be up for him going a step further and separating it by counties. True Norf vs Souf banter would be had.
>>155094554This desu. Pretty kino it would be.US should be divided by states too.
>>1550942581997 Tournoi de France - Winners EnglandGet fucked you Lurpack making cunt
the introduction of flags on /sp/ was a bad thing
>>155094692CANT HANDLE THE BANTZ EH LUKA?
>IT'S COMING HOME!!!
IT 'AD BETTER COME 'OME OR ME FOOKIN MISSUS IS GETTIN' A RIGHT KICKIN'
we're tekkin it back
>>155094258Stay at home playing with your lego ya lil bitch
just think about all the innocent english roses
>>155094991Loose women deserve it
VINDALOO
>>155094324thanks bro you too
>>155095056Letting the Maddy McCann episode slide is proof that this bond is unbreakable
>>155094964>>155094576>lurpak>lego>ozempicyes, we still manufacture and produce things, what do you produce? Nothing. That's why Denmark's GDP per capita is at $80K and UK is at $60K.
>>155095338>per capitaYour stat is basically just saying "we have less people than you lmaoooo"
>>155095338Majority of lego is actually not produced in Denmark, Theres factories in other countries that produce it.
>>155095568This. My cousins in New Zealand really like lego and I'm pretty sure it's cheaper because they get it from some Asian country.
>>155095338epic bantz there Sheldon
>>155094248ok>>155083514
>>155095594Matter of a fact is, you guys are not on our level. You are quite poor. >>155095561You are retarded and don't know what per capita means. The US has a 6 times larger population than the UK, and still, the US has a GDP per capita of $90K vs the UK's GDP per capita of $60K.
>>155095617>ackshully let me produced detailed graphical representations!!!hahahaha you fucking nerd
>>155095617>per capitaYou gonna bring up PPP next lol.
>>155094260Kino
>>155095066That was a scotsman on holiday that took her. Horrible bastards they are.
>>155095617Denmark imposes significantly higher taxes across the board compared to the UK, collecting nearly 46% of its GDP in taxes versus the UK's roughly 37%thoughts? could you provide a graph displaying cuck levels?
>>155095617>You are retarded and don't know what per capita meansIt's just divided by how many people there are, and you have less people so your number is higher. You're dumb. Jfc.
>>155095758With pleasure, my poor friend. Let us look at the net average monthly salary. Which is almost twice as high in Denmark as in the UK. Face it, you are a poor nation. On par with Spain, Cyprus, and Slovakia. You are not a serious nationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage
>>155095677do you think he deep fried her, like a mars bar
>>155095874The United States has a population of 350 million and a GDP per capita of $90K. The United Kingdom has a population of 65 million and a GDK per capita of $60K. Per capita means "per head". Some nations, like India, have a large GDP, but if you divide it "per head" it is quite poor, around $2K per capita. Other nations, like the US, has a large GDP, but even if you divide it "per head" it is still a wealthy nation. It is crazy you don't understand this intuitively. You are dumb
>>155095953>The UK has more people than us, so we are dividing their wealth by a bigger number, LOOK DENMARK IS SUPERIOR (DUE TO HAVING LESS PEOPLE)I understand full well the cope metric you were sneakily deploying which is why you have now retreated back to a new and separate cope claim about the US being wealthier.
>>155096028"The UK has more people than the US" is an interesting argument considering the US has about 350 million people and the UK has about 70 million.You seem confused about the difference between total GDP and GDP per capita. GDP per capita isn't "having less people"; it's GDP divided by population. The US has a higher GDP per capita despite having a much larger population than the UK, which should be a clue that your criticism doesn't make sense.
>>155096212China's GDP per capita is ~$13,000. Would you try and use this statistic to "prove" they are not a wealthy country? Or do you finally understand that your cope metrics are literally just a function of population size and thus aren't really telling you anything at all?Your initial claim has been battled back so far you are now resorting to "US is wealthy" as a key pillar of your argument as each new cope is stripped away.
>>155094260based
>>155096282You're proving the opposite of your own argument.GDP per capita is not a function of population size. If it were, countries with larger populations would always have lower GDP per capita. Yet the US has ~350 million people and a GDP per capita around $90k, while the UK has ~65 million people and a GDP per capita around $60k. The larger country is also richer per person. Denmark has 6 million people and a GDP per capita of $80K. China is a good example of why we use both metrics. China is a wealthy country in terms of total GDP because its economy is enormous. But the average Chinese citizen is much poorer than the average American, Dane, or Briton, which is exactly what GDP per capita measures.Total GDP answers: "How large is the country's economy?"GDP per capita answers: "How much economic output is there per person on average?"Those are different questions. Calling GDP per capita a "population metric" makes about as much sense as calling average income a "household size metric" because you divide by the number of people.
>>155094991>intimate partner violencedomestic violence is sexist innit?
>>155096415>GDP per capita is not a function of population sizeIt is literally GDP divided by the amount of population. You are too stupid to converse with. Good day.
>>15509425836 years of hurt
>>155096487"Population is in the formula" does not mean "the statistic is determined by population." GDP per capita depends on both GDP and population. If population alone determined it, the US would have a lower GDP per capita than the UK simply because it has five times as many people. It doesn't. That's why your argument fails.
>>155094260
>>155094248>>155094258
