Ivan Kushnir

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Follow to get new release updates and improved recommendations
OK
About Ivan Kushnir
Ivan Kushnir is an economist and a theologian, has written hundreds of books.
As an economist, Ivan Kushnir popularizes economics as a science that describes the life and prosperity of society. His books are necessary for strategists and analysts to understand the economic trends, the current state and direction of development of countries and regions.
As a theologian, Ivan popularizes the Bible and the christian art.
As an economist, Ivan Kushnir popularizes economics as a science that describes the life and prosperity of society. His books are necessary for strategists and analysts to understand the economic trends, the current state and direction of development of countries and regions.
As a theologian, Ivan popularizes the Bible and the christian art.
Are you an author?
Help us improve our Author Pages by updating your bibliography and submitting a new or current image and biography.
Author Updates
-
Blog postOn August 9, presidential election in Belarus will be. It could be the most interesting event in the country for last thirty years.
Despite his low popularity, President Lukashenko will “win” with 75% of the vote.
This will bring millions of dissenting voters onto the streets.
Russia is already sending its agents to Belarus. They are military specialists.
During the protests of voters, they, as disgruntled voters, will raise Russian flags6 months ago Read more -
Blog postThe fall of the US economy was inevitable. And there is no need to look for reasons in coronavirus or black revolution. They only accelerated the fall, but they are not fundamental reasons.
Index of Ivan Kushnir
I invented an index that shows the relationship between consumption and reproduction, and predicts the growth or decline of the economy in the future.
If the index is positive, then the country invests more in reproduction compared with other countries, wh7 months ago Read more -
Blog postBasesEtymologyBeliefsCreedsJesusDeath and resurrectionSalvationTrinityTrinitariansNontrinitarianismEschatologyDeath and afterlifePracticesCommunal worshipSacramentsLiturgical calendarSymbolsBaptismPrayerScripturesCatholic interpretationProtestant interpretationQualities of ScriptureOriginal intended meaning of ScriptureHistoryEarly ChristianityApostolic AgeAnte-Nicene periodSpread and acceptance in Roman EmpireEarly Middle AgesHigh and Late Middle AgesProtestant Reformation and Counter-Reformati8 months ago Read more
-
Blog postCette série sur l'économie dans les régions et les pays des années 1970 aux années 2010.
L'auteur décrit la taille (PIB, RNB, valeur ajoutée), la structure (agriculture, fabrication, etc.), les exportations et les importations, la consommation.
Monde | broché | kindleAfrique | broché | kindleAfrique australe | broché | kindleAfrique du Sud | broché | kindleBotswana | broché | kindleEswatini |10 months ago Read more -
Blog postFor other nations the dollar is money with functions of exchange and accumulation, but for the US it has function of conquering also.
The US can print it as much as need, and buy real values with it.
Today, for example, land and state enterprises in Ukraine, lithium ore in Bolivia.
As Columbus traded gold for beads from the natives, as the US trades lands, resources and businesses for paper.
Why does the US support democracy around the world? B1 year ago Read more -
Blog postGlobal crisis will come in October 2020
Rich men have prepared themselves for crisis. Their assets are transformed into cash to buy valued assets at low prices.
What are they waiting for?
In October 2020, land market in Ukraine will be opened. This is 42 mln hectares with start price at $2000 per ha. Total volume of the market is estimated to $ 84 bln. But in five years it could grow up to $ 210 bln.
This is a great investment opportunity. As hundred1 year ago Read more -
-
Blog postOne more referendum is needed.
With two options:
1. For Brexit. I agree that Britain should pay 40 billion pounds, that Britain risks to lose Northern Ireland and Scotland.
2. Against Brexit.
Who is for Brexit?London elite because they would be independent and more powerful.The US, China and Russia because the EU, their concurrent, would be weaker.The EU officials because their places in the EU rooms.So reasons for Brexit are egoistic and give nothing for Brit1 year ago Read more -
Blog postimage from bbc.comMillions of voters did not vote for Zelensky, but against Poroshenko.
Before the elections, a corrupt broke out in the defense complex. Friends of the old president Poroshenko profited from supplies to the army. But they did not suffer any punishment. Millions of Ukrainians came to the conclusion that war is beneficial for Poroshenko, the growth of his wealth in recent years is correlated with the fall in their income and the growth of victims of war.
2 years ago Read more -
Blog postDies ist eine Reihe von Büchern über die Wirtschaft von den 1970er Jahren bis zu den 2010er Jahren. Quelldaten stamen aus den UN-Daten.
World | Taschenbuch | kindleAfrika | Taschenbuch | kindleNordafrika | Taschenbuch | kindleAlgerien | Taschenbuch | kindleLibyen | Taschenbuch | kindleMarokko | Taschenbuch | kindleSudan | Taschenbuch | kindleTunesien | Taschenbuch | kindleÄgypten | Taschenbuch | kindleOstafrika | Taschenbuch | kindleBurundi | Taschenbuch | kindleDschibuti |2 years ago Read more -
Blog postThe political life of Russia develops with a cycle of 36 years and three sub-cycles of 12 years each.
Three subcycles: growth, peak and warIn 1917, one of the cycles began with the February Revolution and then with the October Revolution. The cycle lasted 36 years until 1953, when Stalin died and a new cycle began. The first subcycle lasted until 1929, this is the period of destruction of old values and the assertion of the new state. The second subcycle lasted until 1941, i2 years ago Read more -
Blog postThis serie about economy in regions and countries from the 1970s to the 2010s.
Author described size (GDP, GNI, Value added), structure (agriculture, manufacturing, etc.), export and import, consumption.
Source data from UN Data. Methodology: SNA 2008, ISIC 3.1.
World | paperback | kindleAfrica | paperback | kindleEastern Africa | paperback | kindleBurundi | paperback | kindleComoros | paperback | kindleDjibouti | paperback | kindleEritrea | paperback | kindleEthiopia | paperba2 years ago Read more -
Blog postChristian art heals souls, it fills them with divine light, and there is no room for illness and vice.Christian art is a core of Northern Renaissance.
Flemish school:2 years ago Read more -
Blog postThis serie about agribusiness in countries from 1960s to 2010s.
Author described production, export, import and food market in agricultural branches (cereals, starchy roots, sugar crops, sugar, pulses, treenuts, oilcrops, vegetable oils, vegetables, fruits, stimulants, spices, alcoholic beverages, milk, meat, eggs) with comparison to other countries.
Source data from FAOSTAT Database.
AlgeriapaperbackkindleAngolapaperbackkindleArgentinapaperbackkindleArmeniapaperbackkindleAustr2 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Bibelen. Det Norsk Bibelselskap (1930).
Old testament:
New testament:
2 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Károli Bible.
Old Testament:
New testament:2 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Kutsal Kitap.
Old Testament:
New Testament:2 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Traducerea Dumitru Cornilescu, 1924.
Old Testament:
New Testament:2 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Agía Grafí, 1894.
Old Testament:
New Testament:2 years ago Read more -
-
-
-
Blog postDaruj nam, Gospodı, mnogaja lita! - Give us, Lord, many years of life!3 years ago Read more
-
Blog postKing James Bible.
Bibeln. 1917.
Old Testament:
New Testament:
Psalms:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postBiblija. Pereklad Ivana OgienkaBible. American King James Version
Old testament:
New testament:3 years ago Read more -
-
-
Blog postBibel. Lutherbibel 1912.
Riveduta Bible (1927).
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible. Genesis.
Riveduta Bible (1927).
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postBiblia. João F. Almeida Atualizada.
Bible. American King James Version
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Bijbel. Dutch Staten Vertaling.
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Biblia Gdanska.
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.
Biblija.
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible.Bible kralickáOld testament:
New testament:3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible
Bibel. 1907/1931
Old testament:
New testament:
3 years ago Read more -
Blog postHoly Bible. King James Bible
Pyhä Raamattu. 1933,38
Old testament:
New testament:
Hardcover:
3 years ago Read more
There's a problem loading this menu right now.
Get free delivery with Amazon Prime
Prime members enjoy FREE Delivery and exclusive access to music, movies, TV shows, original audio series, and Kindle books.
Books By Ivan Kushnir
Economy of Estonia
Jan 24, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Estonia from the 1990s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Estonia was equal to $25.5 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $702.2 million; the value of manufacturing was $3.5 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $19 267.8, the value of agriculture per capita was $531.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 628.8. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 3.7%; the growth of agriculture was 1.1%; the growth of manufacturing was 6.4%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Estonia consisted of: services (40.9%), industry (21.1%), trade (14.4%), transportation (14.0%), construction (6.5%), and agriculture (3.2%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 5.0% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 3.7% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Estonia was equal to $25.5 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $702.2 million; the value of manufacturing was $3.5 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $19 267.8, the value of agriculture per capita was $531.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 628.8. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 3.7%; the growth of agriculture was 1.1%; the growth of manufacturing was 6.4%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Estonia consisted of: services (40.9%), industry (21.1%), trade (14.4%), transportation (14.0%), construction (6.5%), and agriculture (3.2%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 5.0% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 3.7% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of the United States
Jan 28, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of the United States from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of the United States was equal to $18.0 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $180.3 billion; the value of manufacturing was $2.1 trillion. Since the share in the world is greater than 10%, the country is classified as a global leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $56 220.1, the value of agriculture per capita was $564.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $6 481.0. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 2.3%; the growth of agriculture was 2.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 1.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of the USA included: services (55.4%), industry (15.3%), trade (14.6%), transportation (10.0%), construction (3.8%), and agriculture (1.0%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 24.1% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.0% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of the United States was equal to $18.0 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $180.3 billion; the value of manufacturing was $2.1 trillion. Since the share in the world is greater than 10%, the country is classified as a global leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $56 220.1, the value of agriculture per capita was $564.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $6 481.0. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 2.3%; the growth of agriculture was 2.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 1.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of the USA included: services (55.4%), industry (15.3%), trade (14.6%), transportation (10.0%), construction (3.8%), and agriculture (1.0%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 24.1% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.0% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Samoa
Jan 28, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Samoa from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Samoa was equal to $786.4 million per year; the value of agriculture was $74.7 million; the value of manufacturing was $64.1 million. Since the share in the world is less than .01%, the country is classified as a micro economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $4 091.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $388.7, the value of manufacturing per capita was $333.7. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 1.4%; the growth of agriculture was -0.64%; the growth of manufacturing was -3.4%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Samoa consisted of: trade (32.7%), services (29.6%), transportation (10.9%), industry (10.8%), agriculture (9.5%), and construction (6.5%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 67.8% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 21.7% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Samoa was equal to $786.4 million per year; the value of agriculture was $74.7 million; the value of manufacturing was $64.1 million. Since the share in the world is less than .01%, the country is classified as a micro economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $4 091.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $388.7, the value of manufacturing per capita was $333.7. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 1.4%; the growth of agriculture was -0.64%; the growth of manufacturing was -3.4%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Samoa consisted of: trade (32.7%), services (29.6%), transportation (10.9%), industry (10.8%), agriculture (9.5%), and construction (6.5%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 67.8% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 21.7% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Australia
Jan 21, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Australia from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Australia was equal to $1.4 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $32.7 billion; the value of manufacturing was $89.5 billion. Since the share in the world is between 1% and 10%, the country is classified as a regional leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $60 077.9, the value of agriculture per capita was $1 378.0, the value of manufacturing per capita was $3 769.3. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 2.4%; the growth of agriculture was -1.4%; the growth of manufacturing was -0.84%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Australia included: services (51.8%), industry (18.3%), trade (11.4%), construction (8.3%), transportation (7.8%), and agriculture (2.5%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 1.1% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 0.24% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Australia was equal to $1.4 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $32.7 billion; the value of manufacturing was $89.5 billion. Since the share in the world is between 1% and 10%, the country is classified as a regional leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $60 077.9, the value of agriculture per capita was $1 378.0, the value of manufacturing per capita was $3 769.3. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 2.4%; the growth of agriculture was -1.4%; the growth of manufacturing was -0.84%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Australia included: services (51.8%), industry (18.3%), trade (11.4%), construction (8.3%), transportation (7.8%), and agriculture (2.5%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 1.1% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 0.24% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Greece
Jan 25, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Greece from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Greece was equal to $230.1 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $8.0 billion; the value of manufacturing was $18.1 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $21 549.4, the value of agriculture per capita was $750.0, the value of manufacturing per capita was $1 699.3. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was -2.2%; the growth of agriculture was 1.7%; the growth of manufacturing was -3.5%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Greece included: services (51.7%), trade (18.1%), industry (13.5%), transportation (10.0%), agriculture (4.0%), and construction (2.7%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 10.6% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.3% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Greece was equal to $230.1 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $8.0 billion; the value of manufacturing was $18.1 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $21 549.4, the value of agriculture per capita was $750.0, the value of manufacturing per capita was $1 699.3. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was -2.2%; the growth of agriculture was 1.7%; the growth of manufacturing was -3.5%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Greece included: services (51.7%), trade (18.1%), industry (13.5%), transportation (10.0%), agriculture (4.0%), and construction (2.7%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 10.6% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.3% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Economy of China
Jan 23, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of China from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of China was equal to $10.5 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $886.2 billion; the value of manufacturing was $3.1 trillion. Since the share in the world is greater than 10%, the country is classified as a global leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $7 491.3, the value of agriculture per capita was $631.9, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 221.3. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 7.7%; the growth of agriculture was 3.8%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.5%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of China consisted of: industry (35.1%), services (33.8%), trade (11.4%), agriculture (8.4%), construction (7.0%), and transportation (4.4%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 10.8% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 2.1% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of China was equal to $10.5 trillion per year; the value of agriculture was $886.2 billion; the value of manufacturing was $3.1 trillion. Since the share in the world is greater than 10%, the country is classified as a global leader.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $7 491.3, the value of agriculture per capita was $631.9, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 221.3. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 7.7%; the growth of agriculture was 3.8%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.5%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of China consisted of: industry (35.1%), services (33.8%), trade (11.4%), agriculture (8.4%), construction (7.0%), and transportation (4.4%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 10.8% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 2.1% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Economy of Armenia
Jan 21, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Armenia from the 1990s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Armenia was equal to $11.3 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $1.8 billion; the value of manufacturing was $1.1 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $3 867.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $628.8, the value of manufacturing per capita was $393.7. Since the productivity is less the average below average, the economy is classified as least developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 4.4%; the growth of agriculture was 1.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Armenia consisted of: services (32.2%), industry (18.6%), agriculture (17.9%), trade (13.9%), construction (10.5%), and transportation (7.0%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 51.9% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 16.3% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Armenia was equal to $11.3 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $1.8 billion; the value of manufacturing was $1.1 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $3 867.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $628.8, the value of manufacturing per capita was $393.7. Since the productivity is less the average below average, the economy is classified as least developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 4.4%; the growth of agriculture was 1.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Armenia consisted of: services (32.2%), industry (18.6%), agriculture (17.9%), trade (13.9%), construction (10.5%), and transportation (7.0%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 51.9% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 16.3% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Azerbaijan
Jan 22, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Azerbaijan from the 1990s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Azerbaijan was equal to $56.5 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $3.1 billion; the value of manufacturing was $2.6 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $5 913.2, the value of agriculture per capita was $321.8, the value of manufacturing per capita was $270.2. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.6%; the growth of agriculture was 3.7%; the growth of manufacturing was 4.3%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Azerbaijan included: industry (47.6%), services (17.4%), trade (10.9%), construction (10.6%), transportation (7.7%), and agriculture (5.8%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 62.4% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 18.9% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Azerbaijan was equal to $56.5 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $3.1 billion; the value of manufacturing was $2.6 billion. Since the share in the world is between .01% and .1%, the country is classified as a small economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $5 913.2, the value of agriculture per capita was $321.8, the value of manufacturing per capita was $270.2. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.6%; the growth of agriculture was 3.7%; the growth of manufacturing was 4.3%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Azerbaijan included: industry (47.6%), services (17.4%), trade (10.9%), construction (10.6%), transportation (7.7%), and agriculture (5.8%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 62.4% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 18.9% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Economy of Colombia
Jan 23, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Colombia from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Colombia was equal to $330.1 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $20.0 billion; the value of manufacturing was $40.7 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $6 949.5, the value of agriculture per capita was $420.1, the value of manufacturing per capita was $857.5. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 3.7%; the growth of agriculture was 3.2%; the growth of manufacturing was 1.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Colombia included: services (39.1%), industry (25.7%), trade (12.9%), transportation (8.4%), construction (7.2%), and agriculture (6.6%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 22.9% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.8% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Colombia was equal to $330.1 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $20.0 billion; the value of manufacturing was $40.7 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $6 949.5, the value of agriculture per capita was $420.1, the value of manufacturing per capita was $857.5. Since the productivity is between the average of below average and the average, the economy is classified as developing.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of gross domestic product was 3.7%; the growth of agriculture was 3.2%; the growth of manufacturing was 1.9%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Colombia included: services (39.1%), industry (25.7%), trade (12.9%), transportation (8.4%), construction (7.2%), and agriculture (6.6%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the import was 22.9% higher than the export, the net import was equal to 3.8% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Kuwait
Jan 25, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Kuwait from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Kuwait was equal to $140.0 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $621.0 million; the value of manufacturing was $8.9 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $37 928.8, the value of agriculture per capita was $168.2, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 411.0. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.5%; the growth of agriculture was 10.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 3.2%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Kuwait included: industry (55.6%), services (32.4%), transportation (5.3%), trade (4.1%), construction (2.1%), and agriculture (0.39%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 74.4% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 26.9% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Kuwait was equal to $140.0 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $621.0 million; the value of manufacturing was $8.9 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product per capita was $37 928.8, the value of agriculture per capita was $168.2, the value of manufacturing per capita was $2 411.0. Since the productivity is greater the average above average, the economy is classified as high developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.5%; the growth of agriculture was 10.0%; the growth of manufacturing was 3.2%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Kuwait included: industry (55.6%), services (32.4%), transportation (5.3%), trade (4.1%), construction (2.1%), and agriculture (0.39%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 74.4% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 26.9% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Economy of Argentina
Jan 21, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Argentina from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Argentina was equal to $553.3 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $34.4 billion; the value of manufacturing was $78.9 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $12 913.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $802.4, the value of manufacturing per capita was $1 841.2. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.3%; the growth of agriculture was 4.0%; the growth of manufacturing was -0.30%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Argentina consisted of: services (40.3%), industry (22.8%), trade (17.6%), agriculture (7.4%), transportation (6.7%), and construction (5.3%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 0.34% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 0.049% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the GDP of Argentina was equal to $553.3 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $34.4 billion; the value of manufacturing was $78.9 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $12 913.7, the value of agriculture per capita was $802.4, the value of manufacturing per capita was $1 841.2. Since the productivity is between the average and the average of above average, the economy is classified as developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 1.3%; the growth of agriculture was 4.0%; the growth of manufacturing was -0.30%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Argentina consisted of: services (40.3%), industry (22.8%), trade (17.6%), agriculture (7.4%), transportation (6.7%), and construction (5.3%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 0.34% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 0.049% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is not better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will not increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
Economy of Vietnam
Jan 28, 2019
by
Ivan Kushnir
$3.99
This book about the economy of Vietnam from the 1970s to the 2010s. Source data from UN Data.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Vietnam was equal to $189.4 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $31.5 billion; the value of manufacturing was $27.4 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $2 054.3, the value of agriculture per capita was $341.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $296.8. Since the productivity is less the average below average, the economy is classified as least developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 6.3%; the growth of agriculture was 2.6%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.1%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Vietnam included: industry (31.0%), services (25.0%), agriculture (18.5%), trade (15.4%), construction (6.2%), and transportation (3.9%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 1.7% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 1.6% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Size. In the 2010s, the gross domestic product of Vietnam was equal to $189.4 billion per year; the value of agriculture was $31.5 billion; the value of manufacturing was $27.4 billion. Since the share in the world is between .1% and 1%, the country is classified as an average economy.
Productivity. In the 2010s, the GDP per capita was $2 054.3, the value of agriculture per capita was $341.3, the value of manufacturing per capita was $296.8. Since the productivity is less the average below average, the economy is classified as least developed.
Growth. In the 2010s, the growth of GDP was 6.3%; the growth of agriculture was 2.6%; the growth of manufacturing was 7.1%.
Structure. In the 2010s, the economy of Vietnam included: industry (31.0%), services (25.0%), agriculture (18.5%), trade (15.4%), construction (6.2%), and transportation (3.9%).
Export and import. In the 2010s, the export was 1.7% higher than the import, the net export was equal to 1.6% of the GDP. The technological structure of export is not better than the structure of import.
Consumption and reproduction. The attitude of reproduction to the consumption is better than the global average, so the share of GDP in the world will increase.
Other Formats:
Paperback
- ←Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 44
- Next Page→
More Information
Anything else? Provide feedback about this page