0
$\begingroup$

For simplicity sake: Please can you explain to me what does this mean...."trade increases globally by 10%"?

assuming Country A = 100 assuming Country B = 100 

does it mean....

1) 10% for each country so new trade means

 Country A = 110  Country B = 110 

or does it mean...

2) 5% for country A and 5% for country B, so new trade is

 Country A =  105  Country B =  105    

Thank you for your time and effort in helping me with this question

2 Answers 2

1

It pretty much has to mean for each country. Otherwise, you get a different answer if you consider China and Taiwan two countries than you do if you consider them one country. And that wouldn't make any sense at all.

  • 0
    I should not used the word Trade. I should have stated Sales Revenue. Will that make you think any different. thanks.2011-11-16
  • 0
    No, that makes no difference. You can't say the company raised revenues by 100% across the board if each of 10 departments raised revenue 10%. (Also, you can't add percentages of different things anyway. 10% of an apple pie and 10% of a banana fritter isn't 20% of anything.)2011-11-16
  • 0
    Thanks everyone, I am closing this off.2011-11-17
2

It does not mean (2). It might mean (1), or it might mean simply that the total sales revenue for all countries combined rises by $10$%. In your example this could mean that Country A stays at $100$ while Country B rises to $120$. It could even mean that Country A drops to $90$ while Country B rises to $130$. Any combination of changes resulting in a total of $220$, $10$% more than the initial $200$, would count as a global increase of $10$% under this interpretation. In this case there can be variation from one country to another, but the overall sales revenue goes up by $10$%.

  • 0
    I should not used the word Trade. I should have stated Sales Revenue. Will that make you think any different. thanks.2011-11-16
  • 1
    @DiscoDude: No, that just makes the whole statement more intelligible. If I encountered the statement ‘in the wild’, I’d understand it to mean neither your (1) nor your (2), but my alternate interpretation. Your (1) is barely possible but very unlikely, and your (2) is right out.2011-11-16
  • 0
    As you point out, the statement is ambiguous, but I think most people would go with your alternative of the total of all trade goes up by 10%. This could permit some countries to actually have trade decline, while total trade goes up by 10%.2011-11-16
  • 0
    @TimothyAWiseman - which one, the 5% for each country. thanks for looking at this.2011-11-16
  • 0
    Actually, it is not true that on average each country's trade goes up by 10%. For example, consider two countries, one with a billion times the trade of the other. If thne larger country's trade goes up 10%, the smaller country's trade could do pretty much anything at all (go up 100%, go down 75%), it doesn't matter. The total will still go up 10%.2011-11-16
  • 0
    @David: You’re quite right: that was a silly comment.2011-11-16
  • 0
    @DiscoDude I mean "the total sales revenue for all countries combined rises by %. " would be by far the more common interpretation.2011-11-16
  • 0
    @DavidSchwartz I think it depends on how you interpret the statement. I think "the total sales revenue for all countries combined rises by %. " is the best interpretation and then the change in each country could be very different as you say. But I also think DiscDude's #1 interpretation is at least consistent with the wording (though unlikely). I do not think it could reasonably ever mean #2.2011-11-16
  • 0
    @TimothyAWiseman I would say it's true so long as the total increased by 10%, but it does tend to suggest that the increase was well-distribruted and not that just one thing increased and overwhelmed everything. That is, it implies that the most of the individual entities experienced individual increases around 10% as well. (It's not a mathematically precise claim.)2011-11-16
  • 0
    @DavidSchwartz I think that is a fair description. In the end, I think it is poorly phrased and could be reworded to be clearer.2011-11-16