The WTF? Thread
A researcher in Helsinki has broken away from traditional economy studies of such things as investment flows, current account balances and manufacturing to look instead at the anatomy. Because you can't make this stuff up, I'll let the study by Tatu Westling, a doctoral student at the Helsinki Center of Economic Research, at the University of Helsinki, speak for itself:
"The aim of this paper is to fill this scholarly gap with the male organ. Hence in contrast to much of the existing literature, economic development is viewed from a perspective quite novel. The is whether and how strongly the average sizes of male organ are associated with GDPs between 1960 and 1985? It is argued here that the average size - the erect length, to be precise - of male organ in population has a strong predictive power of economic development during the period. The exact causality can only be speculated at this point but the correlations are robust."
I certainly agree that it's predictive of something, but economic growth?
(The study was actually released earlier this week, but I saved it for today, when I figured everyone could use a bit of a breather from debt crises and monetary policy. Having said that, it is a real, if not-in-the-mainstream paper.)
It's a little difficult for a lay person to follow the study's findings, which come with mathematical formulas, references, tables and charts (of GDP).
The bottom line is that the smaller the penis, the faster the economic growth. Indeed, for every centimetre more, there's a 5-per-cent to 7-per-cent decline in expansion. The strongest economies are those where men have average penises. And if you want an economy that promises you a job, you'd better hope you weren't too blessed: "The GDP-maximizing length can be identified at around 13.5 centimetres. One striking result is the collapse in GDP after male organ exceeds the length of 16 centimetres."
This is significant, the study notes, using rivals France and Britain as examples: "If France with its average size of 16.1 centimetres had male organs on par with United Kingdom's 13.9 centimetres, French GDP wuld have ceteris paribus expanded by around 15 per cent more between 1960 and 1985."
(A plea to the British here not to deluge me with hate mail and protestations. I'm only the messenger.)
The question as to why isn't really answered, though the author does speculate on areas such such as self-esteem, and how much a man may strive for money and success to compensate. And then there's this: "Labour and leisure vary accordingly. Hence the world would be characterized by two kinds of countries. One group would constitute of leisure-poor, high-GDP countries with small male organs; the other of leisure-rich but low-GDP countries with large male organs."
What's this all mean? The IMF projects that Canada will see the second-fastest growth among the G7 countries this year, and, well, that the Germans should hang their heads in shame.
"The aim of this paper is to fill this scholarly gap with the male organ. Hence in contrast to much of the existing literature, economic development is viewed from a perspective quite novel. The is whether and how strongly the average sizes of male organ are associated with GDPs between 1960 and 1985? It is argued here that the average size - the erect length, to be precise - of male organ in population has a strong predictive power of economic development during the period. The exact causality can only be speculated at this point but the correlations are robust."
I certainly agree that it's predictive of something, but economic growth?
(The study was actually released earlier this week, but I saved it for today, when I figured everyone could use a bit of a breather from debt crises and monetary policy. Having said that, it is a real, if not-in-the-mainstream paper.)
It's a little difficult for a lay person to follow the study's findings, which come with mathematical formulas, references, tables and charts (of GDP).
The bottom line is that the smaller the penis, the faster the economic growth. Indeed, for every centimetre more, there's a 5-per-cent to 7-per-cent decline in expansion. The strongest economies are those where men have average penises. And if you want an economy that promises you a job, you'd better hope you weren't too blessed: "The GDP-maximizing length can be identified at around 13.5 centimetres. One striking result is the collapse in GDP after male organ exceeds the length of 16 centimetres."
This is significant, the study notes, using rivals France and Britain as examples: "If France with its average size of 16.1 centimetres had male organs on par with United Kingdom's 13.9 centimetres, French GDP wuld have ceteris paribus expanded by around 15 per cent more between 1960 and 1985."
(A plea to the British here not to deluge me with hate mail and protestations. I'm only the messenger.)
The question as to why isn't really answered, though the author does speculate on areas such such as self-esteem, and how much a man may strive for money and success to compensate. And then there's this: "Labour and leisure vary accordingly. Hence the world would be characterized by two kinds of countries. One group would constitute of leisure-poor, high-GDP countries with small male organs; the other of leisure-rich but low-GDP countries with large male organs."
What's this all mean? The IMF projects that Canada will see the second-fastest growth among the G7 countries this year, and, well, that the Germans should hang their heads in shame.
Comment