an add-on to the post just now.

i really wonder if the new econ geog note is vetted by wml or not...

becuz.. the definition for GNP is wrong! and i dont think geographers (other than those econ geographer) noe the chim econ term - purchasing power parity. there can be many possible reason for this.

1) wml checked but nv check properly but still add PPP inside. how possible is it then? for a economist to miss out the GNP's definition and yet take note of sth else...
2) it just happen that cc noes PPP somehow.. quite unlikely rite? since he even define GNP wrongly.
3) or maybe cc noes PPP but just define GNP wrongly.
4) or it can be due to the other 'vetter'.

haha. dunno la. econ geog is quite econ. like duh! but got diff la. econ geog is more towards reasons that result in globalisation but econ is more towards the technicality in calculating (weighing) the results. in another words, econ geog is more vast while econ is more specific in the economy~!