Sabiam que a dimensão do órgão sexual masculino explica metade da variação do crescimento do PIB? Confirmem aqui (pdf):
“This paper explores the link between economic development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country’s political regime type. Controlling for male organ slows convergence and mitigates the negative effect of population growth on economic development slightly. Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis’ put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlation”
“Only stylized explanations for these perplexing patterns can be brought up at this point. One discussed below revolves around the proposed aggregate ‘self-esteem production function’ which could potentially explain the inverted relation between GDP and penile length. Taken at face value the findings suggest that the ‘male organ hypothesis’ put forward here is quite penetrating an argument. Yet for the best of author’s knowledge, male organ has not been touched in the growth literature before.”.
“The data regarding the physical dimensions of male organs is openly available online and has been compiled [by an unknown party] from an extensive number of sources. Large part of the data has been collected by health authorities but some observations are self-reported. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, self-reported data might be biased, supposedly upwards. However, a moment of reflection with the global penile length distribution map and anecdotal ‘Internet-sourced evidence’ reveals that the self-reported figures are in-line with anticipated patterns. Still, measurement errors can not be ruled out.”
“For obvious reasons the male organ narrative yields little in terms of feasible policy recommendations. Beyond mass [im]migration, not much can be done on the average size of male organ at the population level.”
“Even with the reservations outlined above the ‘male organ hypothesis’ is worth pursuing in future research. It clearly seems that the ‘private sector’ deserves more credit for economic development than is typically acknowledged.”