3 ms·

> China grew 5.2% last year and is growing faster than the US this year. This is true, but insufficient. US GDP per capita is 6.3x that of China. So the US'

by refurb 2y ago

> China grew 5.2% last year and is growing faster than the US this year. This is true, but insufficient. US GDP per capita is 6.3x that of China. So the US' 2.4% growth last year was 3x larger than China's on an absolute per capita basis. If China ever hopes to become a high income country it needs to grow in the 10% per year every year, for the next two decades. In fact, if the US has mediocre growth of 3%, and China 9%, for the next 20 years, China will still only be half as rich as the US. China would need to maintain a growth rate of 12-13% per year, for 2 decades if it ever hope to match US wealth.

petermcneeley 2y ago
China is expected to see a population decrease while America an increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... America's growth is narrowly focused on the digital tech sector. This is a fragile position and now requires the full force of tariff and bans to sustain. The GDP per capita is also a not great indicator of wealth for those actually living inside the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
- refurb 2y ago
  > America's growth is narrowly focused on the digital tech sector. This is incorrect. Tech gets the most attention, but it's not the driver of GDP growth. https://www.statista.com/statistics/248004/percentage-added-to-the-us-gdp-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/248004/percentage-added-... > This is a fragile position and now requires the full force of tariff and bans to sustain. This doesn't even jive with your prior sentence. The US doesn't use tariffs to protect the tech sector. However, China outright bans foreign tech in many cases. Maybe you mixed up the countries? > The GDP per capita is also a not great indicator of wealth for those actually living inside the country. It's not perfect, but it's best we have. You can consider it the maximum amount of wealth that can be distributed within the country. And I'm not sure why you linked to GDP by PPP. It's just COL adjusted GDP, which can be helpful, but has many caveats of it's own.
  - petermcneeley 2y ago
    If "finance, insurance ... " and "Government" are actually the drivers to GDP growth then one has quite a bit more to worry about than the fact that this number is a mere 2.4% I was more referring to growth in the value of the companies in the snp 500. https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-contributors-to-earnings-growth-for-the-sp-500-for-q1 https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-co... Why I responded initially was because the focus on GDP per capita. This isnt a great way to compare living standards and it isnt a great way to compare economic prowess.
    - refurb 2y ago
      Are you suggesting financial services aren’t “real GDP”? Why? And instead of GDP you think S&P is a better metric? It’s even less relevant than GDP to QOL.
      - petermcneeley 2y ago
        No sure if you will see this so I will simply summarize 1. I dont think it makes much sense to compare GDP per capita of china and the USA when trying to understand the power of their economies. It is the excessively demos thinking that causes one to focus on GDP per capita. 2. I dont think the prices of things are the same in China vs USA. I dont mean simply rice or rent but say building a road or a bridge. 3. Following from this I dont think one can compare QoL based on GPD per capita. It is also very hard to compare QoL which is a human lived experience thing between different societies. Whereas one can more easily compare the USA to Canada. 3. Economic financialization is generally seen as a bad thing. And government services tend to be inefficient. So GDP growth in these areas is either a bad sign or just a sign of faulty data. 4. The digital tech sector is growing. Other sectors have slow growth. This is reflected in the SNP500. 5. America has started protecting its tech sector. EV cars. Phones. Chips. One could go on but overall I think (as a materialist) these trends point to a precarious position for the USA economy.

by refurb 2y ago

petermcneeley 2y ago

China is expected to see a population decrease while America an increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... America's growth is narrowly focused on the digital tech sector. This is a fragile position and now requires the full force of tariff and bans to sustain. The GDP per capita is also a not great indicator of wealth for those actually living inside the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

refurb 2y ago
> America's growth is narrowly focused on the digital tech sector. This is incorrect. Tech gets the most attention, but it's not the driver of GDP growth. https://www.statista.com/statistics/248004/percentage-added-to-the-us-gdp-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/248004/percentage-added-... > This is a fragile position and now requires the full force of tariff and bans to sustain. This doesn't even jive with your prior sentence. The US doesn't use tariffs to protect the tech sector. However, China outright bans foreign tech in many cases. Maybe you mixed up the countries? > The GDP per capita is also a not great indicator of wealth for those actually living inside the country. It's not perfect, but it's best we have. You can consider it the maximum amount of wealth that can be distributed within the country. And I'm not sure why you linked to GDP by PPP. It's just COL adjusted GDP, which can be helpful, but has many caveats of it's own.
- petermcneeley 2y ago
  If "finance, insurance ... " and "Government" are actually the drivers to GDP growth then one has quite a bit more to worry about than the fact that this number is a mere 2.4% I was more referring to growth in the value of the companies in the snp 500. https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-contributors-to-earnings-growth-for-the-sp-500-for-q1 https://insight.factset.com/are-the-magnificent-7-the-top-co... Why I responded initially was because the focus on GDP per capita. This isnt a great way to compare living standards and it isnt a great way to compare economic prowess.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Are you suggesting financial services aren’t “real GDP”? Why? And instead of GDP you think S&P is a better metric? It’s even less relevant than GDP to QOL.
    - petermcneeley 2y ago
      No sure if you will see this so I will simply summarize 1. I dont think it makes much sense to compare GDP per capita of china and the USA when trying to understand the power of their economies. It is the excessively demos thinking that causes one to focus on GDP per capita. 2. I dont think the prices of things are the same in China vs USA. I dont mean simply rice or rent but say building a road or a bridge. 3. Following from this I dont think one can compare QoL based on GPD per capita. It is also very hard to compare QoL which is a human lived experience thing between different societies. Whereas one can more easily compare the USA to Canada. 3. Economic financialization is generally seen as a bad thing. And government services tend to be inefficient. So GDP growth in these areas is either a bad sign or just a sign of faulty data. 4. The digital tech sector is growing. Other sectors have slow growth. This is reflected in the SNP500. 5. America has started protecting its tech sector. EV cars. Phones. Chips. One could go on but overall I think (as a materialist) these trends point to a precarious position for the USA economy.