4 ms·

$7 Trillion GDP, 1344 Million people. $15 Trillion GDP, 312 Million people. When China only catches up to 25% of the US GDP per capita (where Brazil and Russi

by wisty 14y ago

$7 Trillion GDP, 1344 Million people. $15 Trillion GDP, 312 Million people. When China only catches up to 25% of the US GDP per capita (where Brazil and Russia are), it will overtake the US. The the US will have to boast about its per-capita GDP, which really isn't that good (compared to many other OECD countries, most importantly Canada). I get the impression that a lot of US things go unchallenged (by most Americans) because they are "number 1", so they are obviously doing everything right.

001sky 14y ago
Take a look at the data as single metro-region. Las Vegas has long been considered the world’s top gaming destination. Is that still true? Gaming revenue in Macau [China] this year probably will exceed $20 billion, which is a little over three times the size of Las Vegas ... Las Vegas still has more diversity in its various offerings, but it’s hard to say that it’s king of the hill in gambling. Edit: For Brevity List of countries GDP/Cap $USD Note: Macau =#6 (tie), USA =#16 1 Monaco 172,676 (2009 data) 6 Switzerland 80,391 (2011) — GuernseyJersey Channel Islands 76,413 (2007) — Macau 65,550 (2011) 16 United States 48,442 (2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom...
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity is better for comparing countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_... But what matters most is quality of life per capita. In that aspect, the US is IMHO slightly behind most of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, etc. Mostly because of wealth inequality.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Duly noted, but "precision" in this sense is a red-herring. The point of the Macau example is 3x. In 2006 it was 1x. I will trade you $20B for $6B, and then worry about PPP. :D Edit: Your link also ranks Macau at #3 > Us #7.
bwanab 14y ago
It would help your argument to get your facts right. The only OECD countries ahead of the US in GDP per capita are Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. Canada's is about 85% of the US (source http://stats.oecd.org/ http://stats.oecd.org/). It's true that many things go unchallenged by most Americans and there's no question to this American that we don't do everything right, but facts need to be respected. Edit: these are purchasing power parity numbers.
- wisty 14y ago
  I used nominal GDP. Obviously, if you have a few billionaires and a lot of peasants the GDP PPP will be high. You'll have a low cost of living (due to low labor costs, and plenty of supply), and a high average GDP (due to the billionaire). Median GDP (PPP or otherwise) won't be so great, though. I'm not saying the US sucks, just that once you stop looking at aggregate GDP you actually have to start thinking.
  - mertd 14y ago
    I don't quite get it. Why should we pretend Warren Buffett et al. don't exist in this context? If these billionaires are a part of the US economy, they contribute to its strength.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      In some sense, many billionaires stop being a citizen of their home country and become a "citizen of the world." This also goes for multinational corporations. Warren Buffett is a notable exception to this, however, being "bullish on America."
    - wisty 14y ago
      > If these billionaires are a part of the US economy, they contribute to its strength. If you are interested in aggregate GDP, then yes, billionaires contribute to the country's strength. If you care about the average person, then no. The US won't care about aggregate GDP so much once they aren't number 1.
  - 14y ago
mcantelon 14y ago
I'm not sure how relevant GDP per capita is in measuring the fortunes of states if a company in one state may be heavily invested in another (i.e. a US-based company may be investing more heavily in China than the US).
stcredzero 14y ago
> When China only catches up to 25% of the US GDP per capita (where Brazil and Russia are), it will overtake the US. The the US will have to boast about its per-capita GDP, which really isn't that good (compared to many other OECD countries, most importantly Canada). Here's a game-plan for China. Catch up to 30-35% of US GDP per capita. This will give them a huge operating margin for competition in space colonization. Be the civilization to colonize Mars. The expansion of human civilizations into the solar system will be analogous to the western nation's era of exploration and colonization. The new civilization on Mars will incubate new ideas and cultures in the 21st century much as the "new world" did centuries before. As custodians of Chinese civilization, I don't see a better move for the Chinese government.
- vorg 14y ago
  Discovering the New World certainly propelled Europeans to wealth, what with looting silver from Peru, the Atlantic slave trade, opening the Mississippi river basin, the US taking control of the ocean's chokepoints in WW2. But it's hard to see how colonizing Mars will help "the Chinese government". A better move for advancing "Chinese civilization" would be to encourage Chinese people to immigrate to other nations, such as the US, Australia, South Africa, Chile, rather than Mars or the Moon. But that's already happening... from 1990 to 2010, the ethnic Chinese population of the USA rose from 1 million to 3m, now 1% of Americans. It's already 5% of Canada, and 3% of Australia. Many individual regions and cities around the world have much higher percentages, e.g. Northern California, Vancouver. The diasporas of Singapore, Malaysia, and elsewhere in S.E.Asia advance Chinese civilization, but not the Chinese government much.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > Discovering the New World certainly propelled Europeans to wealth, what with looting silver from Peru, the Atlantic slave trade, opening the Mississippi river basin, the US taking control of the ocean's chokepoints in WW2. But it's hard to see how colonizing Mars will help "the Chinese government". Do you think any of those things were easy to see for Europeans before the fact? Colonizing Mars probably won't directly help the Chinese Government. I never said that it would; you are putting words in my mouth here. However, colonizing Mars would certainly help Chinese Civilization gain ascendancy in a pan-solar civilization. Mars will probably become the economic center of such a solar-system spanning civilization. One can grow crops there. (A workable amount of insolation in a 24 hour cycle.) There are resources there that can support many industrial processes we already base our civilization on. The gravity is low enough that getting from the surface of Mars to Orbit won't stretch the bounds of a materials technology based on molecular bonds. (Whereas the gravity well of Earth is just large enough to make this really obnoxious.) Given these and other factors, Mars will be well positioned as the largest population center, and largest agricultural and industrial power other than Earth. At the same time, it will be several times more accessible than Earth for most of the solar system.

by wisty 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

Take a look at the data as single metro-region. Las Vegas has long been considered the world’s top gaming destination. Is that still true? Gaming revenue in Macau [China] this year probably will exceed $20 billion, which is a little over three times the size of Las Vegas ... Las Vegas still has more diversity in its various offerings, but it’s hard to say that it’s king of the hill in gambling. Edit: For Brevity List of countries GDP/Cap $USD Note: Macau =#6 (tie), USA =#16 1 Monaco 172,676 (2009 data) 6 Switzerland 80,391 (2011) — GuernseyJersey Channel Islands 76,413 (2007) — Macau 65,550 (2011) 16 United States 48,442 (2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom...

RivieraKid 14y ago
GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity is better for comparing countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_... But what matters most is quality of life per capita. In that aspect, the US is IMHO slightly behind most of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, etc. Mostly because of wealth inequality.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- 001sky 14y ago
  Duly noted, but "precision" in this sense is a red-herring. The point of the Macau example is 3x. In 2006 it was 1x. I will trade you $20B for $6B, and then worry about PPP. :D Edit: Your link also ranks Macau at #3 > Us #7.

bwanab 14y ago

It would help your argument to get your facts right. The only OECD countries ahead of the US in GDP per capita are Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. Canada's is about 85% of the US (source http://stats.oecd.org/ http://stats.oecd.org/). It's true that many things go unchallenged by most Americans and there's no question to this American that we don't do everything right, but facts need to be respected. Edit: these are purchasing power parity numbers.

wisty 14y ago
I used nominal GDP. Obviously, if you have a few billionaires and a lot of peasants the GDP PPP will be high. You'll have a low cost of living (due to low labor costs, and plenty of supply), and a high average GDP (due to the billionaire). Median GDP (PPP or otherwise) won't be so great, though. I'm not saying the US sucks, just that once you stop looking at aggregate GDP you actually have to start thinking.
- mertd 14y ago
  I don't quite get it. Why should we pretend Warren Buffett et al. don't exist in this context? If these billionaires are a part of the US economy, they contribute to its strength.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    In some sense, many billionaires stop being a citizen of their home country and become a "citizen of the world." This also goes for multinational corporations. Warren Buffett is a notable exception to this, however, being "bullish on America."
  - wisty 14y ago
    > If these billionaires are a part of the US economy, they contribute to its strength. If you are interested in aggregate GDP, then yes, billionaires contribute to the country's strength. If you care about the average person, then no. The US won't care about aggregate GDP so much once they aren't number 1.
- 14y ago

mcantelon 14y ago

I'm not sure how relevant GDP per capita is in measuring the fortunes of states if a company in one state may be heavily invested in another (i.e. a US-based company may be investing more heavily in China than the US).

stcredzero 14y ago

> When China only catches up to 25% of the US GDP per capita (where Brazil and Russia are), it will overtake the US. The the US will have to boast about its per-capita GDP, which really isn't that good (compared to many other OECD countries, most importantly Canada). Here's a game-plan for China. Catch up to 30-35% of US GDP per capita. This will give them a huge operating margin for competition in space colonization. Be the civilization to colonize Mars. The expansion of human civilizations into the solar system will be analogous to the western nation's era of exploration and colonization. The new civilization on Mars will incubate new ideas and cultures in the 21st century much as the "new world" did centuries before. As custodians of Chinese civilization, I don't see a better move for the Chinese government.

vorg 14y ago
Discovering the New World certainly propelled Europeans to wealth, what with looting silver from Peru, the Atlantic slave trade, opening the Mississippi river basin, the US taking control of the ocean's chokepoints in WW2. But it's hard to see how colonizing Mars will help "the Chinese government". A better move for advancing "Chinese civilization" would be to encourage Chinese people to immigrate to other nations, such as the US, Australia, South Africa, Chile, rather than Mars or the Moon. But that's already happening... from 1990 to 2010, the ethnic Chinese population of the USA rose from 1 million to 3m, now 1% of Americans. It's already 5% of Canada, and 3% of Australia. Many individual regions and cities around the world have much higher percentages, e.g. Northern California, Vancouver. The diasporas of Singapore, Malaysia, and elsewhere in S.E.Asia advance Chinese civilization, but not the Chinese government much.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > Discovering the New World certainly propelled Europeans to wealth, what with looting silver from Peru, the Atlantic slave trade, opening the Mississippi river basin, the US taking control of the ocean's chokepoints in WW2. But it's hard to see how colonizing Mars will help "the Chinese government". Do you think any of those things were easy to see for Europeans before the fact? Colonizing Mars probably won't directly help the Chinese Government. I never said that it would; you are putting words in my mouth here. However, colonizing Mars would certainly help Chinese Civilization gain ascendancy in a pan-solar civilization. Mars will probably become the economic center of such a solar-system spanning civilization. One can grow crops there. (A workable amount of insolation in a 24 hour cycle.) There are resources there that can support many industrial processes we already base our civilization on. The gravity is low enough that getting from the surface of Mars to Orbit won't stretch the bounds of a materials technology based on molecular bonds. (Whereas the gravity well of Earth is just large enough to make this really obnoxious.) Given these and other factors, Mars will be well positioned as the largest population center, and largest agricultural and industrial power other than Earth. At the same time, it will be several times more accessible than Earth for most of the solar system.