3 ms·
Is it indicative of "economic irrelevance"?
by dgroshev 7mo ago
Is it indicative of "economic irrelevance"?
- marcus_holmes 7mo agoKinda. It's a single-digit percentage of just the US and China, clustered with a lot of other countries of roughly the same size [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
- reverius42 7mo agoJust to be clear you're saying only the top 2 countries by GDP are "economically relevant"?
- Auracle 7mo agoI think they’re saying they used to be one of the big boys. Now they’re just a regular boy.
- reverius42 7mo agoWhen was the UK last in the top 2 countries globally by GDP? Certainly pre-WW2? They're still in the same cluster of countries by GDP as the #3 country so falling from #4 to #6 doesn't look so drastic.
- oneeyedpigeon 7mo agoWeird, America usually goes "Regular, Big, Mega, King Size, Super Size, etc.", not the other way round!
- ralferoo 7mo agoTrue, but the the UK has under 30% of the population of the US and less than 6% of the population of China. If you compare per capita, it's a very different story. USA is around $93k, UK $61k and China $15k. So about 2/3 of the USA's and more than 4x China's. This was using my figures calculated from your table and the population figures I found elsewhere. An actual source of GDP per capita [0] puts the USA at 9th globally, UK at 20th globally and China at 74th. When you factor in that the US's GDP figures are quite skewed because there are lots of multinationals headquartered in the US. If you ignored just the Mag7, who all derive the majority of their income outside the USA, the USA would be significantly further down that GDP list. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...