My opinion is that people need to get educated on GDP and basic economics. GDP nominal is misinformative and irrelevant. It does not tell you how wealthy a country is. GDP nominal DOES NOT take into account the inflation of each country, it is a measurement not adjusted based on the local inflation. A relevant measurement would be GDP PPP, which takes into account the local inflation. If you live in Germany and you wanna buy a drink, you go to your local store and you buy it, the price is adjusted to the inflation of your country, therefore how much purchasing power your money have within your country is what determines your wealth, not how much purchasing power your money have in other foreign countries. This map is completely irrelevant for all i care.
>>53378570 There is no such thing as ''economic power of the state''. You can't compare countries, you can only compare citizens, countries do not trade with each other, only citizens do. A ''country'' has no wealth, unless you mean government wealth, in which case you are referring to government spending, which is not an indicator of wealth by any mean, as government takes its money from the money in order to spend it, the people are the ones that create wealth. A country is as wealthy as its citizens are.
>>53379140 How is my post proven wrong by the existence of China? China has a big government that intervenes in a lot of sectors of the economy, but it also does not intervene in a lot other sectors. There are a lot of government run companies that generate wealth, regardless if a company is run by the state or by private people on the free market, you need to still pay your workers, and your purchasing power within your country is what determines how wealthy you are. Generally the existence of a lot of companies run by the state means you don't have a free economy, and you don't have a wealthy citizens, as state intervention is a certain indicator that you do not have a free economy, which itself is a certain indicator that you do not have a wealthy citizens, eg: Russia. China is becoming more free every day, the state run companies are not what is generating the wealth and the creation of their middle class, the big private sector is. Government money is not an indicator of ''economic power of the state'' there is no such thing. Economic power would be wealth of the people, or perhaps military.
>>53379378 I don't understand the criteria of this measurement, nor the meaning. '' total value of wealth possessed by the citizens'' as it says, would be the purchasing power per capita, which is not what the ranking below shows.
Again, there is no such thing as ''national wealth'' unless you are referring to money the government has from state run companies, or government spending. Which one are you referring to? Both of these are NOT an indicator of wealth, an indicator of wealth would be purchasing power on per capita basis, that shows how much purchasing power each citizen has, which is what wealth is. Wealth means having access to the goods and services you need.
>>53379473 China's economic power is demonstrated in the way it influences other countries and markets. A Chinese leader can use his country's large economy in order to wield power, for example by offering trade deals or denying another country opportunities. It's an important lever of power.
You might also want to look up the definition of GDP, which is the monetary value of goods and services produced in a country in a certain period of time. Nominal GDP is exactly this in the world's reverse currency USD.
PPP is a distortion to the pure measure in order to correct for cost of living. Which is fine when you're talking about citizens, not when you're comparing countries.
>>53379921 Let me ask you something, what makes a country's economy ''large''? Is it the purchasing power of the customer, or the amount of money the state has? Obviously if you have a large economy, in the sense that, you have wealthy customers with a big purchasing power, you can use the wealth of that economy in an abstract sense to influence other countries. In general, most countries use their economies to ''influence'' other countries in a negative way, because intervening in a trade creates bad outcomes for your people. How big your economy is, if this is what you are talking about, is measured by how wealthy citizens you have, which is measured by the purchasing power per capita. Russia has a big and rich government, but does it have economic power? No it doesn't, because its citizens are not wealthy.
>>53380604 >Let me ask you something, what makes a country's economy ''large''? The size of its GDP, which I defined for you in my last post. Go back and read it again.
>Russia has a big and rich government, but does it have economic power? No it doesn't, because its citizens are not wealthy. Your argument makes no sense. Chinese citizens are POORER than Russian citizens, but Russia has a SMALLER economy than China. MUCH smaller. Look at the OP's picture.
Economic power is NOT about how wealthy your citizens are. Norway and Switzerland are not among the world's largest economies, are they? Just look up China's GDP per capita
>>53378500 Well, nominal GDP would tell you about the weight of your country in the world. GDP PPP is better when you want to see mire or less how rich are people in one country, but then you have to see per capita datas. And to see the living level in a country, i preffer IHDI better than GDP PPP per capita.
>>53380808 The size of the GDP on PPP basis. When you make trade deals with other countries and you allow Japanese to sell their cars in your country, they sell their cars ON YOUR INFLATION, they adjust their prices based on YOUR INFLATION, based on how the purchasing power of your customers, they don't adjust the price based on how much would it cost in Japan. You want to measure the size of your economy, which on itself is an abstract measurement, based on the PPP basis, not nominal. PPP is what matters, nominal DOES NOT.
China has bigger middle class than America, China has more billionaires, millionaires, bigger upper class, and a lot bigger middle class than Russia. Chinese middle class is growing every year, it is already larger than America. Russia's middle class, that is, people whose purchasing power is high, is extremely SMALL. Even a small country like Netherlands probably has bigger middle class than Russia.
What you seem you understand by ''economic power'' is the abstract idea of ''power'' which comes from the size of your economy, which on itself is an abstract idea, as there is no such thing as economic size, you cannot measure an economic wealth, the only thing you can measure and the only thing that matters at the end is how much purchasing power every citizen has, that is the only thing that matters.
>>53381341 Relative to the USD, yes they did. Ideally you would measure it relative to a basket of different currencies. Remember that speculative attacks aside, a weaker currency means a weaker economy
>>53381256 So Japan lost 35% of its economic power in 2013 when it devalued the yen?
You realize currencies are neither freely traded nor independent assets, right?
The Chinese could make the yuan 1-1 with the dollar or 100-1 if they wanted to because they control its value. The Japanese central bank purposefully devalued the yen 35% to expand the economy. Does that mean the economic power of Japan declined 35% in real terms?
Does the economic power of the US rise and fall 1-2% each day as the Dollar Index rises and falls?
>>53381687 They've never been able to rule their own country.
During 18th century. When Russian troops entered Poland and seen all the riches and how high is the standard of living of even peasants, they started being butthurt towards their own ruler and begged her to steal from Poland and give it to them.
They didn't even have any fucking schools in Russia, all was from partitions of Poland.
I don't know how one manages to be a shithole with resources like they have, but I guess it's just slavic thing.
>>53381653 >So Japan lost 35% of its economic power in 2013 when it devalued the yen? You realise why Japan devalued the yen, right? Devaluing one's currency is a sign of economic weakness, especially for an export-led economy
Is there something about the UK that means no matter what happens, it for alright in the end?
>allied against Napoleon just at the right time >literally ended Spanish power in Europe by having bad weather >joined France in WW1 in an unprecedented move >after ww1 reached a geographical peak of its empire >went through ww2 and lost a lot of power >but not as much as everyone else, who were decimated >became best friends with their fat son and joined the UNSC >won all of its colonial wars after ww2 and avoided portuguese/spanish/French style messes >dodged the euro currency >took 20,000 genuine refugees over a decade from actual UN camps in Syria, not 2 million welfare tourist >monarch is literally immortal >people around the world idolise their culture, music etc >everyone speaks their language >they are probably going to leave the eu and bring the whole thing down >their economy is going and their left wing has self destructed
It's like no matter what happens it just slides off them and they continue on
>>53381887 >Bullshit. Nominal GDP is a bad measure of the real economy. As long as currencies remain dependent on central banks and governments, and have trade restrictions, nominal GDP is inaccurate.
But nominal GDP isn't MEANT to be a measure of the real economy. It's a measure of how the economy looks from the outside looking in. An international perspective. Hence the vulnerability to exchange rates. It's the best way to COMPARE different economies, not the best way to understand a single real economy. With the possibly exception of countries like China which don't have a free floating currency
And please remember that a currency gets devalued for a reason. The reason is nearly always weakness. Japan's economy was in trouble, so they devalued the Yen to provide a stimulus. Russia's economic fortunes are tied to oil. Oil falls, so does the Rouble. Do you understand?
>>53382118 >Oh so dollar strength represents America's economy being strong? YES it does
>Explain our lowest annual GDP growth in 3 years then. It is strong RELATIVE to other economies. You are not understanding this. You need to look at the international picture, which is what nominal GDP tells you about.
>>53381891 That was exactly my point, you seem to have difficulties comprehending my comments. Because Russia has poorer people, it has less ''power'' the abstract idea you are talking about. A big country whose people are rich, can go to another country and say - you do what we want or else we're not gonna allow your companies to sell their product in my country''. A big country with poor people can't say that, because its people are nor rich enough to buy their products, India is an examaple, Russia is an example. The only ''power'' Russia has is military power.
>>53382090 We make our own luck and the secret to our success is innovation. You're wrong about the last bit though. We'll stay in the EU, because we are set to become the biggest European economy once again. It's the path to maximising one's influence.
The EU will be a much better thing with a healthy dose of British influence
>>53382237 Russia is not a rich country in any sense of the word and on top of that the wealth of its citizens does not imply the countries economic strength, otherwise places such as Sweden and Finland would be economic bullies which they are not. Meanwhile countries such as America and China wield huge economies which grant them large amounts of power due to their large straight GDP. Please don't distract from a point by whining about reading comprehension.
>>53382310 That wasn't their high politics though. That was a local (labour) government failure. Its like saying that because the people on the Detroit government are corrupt, stupid criminals that let their city go to rot that the whole of the U.S. is like that.
If you love whats happened so far then keep tuned for the next election. We could genuinely see Labour dip under 200 seats, especially as UKIP have become their much closer main rivals in the seats where the Tories are hated.
>>53382199 Except China's example is very similar to 90% of the world's countries. Nominal is not a good comparison "from an outside perspective" as you say because currencies are not freely traded or independent.
Japan was in trouble? Q3-Q4 2012 were strong quarters in Japan yet the Yen devalued 15% during those 6 months. The UK's GDP growth has been faster than America's for 2 years, yet the Pound Sterling is down.
You're forgetting that monetary policy by the central bank determines exchange rates much more so than the economy does.
No dollar strength does not. It represents a divergence in monetary policy. American economic growth was 2.2% in 2015 compared to 2.7% in 2014. Yet the dollar is up. Why? Its partly because Europe is weak BUT IT HAS WAY MORE TO DO WITH THE ECB CUTTING RATES AND USING QE.
Nominal GDP is inaccurate from an outside view as well. Japan's economic power did not decline 35% just because the Yen devalued 37% in 2013.
You're essentially saying Japan's 2012 nominal reading was inaccurate.
>>53382538 Sweden(8 million) and Finland(5 million) are too small to matter, given that you have dozens of other much larger countries with rich customers. If all the other countries in the world had big populations but poor people, Sweden and Finland would be in fact economic bullies, for the same reason India is not today.
>>53382682 The main mistake you're making here is putting too much stock in GDP growth and not other indicators
>Japan was in trouble? Q3-Q4 2012 were strong quarters in Japan yet the Yen devalued 15% during those 6 months. >The UK's GDP growth has been faster than America's for 2 years, yet the Pound Sterling is down.
This is what I mean. This is flawed thinking. UK's GDP growth has been faster, but our fundamentals are currently worse than the USA. We have a referendum on the EU which brings huge uncertainty, we have a big current account deficit, we are more reliant on the weak Eurozone for trade which affects us in a negative way (until the Eurozone recovers.
This is why the US is raising interest rates before the UK, because in the round your economic situation is better. It's a schoolboy error to put too much stock in GDP growth. Currency fluctuates for all the reasons I mentioned and more, and influences nominal GDP
>>53382823 >UKIP eats up Tory seats much more so. I see the Tories losing the 2020 elections. Completely wrong. This has been disproved. Google NCP politics and read his blog, UKIP takes roughly a 50:50 slice out of Tory and Labour seats
>>53382856 Okay yeah you do have a point with India in that it is hampered by having all its wealth concentrated in a small corrupt elite in a similar fashion to Russia, but there is a reason India is considered a potential great power on the world stage and that is solely due to its GDP. But I agree it would be a much stronger country if the wealth was not only high but shared across its citizens.
Nope m8. Up north and wherever the Tories are hated because muh thatcher, but UKIP isnt. So UKIP have become the main opposition in much of the post industrial shitholes and a lot of the wealthy and rural south. The only people labour is holding onto is the pretentious middle class
>>53382957 I don't take into account the other events because GDP growth generally reflects these events in time. That's why the market changes currency exchange rates. So I use the most inclusive and steady economic stat possible. Trying to chalk up the differences to the events is a common schoolboy mistake.
The only difference is we have lower GDP growth, and are raising our interest rates. That seems to show monetary policy as determining our exchange rate and not our GDP growth.
I expect UKIP to lean more conservative over time. Also, most UK governments don't remain one party for a long time. I expect a big enough recession in time for those elections.
Spain and Italy for me have always been the same country with different languages, socially, culturally and economically both are the same. But Italy is always going to have more world weight than us, because they have 15M ihabitants more than us, and they are much better located with us (forntiers with Switzerland, Slovenia (rising economy), Austria, France and very close to Germany. Spain have connection with France and... Morroco?
Anyways yes Zapatero was a cancer to our country, and we have that cancer ruling our country for 8 years, and still people wanting a government of Podemos or PSOE (ZP 2.0).
>>53382769 >But you''ll never adopt the Euro. That's what Germany uses to rule over Europe, so unless you made everyone adopt the pound then what will you do? Correct, we won't join the Euro. But we are securing legal protection for the non-Euro countries against the Eurozone, making our position in the EU safe. For example the Eurozone won't be able to push out the City as it has tried to do before.
>Bring the EU crashing down. Do it. It makes no sense to do this if the EU is a net positive, which it is, despite all the hostility. The EU single market is the wet dream of classically liberal free market capitalists. There is plenty wrong with the EU, of course, but we should try to change it from the inside using our growing influence. Germany is in a lot of trouble, and are already in relative decline compared to us, I am not that worried about Germany.
>>53383190 Using a single stat (GDP growth) is something I can't get on board with. We have to agree to disagree here. I can't debate with you when I fundamentally disagree with your premise.
>I expect UKIP to lean more conservative over time. Why? They're much more of a threat to post-industrial Labour seats. The old "patriotic working class" as some call them, who Labour has completely abandoned. UKIP are the party of the anti-globalists, and Conservative voters tend to benefit from globalisation. You lack an understanding of basic British politics.
>>53382175 Listen here boyo I'm going to educate you on Sweden's "socialist policies".
We are socialist when it comes to private people and taxing them. But not when it comes to corporations. Actually our corporate taxes are pretty low at 22 %, much lower than American 35 %. Also our tax on capital investments are quite low with the flip that the more you make in capital investment the less tax you pay percentage wise.
This is a result of our economy being geared for export and trade. Tax the shit out of everyone except the ones making the money so that there remains someone to tax.
This explains how a so called socialist country can have such a disproportionate amount of billionaires and huge corporations.
>>53383106 The wealthy and rural south has also been prime Lib Dem territory, not just UKIP and Tory. Obviously the Lib Dems got decimated in the last election, but with Labour intent on destroying itself, I would not be surprised if the Lib Dems made a comeback.
There isn't REALLY much difference between Labour moderates and the Lib Dems. If Corbyn manages to push the moderates out, we could even have a new Liberal party on the cards. Things are changing in British politics that is for sure.
I have always believed that the fundamental dynamic of British politics is between Conservatism and Liberalism, and we know Labour has only won elections when its been centrist and/or liberal. The Tories have adopted most aspects of social liberalism (their adaptability is the reason they're the world's most successful political party), but they're fairly weak on civil liberties.
I can see a "Back to the Future" where we revert to Conservatives and Liberals as the main parties of Britain. Labour won't survive the collapse of the trade union movement and public sector, at least not in its current form
Have you noticed how base metal prices have dropped through the floor recently? It's because China doesn't require as much anymore, which means that their economy is slowing down as Chinese economy is still primarily manufacturing-based.
Also their stock market bubble seems to be about to burst completely but that's probably just healthy.
>>53385316 Yes, they tend to be more affluent and many of them are small-business owners. Both groups tend to be Tory voters. Remember to make the distinction between Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Pakistanis lean heavily to Labour, I think Bangladeshis do too, but I'm not sure.
I remember talking to my local convenience store owner, who is Indian, around the time of the last London mayoral elections. He was complaining about "the Reds". Note the language, not even "Labour" but "the Reds"
>>53385316 >>53385572 I forgot to say that although Indians are natural Tory voters, they haven't benefited until quite recently. Tories had poisonous relations with Indians for a long time post WW2 (it's to do with how Conservative governments treated India as the Empire was breaking up)
But now things are changing. Cameron has been very clever in turning this around. The most explicit thing was Cameron introducing Modi at Wembley Stadium for the Indian PM to address the diaspora here. This was historic, it's hard to overstate the symbolism
>>53397198 It will be smaller now the pound is weaker. I expect the pound to get weaker, and UK growth to slow, before the EU referendum. Afterwards if we vote to remain, expect the pound to get stronger again
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.