NationStates

Thermodolia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/we ... index.aspx
The info you're looking for is under GDP PPP

The IMF has the US at 10 while China is at 67 for 2020. So much for China great. Maybe you’d get better responses on r/Sino where nobody will ever question “China stronk”

You're looking at per capita, not GDP PPP.

Thermodolia wrote:The IMF has the US at 10 while China is at 67 for 2020. So much for China great. Maybe you’d get better responses on r/Sino where nobody will ever question “China stronk”

Don't. r/Sino is cancer now, they have devolved into genocide deniers and cringe America haters.

Duvniask wrote:

Vetalia wrote:
You do realize this is a made-up calculation based on factors to apply a "brand value" to individual nations and not the actual impact of commercial product branding or media, right?

And you do realize that saying a statistical artifact is made up is not an argument? You said "name a single mainland Chinese brand that even remotely compares to the average American brand", and since you did not specify how we should compare them in any way whatsoever, I simply chose what someone else, namely Brand Finance (which is a business valuation consultancy), had deemed a fitting standard for such a comparison. Feel free to critique their standards, as I'm no expert in brand value, but they seemingly are. In any case, it runs counter to your narrative, so unless you want to put out some contrary data that shows a different picture, have a good day, sir.

I'd disagree with the position that the US has strength as an exporter, as the US has strength more as an importer and consumer-driven society. Other countries can ignore the US, but it is such a major market, that countries that aren't in it lose out heavily economically. The EU and the United States are big markets, and being cut out of either is a major blow.

The US has the advantage in the long-term, as it can divest from China and find other nations to import from and US corporations can build factories in other countries to eventually by-pass China altogether. China can't do that, as they are primarily an exporter, and despite their best efforts, are nowhere near being a primarily consumer importer society. They are trying with the belt and road initiative to create new markets, but there is no way that Africa, as disunited, war, and poverty stricken as it is, that it will replace the US as a market. Not to mention, China is being nasty with it's Asian neighbors, and not helping it's case in those markets either.

Punished UMN wrote:

Organized States wrote:I’m not. It’s part of my job and I can tell you we can do it in 72. We’re probably at our apex in terms of the ability to hunt and kill other human beings. We have better training and better or on par equipment with the rest of the planet. Plus we’ve created a generation of senior leaders and NCOs who have all seen combat and are experienced in conducting high-tempo operations across multiple continents simultaneously.

Could we be better? Absol-fucking-utely and I hope we do.

Okay lol, the actual department of defense disagrees with you.

As someone who works for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that we're playing the same budgetary game we always have.

It's easier to tell Congress that we're going to lose when we need new toys.

Organized States wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Okay lol, the actual department of defense disagrees with you.

As someone who works for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that we're playing the same budgetary game we always have.

It's easier to tell Congress that we're going to lose when we need new toys.

China building the second largest fleet in the world in 15 years isn't a budgetary game.

Punished UMN wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:The IMF has the US at 10 while China is at 67 for 2020. So much for China great. Maybe you’d get better responses on r/Sino where nobody will ever question “China stronk”

You're looking at per capita, not GDP PPP.

You can’t look at the raw numbers alone. That doesn’t give you any information which is why per capita exists. Raw numbers doesn’t have the richest nations on top which they are when you use correct numbers.

But hey your Chinese heros love manipulation of facts, so you fit right in

Pretty much the entire reduction in world poverty over the past couple decades has been China.

Thermodolia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:You're looking at per capita, not GDP PPP.

You can’t look at the raw numbers alone. That doesn’t give you any information which is why per capita exists. Raw numbers doesn’t have the richest nations on top which they are when you use correct numbers.

But hey your Chinese heros love manipulation of facts, so you fit right in

Use per capita when it suits your argument, predictable move.

China has greater production overall (in PPP) and you WERE comparing nation to nation ... until you saw that. Now it's "which is richer per capita" because you don't like the figures you demanded to see.

There is a way out of this Thermy. A way that is honorable and doesn't move the goalposts.

They chose PPP but you can challenge that. So what that a lawnmower (or whatever) is cheaper in China, they have no advantage in importing anything, they pay the world commodity price just like the US does. So compare real USD GDP with real USD GDP.

Thermodolia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:You're looking at per capita, not GDP PPP.

You can’t look at the raw numbers alone. That doesn’t give you any information which is why per capita exists. Raw numbers doesn’t have the richest nations on top which they are when you use correct numbers.

But hey your Chinese heros love manipulation of facts, so you fit right in

I never said they were the richest country, stop manipulating the argument. I said they had the largest economy, that is true, not that they were therichest.

Punished UMN wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You can’t look at the raw numbers alone. That doesn’t give you any information which is why per capita exists. Raw numbers doesn’t have the richest nations on top which they are when you use correct numbers.

But hey your Chinese heros love manipulation of facts, so you fit right in

I never said they were the richest country, stop manipulating the argument. I said they had the largest economy, that is true, not that they were therichest.

It's true if you use PPP but actually, should you? Prices are relatively low in China, largely because the currency is weak. That has a downside: businesses or consumers have to pay a lot in Renminbi for anything produced in a country with stronger currency. Like passenger jets or coking coal.

Imo, there should be a hybrid measure somewhere between PPP price and Nominal (USD) price. The choice of either gives very different measures of a country's economy, they can't both be right.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:I never said they were the richest country, stop manipulating the argument. I said they had the largest economy, that is true, not that they were therichest.

It's true if you use PPP but actually, should you? Prices are relatively low in China, largely because the currency is weak. That has a downside: businesses or consumers have to pay a lot in Renminbi for anything produced in a country with stronger currency. Like passenger jets or coking coal.

Imo, there should be a hybrid measure somewhere between PPP price and Nominal (USD) price. The choice of either gives very different measures of a country's economy, they can't both be right.

I tend to use PPP because it more accurately reflects the situation within the country.

But regardless, my claim was never that they were a wealthy country. If Per capita was "the correct numbers" then surely Therm would agree that the gulf states are the strongest economies.

Punished UMN wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
It's true if you use PPP but actually, should you? Prices are relatively low in China, largely because the currency is weak. That has a downside: businesses or consumers have to pay a lot in Renminbi for anything produced in a country with stronger currency. Like passenger jets or coking coal.

Imo, there should be a hybrid measure somewhere between PPP price and Nominal (USD) price. The choice of either gives very different measures of a country's economy, they can't both be right.

I tend to use PPP because it more accurately reflects the situation within the country.

But regardless, my claim was never that they were a wealthy country. If Per capita was "the correct numbers" then surely Therm would agree that the gulf states are the strongest economies.

Well yes. If we were talking about the well-being of that country's people then per capita would be the right measure (qualified by GINI I guess), but that never was the thread subject was it?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:I tend to use PPP because it more accurately reflects the situation within the country.

But regardless, my claim was never that they were a wealthy country. If Per capita was "the correct numbers" then surely Therm would agree that the gulf states are the strongest economies.

Well yes. If we were talking about the well-being of that country's people then per capita would be the right measure (qualified by GINI I guess), but that never was the thread subject was it?

Precisely.

Ansarre wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:something more like "all countries are created equal".

Too bad this isn't the case. Some countries are bigger, some countries have more resources, a more strategically beneficial geographic position, smarter leadership and a populace more determined to improve themselves than others. There are far too many variables that determine the success of a country, and total equality will never be achieved among different polities.

That doesn't mean that countries with more advantages should mess with other countries. They could resist the temptation.

I personally identify with neoconservatives more than neoliberals.

There are many differences between the United States as the world's current overlord and the hegemony in history.The United States has built a more friendly international system than the British Empire.Countries that join the system will gain some benefits.As the master and rule maker of this system, the United States will get the largest share of the benefits.
From 1991 to 2008, the United States had an opportunity to further widen the gap with other countries and become an irreplaceable overlord.But I think the US, which has suddenly lost its rivals, is in a period of strategic confusion.At this time, there is no power to hinder the United States.But the US has picked up the policies of the Kennedy administration, and what happened in any corner of the world is related to the national security of the US.After spending trillions of dollars in the Middle East, it not only gets nothing, but also undermines investment in the very important strategic direction.
In addition, the US is the biggest beneficiary of the current economic globalization system.But these gains were made by the capitalists.The cost of maintaining the system is borne by ordinary people.Many of today's problems will be solved if capitalists use the proceeds for domestic investment.But they chose to invest the proceeds in financial markets and the Internet industry.
Some countries have found that in this system, if the US wants to extract benefits from them like wool, they have no way to stop it.For example, the US recently threatened to sanction Germany to blocking a gas pipeline that is important to Germany and Russia.This is something that the United States would not do in 1991.The trump administration seeks political support while demanding trade interests from its allies.The US should not ignore the discontent of France and Germany.Because in terms of economy and technology, industries in the United States and Europe are actually competing with each other.

Punished UMN wrote:

Organized States wrote:As someone who works for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that we're playing the same budgetary game we always have.

It's easier to tell Congress that we're going to lose when we need new toys.

China building the second largest fleet in the world in 15 years isn't a budgetary game.

Yeah, a force that doesn’t know how to use it. They’ve built a fleet and have yet to deploy it in combat. They’ve yet to ever fight their ships, yet to learn how to train effectively on them, yet to have solved decades long problems with PME, absurd levels of fraud, waste, and abuse, yet to have corrected an antiquated force structure. I could go on and on, but China is not the military power it’s cracked up to be.

They’re formidable, sure. By no means, I don’t underestimate their capabilities, but China’s military has some serious systematic issues that have yet to be corrected.

Also, I believe we were talking about the 4th largest army in the World, not the world’s second largest blue water Navy, so way to move the bar to fit your talking point pulled from r/Sino.

Organized States wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:China building the second largest fleet in the world in 15 years isn't a budgetary game.

Yeah, a force that doesn’t know how to use it. They’ve built a fleet and have yet to deploy it in combat. They’ve yet to ever fight their ships, yet to learn how to train effectively on them, yet to have solved decades long problems with PME, absurd levels of fraud, waste, and abuse, yet to have corrected an antiquated force structure. I could go on and on, but China is not the military power it’s cracked up to be.

They’re formidable, sure. By no means, I don’t underestimate their capabilities, but China’s military has some serious systematic issues that have yet to be corrected.

Also, I believe we were talking about the 4th largest army in the World, not the world’s second largest blue water Navy, so way to move the bar to fit your talking point pulled from r/Sino.

That's the way how it's used.Its purpose is not to fight, but to prevent war.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You can’t look at the raw numbers alone. That doesn’t give you any information which is why per capita exists. Raw numbers doesn’t have the richest nations on top which they are when you use correct numbers.

But hey your Chinese heros love manipulation of facts, so you fit right in

Use per capita when it suits your argument, predictable move.

China has greater production overall (in PPP) and you WERE comparing nation to nation ... until you saw that. Now it's "which is richer per capita" because you don't like the figures you demanded to see.

I didn’t demand to see shit. I always use Per Captia because it’s an easy way to measure across all nations. I never use raw numbers

Punished UMN wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
It's true if you use PPP but actually, should you? Prices are relatively low in China, largely because the currency is weak. That has a downside: businesses or consumers have to pay a lot in Renminbi for anything produced in a country with stronger currency. Like passenger jets or coking coal.

Imo, there should be a hybrid measure somewhere between PPP price and Nominal (USD) price. The choice of either gives very different measures of a country's economy, they can't both be right.

I tend to use PPP because it more accurately reflects the situation within the country.

But regardless, my claim was never that they were a wealthy country. If Per capita was "the correct numbers" then surely Therm would agree that the gulf states are the strongest economies.

I never denied that the gulf states wherent the strongest economies. Just that China isn’t anywhere near the US

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:There is a way out of this Thermy. A way that is honorable and doesn't move the goalposts.

They chose PPP but you can challenge that. So what that a lawnmower (or whatever) is cheaper in China, they have no advantage in importing anything, they pay the world commodity price just like the US does. So compare real USD GDP with real USD GDP.

I didn’t move any damn goalposts. I always use per captia because using raw numbers is silly and doesn’t reflect anything. And so what if I mix up richest with strongest economies, who gives a fuck?

Thermodolia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Use per capita when it suits your argument, predictable move.

China has greater production overall (in PPP) and you WERE comparing nation to nation ... until you saw that. Now it's "which is richer per capita" because you don't like the figures you demanded to see.

I didn’t demand to see shit. I always use Per Captia because it’s an easy way to measure across all nations. I never use raw numbers

You didn't demand, no, instead your barged into another conversation, which was about overall economic size and then started complaining about per capita, which had nothing to do with the question UMN was answering with the source.

This has definitely been the go-to fantasy (or dream) of perspectiveless privileged anti-western westerners and leftists for a long time. The actual chance of it happening, at least in our or our children's lifetimes is at best.. questionable though.

Alcala-Cordel wrote:The U.S. has been in a slow decline as a superpower for some time now, and it's great! We've been terrorizing the world with impunity for far too long.

That being said, I'm sure some other nation will take our place.

Case in point.

Thermodolia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:There is a way out of this Thermy. A way that is honorable and doesn't move the goalposts.

They chose PPP but you can challenge that. So what that a lawnmower (or whatever) is cheaper in China, they have no advantage in importing anything, they pay the world commodity price just like the US does. So compare real USD GDP with real USD GDP.

I didn’t move any damn goalposts. I always use per captia because using raw numbers is silly and doesn’t reflect anything. And so what if I mix up richest with strongest economies, who gives a fuck?

If you always use per capita then at least half the time you're off topic.

GDP is relevant in this thread, because it's a measure of a nation's might. Not a perfect measure of course: in the context of a struggle between nations, the nationalist fervour of their industrialists and their soldiers matters too. Their access to natural resources (remember how both Germany and Japan suffered from a lack of oil) and their military traditions. Certainly you can say that the GDP of the nations does not determine the outcome.

GDP per capita though? Switzerland would be a match for the US. And Singapore would give you a tonking.