The Great Restoration (Semi-PMT/Nation/OOC/Dead)

[Revlona]

Me personally think looked at the U.S GDP per cap and just went a little lower

To get your GDP per capita, divide the GDP of your country by the number of people within it.

I still want to know how you got a GDP of 4.4 trillion however.

Also, Hypercapital - your population should be lower. Obviously take into account population growth, but you should be able to make a reasonable estimate.

GDPs of all my states with a 20% growth

[Plzen]

I do believe your GDP per capita is a bit high, my opinion of course, but you only really see that kinda figure with really small nations like Liechtenstein and Monaco

I mean, I made what is essentially a futuristic decadent-cyberpunk state and got accepted, so the OP clearly is willing to accept some very rich enclaves here and there. Three and a half decades of technological advancement...

---

Population: 81.8 (81,800) million

How did that population growth come about? That's a growth of over 7% a year from 2020... populations just don't grow that quickly, unless you've mass-imported tens of millions of immigrants from somewhere.

Total military size: 1,448,728, 540

What's the unit on this number?

The Quebecois Order's GDP is 4,726,160 USD [/b]
GDP per Capita: 115,627 USD

This doesn't match with your stated population. Obviously, a country's total GDP ought to equal the product of its population and GDP per capita.

---

-snip-

No history on this application?

Also, fascinating! Nobody applied to be anything that can really be called a "superpower" yet, so I think the two of us are the closest thing this RP has to Great Powers at the moment; we're the only countries with enough bulk to project some kind of global influence.

---

Alright, I’m working on something now - I’m just wondering how to factor in for population increase and such. My source for Texas in 2060 says that’ll have 45 million residents for example. So I went between that and 2050’s estimate of 41 million to get the population for 2056. Texas as a whole has a GDP of 1.89 Trillion USD in 2019, so I’m not sure how much it’ll increase by with around 15 million new residents.

All I’m trying to say is, I had a number - and I’ve included it, but it does seem a little bit too big. (Maybe not? Given all three states have had their population increased? I don’t know.)

Just start from your real-life figures, set a growth scenario you find realistic, and do math. As long as your numbers are vaguely plausible nobody's going to blame you for them not being perfectly realistic.

[HypErcApitAl]

Me personally think looked at the U.S GDP per cap and just went a little lower

To get your GDP per capita, divide the GDP of your country by the number of people within it.

I still want to know how you got a GDP of 4.4 trillion however.

Also, Hypercapital - your population should be lower. Obviously take into account population growth, but you should be able to make a reasonable estimate.

I know, I know. Yeah, my numbers are a bit messy. The trillion thing? Again, it's my bad math, that's unrealistic (it'd prolly take a century or two for Quebec to have that number)

True, about populations, but what about Canadian/Quebecois birthrates?

[HypErcApitAl]

I do believe your GDP per capita is a bit high, my opinion of course, but you only really see that kinda figure with really small nations like Liechtenstein and Monaco

I mean, I made what is essentially a futuristic decadent-cyberpunk state and got accepted, so the OP clearly is willing to accept some very rich enclaves here and there. Three and a half decades of technological advancement...

---

Population: 81.8 (81,800) million

How did that population growth come about? That's a growth of over 7% a year from 2020... populations just don't grow that quickly, unless you've mass-imported tens of millions of immigrants from somewhere.

Total military size: 1,448,728, 540

What's the unit on this number?

The Quebecois Order's GDP is 4,726,160 USD [/b]
GDP per Capita: 115,627 USD

This doesn't match with your stated population. Obviously, a country's total GDP ought to equal the product of its population and GDP per capita.

---

-snip-

No history on this application?

Also, fascinating! Nobody applied to be anything that can really be called a "superpower" yet, so I think the two of us are the closest thing this RP has to Great Powers at the moment; we're the only countries with enough bulk to project some kind of global influence.

---

Alright, I’m working on something now - I’m just wondering how to factor in for population increase and such. My source for Texas in 2060 says that’ll have 45 million residents for example. So I went between that and 2050’s estimate of 41 million to get the population for 2056. Texas as a whole has a GDP of 1.89 Trillion USD in 2019, so I’m not sure how much it’ll increase by with around 15 million new residents.

All I’m trying to say is, I had a number - and I’ve included it, but it does seem a little bit too big. (Maybe not? Given all three states have had their population increased? I don’t know.)

Just start from your real-life figures, set a growth scenario you find realistic, and do math. As long as your numbers are vaguely plausible nobody's going to blame you for them not being perfectly realistic.

True, all y'all are true. Again, some numbers were USA numbers whilst others were Canadian or Quebecois, and I multiplied by ten (which I thought was a good idea, since popu., GDP and all those figures/rates grow higher and higher overtime)

[Revlona]

I do believe your GDP per capita is a bit high, my opinion of course, but you only really see that kinda figure with really small nations like Liechtenstein and Monaco

I mean, I made what is essentially a futuristic decadent-cyberpunk state and got accepted, so the OP clearly is willing to accept some very rich enclaves here and there. Three and a half decades of technological advancement...

---

Population: 81.8 (81,800) million

How did that population growth come about? That's a growth of over 7% a year from 2020... populations just don't grow that quickly, unless you've mass-imported tens of millions of immigrants from somewhere.

Total military size: 1,448,728, 540

What's the unit on this number?

The Quebecois Order's GDP is 4,726,160 USD [/b]
GDP per Capita: 115,627 USD

This doesn't match with your stated population. Obviously, a country's total GDP ought to equal the product of its population and GDP per capita.

---

-snip-

No history on this application?

Also, fascinating! Nobody applied to be anything that can really be called a "superpower" yet, so I think the two of us are the closest thing this RP has to Great Powers at the moment; we're the only countries with enough bulk to project some kind of global influence.

---

Alright, I’m working on something now - I’m just wondering how to factor in for population increase and such. My source for Texas in 2060 says that’ll have 45 million residents for example. So I went between that and 2050’s estimate of 41 million to get the population for 2056. Texas as a whole has a GDP of 1.89 Trillion USD in 2019, so I’m not sure how much it’ll increase by with around 15 million new residents.

All I’m trying to say is, I had a number - and I’ve included it, but it does seem a little bit too big. (Maybe not? Given all three states have had their population increased? I don’t know.)

Just start from your real-life figures, set a growth scenario you find realistic, and do math. As long as your numbers are vaguely plausible nobody's going to blame you for them not being perfectly realistic.

Oof you’re right no history, I’ll have to get on that.

And yeah I do believe you are right, we do seem to be the only ones who could probably get away with throwing around out weight so far.

[Plzen]

True, all y'all are true. Again, some numbers were USA numbers whilst others were Canadian or Quebecois, and I multiplied by ten (which I thought was a good idea, since popu., GDP and all those figures/rates grow higher and higher overtime)

As of 2020, exactly zero countries on Earth have a natural population growth of more than 4% a year.

Canada's natural population growth is basically zero (0.2% a year, if I remember correctly) and since the country has a fertility rate below replacement, that'll likely decrease further. Positing a tenfold growth over 36 years, a rate of almost 7% a year, is essentially unrealistic.

[HypErcApitAl]

I mean, I made what is essentially a futuristic decadent-cyberpunk state and got accepted, so the OP clearly is willing to accept some very rich enclaves here and there. Three and a half decades of technological advancement...

---

How did that population growth come about? That's a growth of over 7% a year from 2020... populations just don't grow that quickly, unless you've mass-imported tens of millions of immigrants from somewhere.


What's the unit on this number?


This doesn't match with your stated population. Obviously, a country's total GDP ought to equal the product of its population and GDP per capita.

---

No history on this application?

Also, fascinating! Nobody applied to be anything that can really be called a "superpower" yet, so I think the two of us are the closest thing this RP has to Great Powers at the moment; we're the only countries with enough bulk to project some kind of global influence.

---

Just start from your real-life figures, set a growth scenario you find realistic, and do math. As long as your numbers are vaguely plausible nobody's going to blame you for them not being perfectly realistic.

Oof you’re right no history, I’ll have to get on that.

And yeah I do believe you are right, we do seem to be the only ones who could probably get away with throwing around out weight so far.

The South is the South. It's going to be huge af.

[HypErcApitAl]

True, all y'all are true. Again, some numbers were USA numbers whilst others were Canadian or Quebecois, and I multiplied by ten (which I thought was a good idea, since popu., GDP and all those figures/rates grow higher and higher overtime)

As of 2020, exactly zero countries on Earth have a natural population growth of more than 4% a year.

Canada's natural population growth is basically zero (0.2% a year, if I remember correctly) and since the country has a fertility rate below replacement, that'll likely decrease further. Positing a tenfold growth over 36 years, a rate of almost 7% a year, is essentially unrealistic.

That makes sense.

[Revlona]

Oof you’re right no history, I’ll have to get on that.

And yeah I do believe you are right, we do seem to be the only ones who could probably get away with throwing around out weight so far.

The South is the South. It's going to be huge af.

They weren’t kidding when they said the south would rise again it seems Kek

[HypErcApitAl]

True, all y'all are true. Again, some numbers were USA numbers whilst others were Canadian or Quebecois, and I multiplied by ten (which I thought was a good idea, since popu., GDP and all those figures/rates grow higher and higher overtime)

As of 2020, exactly zero countries on Earth have a natural population growth of more than 4% a year.

Canada's natural population growth is basically zero (0.2% a year, if I remember correctly) and since the country has a fertility rate below replacement, that'll likely decrease further. Positing a tenfold growth over 36 years, a rate of almost 7% a year, is essentially unrealistic.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/canada-population/

Don't take this the other way, but this link says otherwise. Yeah, it's underpopulated (like most other northern countries), but the link said it was projected to surpass 50 mil. at 2070 (and I know the RP's not in 2070, obviously, but that's still some good numbers.)

How'd I get that 8-something number?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/canadian-provinces/quebec-population/

That link.

But, otherwise, I'm working on it.

[Plzen]

Don't take this the other way, but this link says otherwise. Yeah, it's underpopulated (like most other northern countries), but the link said it was projected to surpass 50 mil. at 2070 (and I know the RP's not in 2070, obviously, but that's still some good numbers.)

"Natural growth" doesn't include immigration, of which Canada currently has a lot. Considering that both the US and Canada disintegrated and international trade blew up, though, how much immigration do you really expect to get?

[HypErcApitAl]

Don't take this the other way, but this link says otherwise. Yeah, it's underpopulated (like most other northern countries), but the link said it was projected to surpass 50 mil. at 2070 (and I know the RP's not in 2070, obviously, but that's still some good numbers.)

"Natural growth" doesn't include immigration, of which Canada currently has a lot. Considering that both the US and Canada disintegrated and international trade blew up, though, how much immigration do you really expect to get?

That's also true. There'd be alot of refugees and peoples migrating all around, so that's also correct.

[SangMar]

[quote="SangMar";p="37055501"][box][Do Not Remove - AKSAI]

NS Name: SangMar

RP Name: The New Southern Republic/La Nueva República del Sur.

Capital: Amarillo, Texas.

Territory: Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico

Population: Texas - 50,250,000 (https://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/publications/2019/20190128_PopProjectionsBrief.pdf) - I changed my original estimate, I found slightly better data - which allows me to take into account migration levels too.

New Mexico - 2,600,000
(https://bber.unm.edu/media/presentations/RobertRhatiganDUC2015.pdf) - The population growth estimate only goes up to 2040 here, so I made an another estimate.

Oklahoma - 4,700,000 - couldn’t find an estimate here, so I guessed based upon previous census results.

Altogether - 57,750,000


Type of Government: Unitary Parliamentary Republic

Government Explaination:

The NSR/NRS is a unitary parliamentary republic, with a unicameral legislature which is headed by the Captain-General. Despite the name, the title is equivalent to a European-style President, for example. The Captain-General is part of the legislature - serving as an elected member of it, and representing a district in the chamber. There are approximately 565 seats in the legislature. The legislature itself is referred to as the “Tulip Center”.

For elections, the state uses a system called Single Transferable Vote (STV) - where candidates for each seat are ranked by each individual voter in terms of preference. If a voter’s first choice is eliminated from the running, then their second choice is allocated their vote instead, and so on. Eventually, one of the candidates for each area will get enough votes to be elected. This is used in all elections for local towns, larger metropolitan mayoral elections, to national elections.

There’s also another layer to democracy in the state - which sets it apart from other unitary parliamentary republics - the ability for citizens to compel the government to hold referendums. To make it work, all a citizen must do is gather 65,000 signatures on a petition and send it off to the government - the petition must be electronic and with verifiable supporters. To this end, the government has set up a website to accomplish this. Should a petition receive this support, and it is verifiable, then the government will hold a national referendum on said issue, and depending on how said referendum goes, a law can be repealed or enacted - without a vote being held in the legislature proper.

Leader(s): Captain-General - Alfredo Montoya (SAP)
Deputy - Pat Thomas (CUGS)


Image(s) of Leader(s):

Party or Coalition in Power: The Christian Union for a Greater State-Social Assistance Party (CUGS-SAP coalition) (CUGS = Christian Democracy, Liberal Conservatism) (Social Assistance Party = Social Democrats) (Altogether = 386 seats)

Executive Title: Captain-General

State Ideology: By 2056, and the NSR/NRS is solidly “Purple, leaning-blue” to use the old American political marker between Republican red and Democrat blue. Very much due to an increased Hispanic population, the state is far less conservative than what the region was as a whole during the 2010s and 2020s. Instead, the NSR/NRS pursues a relatively interesting goal - combining old libertarian attitudes with progressive mostly left-leaning politics. Still however, this doesn’t mean it’s a hotbed of new thinking like the North-Western states. There are limits.

By and large however, the state is strongly in favour of embracing new concepts - now that the older conservatives of the previous decades are firstly, now almost entirely extinct and two, the white population - which was more likely to vote for these conservative elements now finds itself as a minority - in all areas with the exception of Oklahoma.


Ethnicity Breakdown: By the 2010 US census, Hispanic people were the second largest ethnic group in Texas, just after non-Hispanic whites. However, by 2020, the Hispanic population now held a slight majority in Texas - which would only be increased in the years up to 2056. By 2056, Texas is as follows: 63% Hispanic - both white and non-white, 26% Non-Hispanic White, 7% Asian and 4% Black.

New Mexico: 57% Hispanic - both white and non-white, 30% Non-Hispanic White, 11% Native American, 1% Black, 1% Asian.

Oklahoma: 51% Non-Hispanic White, 12% Black, 6% Native American, 4% Asian, 27% Hispanic - both white and non-white.

Religion Breakdown: As a whole, 36% of the population of the NSR/NRS claim to be irreligious, nearly some 18 million people. Most of the population however, believes in either Catholicism or one of the many variants of Protestantism - officially anyway. For even those who consider themselves religious, religious participation has certainly been on the decline. Even amongst Hispanic populations - which are traditionally strongly Catholic, and in rural Texas and Oklahoma - which are traditionally strongly Protestant. Both of these religions, when combined made up 60% of responses in the census of 2050. The remainder of the populace tends to be mixed - mainly amongst Sikhs, Jews, Muslims and various other religions.

Flag:

National Anthem: “The Song of the Nuevo” - Unknown, composed in 2053.

National Motto: “Plus Ultra”\”Further Beyond”

Demonym: Nuevo

Map Color: Bright Orange

Public Goals: To ensure the territorial integrity of the state, establish relationships with the other states on the North American continent and the continued internal development of the state.

Private Goals: N/A

Military name: The Armed Forces of the New Southern Republic/Fuerzas Armadas de La Nueva República del Sur.

Military branches: The National Legion/La Legión - (Army), Republican Naval Infantry/Infantería de Marina de la República (Marine Corps), Republican Navy/Armada de la República (Navy) and National Air Defence Force/Fuerza Aérea (Air Force)

Total military size:

Ground Forces: 320,000 Active/140,000 Reserve.

Marine Corps: 9,500 Active/500 Reserve.

Air Force: 95,000 Active/20,000 Reserve.

Navy: 10,000 Active/1,000 Reserve.

Altogether: 596,000.



Breakdown of ground force(s):

460,000 Personnel
790 Tanks
1100 APCs
800 IFVs
550 Artillery - all types
20,000 Combat Robots
5,000 Drones - the Rotor-blade Kind.

The ground forces take up the vast majority of the national military budget - and it shows, with the average NSR/NRS Legionnaire being both well trained and equipped for future conflicts. Most of their equipment is of indigenous origin - having been developed in no small part thanks to said military budget. An NSR/NRS Legionnaire for example, can expect to go into battle knowing that they have secure communications - a lightweight, heavily encrypted ear-piece and radio set being issued to each trooper. Furthermore, all NSR/NRS infantry also get overlays of their surroundings in real time: transmitted to them through bullet-resistant glasses, which also double to track heart rate and their physical state. Things like body armour and helmets are a similar story - with the nation’s scientists constantly working on issuing troops with the most lightweight, but also protective equipment. Finally, all frontline Legionnaires also make use of basic exoskeletons - increasing their strength, endurance and speed by a significant degree.

Good progress has also been made regarding the modernization of older equipment - mainly things like Abrams Tanks and Strykers. NSR/NRS engineers and scientists, much like with the Air Force, prefer to modernize older equipment for now, wanting to design new armoured vehicles and heavier weapon systems in a few years instead.


Breakdown of naval force(s):

11,000 Personnel
200 Naval Patrol Boats
10 Naval Helicopters

Breakdown of air force(s):

115,000 personnel
850 Multi-Role Aircraft
750 Fighters
350 Close Air Support aircraft
200 Attack Helicopters
1200 Transport Helicopters
5 E-WACs (Early Warning and Control) Aircraft
25 Tankers
40 Search and Rescue Aircraft

Due to Texas having arguably the largest air base in what used to be the United States, it makes sense that a lot of the US Air Force’s 1990s-2020s equipment has come to find itself within the NSR/NRS arsenal. This, combined with a significant share of the military budget has allowed the NSR/NRS Air Force to maintain excellent capabilities across most fronts when it comes to the aerial theatre. More recently, NSR/NRS researchers and engineers have begun to explore modernization packages for some of their oldest aircraft - with new designs being several years away.


Breakdown of other branch(es):

The marines are some of the state’s most well trained troops - skilled in amphibious landings and operations, they also double as paratroopers - forming the armed forces’ only airborne contingent. They’re small, but like the Legionnaires, well equipped. In fact, they make use of the same technological advances that their army counterparts do too. However, much of it is modified in-house to suit their needs. Like the Legionnaires however, they’ve deemed a modernized NSR/NRS variant of the M4 rifle to be their service weapon of choice - preferring to delay a change in small arms for now at least.

Numerous Logistical Trucks/Vehicles
Several thousand civilian and military employees working in things like cyber-security, catering, logistics etc.

Extra military information:

Since 2041, NSR/NRS governments have allocated approximately 5% of GDP on the needs of the military. This entails around 205 Billion USD (As of 2020) per year. Roughly 70% of this goes to the ground forces and naval infantry, 20% to the air force and 5% to the navy. The remaining 5% goes into fields like logistics and cyber-warfare/security.

Accordingly, the NSR/NRS can say that they field one of the most high-tech and well trained militaries in the world. If not at least, the North American continent. The NSR/NRS therefore is able to make strong use of robots, drones and other cutting-edge technology. All of these are means for which the state can compensate for the armed force’s small size in comparison to some of its neighbours. At least, this is true for the air force, marine corps and army. The navy, on the other hand is only a small force - designed for patrolling the state’s coast - and not for any serious projections of military power. Therefore, it’s well funded - in comparison to its size, but it isn’t anywhere near powerful, especially when compared with some of the other North American states’ navies.

There are also numerous former US military bases located within NSR/NRS territory, which have been repurposed by the NSR/NRS military. Some of these include the Brooke Army Medical Center - the US Army’s best medical institution and the largest facility run by the pre-collapse Department of Defence, Joint-Base San Antonio, Fort Bliss and Fort Hood.

Lastly, there are tens of millions civilian gun owners residing within the NSR/NRS - able to do so because of the NSR’s loose regulations on firearms ownership: which is a holdover from when the largest state - Texas, was part of the United States. These gun owners, in part due to the changing demographics and political attitudes had to accept a compromise whether they liked it or not: the NSR/NRS would enshrine firearms ownership into national law - never to be revoked or infringed upon in anyway, with few restrictions on open carrying, concealed carry or the types of firearms permitted; but in return, those same gun owners would have to provide proof that their guns were being used on the shooting range monthly, and all first time gun-owners would have to take mandatory courses in firearms safety, mental healthy and overall marksmanship. Furthermore, all guns have to be registered with the state - and no one with a record of indictable offenses or mental illness would be permitted to purchase them.

GDP: The NSR/NRS economy boosts a GDP of 4.1 trillion USD - with Texas providing the vast majority of this sum. They provide 3.6 trillion USD, Oklahoma provides 350 billion USD and New Mexico provides the remaining 150 billion USD.



GDP per Capita: $70,000 USD is the average figure, however it does vary with rural areas typically seeing less than those in the cities. These rural areas tend to be poorer - although, with the NSR/NRS being more left-wing economically than its predecessor, programmes are being extended into these areas to improve the standard of living, creating new jobs and to reduce poverty levels.

Currency: The National Dollar.

Currency and value of currency compared to USD: The National Dollar can be found in notes of $500, $200, $150, $100, $50, $25, $20, $10 and $5. Notes are typically pink, made from burn and tear-proof material and feature a map of the state. 1ND$ = 1.50 USD.

Major Domestic Issues: Rural areas of New Mexico and Oklahoma still lag behind those of places like Texas - meaning significant money will need to be spent on them to bring them up to a more modern standard. Migration along the Southern border will need to be checked and if need be, curtailed. Finally, the state highway system needs to be overhauled significantly - as much of it is in a state of disrepair following the collapse of the central government in Washington over a decade earlier.

Major Foreign Issues: Ensuring that the state remains secure against threats on the North American continent, no allies as of the beginning of 2056 and a lack of European trade partners.

History:

Texas seceding from the union in 2037 could be said to have been the final act of a dying breed - as already, since 2020, Hispanics - who leaned heavily Democrat were now a demographic majority within the state. Therefore, when the white-majority Republican-held legislature voted to leave the United States at that time, to many Latinos within the state, it signaled the beginning of the end. Texas Republicans had had their time in the spotlight, and it wouldn’t be long until it came to a close. Within two years, it happened - mass migration from Mexico pushed up the Hispanic population even further, with many of these finding the job of assimilating in places like El Paso, and Dallas an easy task: namely due to the culturally similar populations living there.

From then on, Hispanics took the initiative - to set up their own country, where they could be accepted as equals to whites, politically at least. It didn’t take much either - the demographic shift meant that when a new government was formed during the following year, the vast majority of those elected were considerably more liberal than those who were elected in previous years. Now they were able to control the narrative - and in 2041, they did: forming the New Southern Republic/La Nueva República de Sur - a nation that unlike the old Texas embraced both of the Spanish and English languages - making sure that neither was above the other. A place where freedom truly could be had.

A new government - democratically-elected and utilising elements of Swiss direct democracy and European systems of proportional representation was created to lead the new state. There would be no gerrymandering or electoral fraud of any kind within the nation, which was unlike the previous itineration of Texas - which had heavily disenfranchised minority voters during the 2000s-2020s. That couldn’t be allowed to happen again. In 2045, New Mexico - with its majority Hispanic population petitioned to join the NSR/NRS: reasoning quite soundly that there was more safety in numbers than going it alone. Oklahoma would petition to join two years later - many younger non-Hispanic Whites helping to give the final push for admission into the NSR/NRS. Younger people as a whole turned out to be the driving force of the new state - shunning the prejudiced attitudes that older generations had displayed - on all sides.

In 2051, the SAP-CUGS coalition would come to power after brokering a power-sharing agreement, and Alfredo Montoya would become the state’s 2nd Captain-General, with Pat Thomas serving as his deputy. Together, the two would lead the country - focusing for the next four years on internal development: deciding in late 2055 that with 2056 being an election year that they would try a different tactic - reaching out to the slowly recovering world, hoping to help prevent events like those that had caused their previous nation to crumble so spectacularly.



RP Example: posting.php?mode=quote&f=31&p=36992161

[SangMar]

Don't take this the other way, but this link says otherwise. Yeah, it's underpopulated (like most other northern countries), but the link said it was projected to surpass 50 mil. at 2070 (and I know the RP's not in 2070, obviously, but that's still some good numbers.)

"Natural growth" doesn't include immigration, of which Canada currently has a lot. Considering that both the US and Canada disintegrated and international trade blew up, though, how much immigration do you really expect to get?

Actually, Plzen. Ignore my comment beforehand. Let me weep over my GDP dreams.

[Plzen]

Not done yet. Want to give your opinion on the GDP, Plzen?

Actually, Plzen. Ignore my comment beforehand. Let me weep over my GDP dreams.

Texas probably is one of the few areas that could still get strong immigration throughout the crisis, what with its southern neighbour and all.

If you want to make a projection from current GDP growth, then factor in population growth separately, you may wish to use GDP/capita growth rate figures instead of GDP growth figures, since the latter already includes the economic effects of immigration. Real GDPpc growth in Texas averaged 1.8% a year over the past five years.

For additional fanciness, you may wish to clarify whether these are real figures (i.e. in terms of the purchasing power of the 2020 USD) or nominal figures (i.e. in terms of the market value of successor currencies to the USD).

[HypErcApitAl]

"Natural growth" doesn't include immigration, of which Canada currently has a lot. Considering that both the US and Canada disintegrated and international trade blew up, though, how much immigration do you really expect to get?

Actually, Plzen. Ignore my comment beforehand. Let me weep over my GDP dreams.

Agreed. Numbers and stats like this are giant measuring contests/ "my country's better than you because it has a higher (insert thing here)."

I'd forgo stats like this/these (if I were an OP/admin/mod over rps), but since I'm in no place (as of now), I'll work w/ it.

[HypErcApitAl]

What should my popu. numbers be then? 204,500? I feel like that's too small.

[SangMar]

What should my popu. numbers be then? 204,500? I feel like that's too small.

That’s ridiculously small. Quebec and the other territories would have to lose a massive number of people.

[HypErcApitAl]

What should my popu. numbers be then? 204,500? I feel like that's too small.

That’s ridiculously small. Quebec and the other territories would have to lose a massive number of people.

Yup.

[SangMar]

Not done yet. Want to give your opinion on the GDP, Plzen?

Actually, Plzen. Ignore my comment beforehand. Let me weep over my GDP dreams.

Texas probably is one of the few areas that could still get strong immigration throughout the crisis, what with its southern neighbour and all.

If you want to make a projection from current GDP growth, then factor in population growth separately, you may wish to use GDP/capita growth rate figures instead of GDP growth figures, since the latter already includes the economic effects of immigration. Real GDPpc growth in Texas averaged 1.8% a year over the past five years.

For additional fanciness, you may wish to clarify whether these are real figures (i.e. in terms of the purchasing power of the 2020 USD) or nominal figures (i.e. in terms of the market value of successor currencies to the USD).

I don’t know. It’s confusing.

I took 11.25% (the accumulative figure of Texan GDP per capita growth over 5 years between 2011-2016) and divided it by 5. I got 2.25%. I then multiplied 2.25% by 36 to get 1.762 trillion to add onto 2.2 trillion. Which when combined with the figures for Oklahoma and New Mexico, makes it around 4 trillion USD. But does this count for population growth or not? It was GDP per capita in real terms too.

[Plzen]

I took 11.25% (the accumulative figure of Texan GDP per capita growth over 5 years between 2011-2016) and divided it by 5. I got 2.25%. I then multiplied 2.25% by 36 to get 1.762 trillion to add onto 2.2 trillion. Which when combined with the figures for Oklahoma and New Mexico, makes it around 4 trillion USD. But does this count for population growth or not? It was GDP per capita in real terms too.

Well, if what you want is for GDP to start at 2.2 trillion and for it to grow at 2.25% a year for 36 years, what you want is not 2.2*(1+36*0.0225), but rather 2.2*(1+0.0225)^36. A value growing at a constant proportional rate increases exponentially, not linearly.

This will make 2056 Texan GDP 5.79 trillion dollars.

[SangMar]

I took 11.25% (the accumulative figure of Texan GDP per capita growth over 5 years between 2011-2016) and divided it by 5. I got 2.25%. I then multiplied 2.25% by 36 to get 1.762 trillion to add onto 2.2 trillion. Which when combined with the figures for Oklahoma and New Mexico, makes it around 4 trillion USD. But does this count for population growth or not? It was GDP per capita in real terms too.

Well, if what you want is for GDP to start at 2.2 trillion and for it to grow at 2.25% a year for 36 years, what you want is not 2.2*(1+36*0.0225), but rather 2.2*(1+0.0225)^36. A value growing at a constant proportional rate increases exponentially, not linearly.

This will make 2056 Texan GDP 5.79 trillion dollars.

I can’t do maths. What do those brackets even mean?

Also, is this after population growth?

[Plzen]

I can’t do maths. What do those brackets even mean?

Also, is this after population growth?

This is using your per-capita data, so this is before (that is to say, not including) any population growth. Also, I'm looking around the US Bureau of Economic Analysis website, and I have no idea where you got that 11.25% number. According to the Bureau, GDP growth in the 2014-2019 period has been 9.20%, not 11.25%.

A*B and A^B are accepted shorthands for A×B and A^B respectively; I use them because typing in the multiplication sign or formatting superscripts for exponentiation on a forum post is annoying.

[SangMar]

I can’t do maths. What do those brackets even mean?

Also, is this after population growth?

This is using your per-capita data, so this is before (that is to say, not including) any population growth. Also, I'm looking around the US Bureau of Economic Analysis website, and I have no idea where you got that 11.25% number. According to the Bureau, GDP growth in the 2014-2019 period has been 9.20%, not 11.25%.

A*B and A^B are accepted shorthands for A×B and A^B respectively; I use them because typing in the multiplication sign or formatting superscripts for exponentiation on a forum post is annoying.

Not a problem, I still have no idea what any of that means.

But yes, I found the figure on some website that puts a bunch of different figures out. It was in “chained-dollars” (Whatever that means) and dated back to 2009.

[Plzen]

But yes, I found the figure on some website that puts a bunch of different figures out. It was in “chained-dollars” (Whatever that means) and dated back to 2009.

Chained dollars are intended to be adjusted for inflation. It means the same thing as real dollars. If your source was chained to 2009 dollars, then that means figures are expressed in 2009 prices.

Basically, think about it this way. Imagine that you have an economy that produces only apples. In 2009, an apple was worth $1, and your income is $2. Now imagine that ten years later, apples are now $2, and your income is $6.

Your nominal income (also sometimes called income in current currency) is whatever you earn this year, which is $6. Your real income in 2009 dollars (also sometimes called chained to 2009) is $3, because your current income buys three apples now, and three apples was $3 back in 2009. Obviously the real economy produces many things other than apples, but you get the point - real dollars refers to actual value produced while nominal dollars refers to the nominal amount of money.