mistermack wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:MrJonno wrote:Well as a Brit I still think well done Brazil, the growth in their economy is hardly at the cost of our own.
Your own economy? No. But, your pride and self-respect? That's another matter... I mean...it's Brazil, dude.
MrJonno wrote:
When is China likely to be the biggest economy can't remember if was next decade or the one after. Still going to be pretty poor considering their population size
Not sure. The US GDP is about 3 times that of China.
You're acting like the stereotypical yank there. Why is pride and self respect dependent on a pecking order of size?
You're acting like the stereotypical Brit, not thinking straight. The question was "When is China likely to be the biggest economy can't remember if was next decade or the one after. Still going to be pretty poor considering their population size." I answered it "Not sure. The US GDP is about 3 times that of China." Which indicates that there is a long way to go before China becomes the biggest economy.
That doesn't have a thing to do with pride or self-respect. It's just the size of the economy, and if someone asks "when with China's economy be bigger than the US's economy?" I am not quite sure how else to answer that except by looking at the relative sizes of the economy.
Maybe your superior Britishness, over and above my stereotypical Yankness, can suggest what other criteria other than economy size might be relevant to the question of when China's economy will be bigger.
mistermack wrote:
It seems to be drummed into Americans that biggest is best.
It seems to be drummed into Brits that when people are talking about the size of something, they must necessarily also be placing a value judgment on that size.
I.e. - who said anything about "best?"
mistermack wrote:
But the USA is only the biggest economy that's united politically. The EU has a bigger GDP but is more loosely tied politically.
Are you saying Europe is better because it is bigger?
"But the USA is only the biggest economy that is united politically." Well, duh. That's what the numbers are comparing when they compare economies - they are economies of countries. If you want to talk about region economic size, then we'll throw in Mexico and Canada - heck - we'll just include all of South America too. There, now we have the biggest economy that is not united politically.
mistermack wrote:
And China is not that far behind the US or the EU in real spending power. (PPP)
That isn't a measure of the size of an economy, although it is true.
mistermack wrote:
The US GDP is rather false, because most of it involves domestic spending at inflated rates.
Does that also apply to the EU?
I'll leave you to your proofs. The US economy accounts for 1/4 of the world economy.
mistermack wrote:
If China allowed it's currency to rise in value as the US keeps begging it to, it's GDP wouldn't be so much less than that of the US or the EU. They are sacrificing nominal GDP size for actual growth.
I'll leave you to your proofs.
Are you suggesting that China is nearing the US and the EU in actual economic output?
mistermack wrote:
Britain has done something similar on a smaller scale. The pound has been allowed to drop, to avoid recession, so the nominal GDP has fallen in the league table.
Yes yes. We know. The US economy pales in comparison to the proper British (and European) economy.
I love how you start off this nonsense with an allegation that I was saying the US economy was better because it was bigger, even though I never said that, and then you excoriated me saying that it was "stereotypical" that Americans think that their bigger stuff means they are better. Then you proceeded to lay out this case you have that the European and the British economies are actually way better than the American economy because the American economy is false and inflated, whereas your proper economies are not.
Nicely done.
