As Tom Paulson of KPLU puts it: It's kind of a fun comparison, this map, even if I can’t quite tell what to do with this information. And so it is: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Comparing the GDPs of the several states to nations around the world. The above is a snapshot of the interactive version at The Economist. ____________________ Notes: Paulson, Tom. "The Economist: How Washington state is like Greece". Humanosphere. January 18, 2011. Humanosphere.KPLU.org. January 24, 2011. http://humanosphere.kplu.org/2011/01/the-economist-how-washington-state-is-like-greece/ The Economist Online. "US equivalents". January 13, 2011. Economist.com. January 24, 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/comparing_us_states_countries
There are two maps, nearest equivalent to GDP and nearest equivalent to population http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/comparing_us_states_countries
"cajn't quite tell" is about right. It would take some research, for example, to figure out why Australia is equivalent to New York in terms of GDP but disappears from the comparison when it comes down to per capita GDP. Does that mean we are equiavlent to your GDP ion general, but actually are more productive or less when compared by population? Ah, fuck it. I'm durnk. Someone lok up the pooulation of NY and I'll work out the rest for myself.
Where is this GDP per capita comparison? The second map is only numbers of people (ie population size comparison). Solution: more beer.
Yes. On the first map, the omparison is siomple GDP. In other words, the first map would seem to indicate that Australia as a whole has the same GDP as New York State. However, when one brings relative population into the equation, as the second does, Australia is on longer equivalent. Now.'m rather pissed at the moment, but that would seem to say t me that Australia acuatlly produces more GDP per head of population than New York State. A rather meaningless statistic, but there you are. Basically, I'm tihnking there are more people in New York State by a significant margin, but their GDP is less. See? Whic isn't treally a surprise.
Actually, going back for a second look and having had a quick google onthe population of NY Strate... Doesn't say anything of the sort. If fact, neither map says much at all. This particular map would only mean something if equivalently large nations in terms of population were accorded the same treatment.
Actually according to this there are about ~3 million more people in Australia (~22 million vs ~19 million for NY) and the GDP is ~$100 million more for NY, so the GDP per capita of NY is actually about 20% greater than that of Australia. Arthur
Something is not quite right. California has the highest GDP in the USA. Does that mean Italy has the highest GDP in the World?
No, why would it? It means California has the same GDP as Italy. And there are only 50 countries on the map not 190 or so. No state, for example, has a GDP equal to or greater than Germany.
I once read California has an "Economy" (whatever that is) equivalent to France (or did pre 08). Also, Michigan has a GDP equivalent to Taiwan?!? I find that hard to swallow. More like Sudan.
Michigan $383 billion 2008 Taiwan $357.3 billion (2009 est.) Sudan $92.83 billion (2009 est.) http://econpost.com/michiganeconomy/michigan-gdp-size-rank http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/taiwan/taiwan_economy.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sudan
Bear in mind that the comparison is made in exchange-rate terms, and that Taiwan manipulates the value of their currency relative to the USD in order to boost export competitiveness. In PPP terms, Taiwan's economy is about twice as big as Michigans. But in PPP per capita terms, they're actually pretty close to tied (Taiwan has a bit more than twice as many people as Michigan).
Not related directly to theOP's map and perhaps not even an "amusing Perspective" but one that is even bleaker than mine is: "... the U.S. lost 8.36 million jobs over a two year period from December of 2007 through December of 2009, our economy has recovered 1.12 million jobs as a result of the Federal Reserve and U.S. government spending $4.6 trillion on bailouts and stimulus programs. That is over $4 million spent for each job created. Instead of bailing out Wall Street and allowing non-productive bankers to receive record bonuses, the U.S. could have sent a check for $550,000 to each middle-class American who lost their job. When a central bank prints trillions of dollars out of thin air, you are going to see some type of a nominal uptick in economic statistics. Obama can brag all he wants about over 1 million jobs being created, but he continues Medicare, and Medicaid, is already north of $5 trillion. NIA believes the U.S. is now at serious risk of experiencing hyperinflation by the year 2015. ..." to ignore what the ultimate cost of it will be. When a government has an annual cash budget deficit of over $1 trillion that cannot possibly be balanced by raising taxes, massive inflation is the inevitable outcome. Our real budget deficit, once you include increases in our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, is already north of $5 trillion. NIA believes the U.S. is now at serious risk of experiencing hyperinflation by the year 2015. ..."
1 comment 2 questions. C: Your post repeats at the end (possibly due to editing error?) Q1: Who are the NIA? (national institution of accountants?) Q2: How is the NIA funded? (are they in any way biased in their predictions?)
Thanks Michael. Yes an editing error. I noticed not all I intended to copy and post was there and falsely assumed the end was missing. If i can find it again I will correct. On Q2 easiest answer is this old post: From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2562986&postcount=25 On Q3: I think initially he was self funded or had some "angles." Now it is quite clear to me that he (or his angles) are buying into silver and gold stocks, and then telling how great their potential is. Not exactly a "pump and dump" but close. They are more up front about this than the typical "pump & dump" as many times (always? I doubt) they do tell the size of their already established position and freely promise that they will not reduce it for some period of time (90 days etc., but how could you check?) It is amazing to me, how rapidly they have developed a following perhaps a million now, I think. In some sense they are earning what they profit with this as they obviously do a lot of research and make reasonable high quality videos frequently. I am sort of sick of seeing the presenter's mug so much as he talks but he has collected the latest "doom and gloom" facts.
The one useful thing I got out of this was the realization that America has room for a billion people. Kind of makes me want to support higher tax credits to children to where if you have five kids you're getting a $20,000 rebate. We are being outpopulated by the rest of the world and the immigrants we take in to balance this off is not enough. I am old enough to see parts of upstate New York go from open farmland to towns with suburbs... I'd like to see more of this.
Thanks BillyT RE: more people. See, I actually feel we can trace every single problem back to, too many people! We just want to have a ponzi schemed retirement instead of living with family and taking care of one another. With more people we have the "freedom" to die alone. Seems stupid to me.
