7 ms·

> So how far would the US have to fall economically (the base of its military power is its economic output, the ability to tax & fund it), compared to where it

> So how far would the US have to fall economically (the base of its military power is its economic output, the ability to tax & fund it), compared to where it was at in 1980 versus other powerful nations, to no longer be considered a global superpower? You are cherrypicking data. Sure, the US has done well compared to france, italy, uk and japan. What about the EU and China. Compare china's economy in 1980, 1990, 2000 against the US. Compare the EU's economy with the US. In PPP terms, China and EU outstrip the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) In nominal terms, US and EU are near equals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... And all projections are for china to overtake the US in nominal GDP within this decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_... I wouldn't call china a superpower. A superpower is just more than the economy.

adventured 7y ago
It's not cherrypicked at all. 1980 is an ideal date to refer to. It's smack in the midst of the cold war, when the US was very clearly a global superpower, and then to relate it to the smaller economic size ratio to other major nations like France. There are more extreme examples - different years - of comparisons I could have easily used instead, to amplify differences if that's what I wanted to do. I used a decade point for a good reason, in part to avoid being aggressive on cherrypicking. PPP terms are worthless at best and wildly and entirely inaccurate at worst. They barely even qualify as guesses. That's how you get Puerto Rico with a PPP GDP per capita equal to New Zealand and just below Japan in 2018 per the IMF (and far above Portugal; absurd). That's embarrassing for anyone that puts stock in PPP as a premise. Taiwan has a PPP per capita higher than Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Canada. Yeah, sure. And Russia almost has a PPP per capita as high as Portugal and just a bit below Israel. Saudi Arabia has a PPP per capita 20% higher than Finland. Uh, bullshit. Higher than Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Germany, Canada, France, Britain, etc. And China has a PPP per capita equal to Iraq & Botswana and below Iran and Gabon. That's a small example of what makes PPP laughable. It could hardly be any more useless and unscientific.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > It's not cherrypicked at all. 1980 is an ideal date to refer to. Stop with the strawman. My issue wasn't with the date. It obviously was with the nations you chose. You only selected nations who declined relatively to the US, you didn't choose any that grew relative to the US. The definition of cherrypicking data. > PPP terms are worthless at best and wildly and entirely inaccurate at worst. They barely even qualify as guesses. What? Do you even know what PPP is? I wonder why HN has so many people who insist on being right even when they are absolutely wrong. > That's how you get Puerto Rico with a PPP GDP per capita equal to New Zealand and just below Japan in 2018 per the IMF (and far above Portugal; absurd). What is absurd about a US territory having a higher PPP than new zealand or japan? > Taiwan has a PPP per capita higher than Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Canada. Yeah, sure. Taiwan is a first world developed "nation"/island. What is so shocking about that? They have some of the largest companies in the world and are amongst the leaders in the semiconductor sector. > And Russia almost has a PPP per capita as high as Portugal and just a bit below Israel. Yeah? And? > That's a small example of what makes PPP laughable. No. It makes you laughable. You don't understand what it means. I point out how absurd your cherrypicking of data is and yet you attempt to do it again and even poorly at that because you don't even understand the economic conditions of any of the nations you listed. If PPP is laughable then so is nominal because PPP is pretty much nominal adjusted for cost of living... Of course you completely ignored my assertion about EU and China vs US. The main point that made your first comment absurd, you conveniently ignored with some nonsense about things you don't even understand.

adventured 7y ago

It's not cherrypicked at all. 1980 is an ideal date to refer to. It's smack in the midst of the cold war, when the US was very clearly a global superpower, and then to relate it to the smaller economic size ratio to other major nations like France. There are more extreme examples - different years - of comparisons I could have easily used instead, to amplify differences if that's what I wanted to do. I used a decade point for a good reason, in part to avoid being aggressive on cherrypicking. PPP terms are worthless at best and wildly and entirely inaccurate at worst. They barely even qualify as guesses. That's how you get Puerto Rico with a PPP GDP per capita equal to New Zealand and just below Japan in 2018 per the IMF (and far above Portugal; absurd). That's embarrassing for anyone that puts stock in PPP as a premise. Taiwan has a PPP per capita higher than Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Canada. Yeah, sure. And Russia almost has a PPP per capita as high as Portugal and just a bit below Israel. Saudi Arabia has a PPP per capita 20% higher than Finland. Uh, bullshit. Higher than Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Germany, Canada, France, Britain, etc. And China has a PPP per capita equal to Iraq & Botswana and below Iran and Gabon. That's a small example of what makes PPP laughable. It could hardly be any more useless and unscientific.

elfexec 7y ago
> It's not cherrypicked at all. 1980 is an ideal date to refer to. Stop with the strawman. My issue wasn't with the date. It obviously was with the nations you chose. You only selected nations who declined relatively to the US, you didn't choose any that grew relative to the US. The definition of cherrypicking data. > PPP terms are worthless at best and wildly and entirely inaccurate at worst. They barely even qualify as guesses. What? Do you even know what PPP is? I wonder why HN has so many people who insist on being right even when they are absolutely wrong. > That's how you get Puerto Rico with a PPP GDP per capita equal to New Zealand and just below Japan in 2018 per the IMF (and far above Portugal; absurd). What is absurd about a US territory having a higher PPP than new zealand or japan? > Taiwan has a PPP per capita higher than Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Canada. Yeah, sure. Taiwan is a first world developed "nation"/island. What is so shocking about that? They have some of the largest companies in the world and are amongst the leaders in the semiconductor sector. > And Russia almost has a PPP per capita as high as Portugal and just a bit below Israel. Yeah? And? > That's a small example of what makes PPP laughable. No. It makes you laughable. You don't understand what it means. I point out how absurd your cherrypicking of data is and yet you attempt to do it again and even poorly at that because you don't even understand the economic conditions of any of the nations you listed. If PPP is laughable then so is nominal because PPP is pretty much nominal adjusted for cost of living... Of course you completely ignored my assertion about EU and China vs US. The main point that made your first comment absurd, you conveniently ignored with some nonsense about things you don't even understand.