California is now the world's fifth-largest economy, surpassing United Kingdom

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by LA21st

No he's not. Per capita is barely discussed in this arguement, so it never made sense why he kept talking about poor small towns. We've been talking about TOTAL GDP.
Poor towns still add more than empty land. This isn't rocket science.

To him it is.

[JManc]

pizzaguy, enough with the personal insults. If you can't have a debate without name calling, then we'll have to put you in a corner and ridicule you.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Haha no I clearly am not not the one who needs to gets over anything.

According to PPP:
China has a larger GDP than the US
India has a larger GDP than Japan
Russia has a larger GDP than Britain
Brazil has a larger GDP than France

All bs.

Nominal is the only way to accurately compare GDPs by size.

Economists use PPP to compare country GDPs. Nominal $ GDP is not an accurate take on comparing country to country output.

ECON 101, take it.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

I have contributed to this thread much more than you. It's not my fault that you and crawford don't understand basic things like language and math.

This feels like a racially motivated insult. Racist troll.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

No he's not. Per capita is barely discussed in this arguement, so it never made sense why he kept talking about poor small towns. We've been talking about TOTAL GDP.
Poor towns still add more than empty land. This isn't rocket science.

I wonder if Yosemite or Needles, CA contributes more to the CA economy. Hmm...

[JManc]

I had relatives in Needles.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

I wonder if Yosemite or Needles, CA contributes more to the CA economy. Hmm...

Huh?
What are you suggesting here now?

Answer the simple question.

In general, what produces more GDP? Small and mid sized towns or empty land?

The Northeast has plenty of mid sized towns too.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Economists use PPP to compare country GDPs. Nominal $ GDP is not an accurate take on comparing country to country output.

Tosh, and your "economists" need to sit their asses down if they actually believe that:
China has a larger GDP than the US, India has a larger GDP than Japan, Russia has a larger GDP than Britain and Brazil has a larger GDP than France.

Again:
PPP is an adjusted amount-Nominal is the actual amount.

ECON 101, take it.

Just as soon as you take Basic Math.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Huh?
What are you suggesting here now?

Answer the simple question.

In general, what produces more GDP? Small and mid sized towns or empty land?

The Northeast has plenty of mid sized towns too.

I'm saying that vacant land can produce more for the economy than small towns if the vacant land is, say, a national park that draws 4 million visitors per year. But it's a minor point. I'm done with this thread.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by JManc

pizzaguy, enough with the personal insults. If you can't have a debate without name calling, then we'll have to put you in a corner and ridicule you.

I apologize. It's wrong to mock the disabled.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

I'm saying that vacant land can produce more for the economy than small towns if the vacant land is, say, a national park that draws 4 million visitors per year. But it's a minor point. I'm done with this thread.

What I thought. And you couldn't answer a simple question and decided a very unusual state park is a great example of California's empty land.

Ok. Sure.

You guys obviously want to ignore a big part of the arguement, so whatever.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Tosh, and your "economists" need to sit their asses down if they actually believe that:
China has a larger GDP than the US, India has a larger GDP than Japan, Russia has a larger GDP than Britain and Brazil has a larger GDP than France.

Again:
PPP is an adjusted amount-Nominal is the actual amount.


Just as soon as you take Basic Math.

Yes, every Economist is wrong and you random Internet person are correct!

Unless you're buying things internationally the currency exchange rates are pretty meaningless to you and all that matter is what you can actually get for your money. For instance China produces more electricity than the US but does so at less nominal cost. Which do you think is a better indicator of their electricity supply, the actual amount of energy produced or the amount of money in USD paid for that energy? The same is true for anything else. China produces more goods and services than the US, why would the fact they do it much more cost effectively be seen as a negative? Are their high speed rail lines any slower because they don't cost as much as CAHSR? Are their subways any less useful because they don't cost as much as the Second Avenue Subway? Are their roads, bridges, high-rises, factories etc. all much less productive and useful because they cost less? etc..

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yes, every Economist is wrong

No just the wannabe 'economists' on SSP who try to force their personal biases on everyone else.

The IMF and World Economic Forum have economists, no? They rank the world's largest economies by Nominal GDP:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...omies-in-2018/

LOL

Unless you're buying things internationally the currency exchange rates are pretty meaningless to you and all that matter is what you can actually get for your money.

Yes its called Nominal GDP and that's how most of the world compares national economies.

China does not have a 23 trillion dollar economy and India does not have a 9 trillion dollar economy.

Get over it.

For instance China produces more electricity than the US but does so at less nominal cost. Which do you think is a better indicator of their electricity supply, the actual amount of energy produced or the amount of money in USD paid for that energy? The same is true for anything else. China produces more goods and services than the US, why would the fact they do it much more cost effectively be seen as a negative? Are their high speed rail lines any slower because they don't cost as much as CAHSR? Are their subways any less useful because they don't cost as much as the Second Avenue Subway? Are their roads, bridges, high-rises, factories etc. all much less productive and useful because they cost less? etc..

Speaking of meaningless^

PPP is simply the Nominal adjusted for relative costs.

I prefer raw numbers, and so does the IMF, and World Economic Forum.

Thanks tho.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by YSL

Florida's ranking is so sad. WTF.

Not really, when you think about it. Its a huge destination for old people who add very little to GDP because they don't work.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

I apologize. It's wrong to mock the disabled.

Hey guy, two mods are now calling you out on this. Adjust your attitude and tone please - chill with the personal attacks.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

No just the wannabe 'economists' on SSP who try to force their personal biases on everyone else.

The IMF and World Economic Forum have economists, no? They rank the world's largest economies by Nominal GDP:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...omies-in-2018/

LOL


Yes its called Nominal GDP and that's how most of the world compares national economies.

China does not have a 23 trillion dollar economy and India does not have a 9 trillion dollar economy.

Get over it.


Speaking of meaningless^

PPP is simply the Nominal adjusted for relative costs.

I prefer raw numbers, and so does the IMF, and World Economic Forum.

Thanks tho.

Their economies don't run on dollars. You are clueless. But that is clear to everyone here.

[Shawn]

PPP vs Nominal: take it from a guy with a Master's in International Political Economy - you're both right. PPP allows you to compare real prices as expressed in actual goods and services. If you're a big Western FMCG brand and you're assessing a new market's potential profitability by line of business, nominal GDP won't help you one bit. But if you're the IMF and you use Nominal GDP as an accounting measure to determine a government's ability to repay infrastructure loans, PPP has zero bearing on the discussion.

They're just quantification tools - they're only as good as their application by someone who knows when to use which.

[lio45]

I'd lean towards PPP if the goal is to compare various countries' economic output, though.

If tomatoes are worth 2x more in California than they are in Mexico (which is possible; everything's expensive in CA, while Mexico is a much cheaper second-world country) and each of them produces X tons of identical-quality tomatoes per year, should we prefer to say they both produce the same output of tomatoes yearly, or that CA produces twice the tomato output (in unadjusted product value) of Mexico? Seems to me the former is more accurate.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'd lean towards PPP if the goal is to compare various countries' economic output, though.

If tomatoes are worth 2x more in California than they are in Mexico (which is possible; everything's expensive in CA, while Mexico is a much cheaper second-world country) and each of them produces X tons of identical-quality tomatoes per year, should we prefer to say they both produce the same output of tomatoes yearly, or that CA produces twice the tomato output (in unadjusted product value) of Mexico? Seems to me the former is more accurate.

Lmao, no, everything is not more expensive in California, especially produce, which is much cheaper here since so much of it is grown here

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Lmao, no, everything is not more expensive in California, especially produce, which is much cheaper here since so much of it is grown here

Sure, but this hypothetical example accurately describes the shortcomings of Nominal GDP when making one-to-one comparisons. You could replace "tomatoes" with "plumbus", "Mexico" with "Gazorpazorp" and "California" with "Planet Squanch" and the economic principles would still be right.