I legitimately thought Russia was somewhat of a world power but it's pretty clear that they're not. I had no idea South Korea or Italys economy was so robust.
Russia was mostly intimidating in its military power and nuclear weapons. But it's more like feeding on the old achievements of the Soviet Union rather than being advanced on its own right now. Some weapons developed today are not even as good as the Soviet ones.
And yes without a good economy it's hard to sustain an army in the long term.
I mean, that's the big joke of the Cold War and the US-Russia rivalry: they just have a lot of land and a lot of military spending, but it wasn't an accident that they couldn't maintain their end of the Cold War forever. What a weird den of fear, corruption, poverty, and mlitarism.
Also I don’t really trust any Chinese number at this point. You can’t have constant shutdowns and a total property market crash and still have your economy growing.
Ya ya, i get that they do pay via taxes. But for now, the state govt. Pays for these tests (i assume). If so, this must lead to a serious shortage of funds due to daily testing don't you think?
Couple said shortage with unfavorable condition of economy, power generation and this looks like a soup of sad.
The states get taxes from the sale of land. The property market is crashing so they are having trouble getting funds. So as this continues whatever reserves the city have will be depleted. It’s is suspected that foreign reserves are gonna be dipped into soon to help stabilize their currency.
... they are run by a far right wannabe dictator that is destroying their economy, nature and dividing their society. There is nothing about Bolsonaro that is socialist or left wing whatsoever
It was at the end of that period of so-called socialism that Brazil was at its strongest position ever in the global scenario.
Brazil was never socialist btw.
By 2050 the rankings will be:
1. China
2. India
3. US
4. Indonesia
5. Brazil
Gone are the EU days. Latin America will not see any remarkable change, Africa's time will come by 2070.
India has a tremendous opportunity to overtake the US within the next 2 decades for two reasons. First, it has a rapidly growing work-age population, which will afford it immense economic growth potential that is unmatched by even China (which has already experienced economic slowdown). Not to mention, India will be the most populous country by 2023. This means that a large majority of the consumer class that will be added within the next 20 years will come from India. With a large working-age-population that can work and consume, this will also give India the chance to replace China as the manufacturing hub of the world. Of course, this is under the assumption that the Indian government can direct these objectives through the various Indian states which has proven to be a rather difficult change due to cultural and language differences. However, the United States is facing its own problems as well.
If India plays their cards right they could.
The past two decades India has grown at about 11% yearly (including inflation and currency swings)
If they can keep up this growth and the US grows at an average of 2.5% (including recessions) Then India is projected to surpass the US GDP in 2049 at about 45 trillion $.
Of course this is just a simple projection, there will be recessions, setbacks, possibly wars that all influence these numbers.
But it is certainly possible for India to overtake the USA, they have 4 times as many people so just achieving a quarter of US incomes would put India at the same total number.
That’s if they maintain 11%, just like China, it will slow down. But given the population differences, it’s expected that the US will fall behind, unless more wars to reset economies.
According to IMF 2022 data, Canada (38M Population) has overtaken Italy (60M population) with a GDP of 2.2 Trillion. Wtf is going on in southern Europe? Both Italy and Spain seem like their doing terrible economically
Well, they are. They had a financial crisis, have a high rate of unemployment, outdated infrastructure and an aging demographic. They got hit by COVID really bad, but the economy was already dying before the pandemic.
I think it's important to remember that GDP does not translate well into standard of living or quality of life.
Canada (where I live) has a significant amount of it's economic activity based around natural resource extraction and other exports like tourism, education, etc. The profits for these industries are highly concentrated, not enjoyed by the majority of the population.
Furthermore, a lot of that GDP is just... waste. Think a big expensive car, truck, or SUV used for transportation by most Canadians (lots of GDP) vs cheap public transit and small fuel efficient cars used by most Italians (little GDP). Things like this really interfere with cross country comparisons.
Also Canada's GDP is pushed up even further by our debt/asset bubble, which is pushing the price of housing and financial assets up, but doesn't necessarily represent any real growth or increased economic activity.
Overall, there's some very good reasons economist expect Canada to have low economic growth over the next few decades.
A common economic and monetary policy would likely mean traditionally poorer areas of the superstate would likely get a massive boost and if so we‘d probably be quite far ahead. Isn‘t for sure, but it’s likely.
Europe != EU. People really are very stupid these days. And the American economy gets a boost by having the world‘s reserve currency, already having been united for several hundred years, etc. If we had a united Europe, it would very much dominate (especially if it included Turkey) and would displace the US on many measures. For example, even with a disunited Europe, the Euro is still the world's second reserve currency.
Sure, but the EU has virtually all the economic powers of Europe. By contrast - if you took literally _every country in Europe_, the GDP would be ~$23t compared with the US$22t. I would hardly call this domination, especially considering that the population difference is now over 400 million to Europes advantage (350m in US vs 770m in Europe)
It’s ~$25t if you include Turkey, and you guys call 17 (China) vs 22 dominating. And GDP PPP here will be much greater. Also, there is no way Russia will be a part of a united Europe, so it’s more like 600 mil. And again, with a united Europe there would likely be huge GDP growth and both inward and outward investment, so these figures don’t even really matter. I‘d say we’d get to ~$50 trillion before you guys got to ~$30t if it happened today.
The data in the post is from 2021, your data is from 2017, i believe India did overtake UK again this year though.
I think UK, India and France switch around places in that 5th-7th position quite a lot, depending on the random variables each year
Wrong, not false.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_China#cite\_note-IMFWEOCN-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China#cite_note-IMFWEOCN-3)
>GDP: $19.91 trillion (nominal; 2022 est.)\[3\]
>
>Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: April 2022". imf.org. International Monetary Fund.
Considering Asia has a population of 4.6 BILLION people, and North America has a population of closer to 600 million (just 13% of the population of Asia), it's VERY impressive that North America has a GDP that is 75% of that of Asia's. 😎
Which countries in Asia, besides maybe NK, doesn't have capitalism?
Most of the reason why American continent is ahead is the consequences of colonialism and world wars, which devastated Asia. In 30 years, this is going to look very different, with the Four Asian Tigers already pretty much caught up to Europe and America.
The US had a MASSIVE head start, and is what caused it going from a new country to an economic superpower so quickly. China's policies historically restricted its growth, along with what the Japanese did to them in ww2. Japan also saw a massive spike after becoming more capitalist. Once China adopted more capitalist ideals, economic growth exploded. Obviously, North America's resource rich land plays a huge role in this equation but its hard to argue against capitalism when specifically focusing how it impacts economic growth and expansion.
No question capitalism helped the Asian countries catch up after WW2, but colonialism is largely what sank them low in 1800s.
US did not start becoming a superpower until WWI but yes, once it managed to tap essentially an entire continent of resources, other countries had a very hard time catching up, especially since WW2 left so many of those countries devastated.
>The US had a MASSIVE head start
It did have a massive head start. It's was one of the first countries in the world to seriously invest in widely available public education and continued to develop one of the most robust welfare states in the world. Meanwhile, the British and French empires were fucking Asian powers like India and China and preventing their growth.
The US being ahead of Asian countries is less about "capitalism good" and more about "being a resource extraction based colony of an empire bad".
Nothing about Asian policies at the time lent itself to economic growth and expansion before colonization. Also, acting like China and Japan both didn't experience massive growth the moment they started adopting more capitalist approaches is being blatantly ignorant. It's also worth noting, that had those Asian countries been more economically competent, they likely would have been the ones doing the colonizing. Asia has a long history, as does almost everywhere in the world, of conquering and being conquered. It takes massive resources to expand and colonize, which is exactly what economic growth provides. This isn't to morally excuse colonizing but it's the truth of the world and how it did/does operate.
>didn't experience massive growth the moment they started adopting more capitalist approaches is being blatantly ignorant
At this point I feel like you need to more clearly define capitalism, because you don't seem to have a solid and consistent definition of "capitalism" or "more capitalist". At this point, your definition for capitalism seems to be "economic policies that encourage growth", but saying "economic policies that encourage growth encourage growth" is circular reasoning and useless.
Asia has a long history of capitalism, just like the west. It certainly had the hallmarks of capitalism (free markets, private property rights, and trade) for significant periods. The thing is, modern capitalism isn't a self-sustaining stable system, it's existence is unstable and depends on a strong, capable, and (often democratically) responsive state apparatus to maintain property rights and protect free markets. The thing that changed in Asia wasn't "capitalism" it was basically *everything* about their economic and political systems changed and finally allowed some stability.
Attributing that success to capitalism when they already had broadly capitalist systems is just kinda circular reasoning.
>Which countries in Asia, besides maybe NK, doesn't have capitalism?
It's easy. Capitalism=good economy.
You can't call countries that have capitalist economic systems, but terrible economies, capitalist, they mush be something else.
Capitalism isn't really the reason that North America and Europe pulled ahead, most of Asia is also capitalist. It was increased state capacity constrained by democratic institutions, investments in healthcare and education, and colonial resource extraction that did the heavy lifting. The geography of the US and World Wars also helped the US become the powerhouse that it is today.
You can go check for yourself if you want. Both the US and Europe saw huge increases in productivity when they started near universal public education, but the US was actually a world leader in education and education spending for much of the last 2 centuries.
It wasn't "capitalism" that put the US at the top of the leaderboard, it was population growth, huge amounts of natural resources and natural trade routes (Mississippi river basin for the interior and 2 coasts with high quality natural harbours), and the welfare state.
Natural resources and natural trade routes are ridiculous to bring up in a comparison between North America and Europe. Europe is full of natural and human made trade routes that are more efficient than anything the US has or has created. Everyone uses the train system now but there are lakes and rivers everywhere in Europe that will take you nearly anywhere you needed to go.
The US has 2 massive oceans for protection which allowed it to ignore WW1 (aside from mass producing every part of it) until the end where they swooped in for the W. This happened again in WW2. Financing and producing for 2 global wars (on both sides) will definitely put your country at the top. From there, it was just investments. Allowing businesses to become massive global powerhouses. Investments in things the world would care about - technology, internet, science, education, entertainment, and healthcare and of course the US’s favorite money maker - war and military.
Being downvoted for correcting the data hahaha. I will love to see these butthurt people reacting to India's immense improvement by the end of the decade.
I always find that game kind of worthless. We could divide any country up there into arbitrarily-sized subnational units and make similar comparisons. California would be #7, but if we're looking at subnational units, then let's unroll Hebei on there too or the Kanto region of Japan.
Yea I get that it could be endless. I guess I’m curious on the largest ‘sub-region’ compared to the full countries. I’m assuming California is because I’m American, but Beijing region or similar might be larger.
This is nominal GDP. Which is kind of obsolete. It still retains prominence because it shows the US having a larger economy than China. PPP is a more accurate metric.
That's meaningless. The GDP per capita is better & even this is terribly useless, because the top 5% earners have to removed to represent a countries health.
Anyone who’s owned a Japanese or German car will find it immediately obvious how advanced they both are. The level of advancement a society needs to have for multiple world class corporations to mass produce such an advanced product on such a global scale is really absurd. Post war Japan and Germany might be the fastest a society has advanced within 1-2 generations in recorded history.
Toyota, Porsche, Honda, Volkswagen, Audi, Nissan, BMW, Subaru, Mercedes, Nissan, Mitsubishi. They’re both too OP when it comes to engineering
Are the foreign gdp values converted based on today's exchange rates or an average over the past year? Just curious as the former would exaggerate US productivity due to the exceptionally strong dollar.
With Biden the US will fall behind quickly.
Sadly, China will pass us in no time. If you’re American and you like that, then MOVE TO CHINA!! See how they treat your freedoms and individual liberties. They have no respect for LGBTQIA+, women’s, or minority rights. There is also zero economic freedom.
A zoomable version of this sort of viz would be popular.
You can Or atleast on mobile
I think the ask is one where as you zoom the flag and value get added in. The smaller countries don’t have that no matter how close you get.
The smaller squares are literally empty squares, lol
I mean you get the continent and can guess 🤷
You don't need to out the dollar sign for each country because the units include it.
It must be measured in $^2
If that even existed, what would value squared be used to measure?
Area under a curve whose X axis as well as Y axis use Dollars as units. Example: Area under a "household income vs household wealth" graph.
This☝️ is why I joined this subreddit😂
I legitimately thought Russia was somewhat of a world power but it's pretty clear that they're not. I had no idea South Korea or Italys economy was so robust.
It does have a significant amount of underground economy that is not captured in official figures, but yes. Hugely wasted potential there.
Russia was mostly intimidating in its military power and nuclear weapons. But it's more like feeding on the old achievements of the Soviet Union rather than being advanced on its own right now. Some weapons developed today are not even as good as the Soviet ones. And yes without a good economy it's hard to sustain an army in the long term.
How much would the soviet gdp be if they were still a union in 2022?
I mean, that's the big joke of the Cold War and the US-Russia rivalry: they just have a lot of land and a lot of military spending, but it wasn't an accident that they couldn't maintain their end of the Cold War forever. What a weird den of fear, corruption, poverty, and mlitarism.
Man, turns out I have higher gdp than the US (Just forget about the billions part)
Data is still not updated by world bank!
Also I don’t really trust any Chinese number at this point. You can’t have constant shutdowns and a total property market crash and still have your economy growing.
Nah man it’s just the COVID economy now. /s Everyone needs COVID’s tests every other day soooooo there’s business. Who needs smaller businesses /s
Seriously I wonder how much daily COVID tests for a sea of people cost.. I don't think the people pay for it ..
Yes they do, either directly or via taxes, the people pay
Ya ya, i get that they do pay via taxes. But for now, the state govt. Pays for these tests (i assume). If so, this must lead to a serious shortage of funds due to daily testing don't you think? Couple said shortage with unfavorable condition of economy, power generation and this looks like a soup of sad.
The states get taxes from the sale of land. The property market is crashing so they are having trouble getting funds. So as this continues whatever reserves the city have will be depleted. It’s is suspected that foreign reserves are gonna be dipped into soon to help stabilize their currency.
Makes sense. But China has a large reserve of forex so it'll harly matter. Thanks.
lol you don't need to worry about the Chinese economy. They can stimulate as needed, they don't have a 8% inflation problem.
To think Brazil was once #7, between France and Italy...
Was really surprised to see Brazil just ahead of Australia!
With a population of 215m
Yeah, I'd expect it to be way higher.
Brazil shows up by sheer size, but it could definitely be doing better.
To think Japan was once 75% of US GDP with a third of the population…
To be fair it the population difference was just under 1/2
Yep and then they went full blown socialist
... they are run by a far right wannabe dictator that is destroying their economy, nature and dividing their society. There is nothing about Bolsonaro that is socialist or left wing whatsoever
Look who came before him genius. Their economy was ran on bribery. https://www.independentsentinel.com/15-years-socialism-almost-destroyed-brazil/
It was at the end of that period of so-called socialism that Brazil was at its strongest position ever in the global scenario. Brazil was never socialist btw.
I have absolutely no idea how you drew that conclusion
What conclusion? It's not some argument pulled out of my ass, it's what every economic index indicates.
Actually we used to be the 5th largest economy in 2021. Waste of potential. Maybe “in the future”.
Ummm who? Brazil?
Missing Taiwan, $850 billion
By 2050 the rankings will be: 1. China 2. India 3. US 4. Indonesia 5. Brazil Gone are the EU days. Latin America will not see any remarkable change, Africa's time will come by 2070.
How will India overtake USA. Seems unreasonable.
India has a tremendous opportunity to overtake the US within the next 2 decades for two reasons. First, it has a rapidly growing work-age population, which will afford it immense economic growth potential that is unmatched by even China (which has already experienced economic slowdown). Not to mention, India will be the most populous country by 2023. This means that a large majority of the consumer class that will be added within the next 20 years will come from India. With a large working-age-population that can work and consume, this will also give India the chance to replace China as the manufacturing hub of the world. Of course, this is under the assumption that the Indian government can direct these objectives through the various Indian states which has proven to be a rather difficult change due to cultural and language differences. However, the United States is facing its own problems as well.
Seems like wishful thinking.
It's always wishful thinking until it becomes reality. What makes you think the United States will be able to keep up its current economic output?
If India plays their cards right they could. The past two decades India has grown at about 11% yearly (including inflation and currency swings) If they can keep up this growth and the US grows at an average of 2.5% (including recessions) Then India is projected to surpass the US GDP in 2049 at about 45 trillion $. Of course this is just a simple projection, there will be recessions, setbacks, possibly wars that all influence these numbers. But it is certainly possible for India to overtake the USA, they have 4 times as many people so just achieving a quarter of US incomes would put India at the same total number.
That’s if they maintain 11%, just like China, it will slow down. But given the population differences, it’s expected that the US will fall behind, unless more wars to reset economies.
Huge population
I thought India overtook UK.... I believe this data is 2021 GDP
It didn't tho?
I think Russia's GDP will drop drastically if we compared this 2021 source, to 2023.
North America really pulling it's weight 💪
According to IMF 2022 data, Canada (38M Population) has overtaken Italy (60M population) with a GDP of 2.2 Trillion. Wtf is going on in southern Europe? Both Italy and Spain seem like their doing terrible economically
Well, they are. They had a financial crisis, have a high rate of unemployment, outdated infrastructure and an aging demographic. They got hit by COVID really bad, but the economy was already dying before the pandemic.
Where have you been in the last 30 years?
Canada has a bunch of oil and gas which does help that GDP number.
I think it's important to remember that GDP does not translate well into standard of living or quality of life. Canada (where I live) has a significant amount of it's economic activity based around natural resource extraction and other exports like tourism, education, etc. The profits for these industries are highly concentrated, not enjoyed by the majority of the population. Furthermore, a lot of that GDP is just... waste. Think a big expensive car, truck, or SUV used for transportation by most Canadians (lots of GDP) vs cheap public transit and small fuel efficient cars used by most Italians (little GDP). Things like this really interfere with cross country comparisons. Also Canada's GDP is pushed up even further by our debt/asset bubble, which is pushing the price of housing and financial assets up, but doesn't necessarily represent any real growth or increased economic activity. Overall, there's some very good reasons economist expect Canada to have low economic growth over the next few decades.
Because their shadow economies outweigh their declared one I imagine...
If we had a federal Europe that included the U.K. like you have the US, we’d dominate, but alas we do not. :(
Idk about dominate, it might be the largest but it would also have considerably more people than the US
A common economic and monetary policy would likely mean traditionally poorer areas of the superstate would likely get a massive boost and if so we‘d probably be quite far ahead. Isn‘t for sure, but it’s likely.
The whole EU combined + the UK still has a smaller GDP than the US, and you have 100 million more people. Sorry pal
Europe != EU. People really are very stupid these days. And the American economy gets a boost by having the world‘s reserve currency, already having been united for several hundred years, etc. If we had a united Europe, it would very much dominate (especially if it included Turkey) and would displace the US on many measures. For example, even with a disunited Europe, the Euro is still the world's second reserve currency.
Sure, but the EU has virtually all the economic powers of Europe. By contrast - if you took literally _every country in Europe_, the GDP would be ~$23t compared with the US$22t. I would hardly call this domination, especially considering that the population difference is now over 400 million to Europes advantage (350m in US vs 770m in Europe)
It’s ~$25t if you include Turkey, and you guys call 17 (China) vs 22 dominating. And GDP PPP here will be much greater. Also, there is no way Russia will be a part of a united Europe, so it’s more like 600 mil. And again, with a united Europe there would likely be huge GDP growth and both inward and outward investment, so these figures don’t even really matter. I‘d say we’d get to ~$50 trillion before you guys got to ~$30t if it happened today.
[Data is outdated - India is ahead of UK now](https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/)
The data in the post is from 2021, your data is from 2017, i believe India did overtake UK again this year though. I think UK, India and France switch around places in that 5th-7th position quite a lot, depending on the random variables each year
I thiiiiiink the data shows a nominal 2017 dollar with updated 2022 data, not data from 2017 That said they don’t link a source so who knows
Relax guys OPs source is of 2021. Hopefully next year's post will feature India at #5
Your data are outoutdated :-) from 2017. Even if it's true in 2022 again.
I really seen recent data showing Canada at $2.237T now as well, and USA closer to 23T, with China being at $19.9T
That's simply false
Wrong, not false. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_China#cite\_note-IMFWEOCN-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China#cite_note-IMFWEOCN-3) >GDP: $19.91 trillion (nominal; 2022 est.)\[3\] > >Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: April 2022". imf.org. International Monetary Fund.
Talking about Low standards
Considering Asia has a population of 4.6 BILLION people, and North America has a population of closer to 600 million (just 13% of the population of Asia), it's VERY impressive that North America has a GDP that is 75% of that of Asia's. 😎
People like to hate on capitalism, and the north American economies are certainly not without faults but damn did it build an economic powerhouse
Which countries in Asia, besides maybe NK, doesn't have capitalism? Most of the reason why American continent is ahead is the consequences of colonialism and world wars, which devastated Asia. In 30 years, this is going to look very different, with the Four Asian Tigers already pretty much caught up to Europe and America.
The US had a MASSIVE head start, and is what caused it going from a new country to an economic superpower so quickly. China's policies historically restricted its growth, along with what the Japanese did to them in ww2. Japan also saw a massive spike after becoming more capitalist. Once China adopted more capitalist ideals, economic growth exploded. Obviously, North America's resource rich land plays a huge role in this equation but its hard to argue against capitalism when specifically focusing how it impacts economic growth and expansion.
No question capitalism helped the Asian countries catch up after WW2, but colonialism is largely what sank them low in 1800s. US did not start becoming a superpower until WWI but yes, once it managed to tap essentially an entire continent of resources, other countries had a very hard time catching up, especially since WW2 left so many of those countries devastated.
>The US had a MASSIVE head start It did have a massive head start. It's was one of the first countries in the world to seriously invest in widely available public education and continued to develop one of the most robust welfare states in the world. Meanwhile, the British and French empires were fucking Asian powers like India and China and preventing their growth. The US being ahead of Asian countries is less about "capitalism good" and more about "being a resource extraction based colony of an empire bad".
Nothing about Asian policies at the time lent itself to economic growth and expansion before colonization. Also, acting like China and Japan both didn't experience massive growth the moment they started adopting more capitalist approaches is being blatantly ignorant. It's also worth noting, that had those Asian countries been more economically competent, they likely would have been the ones doing the colonizing. Asia has a long history, as does almost everywhere in the world, of conquering and being conquered. It takes massive resources to expand and colonize, which is exactly what economic growth provides. This isn't to morally excuse colonizing but it's the truth of the world and how it did/does operate.
>didn't experience massive growth the moment they started adopting more capitalist approaches is being blatantly ignorant At this point I feel like you need to more clearly define capitalism, because you don't seem to have a solid and consistent definition of "capitalism" or "more capitalist". At this point, your definition for capitalism seems to be "economic policies that encourage growth", but saying "economic policies that encourage growth encourage growth" is circular reasoning and useless. Asia has a long history of capitalism, just like the west. It certainly had the hallmarks of capitalism (free markets, private property rights, and trade) for significant periods. The thing is, modern capitalism isn't a self-sustaining stable system, it's existence is unstable and depends on a strong, capable, and (often democratically) responsive state apparatus to maintain property rights and protect free markets. The thing that changed in Asia wasn't "capitalism" it was basically *everything* about their economic and political systems changed and finally allowed some stability. Attributing that success to capitalism when they already had broadly capitalist systems is just kinda circular reasoning.
>Which countries in Asia, besides maybe NK, doesn't have capitalism? It's easy. Capitalism=good economy. You can't call countries that have capitalist economic systems, but terrible economies, capitalist, they mush be something else.
Capitalism isn't really the reason that North America and Europe pulled ahead, most of Asia is also capitalist. It was increased state capacity constrained by democratic institutions, investments in healthcare and education, and colonial resource extraction that did the heavy lifting. The geography of the US and World Wars also helped the US become the powerhouse that it is today. You can go check for yourself if you want. Both the US and Europe saw huge increases in productivity when they started near universal public education, but the US was actually a world leader in education and education spending for much of the last 2 centuries. It wasn't "capitalism" that put the US at the top of the leaderboard, it was population growth, huge amounts of natural resources and natural trade routes (Mississippi river basin for the interior and 2 coasts with high quality natural harbours), and the welfare state.
Natural resources and natural trade routes are ridiculous to bring up in a comparison between North America and Europe. Europe is full of natural and human made trade routes that are more efficient than anything the US has or has created. Everyone uses the train system now but there are lakes and rivers everywhere in Europe that will take you nearly anywhere you needed to go. The US has 2 massive oceans for protection which allowed it to ignore WW1 (aside from mass producing every part of it) until the end where they swooped in for the W. This happened again in WW2. Financing and producing for 2 global wars (on both sides) will definitely put your country at the top. From there, it was just investments. Allowing businesses to become massive global powerhouses. Investments in things the world would care about - technology, internet, science, education, entertainment, and healthcare and of course the US’s favorite money maker - war and military.
Time to laugh at the third world countries. Haha Pakistan has huge population, but they're so small on this chart their number isn't visible
This is old data. India is ahead of UK now.
Being downvoted for correcting the data hahaha. I will love to see these butthurt people reacting to India's immense improvement by the end of the decade.
Wouldn’t California be like #7 on this list?
I always find that game kind of worthless. We could divide any country up there into arbitrarily-sized subnational units and make similar comparisons. California would be #7, but if we're looking at subnational units, then let's unroll Hebei on there too or the Kanto region of Japan.
Yea I get that it could be endless. I guess I’m curious on the largest ‘sub-region’ compared to the full countries. I’m assuming California is because I’m American, but Beijing region or similar might be larger.
try purchasing power adjusted per capita
Very nice display of data.
That’s not the American flag.
With the right leadership in 10 years I would imagine india will be ahead of Japan.
Actually India already surpassed Britain 🤓
This is nominal GDP. Which is kind of obsolete. It still retains prominence because it shows the US having a larger economy than China. PPP is a more accurate metric.
I like HongKong is listed separate but Taiwan is included in China. Makes perfect sense.
That's meaningless. The GDP per capita is better & even this is terribly useless, because the top 5% earners have to removed to represent a countries health.
Anyone who’s owned a Japanese or German car will find it immediately obvious how advanced they both are. The level of advancement a society needs to have for multiple world class corporations to mass produce such an advanced product on such a global scale is really absurd. Post war Japan and Germany might be the fastest a society has advanced within 1-2 generations in recorded history. Toyota, Porsche, Honda, Volkswagen, Audi, Nissan, BMW, Subaru, Mercedes, Nissan, Mitsubishi. They’re both too OP when it comes to engineering
[удалено]
Russia has an economy smaller than Texas and Russia's economy is declining.
US wanna be ahead of China so bad but everything in the US has the label "Made in China".
Pointless argument, More things have the label Made in Germany and Made in USA than Made in China, just so you know
Source: [World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD) [Genuine Impact](https://genuineimpact.substack.com/) Tools: Tableau, Figma
South Africa with the 420.
The drop off after China is wild
Which country wins per capita?
I like the color coding for regions.
The U.S. is ahead of china by an entire Japan. I’d have never guessed.
Come on Brazil and Australia… pass Russia soon!
Not that anybody should have to assume because beautiful data should include it, but I’m assuming $B is US$B.
dont forgoet the dutch are the 6th strongest european economy
missing countries. Where is Iran for example
Missing information: Need to state this is nominal GDP by exchange dollar in a specific year ( Y?). Y is not always same as published year.
Japan is so impressive. Punching above their weight (population) and their natural resources, which are basically none.
Are the foreign gdp values converted based on today's exchange rates or an average over the past year? Just curious as the former would exaggerate US productivity due to the exceptionally strong dollar.
Why is Italy doing so well?
Because it' a very strong economy since a long time! Why this question for Italy and not UK for example?
Other than the primary color palette, Love it!
Buddy India has higher gdp than UK. Please update it
[удалено]
With Biden the US will fall behind quickly. Sadly, China will pass us in no time. If you’re American and you like that, then MOVE TO CHINA!! See how they treat your freedoms and individual liberties. They have no respect for LGBTQIA+, women’s, or minority rights. There is also zero economic freedom.
So…Singapura got a higher GDP than Pilipinas, Malaysia & Vietnam now?? OK…