• bouncing@partizle.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The reality is that US spends more on military than the next 10 countries combined.

    Unless we’re going to start paying soldiers $1,000/yr (roughly what China does), that’s going to be the reality.

    For context, overall manufacturing output of US is only around $1.9 trillion.

    And New York City’s manufacturing output is almost nothing. Manufacturing isn’t GDP.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unless we’re going to start paying soldiers $1,000/yr (roughly what China does), that’s going to be the reality

      You seem to be ignoring the concept of purchasing power here.

      And New York City’s manufacturing output is almost nothing. Manufacturing isn’t GDP.

      My point was that GDP is not a useful metric, and I even gave you a concrete example of why.

      • bouncing@partizle.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you need to learn the concept of purchasing power.

        By all means, use PPP.

        My point was that GDP is not a useful metric, and I even gave you a concrete example of why.

        Use PPP if you prefer.

        You’re the one who compared US spending to China’s in absolute dollars.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you seriously arguing that the portion of US military spending in terms of PPP adjusted GDP is comparable to China?

          • bouncing@partizle.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, no, because that sentence doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as a “PPP adjusted GDP,” PPP is just a way of measuring GDP. I’m suggesting that if you want to use PPP to measure GDP, by all means, use PPP. PPP merely corrects for currency imbalances.

            In other words, if you don’t like nominal GDP (valid), by all means, use PPP. Both PPP and nominal GDP are measures of GDP though.

            SO: China spends between 1.7% of its total economic output directly on its military. The US spends closer to 3.5%.

            If the US spent what China does, as a percentage of GDP, that would be just shy of $400bn. A lot of money, for sure, but we’re closing on a $2.0 trillion budget deficit.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              PPP is purchasing power people have within their country. So, yes, PPP adjusted GDP makes sense and it means measuring GDP while adjusting for the actual purchasing power it represents. Stop using sophistry to pretend like you’re saying something meaningful here.

              As you finally admit, regardless how you measure, US spends a far higher portion of its GDP on the military than China does. However, the whole picture is that China is far more industrialized than US is, and has far more productive GDP. On the other hand, a lot of US GDP is fictitious, such as health insurance industry. This industry creates a ton of jobs that bump up GDP on paper, but produces no actual value for the people of the country. Hence why looking at US industrial portion of the GDP for comparison makes far more sense. That’s the actual productive GDP in the country.

              I’m also not sure what the budget deficit has to do with any of this.