Alarming News

May 25, 2005

We are so loaded

Andrew Roth has an amazing list comparing the GDP of individual US states to countries around the world. Really mind-blowing.

Via Red State.

Posted by Karol at 06:11 PM |
Technorati Tags:

during the tsunami crisis over xmas i posted a similar list minus the US states on here or ramblings journal to highlight the stingieness of the major powers. the figures are the same and are 2 years old. similar source i am guessing.

Posted by: Nick Saunders at May 25, 2005 at 6:43 pm

Using those figures. the GDP of the EU is.
Opposed to the US
Not much in it.

Posted by: Nick Saunders at May 25, 2005 at 7:01 pm

Except for the fact that the EU isn’t one country. And their money isn’t pooled for use like ours is. So, your point is what exactly?

Posted by: Karol at May 25, 2005 at 7:02 pm

What I find funny?
The bottom of the list is Howard Dean’s Vermont.
VOTE DEAN 2008: He’ll Make You Richer Than Latvia.
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at May 25, 2005 at 7:17 pm

Canada barely beat Mexico (Mexico has a higher pop… most of it in California – which Canada got clobbered by), and edged out New York. We are going to rock as Perto Rico North when we get bought by the US. When our dollar hits .60 US, make the shareholders an offer! We have beavers!

Posted by: Loop at May 25, 2005 at 7:17 pm

I get enough beaver, thanks.

Posted by: Oschisms at May 25, 2005 at 10:50 pm

What’s the point? Some of our states have a huge population.
This should really be done by GDP per capita. That would be much more interesting. Because I bet the U.S. states would have the top ten.
And I bet the blue states would be at the top. Would like to see Red State explain that one…

Posted by: Downtown Lad at May 26, 2005 at 12:07 am

What surprises me is that Vermont is officially
Seriously, I would have expected Wyoming to be way below Vermont.

Posted by: W.C. Varones at May 26, 2005 at 1:32 am

And we’re a depressed, “backwards” state?

Alarming news passes along (via Red State) an Andrew Roth article on The Club of Growth: listing the US states as entries in the international Gross Domestic Product listing.
I was interested in the following numbers from Mr. Roth’s article (I’ve added

Posted by: Kentucky Packrat at May 26, 2005 at 2:46 am

“I get enough beaver, thanks.”
Posted by Oschisms at May 25, 2005 10:50 PM
Yeah, but ours are dam hot.

Posted by: Loop at May 26, 2005 at 5:58 am

Capitalism at Work

I am a resident of the state of Georgia and my brother-in-law, a missionary in Russia, is engaged to marry a young woman from the republic of Georgia. So I was drawn to a post by Sean at The American…

Posted by: Stones Cry Out at May 26, 2005 at 7:44 am

Depends what you mean by GDP. Are we talking about Purchasing Power Parity (which doesnt really take into account the cost of services, which is beneficial to the US as it is a service expensive country) or Exchange Rate Mechanism?
The list given looks like PPP, which currently would see China’s GDP closer to $7trillion, whereas her GDP in Exchange Rates is much smaller (more like $1.7 trillion).
GDP for PPP looks at a few prices for things that can be easily compared, but ignores many things. ERM is the much better measure as it compares REAL wealth. However, it doesnt measure standard of living as well as PPP.
The EU’s GDP is more like $14trillion to the US’s $11 trillion. The US’s wealth isn’t pooled either, Karol – that argument is therefore pointless – except military and social security/healthcare.
The point is this for an live-in au pair in the UK you may pay $90/wk, in the US you’d pay $140. Ultimatly GDP is skewed to favour the US wealth as all values are based on the dollar and the US controls the world’s investment banking. Another small problem with saying how rich the US is vs say the EU is distribution.
Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the poorest 120million Americans. 1pc of Americans hold 99pc of the wealth. Recent figures in Newsweek showed that French people on average have more money in savings than Americans. Americans spend and CONSUME more. So European savings fuel American spending (GDP growth).

Posted by: Monjo at May 26, 2005 at 8:55 am

Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the poorest 120million Americans.
Bill Gates is worth about $30 billion. Are you saying half the country has, on average, $250 each? Sounds, hm, a bit low. And it casts some doubt on the rest of your “facts”.
Here’s a world per-capita GDP comparison, by the way. Not surprisingly, the tax havens of the world are way up.

Posted by: Yaron at May 26, 2005 at 10:03 am

I’m somewhat sceptical of Monjo’s post, but the idea that 120 million Americans have a remarkably low net worth does not surprise me – just because you have that much or more in savings or cash on hand doesn’t mean that’s what you’re “worth” – people coming out of college with school debt, credit card payments or just buying a home (only the equity you’ve paid counts as an asset and the outstanding mortgage counts as a liability to substract when determining your net worth) are likely to be in a negative position when you take future debt into account – 40 million Americans live in poverty (you can’t necessarily assume minimal net worth for these Americans, but you can make a pretty decent supposition) – and even for those of us who live quite well, it took me four years of making (and saving) a whole hell of a lot of money to put myself into a positive net worth position – that said, comparison’s of GDP and net worth strike me as bunk – and the only thing the last paragraph of Monjo’s post suggests to me is that Gates has done remarably well for himself…

Posted by: Alceste at May 26, 2005 at 10:43 am

“Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the poorest 120million Americans. 1pc of Americans hold 99pc of the wealth. Recent figures in Newsweek showed…”
Recent figures in Alarming News showed that leftist idiots continue to make sh!t up.

Posted by: W.C. Varones at May 26, 2005 at 4:24 pm

“Bill Gates alone has as much wealth as the poorest 120million Americans.”
This is something Ralph Nader has been saying. It takes into account people debt’s. So it isn’t that hard to imagine it’s true.
Especially if it’s going as far to include house mortgages and car payments on top of credit card debt and student loans.

Posted by: PAUL at May 27, 2005 at 9:50 am

I don’t make stats up. Let’s say you have a house, a car, etc etc. But you don’t own them, its all mortages and loans. In theory you could be living in a $500,000 house with a $50,000 car but have a net worth of $-300,000 (due to the loans).
I mean this when considered means the wealth distribution isnt as bad as the headline figure suggests. LOL, I’m the first to condemn statistics.
Most people in the US/UK today have a net worth of about 0 until they are in their 40s. My parents would have got to paying off half their mortgage in 1999 (aged 47) and have now paid it off – so their house is theirs, their savings and possessions etc. But just a decade ago technically they were worth nothing and fifteen years ago they would have been in debt.
So whilst 120mil Americans may be worth say $250 each – most of them will, before they die, become dollar millionaires (well okay maybe not quite, but you’d be surprised how much the average widowed 80 year old woman is worth!). Which is why we shouldnt worry too much about the headline stat I initially gave. And WC (are you a toilet??) should be careful before labelling people as ‘left’.

Posted by: Monjo at May 31, 2005 at 11:16 am
Post a comment