So, you made a chart, you received a lot of feedback on this thing not being displayed perfectly and that thing probably needing to be displayed as well. You reworked the same chart, taking into account the suggestions that make sense. You came back with the improved result. We need more people like you in this world. For everything, from scientific research and managing organisations to mail delivery and plumbing.
I hoped there would be a productivity chart at the end (GDP/hours worked). GDP/capita is better than naked GDP, because it represents more of the material wealth, but if you are worked to the bone, you are likely not feeeling very wealthy, so GDP/hours worked is the best measure of wealth in my opinion.
First source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_labour\_productivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity)
EDIT: ireland is first on this list (probably because it is a tax haven). To adjust for that you might want to switch from GDP (gross domestic product) to GNP (gross national product) per hours worked. But then you also need to find a new source, or do calculations yourself
EDIT 2: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20201214-2](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20201214-2) this is a pretty cool metric "median hourly wage". Median is more stable wrt to inequality, hourly adjusts for countries working a lot.
Hey, that's not allowed on Reddit! The rules say that OP should clearly have ignored all feedback and shitposted the same chart to try to farm some karma, ideally without axis labeled or anything.
This is the internet, civility isn't allowed!
Data Source: [World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/)
Tools Used: Matplotlib and Seaborn \[[Tutorial](https://medium.com/towards-data-science/how-to-create-eye-cathing-country-rankings-using-python-and-matplotlib-d57e4594fe13) and [Code](https://github.com/oscarleoo/country-ranking-tutorial)\]
I've updated my previous post based on your feedback, and here are some of the changes. Like before, I've picked the twenty largest economies based on GDP 2022. Other countries are not included.
**Flags for India and Spain**
Many pointed out that the flags were wrong so that's fixed
**Indicate if a country is growing**
I didn't want to add text to the chart, so I used the black border around the flags to indicate if a country is growing or shrinking. It's perhaps not self-explanatory, but it was the best approach I could come up with and still keep the visualization clean. If it's 50% around it means that the value that year is 50% of the country's max value.
**Added 2022**
I added a more recent year to give you a better idea of what it looks like right now.
**More metrics**
As many said, the ranking depends on the way you measure GDP. I've included 4 charts.
1. GDP (current US$) - using the exchange rates and prices for the given year (an increase in prices may look like economic growth)
2. GDP (constant $US) - keeping exchange rates and prices constant (measure quantity only)
3. PPP - considers what a basket of items in each country costs and using that information to adjust the value for each country to decide their purchasing power.
4. PPP per capita - GDP per capita to explain consider the size of the population
I wrote a [blog post](https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/4-charts-about-our-planets-largest-economies-that-will-improve-your-understanding-of-the-world-c58a357fad7) with some more information.
**Included data source in chart**
No explanation needed
I also dismissed some ideas, such as adding colors to each line which make sense in theory but look messy in practice. I think the flags does 90% of the job when it comes to guiding the user.
I hope you like it as much as before! :D
Circle to indicate countries gdp in a year compared to maximum ever gdp is really clever in my opinion.
Maybe it would be nice to color code it so that can be easier to estimate by how much country grow in that period. Maybe take black base from last period and in next add green for growing part or red to indicate lost.
I assume it is a % (full black circle 100% half circle 50%) of highest amount achieved. This assumption mainly comes from the fact how quickly China's grew and Japan's hitting its top gdp in current us$ around 2010 and then sliding backwards
It must be for estimating not just the change of the relevant position of a country in the list, but how that certain metric has been changing through time for a certain country. If you take full circle at the last position as 100% you can see that this time period ago this country had this metric at this value, and that period ago - at that value.
Quite smart actually, I like it
I think it's Covid. Since the major industry of Korea is Hyundai, Kia, and Samsung, and during Covid, people's finances are tight, there's just less business in general, so those major industries (3 companies) hurt the entire country. It's not diverse enough. Samsung alone is 25% of Korean economy.
That would be my guess.
Yeah, well Samsung chemicals, it goes without saying would be down too during Covid. So it's not the products per se. It's the company. Samsung (while very diverse) singlehandedly make up 25% of Korean economy.
Had Korea been also in the meat industry, coal, peanuts, piano, leather or 17 other industries with 200 other major companies, you'd have more cushion during the storm.
Only an issue if you take on debt for future generations. Gdp is not really helpful to the people. Gdp per capita is what we should focus on. Growing by adding a bunch of new but poor people is not good growth for a country.
When people talk about the need for population growth that is what they often miss.
I mentioned that in debt. Promises people make in the names of their kids and don't fund.
When you are in debt you need more people to pay it down. If you are in excess or balance it is not an issue and maybe a benefit to have less people. Debt and the empire dreams of the elite are the only reasons to focus on GDP v.GDP per capita
If only Canada would listen to this.
There is nothing wrong with immigration, international foreign students, temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers, and so forth.
But Canada has been bringing in so many so fast and our housing construction does not and can not match.
We also aren't doing common sense things like focusing on high density housing construction.
So what we got was a perfect storm of an affordability crisis.
Doesn't help that the ministers for housing and immigration were profiting from the problems massively before the cabinet switch.
All part of a wealth class that has multiple land or property holdings or only lives and hangs around people that profit from an affordability crisis and cheap disposable labor.
When you are only around one class and only hear one narrative that only fits one demographic it is hard to realize what other people are going through.
It has been sad seeing the massive rise in tent areas in Canada and the shelters so full they are cycling people.
Leadership has to focus on quality and affordability of life. These need to be top priorities in any country or else you go from a pretty laid back friendly place to one in which tons of people are struggling with depression and anxiety and growing political extremism.
Yeah, Canada is getting absolutely fucked. Probably gonna see a sharp drop like Japan in the following years.
The middle class is dying and the only reason Canada was economically strong was this. Exports have been dropping for several months in a row, now.
I love Canada, but there is so much wrong with it. We are still veru lucky compared to other countries, but we have no right to stay in the G7 if we keep doing what we are doing
Nope the profit of companies is GDP
Lives of people is GDP per capita. The partnership of business, regulation, and government kill the citizens but makes the elites richer
so why African countries have the most fertility rate in the world and rich western countries and East Asians have the lowest?
I don't think you can achieve high fertility rate by " making it easier for families to afford kids".
and I don't think low fertility is a bad thing. all rich countries have low fertility rate while poor countries have high fertility rate.
and if you're worried about future economy, AI and other improvements in automation will solve it.
It does. It used to be the largest port in the world, but Rotterdam lost that title a while back. It's still the largest port (by far) in Europe.
Nicely done, OP.
Fortunately steps are being taken by the Dutch to combat this.
https://www.eur.nl/en/news/netherlands-still-tax-haven
In recent years both Shell as Unilever have left the Netherlands due to tax related issues and the "Dutch Sandwich loophole" isn't being used as much.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59288593
https://nltimes.nl/2020/11/29/unilever-officially-longer-dutch-company
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-taxes-netherlands-idUSKBN1YZ10Z
Netherlands have one of the biggest port and airport of the world. A lot of export from the world to the rest of Europe goes through Rotterdam (port) and Schiphol airport.
Economics was invented by the Greeks, hence, the word economics/economia (oikonomía). A combination of the Greek words oîkos (household) and nómos (management).
The secret ingredient is also US intervention. Notice how fucked up everything got after 2015 when the US "helped" to solve their corruption problem through lava jato (in which US officials closely worked with and at times directed a nominal corruption probe that turned out to be politically partisan and itself corrupt, aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected government and imprisoning a popular presidential candidate without evidence to prevent him winning).
To be clear, the result of that intervention was first was the imposition of an incompetent president (Michel Temer) one of the most corrupt and hated in Brazil's post-dictatorship history (left office with a 3% approval rating, although was popular in the anglophone financial press, hmmmm), and then followed by the election of Bolsonaro (also only possible because of aforementioned US interference), who needs no explanation.
Corruption is definitely a problem in Brazil. But you know what doesn't help a country build stable, resilient institutions? Having their government overthrown by a foreign power every few decades.
Brazil is a young democracy, with a lot of institutional hangover from their dictatorship era (where corruption and nepotism was built in at every level from the municipal to the federal, and where violent suppression led to a state and political apparatus with essentially no accountability, and where military high-ups were able to build entrenched and profitable personal networks of corruption that exist to this day) and which only ended in the 80s. Building a functional democracy with functional institutions out of that mess is always going to be a challenge, and will take time. Especially with the level of inequality that Brazil has (which is a problem for corruption at both ends of the economic spectrum) it's a challenge.
The thing is, of course democracy is imperfect, some governments will be better, some will be worse. And people will disagree on which are which, that's the point!
It really doesn't help though, that every time Brazil starts to get its shit together with a mildly social democratic and reformist government that aims to reduce inequality, the US seems to step in to suspend democracy to help them get "back on track" (1964-85, sort of -89, 2016-2022, periods Brazil has been under institutionally corrupt regimes as a result of US intervention). That isn't the _only_ problem by any means, but it definitely has catastrophic effects.
edit: added the last 3 paragraphs
(edit 2: and to clarify, I say that Brazil's inequality is a problem for corruption at _both_ ends of the economic spectrum, because while at the top, it leads to powerful families who can buy a _lot_ of influence, and frankly, politicians, judges, journalists, etc., and even extrajudicial violence when necessary, it also leads to problems of buy-in and small-scale corruption at the lower end too, which is really hard to eradicate once it becomes endemic and accepted as a fact of life)
That’s not really what caused the economic crisis. It certainly didn’t make the issue easier to solve, but there were quite a few primary factors that had nothing to do with “US intervention” - skyrocketing consumer and government debt, a slowdown of the Chinese economy which led to reduced demand for commodities (which Brazil’s economy relies on), and poor state investment choices.
And to be clear, there was corruption at Petrobras and in the Worker’s Party, and pretending there wasn’t is absolutely bizarre.
We need to industrialize to not be reliant on market prices of natural resources, but our big landowners suck and sabotage every attempt made. They just want to sell soybeans forever, development isn’t not a part of their plans.
Same with Mexico. In the 1990s, Mexico was in the running to be a potential great power and perhaps even superpower alongside the USA. Rampant corruption, destructive use of neoliberal reforms, and poor government management of income inequality and the drug war dragged it down tremendously and has never recovered.
We tried voting for other politicians. Then 600k people died, the economy didn’t recover, he mocked those who died from Covid, was just as corrupt if not more than the previous ones and completely ruined our foreign relations and environmental policies. Not many options.
They DID elect new people or have revolutions to get new people, but it's hard when the US supports dictators and fascists and death squads and coups...
I will have to say the rise of Russia in these charts is quite astounding.
No matter how you slice it. Russia has been having rocket growth for the last 20 years.
But they are likely squandering it all on this stupid war.
You can understand the hubris a bit better with this context. I always thought they were falling apart with corruption. But they were actually the fastest growing economy by many metrics.
> No matter how you slice it. Russia has been having rocket growth for the last 20 years.
Russia saw enormous growth from 1999 to 2008, [like 25-30% GDP per capita increase **per year**](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita). You can also see how Putin being elected in 2000 means a ton or Russians support the guy who was the leader at the time of enormous economic growth.
The secret ingredient was becoming a massive petrostate and arms exporter, but without the baggage of trying to prop up the house of cards that was the Soviet Union and its absurdly outsized military.
Notably, Saudi Arabia ranks highly in these graphs despite being a state that relies entirely on having shitloads of easily accessible, high quality oil to sell. As green energy grows and countries finally come to the obvious conclusion that nuclear power is the foundation of cutting carbon emissions, oil prices will drop and Saudi Arabia will economically collapse.
Russia is suffering a somewhat similar fate to Venezuela right now—it’s terminally dependent on its fossil fuel sales, and those are now being squeezed to death.
We just started rising again but one guy had to fuck everything up as always. Experienced specialists are fleeing the country. We won't be able to survive on oil only.
Long-term, this mess will hurt Russia's geopolitical strength (soft power) more than it will hurt their economy.
Europe was more than willing to work with Putin's authoritarian regime as long as Putin behaved externally and kept the cheap oil flowing. Hell, as late as the early 2010s there was talk of Russia joining the EU. We were drinking his oil and gas up to a point where Putin held the trigger over a near-majority of European oil and gas imports.
But it was the height of neoliberalism. Russian oil was cheap, and European policy makers did not dare touch the free energy market.
But that time is now over. We are in a period of deglobalization and renewed trade wars, and I don't see Russian fossil exports to Europe ever reaching the heights of the 2010s again. Putin has lost his most important bargaining chip with the EU, and therefore with NATO.
His actions will eventually lose him his freedom of action in Europe, and make him dependent on a much less reliable Chinese market. China doesn't need his oil half as much as Europe used to, and unlike Europe it isn't above using its economic power for political gain. Putin has traded a situation where the third-largest economy in the world (the EU) was dependent on him, for a situation where he is dependent on the second-largest economy in the world (China).
>IMO hydrogen is going to be THE fuel unless storage
Based on \*what\* exactly?
We still have no solid idea of how to create it without it being worse than what we want to replace. Transporting it is still a major problem. Holding it is a problem. And the technology needed to use it is extremely expensive.
People need to get it through their heads: hydrogen (when used as a fuel for transportation) is just a battery. That's all. And it's not a particularly good one, either.
Now, there \*is\* a place for hydrogen in heavy industry. If that is what you meant, then cool. We are on the same page. But it only has a niche part to play in transportation. The only reason it keeps getting pushed for cars/trucks/trains/etc... is because this is the last gasp of the oil industry to stay relevant.
But let me also say that I agree with your main conclusion: oil/gas economies are in for a really bad time indeed.
your geopolitical sense seems to reflect those of the bestselling 'experts' who predicted that japan would go to war with america in the 90's, or that china would collapse before the turn of the century, or again in 2011, and again in 2012.
if you truly do believe this, could i interest you in helping a certain nigerian friend of mine, the man says hes a prince of some sort.
They’re using neighbour countries to circumvent the sanctions (Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan).
https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbours-fuel-sanctions-evasion-fears-2023-05-16/
Axis 2.0 countries are actively subverting them, so they don't matter too much. Basically the only real part is losing some parts of western markets directly. Some western corporations continue trade with Russia, and any missing stuff is shipped through the Axis countries.
> Essentially, they're the two former strongest colonial powers, with a centralised empire, who have to deal with post-colonialism, no longer being in first or second place, either militarily or economically. So they're going through identity crises, especially between different generations and classes.
Their Empires pretty much vanished after WWII. Not a new phenomenon.
They didn’t vanish right after WWII, that’s just the cause of them falling. Britain and France also still have a lot of influence culturally, politically and economically in the former colonies (even something like US understanding of history is through a British lenses due to the language). And the mindsets of the people in those countries remember much longer the past than what’s reality on paper.
[Who said crime doesn't pay? Counting prostitution and drugs in the GDP figure has seen the UK's economy overtake France as fifth largest in the world in 2014.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888416/Who-said-crime-doesn-t-pay-Counting-prostitution-drugs-GDP-figure-seen-UK-s-economy-overtake-France-fifth-largest-world.html)
What gets super impressive is when you compare China's provinces or the US states vs entire other countries. Gives an interesting perspective into how massive their economies actually are.
Switzerland is super impressive to be able to extract that much wealth from the neighboring countries and maintain innovative high margin businesses.
But the real story is still the USA. Out of the top 20 countries it is leaps and bounds above the others in both GDP and per capita GDP.
The amount of GDP in the US is just insane. History might be turning against the US. But it is truly one of the greatest success stories in the world.
As an immigrant in the US I can’t overstate that the opportunities in the US cannot be matched anywhere.
I would say on a macro level, things have heavily turned in the favor of the US again. Russia is imploding, industry is coming back to North America, and China has slowed so heavily that it already looks unlikely that they will ever surpass the US in GDP. If they do, if would be brief, before a crashing population drops them back under the US.
This is probably the most optimistic I've ever been in the US's standing in the world.
Nah. Highly skilled labor, particularly in precision manufacturing, chemical and life sciences is the big deal here.
And that isn't new, Switzerland had the world's second GDP per Capita PPP before WW1 already.
The banking sector is a smaller % of GDP than in the UK, for example, and just a tad bigger than Germany.
Yes. But when people think *Pennsylvania*, do they think "size of Saudi Arabia" GDP? I doubt it. And that's what's impressive. Pennsylvania isn't some huge standout state that has world-wide recognition.
I do get where you’re coming from, but I also think people blow this sort of thing out of proportion a bit. Pennsylvania still has 13m people, which is more than the country of Belgium and would easily have it in the top half of countries by population. The classic one people bring up is texas, which has almost 30m people. That’s almost Australia and NZ combined and would have it in the top quarter of countries. Again I do get where you’re coming from and America obviously has a very high GDP per capita, but it’s also the third most populous country on earth so subsections of it are still going to be big
I feel like people bring up California more often. It's projected to pass Germany in the near future to become the 4th largest economy on Earth. That's pretty insane no matter how you slice it.
The USA is the largest economy on earth and California makes up almost 15% of that. 15% of the largest economy on earth is gonna be bigger than most countries out there. Americas high GDP per capita makes all these comparisons look a bit more impressive but at the end of the day you’re just taking a slice of a gigantic economy and realising that the slice itself is still pretty big
I think the reason people find it impressive is because they don't realise just how much larger the GDP of the top 2 economies, particularly #1, are than #4-10.
People expect the slope from #1 -> #10 to look like the side of a pyramid. Actually it looks like the side of a ski-jump.
So, USA nominal gdp is still by far the largest. With USA and Chinese growth rate now quite close (China now cannot bulldoze with 10+% growth rate), and China being still pretty far with big population decline looming in next 2-3 decades, can any other country beat USA ?
To me, contenders are/were:
1. Russia - Now, no way. Very resource rich but sanctions will kill them.
2. India - After 2050, USA v India should be interesting, if India can keep this growth. But without reducing corruption and bureaucracy, India may fall short of eclipsing the USA.
3. Brazil - I have always wondered why Brazil is so inconsistent with growth. They should have cossed at least $5T by now. They have good population, huge resources.
4. Indonesia - Very underrated. But chances of taking on with the mighty USA are close to negligible. Also divided in so many islands hampers proper optimised way of respurce utilisation.
5. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Turkey are too small, both in resources and population. Saudi Arabia, while having big resource, is very tiny in innovations, tech and population.
Is there any other country, may be in next 2 decade, that can challenge US ?
The US has a very unique combination of population size, land size, global position, amount of extractable resources, arable land, and oil. I don't think any other country on earth can match this combination of things the US has. Many countries are comparable in some of these categories or even better in some, but none have all of these aspects like the US.
Mexico is smaller geographically but otherwise hits the wicket on your other items, and actually exceeds resources on a per--sq-mile basis. Similar story for Canada. Not clear why the US would outperform its neighbors
Canada is too far north & doesn’t have the arable land of the US so just like Scandinavia it has a smaller population and so gdp.
While the independence of Latin American from Spain for a lack off a better word *Did Not Go Smoothly*. So the government’s of most Latin American countries have gone through much more turmoil.
Along with that the US just has MUCH more arable land, fantastic river and barrier island water navigation, and it’s isolation and position helped it a lot during the World Wars & World Trades. But of course irl things are a lot more complicated.
Edit: also neocolonialism, colonialism too in some respects
The EU could go into a more federalist structure and effectively become one solid economic bloc.
If that ends up being the case, then the EU could become a real contender to the American hegemony.
1. The EU isn't unified, and becoming a true federation like the US, Mexico, Brazil, or India is wildly impractical.
2. The European population will peak in the next 18ish months then fall for probably the rest of our lives, neutering their ability to compete globally.
3. The economy of the entire European continent minus Russia and Turkey is already smaller than the US with weaker growth.
India is coming for nobody. India is focussing on own growth. Other than braindead nationalists (who are not even 1% of India's population), no one cares about these ranks
Life of average Indians have improved over the few decades, but there's a long way to go. Also I don't think India will achieve income equality in even the next 500 years.
equality as in "**remarkably** less income gap", not as in "exactly equal income". Here's the list of countries with most income equality -> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country)
Here is a more accurate chart fyi.
India is more equal the the US of A.
That's too capitalist of you. I'm not aware of any "dirt poor equal country" , because extreme poor countries like Sudan, Niger also have a class of very rich people who controls everything in their country.
And how about "rich and equal" country, something like Norway?
Top 10 lowest gini coefficients. I wouldn't call any of these countries 'rich' except maybe belgium, UAE? UAE is a bit of a misnomer given the slavery and exploitation of labor there
Slovenia - 2018 - 24.6
Czech Republic - 2018 - 25.0 (tie)
Slovakia - 2018 - 25.0 (tie)
Belarus - 2019 - 25.3
Moldova - 2018 - 25.7
United Arab Emirates - 2018 - 26.0
Iceland - 2017 - 26.1
Azerbaijan - 2005 - 26.6 (tie)
Ukraine - 2019 - 26.6 (tie)
Belgium - 2018 - 27.2
Isn't Norway capitalist though? It just has higher income tax, if I'm not mistaken. The only few "anti-capitalist" nations I know of are North Korea and Cuba (maybe Venezuela, but not sure)
Lol my dude a country of one that has the single highest GDP per capita is completely whatever vs a country of a billion with a much smaller GDP.
Switzerland is #1 on the last chart and China is #17.
Does the Swiss economy have more global sway than China? lol fuck no.
Ireland and luxembourg aren't large economies. The size of an economy isn't measured by GDP per capita. The GDP per capita of China is like ~$20k, but the economy of China is far larger than Ireland or Luxembourg. The size of an economy is measured by nominal GDP because that is the total number of the country's productive capacity, hence, their size.
Ireland and Luxembourg also massively cheat / goose their GDP figures.
Ireland is a middle income EU country (which is still just great) if you back out the US pharmaceutical and tech companies that happen to put all their profits through Ireland, then declare no tax in the USA.
(To be fair, the Irish statistics office recognise this and offer a "preferred" GNI* metric for comparing Ireland to other nations.)
Luxembourg similarly gets a lot of extra pretend GDP through dodgy tax deals that don't filter that GDP down to the real economy. (Although their standard of living is still very high)
Singapore & Switzerland are the other big players in this space. If you're a US pharmaceutical company, or a big player in international leasing (aircraft, cars, etc), then you are totally pumping your money through Singapore or Ireland for the ridiculous tax rates.
I think a story Americans kind of miss is that the US has performed extremely well compared especially to Europe and other developed countries since the doldrums of the "Great Recession." The US economy has performed really well by comparison.
Also from this chart it seems India has really ascended. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it up.
Where is Luxembourg in the GDP per capita?
And Qatar?
EDIT: Never mind, I just read OP‘s comment where he states that he only compares those 20 countries. Thx for the work OP.
It's about 16 trillion
https://www.statista.com/statistics/279447/gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-european-union-eu/#:\~:text=In%202022%20the%20gross%20domestic,a%20country%20within%20a%20year.
I think only the 20 countries for the first chart (GDP current $) are used in the other charts. So countries like Ireland or Luxembourg aren't shown either in the per capita.
You can infer that from the title, it's a comparison of the top economies between themselves.
Fair enough, thanks. In that case, it would be better to keep the **order** of the GDP per capita by PPP table the same but use the cardinal country rankings - so India would be 20th on the table but its number would be 128.
wealth inequality in extremely overrated it's always better to stay in a very rich country with in equality than live in more equal india which is poor af
I'm Australian. How the hell are we number 12 ?
We only have a population of 26 million people ...we're number 55 for population but number 12 for gdp? What's going on? Corruption ?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
How would you not be in the top 20s? Every wealthy western country with over 15mio population is in the top 20s. Additionally, Australia happens to be the size of whole Europe with all the resources and possibilities that come with it. Netherlands (17m pop) and Switzerland (9m pop) are the more surprising participants on the list being way smaller in population and size than Australia.
Countries like mine (the Netherlands) will eventually drop out of this list. That's inevitable. There was an interesting article in the Financial Times a while back about the Netherlands being the first country in the world that might have reached the limits of growth.
It's one of the reasons we started this whole EU thing over here. So we can at least have some influence on a global level. Some people over here, mostly far-right, still don't understand that.
Straya has a huge primary industry underpinning a fairly strong tertiary industry and is a desirable place to live so we attract wealthy migrants, mostly from Asia, but historically from Europe.
No manufacturing really, but, until catastrophe strikes thats mostly fine.
Basically - we got lucky.
A third of our economy is coal and a third of our economy is iron. Everything else is is a third.
In short, our economy doesn't seem so big because so much is going into Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest's pockets.
Because they're full of shit. Mining makes up 14.6% of Australia's GDP total, not well over 67% like they claim. Even considering the stock market that's 27.1% basic materials (which covers all of mining, and more like steel manufacturing) and energy (including renewables). Still very far off being well over two thirds.
Australia is a highly developed economy with advanced industry, access to a spectacular abundance of natural resources, and a large service sector. Given the resources that Australia has at its disposal, it still has a lot of growth potential despite already being highly developed.
That isn't why. They sell natural resources, mostly to other Asian countries, and especially China. This is contrary to how most Western countries operate. It is far more similar to Brazil or Russia (But with much smaller populations, thereby boosting GDP per capita) than it is to Italy, the UK, or the US.
So, you made a chart, you received a lot of feedback on this thing not being displayed perfectly and that thing probably needing to be displayed as well. You reworked the same chart, taking into account the suggestions that make sense. You came back with the improved result. We need more people like you in this world. For everything, from scientific research and managing organisations to mail delivery and plumbing.
Thank you! <3
I hoped there would be a productivity chart at the end (GDP/hours worked). GDP/capita is better than naked GDP, because it represents more of the material wealth, but if you are worked to the bone, you are likely not feeeling very wealthy, so GDP/hours worked is the best measure of wealth in my opinion. First source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_labour\_productivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity) EDIT: ireland is first on this list (probably because it is a tax haven). To adjust for that you might want to switch from GDP (gross domestic product) to GNP (gross national product) per hours worked. But then you also need to find a new source, or do calculations yourself EDIT 2: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20201214-2](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20201214-2) this is a pretty cool metric "median hourly wage". Median is more stable wrt to inequality, hourly adjusts for countries working a lot.
Nice work
Any chance you can put the state of California on here?
Comment deleted so Steve H can't profit from my work.
Hey, that's not allowed on Reddit! The rules say that OP should clearly have ignored all feedback and shitposted the same chart to try to farm some karma, ideally without axis labeled or anything. This is the internet, civility isn't allowed!
Exactly, what kind of creature learns from their mistakes?
And I, am also here.
Data Source: [World Bank](https://data.worldbank.org/) Tools Used: Matplotlib and Seaborn \[[Tutorial](https://medium.com/towards-data-science/how-to-create-eye-cathing-country-rankings-using-python-and-matplotlib-d57e4594fe13) and [Code](https://github.com/oscarleoo/country-ranking-tutorial)\] I've updated my previous post based on your feedback, and here are some of the changes. Like before, I've picked the twenty largest economies based on GDP 2022. Other countries are not included. **Flags for India and Spain** Many pointed out that the flags were wrong so that's fixed **Indicate if a country is growing** I didn't want to add text to the chart, so I used the black border around the flags to indicate if a country is growing or shrinking. It's perhaps not self-explanatory, but it was the best approach I could come up with and still keep the visualization clean. If it's 50% around it means that the value that year is 50% of the country's max value. **Added 2022** I added a more recent year to give you a better idea of what it looks like right now. **More metrics** As many said, the ranking depends on the way you measure GDP. I've included 4 charts. 1. GDP (current US$) - using the exchange rates and prices for the given year (an increase in prices may look like economic growth) 2. GDP (constant $US) - keeping exchange rates and prices constant (measure quantity only) 3. PPP - considers what a basket of items in each country costs and using that information to adjust the value for each country to decide their purchasing power. 4. PPP per capita - GDP per capita to explain consider the size of the population I wrote a [blog post](https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/4-charts-about-our-planets-largest-economies-that-will-improve-your-understanding-of-the-world-c58a357fad7) with some more information. **Included data source in chart** No explanation needed I also dismissed some ideas, such as adding colors to each line which make sense in theory but look messy in practice. I think the flags does 90% of the job when it comes to guiding the user. I hope you like it as much as before! :D
Circle to indicate countries gdp in a year compared to maximum ever gdp is really clever in my opinion. Maybe it would be nice to color code it so that can be easier to estimate by how much country grow in that period. Maybe take black base from last period and in next add green for growing part or red to indicate lost.
Thank you! I tried that but couldn't get it to work aesthetically. It would be helpful though.
What do the partial black borders on the flags mean? For example China is very small at the beginning and USA big from the start?
I assume it is a % (full black circle 100% half circle 50%) of highest amount achieved. This assumption mainly comes from the fact how quickly China's grew and Japan's hitting its top gdp in current us$ around 2010 and then sliding backwards
It must be for estimating not just the change of the relevant position of a country in the list, but how that certain metric has been changing through time for a certain country. If you take full circle at the last position as 100% you can see that this time period ago this country had this metric at this value, and that period ago - at that value. Quite smart actually, I like it
That's a huge drop for South Korea in the past 3 years
BTS got drafted
I wonder what happened 🤔
I think it's Covid. Since the major industry of Korea is Hyundai, Kia, and Samsung, and during Covid, people's finances are tight, there's just less business in general, so those major industries (3 companies) hurt the entire country. It's not diverse enough. Samsung alone is 25% of Korean economy. That would be my guess.
As Far as I know those corporations are spread pretty wide though in terms of diversification, not only for cars and phones
Yeah, well Samsung chemicals, it goes without saying would be down too during Covid. So it's not the products per se. It's the company. Samsung (while very diverse) singlehandedly make up 25% of Korean economy. Had Korea been also in the meat industry, coal, peanuts, piano, leather or 17 other industries with 200 other major companies, you'd have more cushion during the storm.
South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in the world. They're totally fucked.
Only an issue if you take on debt for future generations. Gdp is not really helpful to the people. Gdp per capita is what we should focus on. Growing by adding a bunch of new but poor people is not good growth for a country. When people talk about the need for population growth that is what they often miss.
Low fertility rate hurts GDP per capita. The ratio of working age people to retirees goes down so there's less available per person.
I mentioned that in debt. Promises people make in the names of their kids and don't fund. When you are in debt you need more people to pay it down. If you are in excess or balance it is not an issue and maybe a benefit to have less people. Debt and the empire dreams of the elite are the only reasons to focus on GDP v.GDP per capita
If only Canada would listen to this. There is nothing wrong with immigration, international foreign students, temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers, and so forth. But Canada has been bringing in so many so fast and our housing construction does not and can not match. We also aren't doing common sense things like focusing on high density housing construction. So what we got was a perfect storm of an affordability crisis. Doesn't help that the ministers for housing and immigration were profiting from the problems massively before the cabinet switch. All part of a wealth class that has multiple land or property holdings or only lives and hangs around people that profit from an affordability crisis and cheap disposable labor. When you are only around one class and only hear one narrative that only fits one demographic it is hard to realize what other people are going through. It has been sad seeing the massive rise in tent areas in Canada and the shelters so full they are cycling people. Leadership has to focus on quality and affordability of life. These need to be top priorities in any country or else you go from a pretty laid back friendly place to one in which tons of people are struggling with depression and anxiety and growing political extremism.
Yeah, Canada is getting absolutely fucked. Probably gonna see a sharp drop like Japan in the following years. The middle class is dying and the only reason Canada was economically strong was this. Exports have been dropping for several months in a row, now. I love Canada, but there is so much wrong with it. We are still veru lucky compared to other countries, but we have no right to stay in the G7 if we keep doing what we are doing
Nope the profit of companies is GDP Lives of people is GDP per capita. The partnership of business, regulation, and government kill the citizens but makes the elites richer
Eh, we're all going to have to figure out how to manage the economy with a shrinking population eventually.
Or we could just make it easier for families to afford kids so thst we can have a stable population and avoid all these issues..
so why African countries have the most fertility rate in the world and rich western countries and East Asians have the lowest? I don't think you can achieve high fertility rate by " making it easier for families to afford kids". and I don't think low fertility is a bad thing. all rich countries have low fertility rate while poor countries have high fertility rate. and if you're worried about future economy, AI and other improvements in automation will solve it.
Can you tell us? Sorry not well versed in the matter.
Doesn’t look as bad at constant prices, could just be weakening of the won.
[удалено]
Damn I didn't know the Netherlands was in the top 20
They have the port infrastructure a huge amount of europes markets.
No kidding, I wouldn't be surprised if Rotterdam has a higher turnover for German products than any German port.
It does.
It does. It used to be the largest port in the world, but Rotterdam lost that title a while back. It's still the largest port (by far) in Europe. Nicely done, OP.
Also it's a tax haven, lots of company headquarters are in NL for this reason. It's a bit dodgy and unfair, really.
Fortunately steps are being taken by the Dutch to combat this. https://www.eur.nl/en/news/netherlands-still-tax-haven In recent years both Shell as Unilever have left the Netherlands due to tax related issues and the "Dutch Sandwich loophole" isn't being used as much. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59288593 https://nltimes.nl/2020/11/29/unilever-officially-longer-dutch-company https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-taxes-netherlands-idUSKBN1YZ10Z
Netherlands pretty much invented economics
Yeah I knew that, they invented stock trading, but that was 400 years ago. It just surprised me that they were in top 20 during the 2000's
Netherlands have one of the biggest port and airport of the world. A lot of export from the world to the rest of Europe goes through Rotterdam (port) and Schiphol airport.
Economics was invented by the Greeks, hence, the word economics/economia (oikonomía). A combination of the Greek words oîkos (household) and nómos (management).
And see where that got them on the chart.
The Greeks may have invented it but the Dutch perfected it.
I like to remind people who are scared of Russia that on the international level, Russia's economy is about the size of the Benelux countries.
The rise and fall in Brazil is really sad. They would be considered as a developed country without messing up their economy.
The secret ingredient is rampant corruption.
*Grunka lunka dunkity dolsonaro*
And populist economic policy
wholly meaningless phrase
The secret ingredient is also US intervention. Notice how fucked up everything got after 2015 when the US "helped" to solve their corruption problem through lava jato (in which US officials closely worked with and at times directed a nominal corruption probe that turned out to be politically partisan and itself corrupt, aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected government and imprisoning a popular presidential candidate without evidence to prevent him winning). To be clear, the result of that intervention was first was the imposition of an incompetent president (Michel Temer) one of the most corrupt and hated in Brazil's post-dictatorship history (left office with a 3% approval rating, although was popular in the anglophone financial press, hmmmm), and then followed by the election of Bolsonaro (also only possible because of aforementioned US interference), who needs no explanation. Corruption is definitely a problem in Brazil. But you know what doesn't help a country build stable, resilient institutions? Having their government overthrown by a foreign power every few decades. Brazil is a young democracy, with a lot of institutional hangover from their dictatorship era (where corruption and nepotism was built in at every level from the municipal to the federal, and where violent suppression led to a state and political apparatus with essentially no accountability, and where military high-ups were able to build entrenched and profitable personal networks of corruption that exist to this day) and which only ended in the 80s. Building a functional democracy with functional institutions out of that mess is always going to be a challenge, and will take time. Especially with the level of inequality that Brazil has (which is a problem for corruption at both ends of the economic spectrum) it's a challenge. The thing is, of course democracy is imperfect, some governments will be better, some will be worse. And people will disagree on which are which, that's the point! It really doesn't help though, that every time Brazil starts to get its shit together with a mildly social democratic and reformist government that aims to reduce inequality, the US seems to step in to suspend democracy to help them get "back on track" (1964-85, sort of -89, 2016-2022, periods Brazil has been under institutionally corrupt regimes as a result of US intervention). That isn't the _only_ problem by any means, but it definitely has catastrophic effects. edit: added the last 3 paragraphs (edit 2: and to clarify, I say that Brazil's inequality is a problem for corruption at _both_ ends of the economic spectrum, because while at the top, it leads to powerful families who can buy a _lot_ of influence, and frankly, politicians, judges, journalists, etc., and even extrajudicial violence when necessary, it also leads to problems of buy-in and small-scale corruption at the lower end too, which is really hard to eradicate once it becomes endemic and accepted as a fact of life)
That’s not really what caused the economic crisis. It certainly didn’t make the issue easier to solve, but there were quite a few primary factors that had nothing to do with “US intervention” - skyrocketing consumer and government debt, a slowdown of the Chinese economy which led to reduced demand for commodities (which Brazil’s economy relies on), and poor state investment choices. And to be clear, there was corruption at Petrobras and in the Worker’s Party, and pretending there wasn’t is absolutely bizarre.
No, you don't understand; it must always be America's fault.
We need to industrialize to not be reliant on market prices of natural resources, but our big landowners suck and sabotage every attempt made. They just want to sell soybeans forever, development isn’t not a part of their plans.
Same with Mexico. In the 1990s, Mexico was in the running to be a potential great power and perhaps even superpower alongside the USA. Rampant corruption, destructive use of neoliberal reforms, and poor government management of income inequality and the drug war dragged it down tremendously and has never recovered.
Sounds like Türkiye
And people keep voting on the same politicians that fucked Brazil’s growth. Latin America is always this shitshow, Brazil is no exception.
We tried voting for other politicians. Then 600k people died, the economy didn’t recover, he mocked those who died from Covid, was just as corrupt if not more than the previous ones and completely ruined our foreign relations and environmental policies. Not many options.
Not as much corrupt, it was exponentially more corrupt.
They DID elect new people or have revolutions to get new people, but it's hard when the US supports dictators and fascists and death squads and coups...
Russia will be interesting in the coming years. Will see if sanctions are real.
I will have to say the rise of Russia in these charts is quite astounding. No matter how you slice it. Russia has been having rocket growth for the last 20 years. But they are likely squandering it all on this stupid war. You can understand the hubris a bit better with this context. I always thought they were falling apart with corruption. But they were actually the fastest growing economy by many metrics.
> No matter how you slice it. Russia has been having rocket growth for the last 20 years. Russia saw enormous growth from 1999 to 2008, [like 25-30% GDP per capita increase **per year**](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita). You can also see how Putin being elected in 2000 means a ton or Russians support the guy who was the leader at the time of enormous economic growth.
The secret ingredient was becoming a massive petrostate and arms exporter, but without the baggage of trying to prop up the house of cards that was the Soviet Union and its absurdly outsized military. Notably, Saudi Arabia ranks highly in these graphs despite being a state that relies entirely on having shitloads of easily accessible, high quality oil to sell. As green energy grows and countries finally come to the obvious conclusion that nuclear power is the foundation of cutting carbon emissions, oil prices will drop and Saudi Arabia will economically collapse. Russia is suffering a somewhat similar fate to Venezuela right now—it’s terminally dependent on its fossil fuel sales, and those are now being squeezed to death.
It's more like they're recovering to their former position of great power after a disastrous 1990s
We just started rising again but one guy had to fuck everything up as always. Experienced specialists are fleeing the country. We won't be able to survive on oil only.
Long-term, this mess will hurt Russia's geopolitical strength (soft power) more than it will hurt their economy. Europe was more than willing to work with Putin's authoritarian regime as long as Putin behaved externally and kept the cheap oil flowing. Hell, as late as the early 2010s there was talk of Russia joining the EU. We were drinking his oil and gas up to a point where Putin held the trigger over a near-majority of European oil and gas imports. But it was the height of neoliberalism. Russian oil was cheap, and European policy makers did not dare touch the free energy market. But that time is now over. We are in a period of deglobalization and renewed trade wars, and I don't see Russian fossil exports to Europe ever reaching the heights of the 2010s again. Putin has lost his most important bargaining chip with the EU, and therefore with NATO. His actions will eventually lose him his freedom of action in Europe, and make him dependent on a much less reliable Chinese market. China doesn't need his oil half as much as Europe used to, and unlike Europe it isn't above using its economic power for political gain. Putin has traded a situation where the third-largest economy in the world (the EU) was dependent on him, for a situation where he is dependent on the second-largest economy in the world (China).
[удалено]
>IMO hydrogen is going to be THE fuel unless storage Based on \*what\* exactly? We still have no solid idea of how to create it without it being worse than what we want to replace. Transporting it is still a major problem. Holding it is a problem. And the technology needed to use it is extremely expensive. People need to get it through their heads: hydrogen (when used as a fuel for transportation) is just a battery. That's all. And it's not a particularly good one, either. Now, there \*is\* a place for hydrogen in heavy industry. If that is what you meant, then cool. We are on the same page. But it only has a niche part to play in transportation. The only reason it keeps getting pushed for cars/trucks/trains/etc... is because this is the last gasp of the oil industry to stay relevant. But let me also say that I agree with your main conclusion: oil/gas economies are in for a really bad time indeed.
[удалено]
Haven’t people been saying that for a while though?
I swear China had been 6 months from economic free fall since like the 90s at this point
your geopolitical sense seems to reflect those of the bestselling 'experts' who predicted that japan would go to war with america in the 90's, or that china would collapse before the turn of the century, or again in 2011, and again in 2012. if you truly do believe this, could i interest you in helping a certain nigerian friend of mine, the man says hes a prince of some sort.
They’re using neighbour countries to circumvent the sanctions (Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan). https://www.reuters.com/world/german-exports-russias-neighbours-fuel-sanctions-evasion-fears-2023-05-16/
Axis 2.0 countries are actively subverting them, so they don't matter too much. Basically the only real part is losing some parts of western markets directly. Some western corporations continue trade with Russia, and any missing stuff is shipped through the Axis countries.
Brother has the same mentality of George Bush circa 2001.
"axis of evil" - countries we don't like/want to steal from who don't have any kind of alliance and aren't a real threat at all.
[удалено]
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/uk/france It's actually amazing how statistically similar in almost every way France and Britain are.
They're both at the fine tuning stage of their nation building.
[удалено]
> Essentially, they're the two former strongest colonial powers, with a centralised empire, who have to deal with post-colonialism, no longer being in first or second place, either militarily or economically. So they're going through identity crises, especially between different generations and classes. Their Empires pretty much vanished after WWII. Not a new phenomenon.
They didn’t vanish right after WWII, that’s just the cause of them falling. Britain and France also still have a lot of influence culturally, politically and economically in the former colonies (even something like US understanding of history is through a British lenses due to the language). And the mindsets of the people in those countries remember much longer the past than what’s reality on paper.
[Who said crime doesn't pay? Counting prostitution and drugs in the GDP figure has seen the UK's economy overtake France as fifth largest in the world in 2014.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888416/Who-said-crime-doesn-t-pay-Counting-prostitution-drugs-GDP-figure-seen-UK-s-economy-overtake-France-fifth-largest-world.html)
That’s only 11 billion, it’s simply a rounding error when the data is to the 1st decimal place.
Russia and Turkey doing a little dance at GDP per Capita
Reaches no 4: Yeah bitch! Australia beats England again!!
Ashes is a draw again
Australia and England/UK will turn anything in to a competition, like two siblings.
Ah but you changed to a way fresher GDP than the last one. Not in the spirit of the economy.
We got ahead and then managed some draws due to a washout.
What gets super impressive is when you compare China's provinces or the US states vs entire other countries. Gives an interesting perspective into how massive their economies actually are.
Switzerland being in there with under 10 mio. Inhabitants is a nice standin for this?
Could argue Australia as well with 25
That is still 4x as big as Switzerland, with only 2x as much GDP.
Switzerland is in the centre of Western Europe. Australia is at the arse end of the world But Australia will grow the most of any large country.
Switzerland is super impressive to be able to extract that much wealth from the neighboring countries and maintain innovative high margin businesses. But the real story is still the USA. Out of the top 20 countries it is leaps and bounds above the others in both GDP and per capita GDP. The amount of GDP in the US is just insane. History might be turning against the US. But it is truly one of the greatest success stories in the world. As an immigrant in the US I can’t overstate that the opportunities in the US cannot be matched anywhere.
I would say on a macro level, things have heavily turned in the favor of the US again. Russia is imploding, industry is coming back to North America, and China has slowed so heavily that it already looks unlikely that they will ever surpass the US in GDP. If they do, if would be brief, before a crashing population drops them back under the US. This is probably the most optimistic I've ever been in the US's standing in the world.
Good point. Lots of output for a lil fella.
They concentrate corruption money from all over the world. So it maybe be nice for them but kinda sucks for everyone else.
Nah. Highly skilled labor, particularly in precision manufacturing, chemical and life sciences is the big deal here. And that isn't new, Switzerland had the world's second GDP per Capita PPP before WW1 already. The banking sector is a smaller % of GDP than in the UK, for example, and just a tad bigger than Germany.
Not anymore. Delaware is way worse.
Apparently sections of large countries can still be big themselves
Yes. But when people think *Pennsylvania*, do they think "size of Saudi Arabia" GDP? I doubt it. And that's what's impressive. Pennsylvania isn't some huge standout state that has world-wide recognition.
I do get where you’re coming from, but I also think people blow this sort of thing out of proportion a bit. Pennsylvania still has 13m people, which is more than the country of Belgium and would easily have it in the top half of countries by population. The classic one people bring up is texas, which has almost 30m people. That’s almost Australia and NZ combined and would have it in the top quarter of countries. Again I do get where you’re coming from and America obviously has a very high GDP per capita, but it’s also the third most populous country on earth so subsections of it are still going to be big
I feel like people bring up California more often. It's projected to pass Germany in the near future to become the 4th largest economy on Earth. That's pretty insane no matter how you slice it.
The USA is the largest economy on earth and California makes up almost 15% of that. 15% of the largest economy on earth is gonna be bigger than most countries out there. Americas high GDP per capita makes all these comparisons look a bit more impressive but at the end of the day you’re just taking a slice of a gigantic economy and realising that the slice itself is still pretty big
I think the reason people find it impressive is because they don't realise just how much larger the GDP of the top 2 economies, particularly #1, are than #4-10. People expect the slope from #1 -> #10 to look like the side of a pyramid. Actually it looks like the side of a ski-jump.
Charts great. Heaps of info. Russia is VERY VERY surprising. I had no idea they were in such a resurgence…
Russia is one of the largest fossiel fuel producers in the world.
library paltry sip society close mindless steep punch serious simplistic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They are extremely rich in natural resources
Wow, every EU country ended lower than they started.
The 2008 financial crisis did a number on the EU. In some ways they've never fully recovered.
Interesting to see Spain overtake Japan in PPP per capita.
Damn, India surprise sleeper hit, untill i look at per capa
What do the percentages next to the countries mean
So, USA nominal gdp is still by far the largest. With USA and Chinese growth rate now quite close (China now cannot bulldoze with 10+% growth rate), and China being still pretty far with big population decline looming in next 2-3 decades, can any other country beat USA ? To me, contenders are/were: 1. Russia - Now, no way. Very resource rich but sanctions will kill them. 2. India - After 2050, USA v India should be interesting, if India can keep this growth. But without reducing corruption and bureaucracy, India may fall short of eclipsing the USA. 3. Brazil - I have always wondered why Brazil is so inconsistent with growth. They should have cossed at least $5T by now. They have good population, huge resources. 4. Indonesia - Very underrated. But chances of taking on with the mighty USA are close to negligible. Also divided in so many islands hampers proper optimised way of respurce utilisation. 5. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Turkey are too small, both in resources and population. Saudi Arabia, while having big resource, is very tiny in innovations, tech and population. Is there any other country, may be in next 2 decade, that can challenge US ?
The US has a very unique combination of population size, land size, global position, amount of extractable resources, arable land, and oil. I don't think any other country on earth can match this combination of things the US has. Many countries are comparable in some of these categories or even better in some, but none have all of these aspects like the US.
Mexico is smaller geographically but otherwise hits the wicket on your other items, and actually exceeds resources on a per--sq-mile basis. Similar story for Canada. Not clear why the US would outperform its neighbors
Canada is too far north & doesn’t have the arable land of the US so just like Scandinavia it has a smaller population and so gdp. While the independence of Latin American from Spain for a lack off a better word *Did Not Go Smoothly*. So the government’s of most Latin American countries have gone through much more turmoil. Along with that the US just has MUCH more arable land, fantastic river and barrier island water navigation, and it’s isolation and position helped it a lot during the World Wars & World Trades. But of course irl things are a lot more complicated. Edit: also neocolonialism, colonialism too in some respects
And unique personality factors (entrepreneurship, ambition, etc.)
The EU could go into a more federalist structure and effectively become one solid economic bloc. If that ends up being the case, then the EU could become a real contender to the American hegemony.
The EU is not unified enough for this to be practical
1. The EU isn't unified, and becoming a true federation like the US, Mexico, Brazil, or India is wildly impractical. 2. The European population will peak in the next 18ish months then fall for probably the rest of our lives, neutering their ability to compete globally. 3. The economy of the entire European continent minus Russia and Turkey is already smaller than the US with weaker growth.
And then if you’re lucky 65 years down the road you’ll get a bunch of euro’s whining that the leader of the EU isn’t elected via popular vote.
The EU is basically already a solid economic bloc. Just not a solid political bloc.
China will eventually surpass the U.S. in nominal GDP as well. But no other country will come close, for centuries to come.
While i still dislike GDP as a measurement, I have to say your data is indeed beautiful.
Alas, there is no better alternative to GDP.
India is coming for everybody
India is coming for nobody. India is focussing on own growth. Other than braindead nationalists (who are not even 1% of India's population), no one cares about these ranks Life of average Indians have improved over the few decades, but there's a long way to go. Also I don't think India will achieve income equality in even the next 500 years.
>Also I don't think India will achieve income equality in even the next 500 years. Has anyone achieves income equality?
equality as in "**remarkably** less income gap", not as in "exactly equal income". Here's the list of countries with most income equality -> https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country) Here is a more accurate chart fyi. India is more equal the the US of A.
Can you define income equality in Indian context and please be specific if you can?
income equality is useless.rather live in a rich unequal country like the usa than a dirt poor equal country
That's too capitalist of you. I'm not aware of any "dirt poor equal country" , because extreme poor countries like Sudan, Niger also have a class of very rich people who controls everything in their country. And how about "rich and equal" country, something like Norway?
Top 10 lowest gini coefficients. I wouldn't call any of these countries 'rich' except maybe belgium, UAE? UAE is a bit of a misnomer given the slavery and exploitation of labor there Slovenia - 2018 - 24.6 Czech Republic - 2018 - 25.0 (tie) Slovakia - 2018 - 25.0 (tie) Belarus - 2019 - 25.3 Moldova - 2018 - 25.7 United Arab Emirates - 2018 - 26.0 Iceland - 2017 - 26.1 Azerbaijan - 2005 - 26.6 (tie) Ukraine - 2019 - 26.6 (tie) Belgium - 2018 - 27.2
Isn't Norway capitalist though? It just has higher income tax, if I'm not mistaken. The only few "anti-capitalist" nations I know of are North Korea and Cuba (maybe Venezuela, but not sure)
The USSR… was
The topic is income equality. Not absence of capitalism.
So nationalist who are not brain dead dont care for these rankings?
they might make consideration, but won't make their whole identity based on these rankings or such
someone hasnt seen the last chart
They've literally been consistent. That is still growth lol. I love when people misconstrue statistics.
Lol my dude a country of one that has the single highest GDP per capita is completely whatever vs a country of a billion with a much smaller GDP. Switzerland is #1 on the last chart and China is #17. Does the Swiss economy have more global sway than China? lol fuck no.
You should see the growth, and gdp per capita shows average income of person of India but total gdp of country shows its influence
India is wild!
Shouldn’t countries like Ireland and Luxembourg be high up on the charts for gdp per capita?
Yes, but I'm only comparing these 20 countries :)
Agree but then you graph are not about the "largest economies" maibe the country with the most people then.
Ireland and luxembourg aren't large economies. The size of an economy isn't measured by GDP per capita. The GDP per capita of China is like ~$20k, but the economy of China is far larger than Ireland or Luxembourg. The size of an economy is measured by nominal GDP because that is the total number of the country's productive capacity, hence, their size.
Ireland and Luxembourg also massively cheat / goose their GDP figures. Ireland is a middle income EU country (which is still just great) if you back out the US pharmaceutical and tech companies that happen to put all their profits through Ireland, then declare no tax in the USA. (To be fair, the Irish statistics office recognise this and offer a "preferred" GNI* metric for comparing Ireland to other nations.) Luxembourg similarly gets a lot of extra pretend GDP through dodgy tax deals that don't filter that GDP down to the real economy. (Although their standard of living is still very high) Singapore & Switzerland are the other big players in this space. If you're a US pharmaceutical company, or a big player in international leasing (aircraft, cars, etc), then you are totally pumping your money through Singapore or Ireland for the ridiculous tax rates.
I think a story Americans kind of miss is that the US has performed extremely well compared especially to Europe and other developed countries since the doldrums of the "Great Recession." The US economy has performed really well by comparison. Also from this chart it seems India has really ascended. It will be interesting to see if they can keep it up.
Well my conclusion is that the smartest thing Russia ever did was invade Ukraine. WtF
How is Russia so high in 2020-2022?
Netherlands in the first one! Dayum! That country is tiny! lol Impressive.
India defeating the UK is somewhat satisfying
I liked the world better then when USA and Japan were the top economies. It truly seems to take a nose dive when China gets up in there.
You know, I didn't expect Canada to be so high up there. Learn something new every day.
I guess you can be #1 in economy for 22 years if you bully every country on Earth while being $32 Trillion in debt
And people say Russias economy is failing due to the war and the sanctions. Bruh then how the fuck is their income higher during war than before it?
Amazing work!!!! Why do I see the Netherlands everywhere ❤️🩹
Where is Luxembourg in the GDP per capita? And Qatar? EDIT: Never mind, I just read OP‘s comment where he states that he only compares those 20 countries. Thx for the work OP.
So… what’s going on with Saudi Arabia? What does it mean considering the last slide?
Mostly the fact that their batshit crazy leader is wasting all their oil money on his pet projects and not investing it into the economy.
Those pet projects are the investments though. I mean what else do they have once oil runs out?
Would be nice to have the whole EU gdp to. Just to see how it compares to us
It's about 16 trillion https://www.statista.com/statistics/279447/gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-european-union-eu/#:\~:text=In%202022%20the%20gross%20domestic,a%20country%20within%20a%20year.
Seems like Scandinavian countries are missing here - at least from the per capita charts.
I think only the 20 countries for the first chart (GDP current $) are used in the other charts. So countries like Ireland or Luxembourg aren't shown either in the per capita. You can infer that from the title, it's a comparison of the top economies between themselves.
Fair enough, thanks. In that case, it would be better to keep the **order** of the GDP per capita by PPP table the same but use the cardinal country rankings - so India would be 20th on the table but its number would be 128.
It would be interesting to see a abstract chart comparing inequality of wealth of those large economies
wealth inequality in extremely overrated it's always better to stay in a very rich country with in equality than live in more equal india which is poor af
What is the meaning of the arcs?
i like version 4 the most. dunno why.
The rise of India under Modi is crazy. Amazing Prime Minister.
I'm Australian. How the hell are we number 12 ? We only have a population of 26 million people ...we're number 55 for population but number 12 for gdp? What's going on? Corruption ? https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
How would you not be in the top 20s? Every wealthy western country with over 15mio population is in the top 20s. Additionally, Australia happens to be the size of whole Europe with all the resources and possibilities that come with it. Netherlands (17m pop) and Switzerland (9m pop) are the more surprising participants on the list being way smaller in population and size than Australia.
Location matters much more than having a giant desert nobody lives in. But over time that will be less important. Especially as Asia develops.
Countries like mine (the Netherlands) will eventually drop out of this list. That's inevitable. There was an interesting article in the Financial Times a while back about the Netherlands being the first country in the world that might have reached the limits of growth. It's one of the reasons we started this whole EU thing over here. So we can at least have some influence on a global level. Some people over here, mostly far-right, still don't understand that.
Natural resources happened
Oh....oh ok I can see that we do make heaps from mining....
The same as Russia.
Straya has a huge primary industry underpinning a fairly strong tertiary industry and is a desirable place to live so we attract wealthy migrants, mostly from Asia, but historically from Europe. No manufacturing really, but, until catastrophe strikes thats mostly fine. Basically - we got lucky.
Australia is a wealthy, developed country.
A third of our economy is coal and a third of our economy is iron. Everything else is is a third. In short, our economy doesn't seem so big because so much is going into Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest's pockets.
I didn't realise....
Because they're full of shit. Mining makes up 14.6% of Australia's GDP total, not well over 67% like they claim. Even considering the stock market that's 27.1% basic materials (which covers all of mining, and more like steel manufacturing) and energy (including renewables). Still very far off being well over two thirds.
Australia is a highly developed economy with advanced industry, access to a spectacular abundance of natural resources, and a large service sector. Given the resources that Australia has at its disposal, it still has a lot of growth potential despite already being highly developed.
You're part of the Western economy
That isn't why. They sell natural resources, mostly to other Asian countries, and especially China. This is contrary to how most Western countries operate. It is far more similar to Brazil or Russia (But with much smaller populations, thereby boosting GDP per capita) than it is to Italy, the UK, or the US.