Rate the G8 in order of importance

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think raw GDP as a total is that helpful. As with India, if it takes a billion people to get there it might not be as significant.

What are better numbers to look at? I suggested exports and per capita GDP.

On military matters, what does it matter if a country has more soldiers if those soldiers mostly don't do anything? There are 1300 Italians in Afghanistan. There are 2000 Canucks. I think what the military does outside the country is more important than how many people are in it, unless you're talking the Russians or Chinese. Neither Canada nor Italy are anywhere close to that.

I disagree. The kind of benchmarks you are advocating are more useful for bragging rights. They are not useful as a measure of power. Power is best measured with the raw numbers.

Yes, this means that a country with a GDP of 1 trillion and a population of a billion should be regarded as having at least ten times the economic influence of another country with a GDP of 100 billion and a population of 10 million even though the country with the smaller population would have a GDP per capita 10 times as high as the more populous country.

As to exports I frankly don't see how they confer any special influence apart from in the particular countries that import those exports. Canada gains substantial economic importance to the US as a result of it's exports but Canada's US exports confer no influence whatsoever on other locations. If we reject this view and insist that exports intrinsically increase international influence in general then we find ourselves forced to accept the bizarre conclusion that a totally disunited europe would command vastly more influence than a united pan european state because such a state would have vastly fewer total exports than the sum of the exports of it's constituent countries had been when they were independant.

[notyoueither]

We're not comparing Lichtenstein and the PRC. We're comparing two countries of simlilar economic scales.

Country A has 58 million people, per capita GDP of 29,000, exports of 371 billion. It also has unstable government, can't balance a budget if their lives depended on it, are facing sanctions from their major trading partners for defaulting on agreements, and is resource starved.

Country B has 33 million people, per capita GDP of 34,000, exports 364 billion. It has a long and short term history of stable government, has been running bugetary surpluses for most of 10 years, is winning trade spats with it's major trading partner, and is filthy rich beyond imagination in resources.

You tell me which is stronger economically.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and country A has a balance of trade of 2.7 billion. Country B has a balance of trade of 47.1 billion.

[Seeker]

I don't understand why no one is ranking the G-8 in order of Phallic size??

Why not? It seems obvious and is the most important ranking.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I disagree. The kind of benchmarks you are advocating are more useful for bragging rights. They are not useful as a measure of power. Power is best measured with the raw numbers.

Yes, this means that a country with a GDP of 1 trillion and a population of a billion should be regarded as having at least ten times the economic influence of another country with a GDP of 100 billion and a population of 10 million even though the country with the smaller population would have a GDP per capita 10 times as high as the more populous country.

I disagree. A country with a vast, impoverished population probably has significantly less economic influence despite overall higher GDP because it has far fewer of the people who matter to the decision-makers - the rich and the middle class. Canada probably consumes more of a lot of products than India, despite being a thirtieth the size, because almost all of its populous can afford those consumer goods.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Seeker
I don't understand why no one is ranking the G-8 in order of Phallic size??

Why not? It seems obvious and is the most important ranking.

They're all afraid of our Baffin Island.

[Krill]

Better Question, Where in the G8 would you prefer ot live?

Canada,
UK,
Germany,
Everyone else except,
.
.
.
.
.
USA

[Kuciwalker]

0/10

Unless you'd actually prefer to live in Russia or, god forbid, France before the US.

[Krill]

Hoest to god, I would. So long as I got to pick where in Russia.

If I was just deported to some where in a country, that yeah, USA would be above Russia. USA would still be seventh though, I don't particular want to visit Siberia anytime soon...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I disagree. A country with a vast, impoverished population probably has significantly less economic influence despite overall higher GDP because it has far fewer of the people who matter to the decision-makers - the rich and the middle class.

I can't see how foreign middle class people would exert any influence on decision-makers at all. As to the rich, countries with low per capita income and huge GDPs and huge populations invariably produce some very wealthy individuals owing at least in part to the uneven distribution of the countries wealth.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Canada probably consumes more of a lot of products than India, despite being a thirtieth the size, because almost all of its populous can afford those consumer goods.

You can't really have GDP without consumption of products and services. India's billion plus people may be poor but they are still collectively consuming a crapload of products and services.

Furthermore they will be seen as an untapped market. There is tremendous pressure on decision makers to do nothing that will upset access to such untapped markets, whereas "tapped markets" like Canada will only attract demands for guarenteed access from those interests that already have established a presence there.

[Kuciwalker]

I can't see how foreign middle class people would exert any influence on decision-makers at all.

They would on the decision-makers that manufacture iPods and notebooks and microwaves and TV's and all manner of consumer goods.

You can't really have GDP without consumption of products and services. India's billion plus people may be poor but they are still collectively consuming a crapload of products and services.

The vast majority of them are consuming relatively basic goods, though, like food and fuel, not consumer goods. Their position is largely to work for food and shelter.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They would on the decision-makers that manufacture iPods and notebooks and microwaves and TV's and all manner of consumer goods.

The vast majority of them are consuming relatively basic goods, though, like food and fuel, not consumer goods. Their position is largely to work for food and shelter.

Quite apart from the fact that items like cell phones, TVs and all manner of consumer goods are amazingly ubiquitous in countries like India what makes you so sure that the manufacturers of those particular kinds of products have more geopolitical sway than the producers of others sorts of goods and services?

[Kuciwalker]

Because people think about them more.

[RGBVideo]

It also has unstable government, can't balance a budget if their lives depended on it, are facing sanctions from their major trading partners for defaulting on agreements, and is resource starved.

If I'd think both of these claims were true it'd mean Italy is facing an imminent economic collapse and I'd agree with you. But Berlusconi has now been kicked out so budget deficits will probably get lowered a bit and EU is so impotent it'll never slap it's own member country with sanctions for economic reasons.

Again, you have to realise that large debt is mostly a problem of the future.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Krill
Hoest to god, I would. So long as I got to pick where in Russia.

If I was just deported to some where in a country, that yeah, USA would be above Russia. USA would still be seventh though, I don't particular want to visit Siberia anytime soon...

What would be so horrible in living in the USA?