The United States of the World...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
First off, as a CT resident, it's sorta my job to rip on Jersey. I can't explain why. It just is.

It's because Jersey is better than Connecticut and therefore you must try to bring down that which is better than you.

[Arrian]

It was so great you went to Atlanta.



-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only because it hardly ever snows in Atlanta (and when it does it is pitiful amounts). Not snowing for the win .

[Arrian]

Bah!

Snow

-Arrian

[Sava]

dammit, what's the point of making jokes about an Illinois politician if none of my fellow Illinoisianeses is going to read it?


and once again, I blame rah

[Dinner]

France GDP (purchasing power parity): $1.794 trillion (2005 est.)

California GDP (Nominal): $1,621 trillion (2005 est.)
California GDP (PPP): $1,544 trillion. (2004 est.)

France has 200-250 billion a year on us.

Population of California: 33.8 million
Population of France: 60.8 million

So each Californian is worth way more then each frog.

[Arrian]

California > France.

Done and done.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Will9
Me a Saudi living in Denmark. Noooooooooooooooooo! I won't be able to stand living in the birthplace of legal gay marriage.

BTW, Winston must now belive my word in Truthiness.

You're Saudi?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only because it hardly ever snows in Atlanta (and when it does it is pitiful amounts). Not snowing for the win .

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I am pleased to see the EU is kicking arse though

You're still second place to NAFTA

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
California GDP (Nominal): $1,621 trillion (2005 est.)
California GDP (PPP): $1,544 trillion. (2004 est.)

I know I've been doing too much economics when that made me laugh out loud. I realise they're different years, hence the disparity, but by definition US GDP is the same in nominal dollars or by PPP, since PPP is rebased to US dollars.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Population of California: 33.8 million
Population of France: 60.8 million

So each Californian is worth way more then each frog.

However remember here you're looking at GDP per capita for one of the wealthiest parts of the US, but the whole of France. If you compare one of the wealthiest parts of France, like say Paris or the French Riviera, I'm sure you'd get a very different story.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Drogue
However remember here you're looking at GDP per capita for one of the wealthiest parts of the US, but the whole of France. If you compare one of the wealthiest parts of France, like say Paris or the French Riviera, I'm sure you'd get a very different story.

That's not quite accurate considering the poorest US states like Mississippi and Arkansas still have per capita GDPs equal to or higher than France.

The biggest factor is simply economies of scale. Each state is (obviously) a part of a massive global superpower with 300 million people. That means that stuff produced in any given state has the benefit of a huge internal first world market without many of the redundancies and inconsistencies (such as language or culture) found in the EU. If California was truly an independent country - and had been for some time - certain areas of it's output would undoubtably be much smaller. The entertainment industry, for one, would likely be a fraction of the size it currently is. Ditto much of the stuff around defense contracting and/or the military in general. The tech sector would probably be considerably smaller too given the need for people/products/ideas to cross international boundaries. And so on...

[Will9]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You're Saudi?

I from Tennessee which the map said was Saudi Arabian.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Drogue

I know I've been doing too much economics when that made me laugh out loud. I realise they're different years, hence the disparity, but by definition US GDP is the same in nominal dollars or by PPP, since PPP is rebased to US dollars.


However remember here you're looking at GDP per capita for one of the wealthiest parts of the US, but the whole of France. If you compare one of the wealthiest parts of France, like say Paris or the French Riviera, I'm sure you'd get a very different story.

and california is including neighborhoods like East LA and south central.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dis
and california is including neighborhoods like East LA and south central.

They're likely to have a bigger GDP per capita than remote French areas. Generally speaking, urban areas are very productive, regardless of how distribution is distributed afterwards.