The U.S. national debt surpassed $32 trillion for the first time on Thursday, according to Treasury Department data released today. The milestone comes less than two weeks after President Joe Biden signed into law the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, his compromise with Republicans led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to trim spending by a projected $1.5 trillion over a decade and suspend the nation’s debt limit until January 2025. Total public debt outstanding — which includes debt held by the
Using GDP as a measure is completely meaningless because much of US GDP is fictitious. For example, healthcare insurance industry accounts for a large chunk of GDP in US employing tons of people while providing net negative value.
The reality is that US spends more on military than the next 10 countries combined. It’s over 800 billion at this point, and this only accounts for direct military spending, and the real number is much higher.
For context, overall manufacturing output of US is only around $1.9 trillion.
Well, no, because that sentence doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as a “PPP adjusted GDP,” PPP is just a way of measuring GDP. I’m suggesting that if you want to use PPP to measure GDP, by all means, use PPP. PPP merely corrects for currency imbalances.
In other words, if you don’t like nominal GDP (valid), by all means, use PPP. Both PPP and nominal GDP are measures of GDP though.
SO: China spends between 1.7% of its total economic output directly on its military. The US spends closer to 3.5%.
If the US spent what China does, as a percentage of GDP, that would be just shy of $400bn. A lot of money, for sure, but we’re closing on a $2.0 trillion budget deficit.
PPP is purchasing power people have within their country. So, yes, PPP adjusted GDP makes sense and it means measuring GDP while adjusting for the actual purchasing power it represents. Stop using sophistry to pretend like you’re saying something meaningful here.
As you finally admit, regardless how you measure, US spends a far higher portion of its GDP on the military than China does. However, the whole picture is that China is far more industrialized than US is, and has far more productive GDP. On the other hand, a lot of US GDP is fictitious, such as health insurance industry. This industry creates a ton of jobs that bump up GDP on paper, but produces no actual value for the people of the country. Hence why looking at US industrial portion of the GDP for comparison makes far more sense. That’s the actual productive GDP in the country.
I’m also not sure what the budget deficit has to do with any of this.
Except, the money is being spent on a bloated military budget while US keeps cutting social services and other kinds of productive spending.
Not really
Using GDP as a measure is completely meaningless because much of US GDP is fictitious. For example, healthcare insurance industry accounts for a large chunk of GDP in US employing tons of people while providing net negative value.
The reality is that US spends more on military than the next 10 countries combined. It’s over 800 billion at this point, and this only accounts for direct military spending, and the real number is much higher.
For context, overall manufacturing output of US is only around $1.9 trillion.
Unless we’re going to start paying soldiers $1,000/yr (roughly what China does), that’s going to be the reality.
And New York City’s manufacturing output is almost nothing. Manufacturing isn’t GDP.
You seem to be ignoring the concept of purchasing power here.
My point was that GDP is not a useful metric, and I even gave you a concrete example of why.
By all means, use PPP.
Use PPP if you prefer.
You’re the one who compared US spending to China’s in absolute dollars.
Are you seriously arguing that the portion of US military spending in terms of PPP adjusted GDP is comparable to China?
Well, no, because that sentence doesn’t make any sense. There’s no such thing as a “PPP adjusted GDP,” PPP is just a way of measuring GDP. I’m suggesting that if you want to use PPP to measure GDP, by all means, use PPP. PPP merely corrects for currency imbalances.
In other words, if you don’t like nominal GDP (valid), by all means, use PPP. Both PPP and nominal GDP are measures of GDP though.
SO: China spends between 1.7% of its total economic output directly on its military. The US spends closer to 3.5%.
If the US spent what China does, as a percentage of GDP, that would be just shy of $400bn. A lot of money, for sure, but we’re closing on a $2.0 trillion budget deficit.
PPP is purchasing power people have within their country. So, yes, PPP adjusted GDP makes sense and it means measuring GDP while adjusting for the actual purchasing power it represents. Stop using sophistry to pretend like you’re saying something meaningful here.
As you finally admit, regardless how you measure, US spends a far higher portion of its GDP on the military than China does. However, the whole picture is that China is far more industrialized than US is, and has far more productive GDP. On the other hand, a lot of US GDP is fictitious, such as health insurance industry. This industry creates a ton of jobs that bump up GDP on paper, but produces no actual value for the people of the country. Hence why looking at US industrial portion of the GDP for comparison makes far more sense. That’s the actual productive GDP in the country.
I’m also not sure what the budget deficit has to do with any of this.