Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Detroit was never "the" US economic hub as the midwestern states and cities never passed the northeastern states and cities in economic influence and size, and as said before, the rust belt is still economically pretty powerful and the malaise it has was mostly within its urban centers (which does suck) while their suburbs continued to grow for quite a while or never stopped growing depending on the Rust Belt city. It's a bit akin to saying that Greater Manchester not so long ago was the latest UK economic hub because it had a strong growth spurt, but in reality, it was never anywhere close to being as prominent an economic center as Greater London was for the UK. Anyhow, as demolished as the urban core of Detroit is from policies over the latter half of the 20th century, the economic heft of the Detroit metropolitan area is still pretty sizable.
GDP does have well documented problems though nominal value is important for talking about trade and does correlate to some degree to standards of living which is why I think it's nuts to consider it irrelevant or meaningless. Getting GDP of subnational entities is a pretty common thing and it helps to get a barometer on economic conditions and trajectories. Now, there are issues with it in terms of trying to understand the actual quality of life which is why measures such as purchasing power parity exist, or going further from GDP, measures like HDI. I do think it's possible that GDP by purchasing power parity puts California behind UK, but it'd good to have a link to the actual study to understand how they were calculating such especially if that 11th place was via purchasing power parity which would put it close to where the UK is currently ranked in GDP by PPP. When it comes to HDI, California would be in the 16th slot among countries which isn't bad.
What is now the US rust belt was a major benefactor in terms of US GDP.
In terms of the UK, London has been the main generator of GDP for centuries.
As for California, it's not a country, it's just a region in the US, which as easthome has previously pointed out, only does well because it's part of a much larger country rather than being a sovereign state and is not comparable with the UK, Europe or other parts of the world.
Geographically much of Europe's GDP is collectively closer together than Californian GDP, it is only political definitions that divide such areas, and to try and use a non sovereign state in a country against the UK and parts of Europe is just pure nonsense.
It also should be noted that a lot of Californian GDP is due to public administration and the vast US Military Industrial Complex, the vast US Prison Industrial Complex or other Keynesian economic type systems that relate to the US in terms of a country or in terms of state priority.
It's also worth noting that health care in the US is far more expensive than in the UK, and generates a far higher percentage of GDP, so it's not comparing like for like.
What is now the US rust belt was a major benefactor in terms of US GDP.
In terms of the UK, London has been the main generator of GDP for centuries.
As for California, it's not a country, it's just a region in the US, which as easthome has previously pointed out, only does well because it's part of a much larger country rather than being a sovereign state and is not comparable with the UK, Europe or other parts of the world.
Geographically much of Europe's GDP is collectively closer together than Californian GDP, it is only political definitions that divide such areas, and to try and use a non sovereign state in a country against the UK and parts of Europe is just pure nonsense.
It also should be noted that a lot of Californian GDP is due to public administration and the vast US Military Industrial Complex, the vast US Prison Industrial Complex or other Keynesian economic type systems that relate to the US in terms of a country or in terms of state priorithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#/media/File:California_GDP_by_sector_2017.png
The Rust Belt still in some ways is a major benefactor in terms of US GDP. I think there's a kind of confusion going on here about what the Rust Belt actually is. That area is still an economic juggernaut. However, other parts of the US outpaced it in growth which makes sense given the US increase in population and GDP (including GDP per capita) in the latter half of the 20th century was massive. It's also not that the Rust Belt regions just deflated--it's that their urban centers as with a lot of urban centers in the US outside of the Rust Belt, were hit really hard via poorly placed highways, urban renewal policies, and large subsidies to suburbanization. The metropolitan areas still grew for a while with some of them never having stopped growing, but the city centers generally got hit really hard.
Yes, I think people are aware California is not a country. It's not generally called a region in the US (the region is often just the West Coast which is more expansive), but a state in the US. It's hard to say that it does well solely from being part of a larger country because we don't have the other part of this to A/B test where we can look at alternate histories of California as a nation-state. It simply does not exist in a reasonable way. California does have to pay into that federal system which redistributes quite a bit of wealth on the federal level. It also doesn't get to make decisions solely for its benefits as there is a very prominent federal level. And as mentioned before, California does get companies poached from it due to the ease of moving company HQs and jobs within states, so there's a lot of that as well. Is that to California's net benefit? Well, to some extent sure and to its detriment as well and it's really hard to make a definitive case for what an independent California would be like and if it would be economically more or less powerful. Yes, it does have access to a large single market, but so did the UK for a long while so having a separate nation-state apparently is not a disqualifier from being part of a large single market. As I'm sure you're aware, the UK did have the option of being part of a much larger market and entity, but enough people at a certain point of time voted to separate from that entity rather than further integrate. If you think California's boon over the UK for the last six years has a lot to do with being part of a much larger market and entity, well, it's not like the UK didn't have the option.
If this topic is difficult for you, why not just create a topic about the US versus the UK for size of the economy? Or one about California versus England? You understand that you're in a topic that is very much California's GDP in relation to the size of the GDP of other nation-states right?
The Rust Belt still in some ways is a major benefactor in terms of US GDP. I think there's a kind of confusion going on here about what the Rust Belt actually is. That area is still an economic juggernaut. However, other parts of the US outpaced it in growth which makes sense given the US increase in population and GDP (including GDP per capita) in the latter half of the 20th century was massive. It's also not that the Rust Belt regions just deflated--it's that their urban centers as with a lot of urban centers in the US outside of the Rust Belt, were hit really hard via poorly placed highways, urban renewal policies, and large subsidies to suburbanization. The metropolitan areas still grew for a while with some of them never having stopped growing, but the city centers generally got hit really hard.
Yes, I think people are aware California is not a country. It's not generally called a region in the US (the region is often just the West Coast which is more expansive), but a state in the US. It's hard to say that it does well solely from being part of a larger country because we don't have the other part of this to A/B test where we can look at alternate histories of California as a nation-state. It simply does not exist in a reasonable way. California does have to pay into that federal system which redistributes quite a bit of wealth on the federal level. It also doesn't get to make decisions solely for its benefits as there is a very prominent federal level. And as mentioned before, California does get companies poached from it due to the ease of moving company HQs and jobs within states, so there's a lot of that as well. Is that to California's net benefit? Well, to some extent sure and to its detriment as well and it's really hard to make a definitive case for what an independent California would be like and if it would be economically more or less powerful. Yes, itt does have access to a large single market, but so did the UK for a long while so having a separate nation-state apparently is not a disqualifier from being part of a large single market.
If this topic is difficult for you, why not just create a topic about the US versus the UK for size of the economy? Or one about California versus England? You understand that you're in a topic that is very much California's GDP in relation to the size of the GDP of other nation-states right?
I could easily create one in relation to numerous European regions having higher GDP than some American regions however like comparing California to the UK, it would not be comparing like for like.
The truth being that a lot of European cities with high GDP rates are fairly geographically close together and form regions with high levels of GDP, whilst California is part of a vast political sovereign country and enjoys high levels of GDP due to this.
I could easily create one in relation to numerous European regions having higher GDP than some American regions however like comparing California to the UK, it would not be comparing like for like.
Then do so! This topic was about California's economy compared to that of other nation-states and was made when it had just overtaken the UK's in nominal value six years ago. That's more of an artifact of the times, because the UK is no longer the national economy closest in size (by nominal value) to California today six years after this post was created. I do think you forget though that California isn't generally a region--it's a state. Usually the breakdown for regions in the area would be the West Coast. I do think it's funny though that if the gripe is a hierarchical mismatch between a nation-state and a subnational entity one "peg" down from nation-state, that the response would then to even further the distance by trying to compare that subnational entity to supranational entity one peg up from nation-state.
I do think it'd be interesting if we're talking about economic power and influence to go by trade blocs though. The European single market is massive and it's arguable the degree of its integration is greater versus the USMCA. If I'm not mistaken, if the UK were still part of the European single market, then it would have more people in it than USMCA does.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-14-2023 at 08:46 AM..
Then do so! This topic was about California's economy compared to that of other nation-states and was made when it had just overtaken the UK's in nominal value six years ago. That's more of an artifact of the times, because the UK is no longer the national economy closest in size (by nominal value) to California today six years after this post was created. I do think you forget though that California isn't generally a region--it's a state. Usually the breakdown for regions in the area would be the West Coast.
The topic is irrelevant, as it's not comparing like for like, or taking in to account numerous issues such as the fact California is a region that does well from being part of a large country, and therefore enjoys a lot of benefits from the Federal Government and US industrial complexes, as well as being one of the major hubs for US companies.
In Europe, large companies tend to be based in their respective sovereign nations, however in the US many companies tend to locate themselves in the big hubs such as New York and California.
It also should be noted that UK cities are usually far closer to their European counterparts than many American cities are to each other, the distance between London, Lille, Brussels and Paris in terms of train journeys or short haul flights to most European cities.
Europe and it's regions are therefore different to the US and you can use all kinds of definitions in relation to trying to back up statistics that are often related to currency rates.
In terms of gdp, the British Isles has a higher gdp than California, as does the UK and France which make up Western Europe.
The topic is irrelevant, as it's not comparing like for like, or taking in to account numerous issues such as the fact California is a region that does well from being part of a large country, and therefore enjoys a lot of benefits from the Federal Government and US industrial complexes, as well as being one of the major hubs for US companies.
In Europe, large companies tend to be based in their respective sovereign nations, however in the US many companies tend to locate themselves in the big hubs such as New York and California.
It also should be noted that UK cities are usually far closer to their European counterparts than many American cities are to each other, the distance between London, Lille, Brussels and Paris in terms of train journeys or short haul flights to most European cities.
Europe and it's regions are therefore different to the US and you can use all kinds of definitions in relation to trying to back up statistics that are often related to currency rates.
In terms of gdp, the British Isles has a higher gdp than California.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to California being part of the US, and it's impossible to say how things would have developed as a separate nation-state or how that would have been possible. Remember, the UK also had the option of being part of a much larger entity and single market. There have been many large corporate consolidations throughout Europe going past national boundaries. There have been many companies moved away from New York and California or were established elsewhere. Neither New York nor California nor the two of them combined have anything close to majority of the US economy.
Sure, European cities are geographically close to each other. Aside from the Great Plains and Alaska, major US companies and cities are also pretty close to each other.
Sure, the British Isles (that includes Ireland, right?) have a higher GDP than California. Ireland's certainly been seeing a lot of growth! Dublin's pretty well-positioned as an English-speaking city within the European single market and it appears that's brought a lot of European regional HQs to there. I visited there specifically because my spouse's company in the US at the time was setting up there, and it was pretty wild how much new construction was going up.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to California being part of the US, and it's impossible to say how things would have developed as a separate nation-state or how that would have been possible. Remember, the UK also had the option of being part of a much larger entity and single market. There have been many large corporate consolidations throughout Europe going past national boundaries. There have been many companies moved away from New York and California or were established elsewhere. Neither New York nor California nor the two of them combined have anything close to majority of the US economy.
Sure, European cities are geographically close to each other. Aside from the Great Plains and Alaska, major US companies and cities are also pretty close to each other.
Sure, the British Isles (that includes Ireland, right?) have a higher GDP than California. Ireland's certainly been seeing a lot of growth! Dublin's pretty well-positioned as an English-speaking city within the European single market and it appears that's brought a lot of European regional HQs to there. I visited there specifically because my spouse's company in the US at the time was setting up there, and it was pretty wild how much new construction was going up.
In terms of the UK it has second highest GDP in Europe and -
* The London Stock Exchange remains Europe’s most active equity market and in 2022 welcomed more international companies than any other major exchange, whilst the UK is the fifth highest destination for inbound FDI stocks.
* The UK ranked second behind the USA in terms of estimated life science inward foreign direct investment (FDI) capital expenditure in 2O21.
* The London Metal Exchange is the world centre for the trading of industrial metals. The majority of global non-ferrous metal futures business is transacted on LME platforms.
* The London insurance market is the biggest global commercial and speciality risk market in the world.
* The UK is ranked fourth in the global Cyber Power Index, and is home to 122 tech unicorns, behind only the US and China for the creation of billion dollar tech companies, and first in Europe.
* The UK was ranked third globally for startup funding in 2022.
* The UK has four universities in the top 10 and second most of any country in the top 100.
* The UK is the largest exporter of books in the entire world, and is a global centre in terms of arts and culture, including significant investment in film and television production and studios, making it one of the largest such centres outside of California.
* Whilst in terms of sport the Premier League is broadcast in 188 countries and reaches audiences in the billions.
* The The UK is ranked fourth in the Global Innovation Index.
* There are 18,926 UK-based NGOs spending over £17bn improving outcomes around the world.
* The UK ranks third in the OECD for the proportion of international students enrolled in tertiary institutions.
* The UK ranked second in the G7 and OECD in terms of defence spending, having spent $68bn in 2021.
* The UK has consistently been the second largest contributor to NATO, having met NATO’s 2% target every year since its introduction in 2006,
* The UK ranks third most important country for investment among global CEOs in 2023 – one place higher than last year and behind only the US and China. The UK is ranked third in the G7 on development spending, as a percentage of GNI in 2021.
* The UK is one of the largest donors to the World Health Oragnization, and the largest provider of flexible core voluntary contributions.
As for construction and investment, a lot of major British cities have had substantial amounts of investment and there are numerous impressive infrastructure and construction projects.
So there is plenty of scope in terms of future long term economic growth and GDP in the UK.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-15-2023 at 03:08 AM..
As for the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was upbeat during today's Spring Budget Speech in which he reviewed the country's economic performance and investment, and set out longer term economic strategies to encourage growth, investment and productivity.
Oh yea, I strongly believe the UK will get back to economic growth at some point. Nothing I've seen of projections seems to point to economic contraction extending out for very long periods.
I do think California will also probably see economic growth at least the near term, and I think there's a chance that its GDP by nominal value at some point beats Germany's, though I think its lead on India is likely going to be quite temporary. I also think it'd be interesting to see if California is and remains the largest GDP for a subnational entity in the world. I think England comes in second or Texas or New York, and then after those Guangdong.
In terms of the UK it has second highest GDP in Europe and -
* The London Stock Exchange remains Europe’s most active equity market and in 2022 welcomed more international companies than any other major exchange, whilst the UK is the fifth highest destination for inbound FDI stocks.
* The UK ranked second behind the USA in terms of estimated life science inward foreign direct investment (FDI) capital expenditure in 2O21.
* The London Metal Exchange is the world centre for the trading of industrial metals. The majority of global non-ferrous metal futures business is transacted on LME platforms.
* The London insurance market is the biggest global commercial and speciality risk market in the world.
* The UK is ranked fourth in the global Cyber Power Index, and is home to 122 tech unicorns, behind only the US and China for the creation of billion dollar tech companies, and first in Europe.
* The UK was ranked third globally for startup funding in 2022.
* The UK has four universities in the top 10 and second most of any country in the top 100.
* The UK is the largest exporter of books in the entire world, and is a global centre in terms of arts and culture, including significant investment in film and television production and studios, making it one of the largest such centres outside of California.
* Whilst in terms of sport the Premier League is broadcast in 188 countries and reaches audiences in the billions.
* The The UK is ranked fourth in the Global Innovation Index.
* There are 18,926 UK-based NGOs spending over £17bn improving outcomes around the world.
* The UK ranks third in the OECD for the proportion of international students enrolled in tertiary institutions.
* The UK ranked second in the G7 and OECD in terms of defence spending, having spent $68bn in 2021.
* The UK has consistently been the second largest contributor to NATO, having met NATO’s 2% target every year since its introduction in 2006,
* The UK ranks third most important country for investment among global CEOs in 2023 – one place higher than last year and behind only the US and China. The UK is ranked third in the G7 on development spending, as a percentage of GNI in 2021.
* The UK is one of the largest donors to the World Health Oragnization, and the largest provider of flexible core voluntary contributions.
As for construction and investment, a lot of major British cities have had substantial amounts of investment and there are numerous impressive infrastructure and construction projects.
So there is plenty of scope in terms of future long term economic growth and GDP in the UK.
UK's productivity level and GDP per capita growth are lagging compared to the US and the UK's European peers. Brexit is such an unforced error not adding value to these indicators.
Also - the fact that one state's economy (California) is such a juggernaut speaks volumes to the sheer scale of the US economy, especially compared to that of the UK, which is definitely past its Empire glory days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
