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.
Sometimes I think we should just give up! lol. Let them spread their ridiculous propaganda! Lets just tell them what they want to hear, lets pretend we are all dirt poor so that they can feel better about scenes like this:-
It's all nonsense, for instance Mississippi has a population of 2.95 million and a GDP of $138 billion , the UK has a population of nearly 68 million and a GDP of £3.131 trillion USD (2021).
In terms of GDP, Scotland alone with a GDP of over $200 billion USD has a larger GDP than Mississippi, as indeed does Ireland.
As for the GDP of England it is England $2.52 trillion (including London) and $1.81 trillion (excluding London).
The North West region of England, which includes the major cities of Manchester and Liverpool has a GDP of approximately £207.7 billion pounds ($263 billion United States Dollars) which is far more than Mississippi, and the same applies to South East England and Yorkshire.
There's no comparison between the two and both are very different in terms of how they generate GDP, although the best way to generate a high GDP is to be a tax cost haven, with money running through it, however this doesn't always lead to a wealthy population, as the money that flows through a nation doesn't usually stay there, despite it adding to GDP transactions.
It should also be noted that European economic sectors and regions are very close together, and are only an hour or two away by train making for a totally different situation to that of the US.
As for the UK it is investing heavily in transport, communications, energy and other infrastructure, deregulating some of it's markets, making new trade deals and encouraging more investment and research, especially in terms of tech, pharma, bio-techs and finance. Whilst manufacturing in the UK is often high end and specialist.
As for GDP per capita, the Isle of Man and Ireland have a higher GDP per capita than the US, as does Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Cayman Islands and Qatar. Inner London has a large GDP per capita as do lots of other places but as you rightly point out easthome GDP is not a good measurement unless you are comparing like for like, and this isn't usually the case when comparing some obscure state or region or even in relation to countries of varying sizes and populations, with different internal markets and different natural resources and economic structures.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-14-2023 at 04:16 PM..
The important metric is "purchasing power index" because it considers both income and the cost of living. For example, country A may have a slightly higher income than country B, but if the cost of living in country A is much higher, the citizens of country B will actually be better off than those in country A because the citizens in country B have greater purchasing power.
The purchasing power index shows US citizens significantly better off than UK citizens with a PPI of 100, versus only 65 for the UK.
The more prosperous countries in Europe (France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, all of Scandanavia) have higher PPI's than the UK. The less prosperous countries of Europe (Spain, Italy) have PPI's similar to the UK. Eastern European countries have lower PPI's than the UK.
Britain, is dominated by London, a city where the cost of living is expensive just as it is in New York or Paris, and the areas around London such as the South East are also extremely expensive.
To put things in perspective the current population of London is 9,648,110 and is predicted to top the 10 million level in the next decade, as for the regions that surround London, the South East has a population of 9.175 million (2019), whilst the East of England has a population of 6,.235 million (2019), with the bulk of the population being in the neighbouring home counties.
In reality housing is not cheap like, especially in and around London, just as it's not cheap in the Bay area or NYC and parts of it's metro, however the US is a much larger country and in many so called fly over states or places such as the rust belt and Appalachia or numerous other places, the cost of property and living will be miniscule.
So if you are a miner or engineer or farmer or whatever living in these areas then your ppp gdp per capita in relation to a relatively small and often declining population will possible be higher, as they can't even give the land and property away in some of these places, and there are few overheads for those who are working. However it's usually a lot different in terms of a major global city and it's surrounding area.
I would suggest that cost of living is very different in areas dominated by major international cities, whether this be London, Paris, Tokyo, North East USA, parts of California such as the Bay Area etc, however these Col figures are more skewed when you include a vast often sparsely populated country like the US.
In terms of nominal GDP, the UK's isn't that different to a lot of European countries, and the UK has higher nominal gdp than France, Italy, Spain and is not that far behind Germany, which is currently experiencing a prolonged manufacturing decline.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-14-2023 at 04:48 PM..
Fact is the eventual outcome of the war in Europe without American involvement would have been vastly different. Mainland Europe would have without a doubt remained under Nazi rule. No argument about that
I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union would beg to differ on that assertion.
This statement implies that the money spent on "pointless wars" siphoned off significant money that could have been better spent to expand the economy. The numbers don't support that notion.
During the 19 years of the Afghanistan conflict, the UK spent $4.5 billion (US dollars) or about $236 million per year. The current UK GDP is about $3 trillion. Because the Afghanistan expenses were in years past, I estimated the UK GDP at $2.5 trillion. My calculation shows that the UK was spending only about 0.009% of their total GDP on Afghanistan. The numbers used in this calculation are very big numbers so there could be an error in my calculations. Perhaps, a safer way of saying it would be that the UK spent much less than 1% of its GDP on Afghanistan.
So, "no", the US leading the UK astray in the Afghan conflict did not drain the UK of significant money which could have been better spent on more productive improvements.
IMO, continuing effects from loss of empire, de-industrialization, and a disasterous immigration policy (similar to the US) were bigger factors. Of course, it's harder to blame these factors on the Yanks
I would suggest that the equivalent of over $40 billion is a significant money amount of money for the UK to spend on a pointless war, as the UK has less than a fifth of the US population, so it would be the equivalent of the US spending over $200 billion.
It's worth noting for instance, that the Government had to deal with a £50 billion public spending bloack hole just last year, and that money could have come in very handy.
However the money is meaningless when compared to the substantial British losses suffered that were more than the rest of Europe combined.
As for blaming the US, I don't blame the US or the average American at all.
I put the blame firmly with Britain and it's leaders, and have stated this over and over again, as well as stating that Britain needs to adopt a relationship with the US that is more similar to our European neighbours.
Oh here we go, that ole chestnut again!! Britain did NOT have a minor role, if Britain didn't fight on alone then the Nazis wouldn't have had to fight on two fronts and the Russians would have faced the full force of the Nazis in the East! Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain - honestly sometimes I think it would have been better for Britain if it had just left Hitler to it! As for Hollywood films! Its the Americans that believe the rubbish that comes out of Hollywood not the British.
Even without any invasion Britain would have been in serious difficulty. Hitler would more than likely remained just across the channel indefinitely since I cannot see the British military even with Canadian assistance landing in occupied Europe and driving the Nazis back into Germany.
BY June 1944 the German Army though seriously weakened by the war in eastern Europe was still a force to be reckoned with. Even with all the resources of the combined American, British and Canadian that were used to liberate France and other occupied European countries it still took almost a year before the Germans surrendered and there were one or two nasty surprises for the allies along the way ie Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge.
Absence the US the war between Britain and Germany would have been a stalemate and without American involvement it can only be guessed at in the matter of what Stalin might have chosen to do in 1942
It was only a massive bombing campaign carried out by the RAF and USAF that eventually after a long period managed to cripple Germany's was production. Could the RAF alone have managed to accomplish this?
Fact is the eventual outcome of the war in Europe without American involvement would have been vastly different. Mainland Europe would have without a doubt remained under Nazi rule. No argument about that
Fact is the eventual outcome of the war in Europe without British involvement would have been vastly different, Mainland Europe would have without a doubt remained under Nazi rule. No argument about that.
Unlike Americans though the British don't claim to have won the war single handedly!
I would suggest that the equivalent of over $40 billion is a significant money amount of money for the UK to spend on a pointless war, as the UK has less than a fifth of the US population, so it would be the equivalent of the US spending over $200 billion.
What is the source of your $40 billion cost estimate? My research (as stated in my post #94) shows the total cost of UK involvement in the Afghan conflict as $4.5 billion. If you can substantiate your number, I'll change mine.
Quote:
However the money is meaningless when compared to the substantial British losses suffered that were more than the rest of Europe combined.
In your post #81, the money WAS important because you discuss altenative investments for the money spent on the Afghan conflict. But, now that I have shown that the UK money spent on the Afghan conflict was actually a tiny portion of UK GDP, the money is now meaningless and British lives are more important. Hmmm.
Last edited by Wayfarerz; 08-14-2023 at 08:38 PM..
Oh here we go, that ole chestnut again!! Britain did NOT have a minor role, if Britain didn't fight on alone then the Nazis wouldn't have had to fight on two fronts and the Russians would have faced the full force of the Nazis in the East! Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain - honestly sometimes I think it would have been better for Britain if it had just left Hitler to it! As for Hollywood films! Its the Americans that believe the rubbish that comes out of Hollywood not the British.
In WWII, Germany's military might rested with their army (the Heer). Prior to the Normandy invasion (where most of the military capability was American), the only significant European front on land for Britain that I'm aware of was the landing of the British Expeditionary Force in 1940. And the BEF came very close to being driven into the sea by the German army.
So, the Soviet Red Army DID face the Germans alone. By the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, the
German army was already in retreat from the Red Army.
Even without any invasion Britain would have been in serious difficulty. Hitler would more than likely remained just across the channel indefinitely since I cannot see the British military even with Canadian assistance landing in occupied Europe and driving the Nazis back into Germany.
BY June 1944 the German Army though seriously weakened by the war in eastern Europe was still a force to be reckoned with. Even with all the resources of the combined American, British and Canadian that were used to liberate France and other occupied European countries it still took almost a year before the Germans surrendered and there were one or two nasty surprises for the allies along the way ie Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge.
Absence the US the war between Britain and Germany would have been a stalemate and without American involvement it can only be guessed at in the matter of what Stalin might have chosen to do in 1942
It was only a massive bombing campaign carried out by the RAF and USAF that eventually after a long period managed to cripple Germany's was production. Could the RAF alone have managed to accomplish this?
Fact is the eventual outcome of the war in Europe without American involvement would have been vastly different. Mainland Europe would have without a doubt remained under Nazi rule. No argument about that
The USSR weakened the Nazi war machine and likely would have kept on pushing at great cost to themselves outwards. I think the war would have taken far longer to arrive at a conclusion, but nothing to say the new European Order would not be of a red colour , rather than stripes.
I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union would beg to differ on that assertion.
During the second half of 1941 Stalin at one point seriously considered handing over parts of the Soviet Union to the Germans in exchange for peace. After Pearl Harbour Stalin (who was nobody's fool) knew that now America was in the war the Germans would be fighting a two front war and with America's industrial might now at hand it was only a matter of time before Germany was finished and that was one reason that he decided to fight on.
There were other reasons of course but when Germany declared war on the United States both Stalin and Churchill broke out the champagne and cigars
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.
