GDPs if US states were nations
C/O Carl Størmer, to whom thanks are due. Click for legibility.
Highlights include the following (in order of population, not state GDP as I cannot find it):
California - France
Texas - Canada
NY - Brazil
Florida - Korea
Illinois - Mexico
Pennsylvania - Netherlands
Ohio - Australia
Michigan - Argentina
Georgia - Switzerland
And at the other extremity:
South Dakota - Croatia
Alaska - Belarus
North Dakota - Ecuador
Vermont - Dominican Republic
Wyoming - Uzbekistan.
I have what appear to be like for like stats for Canadian provinces, which I can collate if anyone's interested.
And Canada:
Stats for Canada here, and for the countries used, here
Bringing it all back home, the economy of London accounts for 19% of UK GDP, which makes it bigger than Belgium's GDP.
And since I'm on a roll now, selected companies with turnovers in line with the GDP of various European states. (Right click to open a more legible version in a new window):
Labels: Canada, United States
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
What's GDP in this context?
I'm interested, but je ne comprends what you mean when ya say ya can't find state GDP, as erm y'appeer to have found it?!
V - The author does not define how he has measured gross domestic prodcut, but I've assumed it is consumption + investment + government spending + (exports − imports).
TG - I do not have a list of states by descending GDP with figures, so my list is by descending population.
Well, I think this isn't correct. Mexico has oil as well as industry, whereas Illinois, I think - could be wrong, of course - has industry. Also, as a member of NAFTA Mexico does huge exports to the United States with no tariffs.
OTOH, Mexico does have a huge population. 100m.
A bit of rumamging turned up a list of US states by Gross State Product, and the Prairie State comes in at $560,236M to Mexico's $768,437M, so the figures are a bit wonky. Its figures are nearer that of the Netherlands - $629,911 - but I think the author of the map wanted to avoid duplicating nations in matching them against states. Which is cheating. My apologies for somewhat misleading information....
This just seems to weird. I have here that the GDP of Mexico in 2005 and 2006 was as follows:
$1.134 trillion (2006 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate): $741.5 billion (2006 est.)
I don't know whether they're quoting it in pesos or dollars, though.
And are they really, in all seriousness - it's a joke, innit? Go orn! - the economy of Tennessee with that of Saudi Arabia? Are they mad?
And the Maritimes with Indonesia, which is awash with oil? (Of course, the Maritimes are awash with fish and I know fish is expensive these days, but still ...).
I can take responsibility for the Indonesia comparison - that is with Quebec, not the Atlantic seaboard provinces.
I imagine that the GDP of the likes of Saudi Arabia is hit very hard by the (exports − imports) element.
Thanks Croydonian for the interesting data.
According to the CIA Factbook, Mexico has a GDP (purchasing power parity) of $1.134 trillion (2006 est.) and a GDP (official exchange rate) of $741.5 billion (2006 est.). Thus, Croydonian as well as Verity seem to be right.
These kinds of calculations need to be made at purchasing power parity, not actual exchange rates if it's agreed that what is interesting is living standards.
The comparison of countries' GDP and large corporations' turnover is also fun.
Many corporations now have a greater turnover than the GDP of most countries. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 52 are corporations and 48 are countries, and these corporations have sales figures between $51 billion and $247 billion.
Requiescat in pacem the nation (or federal) state
Well London would be 19%, since the rest of the country is taxed and huge proportions of the tax are then splurged in London. Just think of all the civil servants and Government pimping professions - consultants, lawyers, accountants, advertisers, broadcasters, journalists etc etc.
Part of the trouble is choosing what to compare, and perhaps this list of countries by GDP (PPP) might be useful.
HG - I might have a go at that next week.
DM - Things can get a little complicated....
Hg,
Thanks for the interesting information.
The difference between corporations and the state is that former will only survive if they continue to serve their customers better than the competition whereas the state survives by the power of its guns.
Also, one doesn't really have any idea of purchasing power (except in the famous McDonald's Big Mac, which is a brilliant concept). For example, I was paying around one euro fifty for one avocado in France. Here I pay 25P for a kilo. So, unless you're using McDonald's, you're not comparing like with like.
Much fun all round. To play a little, Dearime is very wrong about London's contribution.
On our import/export figures, the financial service sector (London) and Petroleaum Sector (Aberdeen) account for 88% of trade income.
If Soctland went independent and the South East shortly after the rest of the country would be a basket case in need of urgent EU financing.
It's main driver is manufacturing, but that accounts for just 16% of national GDP these days.
All those consultants and lawyers are there to serve international banking clients DM.
CU - Whilst I appreciate that the oil is nearish Aberdeen. Well sort of , does the revenue actually pass through Aberdeen then ?
The reason I was wondering is that Scottish Nat. Sites mention oil a great deal more than the "Fair Angels “ of the South , in fact there is prodigious asymmetry in the coverage. It isn`t , in a sense , the central question but its interesting that both sides seem to be under the impression that they are subsidising the other. .There has been very little analysis I have noticed of oil revenue following independence .
Colin , yes that’s right and in the end guns trump money .Or does it ? I had a week long argument about this once along the lines of which top trump card would win . To what extent can money buy guns, to what extent do guns act independently , and so on. Instinct says guns but it gets very involved. I was impressed by the US breaking up the Oil monopoly at a stroke. But no real conclusion was reached.
Croydonian
I hate to be a party pooper, but you cannot compare GDPs with Revenue of companies.
The closest to a decent comparison, would be company Gross Profits with GDP.
GDP is a measure of value added, similar to profit, not of turnover.
Ah well, I was running with HG's challenge....
Is Daimler-Kreisler (sic) really bigger than Knockier (")? If so, it won't be for long.
So what is the richest country that Bill Gate$ is richer than?
Gates was rated as worth $53 bn by Forbes last year, and this makes him worth more than the GDP of Morocco, Vietnam, Slovakia, Libya and Croatia. And about another 120 countries.
Philip Green is the highest ranked Briton by Forbes at $7bn, and he outperforms Mozambique, Georgia, Mauritius and Cambodia, plus another 60 or so countries.
DaimlerChrysler also includes Mercedes-Benz and Maybach, so I think Nokia might have a way to go.
Ian - I think the DC figure covers the entire group, as it has a bigger turnover than GM, Ford or Toyota.
N - well the oil revenue passes through Aberdeen inthe sense of all it being a very rich city off the back of the paypackets received by its inhabitants.
Having been I don't think it makes up for the truly awful weather, but each to their own.
Of course the money extracted by the treasury comes directly from the oil co's, so does not go near Aberdeen per se, or even Scotland.
Currently 6% of government revenues come from Oil (And Gas). Of which the North Sea account for £7.1 billion.
The Barnett formula means that Scotland gets 10% of services money spent, as opposed to the 5% that would come on a per capita basis. This is worth (according to my rough calculations) £18 billion.
Hence up North the sly, nationalists shout oil revenues without referenece to any other economic crteria.
"Currently 6% of government revenues come from Oil (And Gas)."
The critical bit is, the "(And Gas)", check out where all the gas comes from.
http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/maps/infrast.pdf
(warning, big pdf).
8.01, I'll try again:
If countries' GDP and multinational corporations' sales are listed together, then in the top hundred there are only 48 countries, and 52 corporations with sales figures between $51 billion and $247 billion.
Comparing sales, gross of material inputs, with GDP (which is net) might be thought unfair, but if net value added and not turnover is taken for multinationals there are still 37 in the top hundred.
IanCroydon - thanks for info re D-C(/D-K).
If anyone wants to see a porno pic of Phil Green (who recently gave £3m to CR2 girl Kate la Mousse) it's on p40 of Observer, with 2 excellent other stories, 1 in court tomorrow.
» Post a Comment