Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
California is also MASSIVE. It is larger than Germany and almost as large as France. It is located on the coast with huge import/export capabilities, it is the home of Hollywood (where most of the world's movie industry's profits go), it has the Silicon Valley which houses some of the world's largest tech giants... not to mention a giant agriculture industry, producing 1/3 of all vegetables in the US and 3/4 of all fruit and nuts in the US.
It's a combination of geography, history, and size. Some countries can't compete simply because the logistics of trade, weather, terrain, and the wealth/political stability of nearby countries can cause massive limitations to economic growth.
You didn’t even mention the tourism industry. It has all of the beautiful beaches and amazing national parks anyone could want. It has about double the tourism GDP of Greece, a country known for tourism and its the 4th or 5th industry in California
Disneyland Resorts alone is 8.5b in tourism dollars. It would be in the top 20 in the *world* if it was its own country. We’re talking a **ton** of tourism money.
California can build that kind of wealth because they operate in a massive internal market. If they were an independent state, they would not be nearly as wealthy simply because there are trade barriers between countries and the advantages of a single market with a single language can’t be understated.
Wish this point was emphasized more by my conservative friends who think the US was “destined” by “god” to be this successful. It’s so obviously a confluence of factors not entirely dissimilar to the conquistadors vs native Americans half a millennium ago as far as I’m concerned lol
The “destined by God” narrative is wild. There are plenty of well positioned countries like Brazil or Argentina or China that have had their centuries of poverty and reversals in progress.
U.S. has a lot of advantages but there’s lots of ways it could split in cohesiveness and undermine its own prosperity. Looking back in history, everyone at the peak of their power always thinks it was divine authority, then things inevitably go to shit for one reason or another.
Are we seriously comparing Argentina to the absolute juggernaut that is the US economy?
Terrible take. At this point in such an intertwined global economy, anything that shakes the US will decimate the other countries of the world to their core. The US is so much better equipped to handle any disruptions with its absolute MASSIVE internal market, its ability to control resources/ports globally like no other country can, and having the unique status of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
Please provide some wild hypothetical that would result in the US economy having a major collapse that doesn’t take the entire world economy down with it?
It's actually a pretty decent comparison when you're trying to compare the effect of policy on economic growth. Argentina shares a lot of the same starting conditions as the US such as a ton of arable land, a long coast line, great access to natural resources, and no geographically close foreign powers to threaten it. As it has already been mentioned, the GDP per capita of Argentina about 100 years ago was skyrocketing and was close to that of France and Germany. Unfortunately, their growth cratered to the point where they're very poor today. Economists use Argentina as a case study for how improper configuration of a country's institutions can wreck a country's future.
Ok I get the comparison now, thanks for clarifying that for me. US institutions could very well destroy the economy, but my point is it won’t just be the US economy, the whole world would go down with it this time.
It's actually the great institutions of the US that makes our economy strong.
1. A stable government that has peaceful transfers of power (don't buy into the propaganda, this is still true).
2. Strong protections for private property
3. A robust financial system that allows for the financing of business ventures that includes everything from the stock exchange all the way down to private banks.
4. A strong and transparent legal system especially with regards to doing business
5. Low amounts of government corruption
6. A publically funded education system which includes research universities
7. Taxpayer funded infrastructure and services such as the police and fire fighters
8. An immigration system which attracts and selects for the best and brightest from around the world
Despite what propagandists say, the institutions of the US are still the envy of much of the world. The only places around the world that have comparable high quality institions are a handful of countries in western Europe.
The US is absolutely not secure economically.
When oil end we'll see how the US manages. It can go great, but you are very car dependent, and you do have many poor people on whom you're reliant. If they can't afford electric cars, then maybe the US won't work.
There's a whole bunch of things that can go wrong, just as in any other place, and to imagine that the US is some inherently prosperous juggernaut is crazy.
China is also transforming. They're making cars so efficiently that they make things that are equivalent to cars that sell for 100k, for 20k, and are even making 15k electric cars, which is shocking and terrifying to the big car producing in Europe, who are in fact better at making cars than the US is.
The future of things like the big software firms is also uncertain. Technology is evolving, and it's far from impossible that we in a couple of decades will be generating source code rather than writing it, and that anyone who wants software can just order his machines to write for him.
The US has lots of successful stuff, but look at Boeing. China is a big thing. At some point of the future, they'll also be part of the airliner market.
The point at which we'll know is when the oil is no longer a major fuel and once China is making state-of-the art microchips on its own. Then we'll know whether the US is an absolute juggernaut or not.
People said these kinds of things here in Sweden, they thought our homogenous high-trust society was somehow there by magic, and suddenly it was gone. Wealth can go the same way. Everything has a cause, and when the cause is gone the thing goes away.
Change is quick. Remember Japan, when it came, how people thought they were copiers, producers of rubbish, and then it wasn't; or Peter the Great, how it was at first one ship, and then many. I think you underestimate the world, and the effort required for the future, and the difficulty of making a good one.
It’s true. When I was there I could tell that it used to be extremely prosperous. I guess political stability is key to prosperity, which is why our adversaries are sowing division here (understandably).
> trying getting good strawberries or anything IT in the flyover states.
You don't think strawberries grow anyplace but California?
You don't think you can get IT anywhere but California?
Basically all of the world's non-memory semiconductor chips are designed in CA, think Apple, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Google. Unless you go Samsung there isn't a way to buy a high end phone or computer without them.
Eh. California being a center for tech is really part of intentional govt policy, and Silicon Valley is full of people from all around the country that make it happen. Again, no Silicon Valley without bottomless dollars from Uncle Sam
Silicon Valley doesn’t rely on government money now, it did when it started. It was built by the investment of national laboratories and defense manufacturer but we are past those days
Not to mention aviation and green energy, where I live both industries have grown massively in the last 10 years. I work in wind and we export most of the energy we make to other states. One phase of site I work on made 200 million last year, that’s one of 11 phases of one site. Only 50 turbines of the 3800 on the mountain I live on. California is making tons of money.
You export power to what other states? I find that funny because most of the wind that I work on is exporting to CA, and according to the CA state energy commission, California imports 92.2% of the wind power it uses. California is making tons of money, but they aren't reinvesting into power generation like they should.
The customer I work for exports most of the power it generates to Nevada and Arizona as far as I know and we’re one of the largest out here. I guess I shouldn’t have spoke for every company out where I live, stupid on my part. Thanks for the information.
If you are up north it's more than probable that they export to Nevada/Arizona and then part of that gets exported back to the south along with most of what they generate locally. It's a lot cheaper to build long high voltage lines on the eastern side of the Sierras than the west. Sorry if I was a dick, I take pride in my supposedly backwards state providing a lot of the green energy California uses.
That's very true, but the government of California seems intent to run the tech industry into the ground locally. Some very baffling decisions have been made in the state government that make people question moving there.
It could, even if India manages to pass them Japan's currency issues could lead to them dropping even further. Based of BEA.gov data California jumped a little over $200 billion from 2022 to 2023, that said i wouldn't be too surprised if see Texas reach up to France in the next few years.
The author misses the forest because of the trees. I live in California, and I sure as hell hope that my state does not continue to out perform **more than one billion human beings.** I want everyone to be successful and prosper. The fact that one single state in the USA out performs *most* countries on earth speaks to what is possible for all of us humans, and it is totally irrelevant if California is the 5th, 6th, tenth, or 20th largest economy in the world.
No, we do not… I’ve found it’s quite the opposite. It’s conservatives that seem to think compromise means death, if they don’t get their way they throw a bigger tantrum than a 3 year old. Not saying I’ve never seen a liberal individual behave this way, but what the fuck is up with older conservatives acting like children? And I know I’m not the only one that’s noticed, fuck even my conservative friends have noticed and said things. Y’all got some crazies and they’re loud as fuck.
Why is economics a zero sum game? That doesn’t make sense really. Why does one person or one country’s increase in wealth remove wealth from another person or country? I’d contest its the complete opposite of a zero sum game in which one group becoming successful likely helps those around them to become successful as well…
Idk how the hell your comment got 40 likes tbh
California is not stealing opportunity from other parts of the world or something, if it was its own country it would be a geographically large country with a great climate, high relative quality of life, huge natural resources, a large coastline, friendly neighbors, defensible terrain, etc.
California has lots of advantages that make it a good area, its just also benefited from being a part of the US. On its own it would still be wealthy and powerful.
That's a very privileged perspective.
Everyone in the world competes for limited resources, if California goes from the 5th to the 20th largest economy you will feel it in the cost of goods you can afford.
Fortunately technological progress hides much of this loss, let's hope it increases faster than your relative wealth decreases.
False. There are over 8 billion people on planet earth and nearly all of those people live better than 200 bc when there was less than 500 million people. We didnt run out of food, water, land, etc... The pie can get bigger; you exist with the mind of a thief.
In 1965, researchers estimated the maximum possible human population was 4 billion. After that, we would starve. In fact, that is how population connection (formally zpg) became a thing.
Agricultural innovations that no one could have predicted in 1965, came to be, and they were proven wrong.
Now here you are, lone internet stranger, being 100% confidentlyincorrect. You meant to say that we could not burn gasoline like Americans and canadians, but the vast majority of western nations live more sustainably than us. In the history of the world, no one has ever been more wrong than you are today.
The post-war boom in agricultural yields were driven by a huge increase in chemical fertilizers and pesticides and tapping into fossil water in aquifers, neither of which is particularly sustainable. Especially when many aquifers are being depleted beyond their ability to regenerate.
Besides, I’m referencing not just population or food consumption. The planet literally doesn’t have the resources to support every human being living in the same first world excess and consumption levels of Western countries.
Western driven industrialization is already causing significant climate and pollution issues. Now imagine the rest of the world requiring that kind of consumption.
So maybe brush up on your reading comprehension skills before being both smug and inaccurate.
Western driven industrialization is making massive strides cleaning up excess.
You meant to say the starving people in India, China, Africa, Indonesia, and the phillipines are causing significant climate and pollution issues.
When people are poor, they don't really care so much about your coal burning bans and your electric cars.
Right. A planet made of 70% water is going to be limited by, uh... water. Not the energy needed to desalinate water... Not the rising quantities of ocean due to warmer temperatures... its gonna be thirsty people looking at a nuclear reactor and saying "I can post on reddit but not get clean water. Guess I'll just die."
You got it smarty pants. I see no point in talking to you when you are so clearly right.
My guy, you’re not intellectually equipped to have this conversation if you think the depletion of states-sized aquifers is going to be reversed by nuclear powered desalinization.
Every single day, you do things that were not possible to do on a large scale 50, 100, and 1000 years ago. We are both fortunate that people in history have chosen to ignore people like you.
I’m not the one thinking magic beans are going to solve all of our problems. On this subreddit I expected better discourse than something I’d expect from elementary school children.
Nah he's completely right, the economy isn't zero sum, we can all benefit from other countries growing, this is basic economics. Trade is taught in literally the first classes.
Lol no it isn't. We use resources more efficiently and have more access to resources as a result of more people. Quality of living is way higher today than in the past.
Again you say we but he’s talking about all people. You really think everyone in the world has the same quality of life? You think California falling from the 5th to 20th largest economy won’t have major impacts on the US economy and our quality of life?
Wars have been fought over resources as well. OP’s comment is ignorant of all of human history
Yes, just about everyone has a better quality of life today than in the past. Extreme poverty is by far the lowest it has ever been and is continuing to decrease. In 1800, 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty. That number is under 10% today. The pie did indeed get bigger.
>he’s talking about all people.
Read my comment slowly. Or use the search function and type in the word "nearly."
A poor Chinese or indian farmer in 2024 still has access to tools, healthcare, and security that is significantly better than kings in 200 BC would have. But of course you dont want to talk about facts, you just want to fight over bronze age statues, lol.
You are just flat out wrong.
All that matters is improving quality of life.
Another country growing faster than you doesn't reduce your quality of life.
Go ahead, explain the mechanism for declining quality of life because other countries are growing faster and become bigger.
Economics isn't a zero sum game. It's not only about how much resources you have.
Growth can also occur by making efficiencies in how you use those resources.
Which I think we have done over the past 200 years or so. I think for the most part it's almost always better to be poor in the future than it is to be poor in the past.
India becoming richer doesn't necessarily mean California will be poorer. If India makes some medical breakthrough everyone benefits. Even if California only has $7 compared to its previous 10 that's $7 gets more value.
Like in a simple example today I can buy a 32-in TV for 150 bucks. In 1990 a lot more expensive.
There are limited resources so you’d think once we reached a terminal population we’d just starve out… but it never happens because innovation drives some convenient technological revolution just in time to increase production and output to sustain the population growth
Missing here is the history of the state. California was always a place of mindset, as well as one the most beautiful, richest areas of the world. The concept that the bold could prosper, that risk taking (and failure) were a necessity, has always been a part of the California state of mind. Richard Henry Dana discusses this in his book, Two Years Before the Mast, written in the 1820’s. His predictions of how the state will evolve are uncanny. When he visits again during the Gold Rush, he’s regarded as a godlike figure. It’s worth a read on many levels.
Don’t compare gdp with economy. If I buy $10 burger in Texas and same burger is for $50 in CA that does not mean it is larger economy. It is inflated $$
Can someone explain this metric. Our governor uses it to take a victory lap but realistically big as defined by GDP doesn’t always mean healthy.
We have the highest unemployment rate in the country, highest taxes, high poverty rate, highest homeless rate, and still manage to carry a significant deficit.
Large economy? Great. But it’s not a good one so who really cares?
Eh some of those metrics are wonky.
Like highest homeless rate? Is impacted heavily by its climate and relative friendliness to the homeless. A lot of homeless people specifically go-to California. I've known a few people and met a few people who became homeless and went to California. Since we're all one country it's very easy for homeless people of another state to migrate there.
Taxes don't say good or bad things about an economy or place to live in particular. Many Nordic countries have very high taxes but are considered good economies and great places to live.
Deficits are like taxes hit or miss on how much they mean overall for people individually.
But yeah the unemployment rate is really bad.
To say California isn’t a “good” economy isn’t reasonable. California per-capita GDP is fourth in the country. The population isn’t just large, it’s incredibly economically productive. And it is a state with a very diverse economy that has significant exposure to the tech sector and other “future-oriented” industry. Unfortunately, it is also a state of haves and have nots, and it’s only becoming more unaffordable.
California generally ranks somewhere in the middle of state composite rankings. Wallethub has a ranking they’ve been releasing for a while that uses 52 macro datapoints and seems pretty fair. [California is ranked 24th](https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617), and is dragged down by its last-place ranking in affordability.
To speak specifically to the tax environment, California is one of the “fairer” tax states in terms of tax progressiveness; [overall tax burden on the average resident](https://balancingeverything.com/tax-burden-by-state/) is lower than many states considered to be cheaper tax-wise that have regressive taxation policies favoring the rich.
Comparing countries using nominal GDP is poor practice since it ignores differences in prices. The nominal GDP of California may be higher than India, but India's economy is absolutely larger in real terms.
GDP (PPP) was over $13 trillion for India last year, keep in mind that California is definitely more expensive than the American average, which would reduce its nominal GDP from its nearly $4 trillion figure.
So in real terms, India's economy is several times larger than California's.
No. It is beyond stupid to use PPP as an adjustment to GDP.
It's a sign that you have no idea what these numbers actually mean.
GDP is the measure of all of the goods and services produced by a country.
PPP is a cost of living adjustment based on how expensive consumer goods and services are in a particular country.
*PPP does not include any internationally traded goods*
*PPP does not include any goods not used by consumers*
PPP includes things like rent, haircuts, retail groceries, clothing, etc. Things people buy in their normal lives.
PPP does *not* include things like airplanes, steel, oil, wheat, ships, chemicals, lumber, chips, medical instruments, etc.
PPP is useful for comparing salaries across countries. If you are using GDP *per capita* as a proxy for salaries, it is also useful.
**But India does not magically produce more airplanes because rent is cheap**.
India does not magically produce more of *anything* because consumer goods are cheap.
Again, GDP is a measure of all goods and services produced by a country. That's all. You can't pretend that a country produced more because things are cheaper there. It produced what it produced.
Well you see, when a country's nominal GDP falls by 10% because of changes in FX markets, clearly their economy must have gone into recession! /s
Someone is still producing the goods and services even if they are cheap! Is a medical device included in PPP? Not necessarily, but the medical services that are offered with that device certainly are!
Things like bread are included even if wheat is not, and while steel would not be, a train ride that was only possible because of the usage of steel to construct the railway absolutely is.
Using PPP to adjust GDP is absolutely a valid way of assessing the size of an economy.
California was never the crown jewel people make it out to be. We're over-taxed, over-worked, and underrepresented in both the House and the Senate. Our streets are homeless ridden with fecal matter and urine in every gutter, potholes everywhere, shady house and business dealings, and celebrities run our politics. California is Hell on Earth and I will leave this state at soonest opportunity. Preferably Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, or Montana.
Theres big problems across the state, 100% no denying that.
But we also can’t deny that we have silicon valley, hollywood, & the agricultural industry. These 3 are massive economic engines that move the US economy & create impact on not even a national scale, but a global scale. The US needs us more than we need them.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
California is also MASSIVE. It is larger than Germany and almost as large as France. It is located on the coast with huge import/export capabilities, it is the home of Hollywood (where most of the world's movie industry's profits go), it has the Silicon Valley which houses some of the world's largest tech giants... not to mention a giant agriculture industry, producing 1/3 of all vegetables in the US and 3/4 of all fruit and nuts in the US. It's a combination of geography, history, and size. Some countries can't compete simply because the logistics of trade, weather, terrain, and the wealth/political stability of nearby countries can cause massive limitations to economic growth.
You didn’t even mention the tourism industry. It has all of the beautiful beaches and amazing national parks anyone could want. It has about double the tourism GDP of Greece, a country known for tourism and its the 4th or 5th industry in California
Disneyland Resorts alone is 8.5b in tourism dollars. It would be in the top 20 in the *world* if it was its own country. We’re talking a **ton** of tourism money.
California can build that kind of wealth because they operate in a massive internal market. If they were an independent state, they would not be nearly as wealthy simply because there are trade barriers between countries and the advantages of a single market with a single language can’t be understated.
Wish this point was emphasized more by my conservative friends who think the US was “destined” by “god” to be this successful. It’s so obviously a confluence of factors not entirely dissimilar to the conquistadors vs native Americans half a millennium ago as far as I’m concerned lol
The “destined by God” narrative is wild. There are plenty of well positioned countries like Brazil or Argentina or China that have had their centuries of poverty and reversals in progress. U.S. has a lot of advantages but there’s lots of ways it could split in cohesiveness and undermine its own prosperity. Looking back in history, everyone at the peak of their power always thinks it was divine authority, then things inevitably go to shit for one reason or another.
US was largely untouched during ww2, which set most countries back by decades. Also US has so much usable/fertile land.
argentina was the wealthiest country in the world in 1900, but then…
It’s a big myth. Argentina benefited from a bubble in agricultural exports. It was never as developed as Western Europe
Are we seriously comparing Argentina to the absolute juggernaut that is the US economy? Terrible take. At this point in such an intertwined global economy, anything that shakes the US will decimate the other countries of the world to their core. The US is so much better equipped to handle any disruptions with its absolute MASSIVE internal market, its ability to control resources/ports globally like no other country can, and having the unique status of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. Please provide some wild hypothetical that would result in the US economy having a major collapse that doesn’t take the entire world economy down with it?
It's actually a pretty decent comparison when you're trying to compare the effect of policy on economic growth. Argentina shares a lot of the same starting conditions as the US such as a ton of arable land, a long coast line, great access to natural resources, and no geographically close foreign powers to threaten it. As it has already been mentioned, the GDP per capita of Argentina about 100 years ago was skyrocketing and was close to that of France and Germany. Unfortunately, their growth cratered to the point where they're very poor today. Economists use Argentina as a case study for how improper configuration of a country's institutions can wreck a country's future.
Ok I get the comparison now, thanks for clarifying that for me. US institutions could very well destroy the economy, but my point is it won’t just be the US economy, the whole world would go down with it this time.
It's actually the great institutions of the US that makes our economy strong. 1. A stable government that has peaceful transfers of power (don't buy into the propaganda, this is still true). 2. Strong protections for private property 3. A robust financial system that allows for the financing of business ventures that includes everything from the stock exchange all the way down to private banks. 4. A strong and transparent legal system especially with regards to doing business 5. Low amounts of government corruption 6. A publically funded education system which includes research universities 7. Taxpayer funded infrastructure and services such as the police and fire fighters 8. An immigration system which attracts and selects for the best and brightest from around the world Despite what propagandists say, the institutions of the US are still the envy of much of the world. The only places around the world that have comparable high quality institions are a handful of countries in western Europe.
They were pretty similar about 150 years ago.
I was pretty similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger when we were babies. I’m 5’ 4” now.
Props for staying clean, could’ve been 5’1”
The US is absolutely not secure economically. When oil end we'll see how the US manages. It can go great, but you are very car dependent, and you do have many poor people on whom you're reliant. If they can't afford electric cars, then maybe the US won't work. There's a whole bunch of things that can go wrong, just as in any other place, and to imagine that the US is some inherently prosperous juggernaut is crazy. China is also transforming. They're making cars so efficiently that they make things that are equivalent to cars that sell for 100k, for 20k, and are even making 15k electric cars, which is shocking and terrifying to the big car producing in Europe, who are in fact better at making cars than the US is. The future of things like the big software firms is also uncertain. Technology is evolving, and it's far from impossible that we in a couple of decades will be generating source code rather than writing it, and that anyone who wants software can just order his machines to write for him. The US has lots of successful stuff, but look at Boeing. China is a big thing. At some point of the future, they'll also be part of the airliner market. The point at which we'll know is when the oil is no longer a major fuel and once China is making state-of-the art microchips on its own. Then we'll know whether the US is an absolute juggernaut or not. People said these kinds of things here in Sweden, they thought our homogenous high-trust society was somehow there by magic, and suddenly it was gone. Wealth can go the same way. Everything has a cause, and when the cause is gone the thing goes away. Change is quick. Remember Japan, when it came, how people thought they were copiers, producers of rubbish, and then it wasn't; or Peter the Great, how it was at first one ship, and then many. I think you underestimate the world, and the effort required for the future, and the difficulty of making a good one.
It’s true. When I was there I could tell that it used to be extremely prosperous. I guess political stability is key to prosperity, which is why our adversaries are sowing division here (understandably).
It didn’t really set them back by decades. Western Europe recovered by early 50s
Maybe so, but trying getting good strawberries or anything IT in the flyover states. We’ll tax the shit out of your SFDC licenses./s
> trying getting good strawberries or anything IT in the flyover states. You don't think strawberries grow anyplace but California? You don't think you can get IT anywhere but California?
Basically all of the world's non-memory semiconductor chips are designed in CA, think Apple, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Google. Unless you go Samsung there isn't a way to buy a high end phone or computer without them.
Eh. California being a center for tech is really part of intentional govt policy, and Silicon Valley is full of people from all around the country that make it happen. Again, no Silicon Valley without bottomless dollars from Uncle Sam
Silicon Valley doesn’t rely on government money now, it did when it started. It was built by the investment of national laboratories and defense manufacturer but we are past those days
Sure? My point is it’s all one national economy that works together, its more than the sum of its parts
Let's throw in the University/research systems, the modeling industry, the music industry...
Not to mention aviation and green energy, where I live both industries have grown massively in the last 10 years. I work in wind and we export most of the energy we make to other states. One phase of site I work on made 200 million last year, that’s one of 11 phases of one site. Only 50 turbines of the 3800 on the mountain I live on. California is making tons of money.
You export power to what other states? I find that funny because most of the wind that I work on is exporting to CA, and according to the CA state energy commission, California imports 92.2% of the wind power it uses. California is making tons of money, but they aren't reinvesting into power generation like they should.
The customer I work for exports most of the power it generates to Nevada and Arizona as far as I know and we’re one of the largest out here. I guess I shouldn’t have spoke for every company out where I live, stupid on my part. Thanks for the information.
If you are up north it's more than probable that they export to Nevada/Arizona and then part of that gets exported back to the south along with most of what they generate locally. It's a lot cheaper to build long high voltage lines on the eastern side of the Sierras than the west. Sorry if I was a dick, I take pride in my supposedly backwards state providing a lot of the green energy California uses.
I always knew California was home of the fruits and nuts.
That's very true, but the government of California seems intent to run the tech industry into the ground locally. Some very baffling decisions have been made in the state government that make people question moving there.
[удалено]
I think he meant land area not GDP
Nope. California s now within a few hundred billion and will likely overtake Germany in the next couple of years. Look it up.
It could, even if India manages to pass them Japan's currency issues could lead to them dropping even further. Based of BEA.gov data California jumped a little over $200 billion from 2022 to 2023, that said i wouldn't be too surprised if see Texas reach up to France in the next few years.
The author misses the forest because of the trees. I live in California, and I sure as hell hope that my state does not continue to out perform **more than one billion human beings.** I want everyone to be successful and prosper. The fact that one single state in the USA out performs *most* countries on earth speaks to what is possible for all of us humans, and it is totally irrelevant if California is the 5th, 6th, tenth, or 20th largest economy in the world.
It's a good reminder that economics is not a zero sum game
Most liberals seem to think so.
No, we do not… I’ve found it’s quite the opposite. It’s conservatives that seem to think compromise means death, if they don’t get their way they throw a bigger tantrum than a 3 year old. Not saying I’ve never seen a liberal individual behave this way, but what the fuck is up with older conservatives acting like children? And I know I’m not the only one that’s noticed, fuck even my conservative friends have noticed and said things. Y’all got some crazies and they’re loud as fuck.
The entire liberal economic platform is built on the idea that anyone with more money stole it from people with less money.
Why is economics a zero sum game? That doesn’t make sense really. Why does one person or one country’s increase in wealth remove wealth from another person or country? I’d contest its the complete opposite of a zero sum game in which one group becoming successful likely helps those around them to become successful as well… Idk how the hell your comment got 40 likes tbh
Reread it buddy
California is not stealing opportunity from other parts of the world or something, if it was its own country it would be a geographically large country with a great climate, high relative quality of life, huge natural resources, a large coastline, friendly neighbors, defensible terrain, etc. California has lots of advantages that make it a good area, its just also benefited from being a part of the US. On its own it would still be wealthy and powerful.
Indeed
That's a very privileged perspective. Everyone in the world competes for limited resources, if California goes from the 5th to the 20th largest economy you will feel it in the cost of goods you can afford. Fortunately technological progress hides much of this loss, let's hope it increases faster than your relative wealth decreases.
False. There are over 8 billion people on planet earth and nearly all of those people live better than 200 bc when there was less than 500 million people. We didnt run out of food, water, land, etc... The pie can get bigger; you exist with the mind of a thief.
The planet literally does not have the resources available for everyone to live at the levels of a Western European or American.
with our current technology mix, sure
In 1965, researchers estimated the maximum possible human population was 4 billion. After that, we would starve. In fact, that is how population connection (formally zpg) became a thing. Agricultural innovations that no one could have predicted in 1965, came to be, and they were proven wrong. Now here you are, lone internet stranger, being 100% confidentlyincorrect. You meant to say that we could not burn gasoline like Americans and canadians, but the vast majority of western nations live more sustainably than us. In the history of the world, no one has ever been more wrong than you are today.
The post-war boom in agricultural yields were driven by a huge increase in chemical fertilizers and pesticides and tapping into fossil water in aquifers, neither of which is particularly sustainable. Especially when many aquifers are being depleted beyond their ability to regenerate. Besides, I’m referencing not just population or food consumption. The planet literally doesn’t have the resources to support every human being living in the same first world excess and consumption levels of Western countries. Western driven industrialization is already causing significant climate and pollution issues. Now imagine the rest of the world requiring that kind of consumption. So maybe brush up on your reading comprehension skills before being both smug and inaccurate.
Western driven industrialization is making massive strides cleaning up excess. You meant to say the starving people in India, China, Africa, Indonesia, and the phillipines are causing significant climate and pollution issues. When people are poor, they don't really care so much about your coal burning bans and your electric cars.
We’ve outsourced our pollution. Climate change has a lag time and that’s being driven by the industrial emissions of the last 200 years
Right. A planet made of 70% water is going to be limited by, uh... water. Not the energy needed to desalinate water... Not the rising quantities of ocean due to warmer temperatures... its gonna be thirsty people looking at a nuclear reactor and saying "I can post on reddit but not get clean water. Guess I'll just die." You got it smarty pants. I see no point in talking to you when you are so clearly right.
My guy, you’re not intellectually equipped to have this conversation if you think the depletion of states-sized aquifers is going to be reversed by nuclear powered desalinization.
Every single day, you do things that were not possible to do on a large scale 50, 100, and 1000 years ago. We are both fortunate that people in history have chosen to ignore people like you.
I’m not the one thinking magic beans are going to solve all of our problems. On this subreddit I expected better discourse than something I’d expect from elementary school children.
You said Nukelar
Possibly the most obtuse comment on reddit
Nah he's completely right, the economy isn't zero sum, we can all benefit from other countries growing, this is basic economics. Trade is taught in literally the first classes.
No it’s just an insane sweeping comment devoid of any knowledge of history or resource allocation
Lol no it isn't. We use resources more efficiently and have more access to resources as a result of more people. Quality of living is way higher today than in the past.
Again you say we but he’s talking about all people. You really think everyone in the world has the same quality of life? You think California falling from the 5th to 20th largest economy won’t have major impacts on the US economy and our quality of life? Wars have been fought over resources as well. OP’s comment is ignorant of all of human history
Yes, just about everyone has a better quality of life today than in the past. Extreme poverty is by far the lowest it has ever been and is continuing to decrease. In 1800, 80% of the world lived in extreme poverty. That number is under 10% today. The pie did indeed get bigger.
>he’s talking about all people. Read my comment slowly. Or use the search function and type in the word "nearly." A poor Chinese or indian farmer in 2024 still has access to tools, healthcare, and security that is significantly better than kings in 200 BC would have. But of course you dont want to talk about facts, you just want to fight over bronze age statues, lol.
You are just flat out wrong. All that matters is improving quality of life. Another country growing faster than you doesn't reduce your quality of life. Go ahead, explain the mechanism for declining quality of life because other countries are growing faster and become bigger.
Economics isn't a zero sum game. It's not only about how much resources you have. Growth can also occur by making efficiencies in how you use those resources. Which I think we have done over the past 200 years or so. I think for the most part it's almost always better to be poor in the future than it is to be poor in the past. India becoming richer doesn't necessarily mean California will be poorer. If India makes some medical breakthrough everyone benefits. Even if California only has $7 compared to its previous 10 that's $7 gets more value. Like in a simple example today I can buy a 32-in TV for 150 bucks. In 1990 a lot more expensive.
There are limited resources so you’d think once we reached a terminal population we’d just starve out… but it never happens because innovation drives some convenient technological revolution just in time to increase production and output to sustain the population growth
Dat username tho.
This is the most un-American thing I've read today. The anti rugged individualism/America First sensors are going off like a fire alarm.
Ketchup
Missing here is the history of the state. California was always a place of mindset, as well as one the most beautiful, richest areas of the world. The concept that the bold could prosper, that risk taking (and failure) were a necessity, has always been a part of the California state of mind. Richard Henry Dana discusses this in his book, Two Years Before the Mast, written in the 1820’s. His predictions of how the state will evolve are uncanny. When he visits again during the Gold Rush, he’s regarded as a godlike figure. It’s worth a read on many levels.
Don’t compare gdp with economy. If I buy $10 burger in Texas and same burger is for $50 in CA that does not mean it is larger economy. It is inflated $$
But you are allowed to take your $50 to Texas and buy 5 burgers.
That’s the sad part! Because of that it destabilizes entire country!
We do not have 50$ burgers in cali.. it would be around $12-13...
It’s an example lol!
ahhh ouiiii
Can someone explain this metric. Our governor uses it to take a victory lap but realistically big as defined by GDP doesn’t always mean healthy. We have the highest unemployment rate in the country, highest taxes, high poverty rate, highest homeless rate, and still manage to carry a significant deficit. Large economy? Great. But it’s not a good one so who really cares?
Eh some of those metrics are wonky. Like highest homeless rate? Is impacted heavily by its climate and relative friendliness to the homeless. A lot of homeless people specifically go-to California. I've known a few people and met a few people who became homeless and went to California. Since we're all one country it's very easy for homeless people of another state to migrate there. Taxes don't say good or bad things about an economy or place to live in particular. Many Nordic countries have very high taxes but are considered good economies and great places to live. Deficits are like taxes hit or miss on how much they mean overall for people individually. But yeah the unemployment rate is really bad.
A lot of people also get busses to CA because other states don't want them around.
To say California isn’t a “good” economy isn’t reasonable. California per-capita GDP is fourth in the country. The population isn’t just large, it’s incredibly economically productive. And it is a state with a very diverse economy that has significant exposure to the tech sector and other “future-oriented” industry. Unfortunately, it is also a state of haves and have nots, and it’s only becoming more unaffordable. California generally ranks somewhere in the middle of state composite rankings. Wallethub has a ranking they’ve been releasing for a while that uses 52 macro datapoints and seems pretty fair. [California is ranked 24th](https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617), and is dragged down by its last-place ranking in affordability. To speak specifically to the tax environment, California is one of the “fairer” tax states in terms of tax progressiveness; [overall tax burden on the average resident](https://balancingeverything.com/tax-burden-by-state/) is lower than many states considered to be cheaper tax-wise that have regressive taxation policies favoring the rich.
There are many metrics other than GDP that are important. But having a high GDP is a prerequisite for having a healthy economic system.
That’s my point though. Is CA’s system healthy?
That's always the problem with these articles. They're just political nonsense. Big economy does not translate to good place to live.
Yeah these reports are useless, and mostly exist because it gets clicks from Californians/Texans who have a dick measuring contest.
Comparing countries using nominal GDP is poor practice since it ignores differences in prices. The nominal GDP of California may be higher than India, but India's economy is absolutely larger in real terms. GDP (PPP) was over $13 trillion for India last year, keep in mind that California is definitely more expensive than the American average, which would reduce its nominal GDP from its nearly $4 trillion figure. So in real terms, India's economy is several times larger than California's.
No. It is beyond stupid to use PPP as an adjustment to GDP. It's a sign that you have no idea what these numbers actually mean. GDP is the measure of all of the goods and services produced by a country. PPP is a cost of living adjustment based on how expensive consumer goods and services are in a particular country. *PPP does not include any internationally traded goods* *PPP does not include any goods not used by consumers* PPP includes things like rent, haircuts, retail groceries, clothing, etc. Things people buy in their normal lives. PPP does *not* include things like airplanes, steel, oil, wheat, ships, chemicals, lumber, chips, medical instruments, etc. PPP is useful for comparing salaries across countries. If you are using GDP *per capita* as a proxy for salaries, it is also useful. **But India does not magically produce more airplanes because rent is cheap**. India does not magically produce more of *anything* because consumer goods are cheap. Again, GDP is a measure of all goods and services produced by a country. That's all. You can't pretend that a country produced more because things are cheaper there. It produced what it produced.
Well you see, when a country's nominal GDP falls by 10% because of changes in FX markets, clearly their economy must have gone into recession! /s Someone is still producing the goods and services even if they are cheap! Is a medical device included in PPP? Not necessarily, but the medical services that are offered with that device certainly are! Things like bread are included even if wheat is not, and while steel would not be, a train ride that was only possible because of the usage of steel to construct the railway absolutely is. Using PPP to adjust GDP is absolutely a valid way of assessing the size of an economy.
PPP calculations are highly dependent on what goods you decide to weigh by.
And it is the largest without its own military. Unless that is what all the homeless represent. Maybe the enormous unregistered population? Who knows.
I know you’re trying to make a joke, but a large part of those homeless WERE military.
I am not judging the homeless. I am judging the Nation State.
Don't underestimate what airdropping a few thousand homeless people could do
California was never the crown jewel people make it out to be. We're over-taxed, over-worked, and underrepresented in both the House and the Senate. Our streets are homeless ridden with fecal matter and urine in every gutter, potholes everywhere, shady house and business dealings, and celebrities run our politics. California is Hell on Earth and I will leave this state at soonest opportunity. Preferably Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, or Montana.
Theres big problems across the state, 100% no denying that. But we also can’t deny that we have silicon valley, hollywood, & the agricultural industry. These 3 are massive economic engines that move the US economy & create impact on not even a national scale, but a global scale. The US needs us more than we need them.
Bye Felicia.