Power or GDP.

[RogerRanger]

I have noticed how countries like Ireland have no power, but a very high GDP per person. Where as Russia/China/India have lower GDP per person and much more power. Then you have other countries like Britain/France we have above average GDP per person and above average power, and Germany/Japan who have very good economies, but no power beyond that. Only the US has a higher GDP per person and a lot of power.

So which would you choose and why? GDP per person or power.


Power being the control of the productivity and resources within your economy, basically your own people controlling your companies, rather than foreign companies using you as a staging post to a greater market like Ireland. And power being the ability to turn your economic productivity into culture-military-political power and project that power into other nations and areas of the world. Like the Chinese are trying to do now, move from the economically dependent state to a place where they can control their economic security.

 

[Domobran7]

Power? Power has multiple forms: Germany has a lot of power, within Europe at least, despite crappy military. But if you mean only military force, then there are two things which matter, economically:
1) GDP per capita
2) total GDP

This is because the funds used for the military have to be excess resources compared to what the populace needs. So you need to have a minimal GDP per capita, but once that has been achieved, then what matters is total excess funding.

So for example, if country A has 1 000 000 people and excess of 1 000, and country B 750 000 people and excess of 2 000, then country B will be more powerful. This will be despite GDP per capita being, say, 6 000 for country A and 7 000 for country B. And if country C has 10 000 000 people and excess of 75, it will be weaker than either country A or country B.

I hope this made sense.

 

[Kaptaan]

Power?

I think a good starting point would have been a concise definition of 'power' to set the term of referance for this discussion.

 

[RogerRanger]

Power? Power has multiple forms: Germany has a lot of power, within Europe at least, despite crappy military. But if you mean only military force, then there are two things which matter, economically:
1) GDP per capita
2) total GDP

This is because the funds used for the military have to be excess resources compared to what the populace needs. So you need to have a minimal GDP per capita, but once that has been achieved, then what matters is total excess funding.

So for example, if country A has 1 000 000 people and excess of 1 000, and country B 750 000 people and excess of 2 000, then country B will be more powerful. This will be despite GDP per capita being, say, 6 000 for country A and 7 000 for country B. And if country C has 10 000 000 people and excess of 75, it will be weaker than either country A or country B.

I hope this made sense.

Yeah I understand. There is a base level each country needs to provide basic resources for itself, and beyond that point is can use it to generation excessive resources, which we would describe as power.

The issue is somewhere like Ireland or Germany have achieved that excess, and still have limited culture/economic/military/political power. The German economic for example is dependent on the EU trade zone, Ireland is dependent on multi-nation companies basing themselves in Ireland for access to the EU market. Neither the Irish or the Germans can control the EU. Though the Germans have tried. Whereas Russia has a tiny economy, but it control its own productivity. And then uses that excess to control other nations around it. Its interesting how it works differently for different nations.

 

[RogerRanger]

Only a entitled, privilaged person could ask this question. If your ribcage is scraping your collar bone while your peddling a living by scavanging on the streets of New Delhi what does 'power' mean exactly?

It is all about GDP per person. Rest is indulgence of the elites which is paid by blood of the poor sods.

Wow, that's some deep stuff, thanks for that. Much appreciated. I have been arguing with Scottish nationalists about Scottish independent and I noticed the different between them wanting GDP per capita or 'standard of living' and how the English would have a smaller GDP per capita, but more powerful economy overall. And the difference between the two.

 

[Kaptaan]

Wow, that's some deep stuff, thanks for that. Much appreciated. I have been arguing with Scottish nationalists about Scottish independent and I noticed the different between them wanting GDP per capita or 'standard of living' and how the English would have a smaller GDP per capita, but more powerful economy overall. And the difference between the two.

Referancing Scotland and England with referance to per capita versus GDP is in my opinion spliting hairs because the per capita differance is nominal. It' not like living standard south of he border plunges.

By the as it is the Scots have it good on so many counts. This whole independance lark is short sighted and driven by belief that the oil/gas resources would proffer a bright future which is rather silly. No offence to Scots even if they do add a few hundreds to their per capita the country will remaina depressing, cold, dour place.

I will add few extra thoughts some other time. It's pass my bed time and brain is switching off.

 

[RogerRanger]

Referancing Scotland and England with referance to per capita versus GDP is in my opinion spliting hairs because the per capita differance is nominal. It' not like living standard south of he border plunges.

By the as it is the Scots have it good on so many counts. This whole independance lark is short sighted and driven by belief that the oil/gas resources would proffer a bright future which is rather silly. No offence to Scots even if they do add a few hundreds to their per capita the country will remaina depressing, cold, dour place.

I will add few extra thoughts some other time. It's pass my bed time and brain is switching off.

Indeed. They basically say they would be rich of they could have controlled their energy resources and sold them to England at a increasing price. While saying England would be poor without Scotland. So I am like I would rather be powerful like England, then being weak and richer like say Norway, which is what the Scottish base everything on. Of course the difference is the Scottish actually have an industrial sector in Glasgow, the Scandinavians don't really other than Sweden.

 

[Jackdaws]

Gdp per person is also moot. What matters is living standard based on purchasing power parity. Access to education, Healthcare, sanitation, potable water and infrastructure is what matters. Aircraft carriers and supersonic missiles aren't going to feed you.

I can tell you within India there is a yawning gap between the west/south states and the northern states.

 

[Jackdaws]

Indeed. They basically say they would be rich of they could have controlled their energy resources and sold them to England at a increasing price. While saying England would be poor without Scotland. So I am like I would rather be powerful like England, then being weak and richer like say Norway, which is what the Scottish base everything on. Of course the difference is the Scottish actually have an industrial sector in Glasgow, the Scandinavians don't really other than Sweden.

The Danes have a pretty big industrial base.

 

[Indos]

Well what you are saying is true, there should be GDP minimum per-capita (minimum should be 6000 USD per capita for developing countries (nominal) ) to be regarded as strong nation, local defense industry sophistication that can absorb quite big amount of a country total defense spending, big local manufacturing made by national companies, IT industry and expertise, and at least good amount of trade surplus ( showing the economy competitiveness and resources), beside total nominal GDP to show power.

This is why GFP tries to measure power using many economic indicators like total nominal GDP, land territory, population, infrastructure, and others, not only weapon quantity and quality.

How many friends ( and the quality of friends) you have should also be counted and also politics stability, education, and governance quality. The strategic location of a country should also be counted ( land lock or not, etc) beside its territory and arable land. The ability to be self sufficient in important agriculture products and good local production of meat and fish ( protein supplier) should also be considered.

For Indonesia case, this is why we should focus more on economy and local defense industry development until 2027 before increasing our defense budget significantly at gradual step ( currently our defense budget is at 10 billion USD, second biggest in SEA after Singapore (11 billion USD) despite the smallest in term of percentage to GDP (O.8 %).

R&D budget is also important. There is now good policy made by Indonesia Finance Ministry to create their own R&D budget (LPDP) beside we also have dedicated research institution (BRIN) despite it is still in a very beginning stage ( thus not that large yet).

 

[RogerRanger]

The Danes have a pretty big industrial base.

Yeah, I wouldn't know about Denmark.

 

[Kaptaan]

There is a base level each country needs to provide basic resources for itself

This is where you have a problem. What is that base level? You mentioned Ireland. If India used the same base level as Ireland there would not a cent spare to indulge in buying fighters or ships to fly the flag on the high seas. Would Irish citizens be prepared to live in poverty that masses do in India to free large pool of resources for supporting a navy to fly the Irish flag on the high seas. I doubt it very much. The bridges across the River Liffy would be swarmed by crowds of Irish after having downed appropriate amounts of Guinness and the Taoiseach would be thown into the Liffy.

beyond that point is can use it to generation excessive resources, which we would describe as power.

The Germans easily generate sufficient resources to shake the world. Their economic domination over most of Europe and even beyond is total. The problem for any power fanatic or emerging Bismark in Germany is despite having the economic resources, the geographic position and political influence because of the WW2 legacy this is untenable. Within and abroad the historical guilt complex of WW2 effectively has Germany in chains. Take this away Germany would be giving Putin nightmares. This time around most of Europe would be with Germany.

 

[Viva_vietnamm]

I have noticed how countries like Ireland have no power, but a very high GDP per person. Where as Russia/China/India have lower GDP per person and much more power. Then you have other countries like Britain/France we have above average GDP per person and above average power, and Germany/Japan who have very good economies, but no power beyond that. Only the US has a higher GDP per person and a lot of power.

So which would you choose and why? GDP per person or power.


Power being the control of the productivity and resources within your economy, basically your own people controlling your companies, rather than foreign companies using you as a staging post to a greater market like Ireland. And power being the ability to turn your economic productivity into culture-military-political power and project that power into other nations and areas of the world. Like the Chinese are trying to do now, move from the economically dependent state to a place where they can control their economic security.

For VN, we don't have any choices, we were forced to fight against CN for thousand years, and then French colony, American imperialism and CN again in 1979.

So, we just simply wanna have our own independence, whether we r poor or rich.

“Better to die free than live as slaves,”