Originally Posted by Guest

It's greatest flaw is that it did not limit how much the voting parasites and their political terrorists could steal from the human being class. The great fathers of Anarchy (Moses and Lysander Spooner) would be disgusted

Then again, maybe anarchy is immoral.

Originally Posted by Guest

Did America only become the world's most powerful nation after World War II? - Quora

"Britain was obviously the most powerful nation on earth in terms of standing military power until the 1930's when Germany surpassed her."

"Britain probably remained the most powerful nation on earth until World War I"

"That said, the second point is about standing industrial might, and Britain was probably passed by Germany in 1935. Both Germany and Britain were likely passed by the US at the outbreak of WWII (1939). While the US remained out of the war for two years, the US nonetheless started arming herself. At that point, the factories began retooling for war, the military grew in power and the US became--and has not since given up--the most powerful military forces on earth."

What made Germany "the greatest"? Military power? Industrial Power? Economic Power? GDP?

Originally Posted by Guest

What made Germany "the greatest"? Military power? Industrial Power? Economic Power? GDP?

They had them all...and smaller than the US too. Germany is like a state in the US...who get's all 50 thrown in for comparison.

The EU is much bigger economically than the US...and it's STILL smaller area wise.

Originally Posted by Guest

They had them all...and smaller than the US too. Germany is like a state in the US...who get's all 50 thrown in for comparison.

The EU is much bigger economically than the US...and it's STILL smaller area wise.

I'm not sure what landmass has to do with it. Germany is like a state in the U.S. with 83 million people in it. Oh, wait, there aren't any states in the U.S. with 83 million people. But if you add together California, Texas, and Pennsylvania you can get there. But those 3 states' GDP's dwarf Germany's.

The EU has a "much bigger" economy because it has more people. However, the per capita GDP in the U.S. is "much bigger" than in the E.U.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not sure what landmass has to do with it. Germany is like a state in the U.S. with 83 million people in it. Oh, wait, there aren't any states in the U.S. with 83 million people. But if you add together California, Texas, and Pennsylvania you can get there. But those 3 states' GDP's dwarf Germany's.

The EU has a "much bigger" economy because it has more people. However, the per capita GDP in the U.S. is "much bigger" than in the E.U.

We're talking about PRE WWII...not now. You asked: "What made Germany "the greatest"? Military power? Industrial Power? Economic Power? GDP?"

Made...past tense...pre WWII.

And it's STILL a fair question...Germany stands alone and is compared to 50 states?

California is bankrupt...just the the US is. Germany is there or on it's way...I don't keep track of Europe ponzi schemes...NOBODY is doing "WELL"...not even the Chinese. We're at a peak...I think down is the only way to go...the world is 80% poor making less than $10 a day. It's not sustainable with "peak oil extraction".

Originally Posted by Guest

We're talking about PRE WWII...not now. You asked: "What made Germany "the greatest"? Military power? Industrial Power? Economic Power? GDP?"


And it's STILL a fair question...Germany stands alone and is compared to 50 states?

Sorry, followed your lead in using present tense. Landmass has nothing to do with economic output. That's why per capita GDP is more useful when comparing. In 1920 US per capita GDP was $5,552. In Germany it was $2,796.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sorry, followed your lead in using present tense. Landmass has nothing to do with economic output. That's why per capita GDP is more useful when comparing. In 1920 US per capita GDP was $5,552. In Germany it was $2,796.

There IS a limit. It takes land to do EVERYTHING...eventually...you frow to the point where you have used everything. It's a zero sum situation.

Germany IMPORTS most of their energy.

Germany’s dependence on imported fossil fuels | Clean Energy Wire

"While the whole of the EU imported 53.4 percent of its energy consumption in 2014, Germany’s dependency was even higher with an import share of 61.4 percent – only slightly below the previous year’s all-time high of 62.6 percent."

• German electricity imports from Europe 2014 | Statistic

Germany IMPORTS much of their electricity:

"The statistic represents Germany's electricity imports from other European countries in 2014, sorted by country. During this year, Germany imported around 14.8 terawatt hours worth of electricity from France. "

Germany has grown PAST their ability to be self sufficient...the US because of it's vastness has not...yet.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sorry, followed your lead in using present tense. Landmass has nothing to do with economic output. That's why per capita GDP is more useful when comparing. In 1920 US per capita GDP was $5,552. In Germany it was $2,796.

Germany had just been defeated in WWI...you think it's a FAIR comparison?

How about we compare America to France right after the civil war?

Why do you get caught up in the details? Germany is being compared to a nation of 50 states, the entire US...and is the size of Montana.

I think they did/are doing pretty darn well. Why? Probably because they're white. If you look..there IS a trend...ALL the nice places are white/Asian with western economies...ALL the really sh!tty places are black/brown.

Originally Posted by Guest

Germany had just been defeated in WWI...you think it's a FAIR comparison?

How about we compare America to France right after the civil war?

In 1870 the German and France GDP were essentially equal. Each 36% less than the US. In 1913 their combined GDP was 36% less than the US.

I still don't understand why you think landmass is a big consideration in economic output. Even today the US has a lot of unused land. What does that have to do with anything? Land doesn't have much affect on GDP. Just ask Luxembourg.

Originally Posted by Guest

In 1870 the German and France GDP were essentially equal. Each 36% less than the US. In 1913 their combined GDP was 36% less than the US.

I still don't understand why you think landmass is a big consideration in economic output. Even today the US has a lot of unused land. What does that have to do with anything? Land doesn't have much affect on GDP. Just ask Luxembourg.

GDP is a bullsh!t number. It's really meaningless. It shows where things cost more.

"What is the GDP and how is it calculated?
Written out, the equation for calculating GDP is: GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government investment + government spending + (exports – imports). For the gross domestic product, “gross” means that the GDP measures production regardless of the various uses to which the product can be put."

Take the US today... Government provides "arguably" about 20% of that number. The US government borrows over a $ trillion a year and pumps it into the economy...counting towards GDP. It's NOT an accurate number.


"Even so, the measure is still imperfect. Suppose China has a GDP per capita of $1,500, while Ireland has a GDP per capita of $15,000. This doesn't necessarily mean that the average Irish person is 10 times better off than the average Chinese person. GDP per capita doesn't account for how expensive it is to live in a country. Purchasing power parity (PPP) attempts to solve this by comparing how many goods and services an exchange-rate-adjusted unit of money can purchase in different countries – comparing the price of an item, or basket of items, in two countries after adjusting for the exchange rate between the two, in effect.

Real per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity, is a heavily refined statistic to measure true income, which is an important element of well-being. An individual in New York might make $100,000 a year, while an individual in Wyoming might make $50,000 a year. In absolute terms, the worker in New York is better off. But if a year's worth of food, clothing and other items costs three times as much in New York than Wyoming, however, the worker in Wyoming has a higher real income."

The numbers are ALL heavily "massaged".

WHY are you still discussing this? It's a SMALL side point.

America became a superpower AFTER WWII. BEFORE WWII...MANY countries had and lost that title. America WILL someday lose that title. I don't know if it will be China...I doubt it. I think we'll have a WORLD depression when WWIII starts and after the war...the financial systems will collapse. The US military...with bases in "every" country...holds the current world system together. "Without Rome there to keep things going"...things will revert to localized...we'll have a "dark ages", 3/4 of the worlds population will dies of starvation...and the world will start organizing itself again.

It may be a LONG time before WWIII...the world is pretty interconnected. The wealthy have business in most all the major countries. Investors rarely attack those they've invested in.

But the drag of the poor...the amount of resources being consumed. It's unsustainable. 80% can't live on the labor of the other 20%. 80% of the worlds population lives on less than $10 a day.

THIS is the problem today. Not GDP back at the turn of the last century. The problem is THIS century. America with 51% minorities is NOT the America that was 90% white in the late 1950s. It's not "better". We just have more toys...more distractions.

The life expectancy has been going down the last few years...why do you think that is? They'll SAY it's because of the "opioid menace"...but it's not...it's due to the changing demographics. America has never had so many poor. As the numbers of minorities rise, the death age comes down. The "opioid scare" is just another way to fleece us...more "war on drugs" crap because their #1 moneymaker, fighting cannabis, is becoming legalized...it's not producing like it did. They NEED a reason to be funded.

Originally Posted by Guest

GDP is a bullsh!t number. It's really meaningless. It shows where things cost more.

WHY are you still discussing this? It's a SMALL side point.

"Gross domestic product is the best way to measure a country's economy. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country." (Kimberly Amadeo, president of World Market Watch.)

Since it was originally indicated that other countries economies were way better than ours, I used GDP (because it's the best way to measure a country's economy. See quote above) to refute those ridiculous assertions.

I am still discussing this because I was asked to compare the American economy to the German and French economies at different time periods. But since you don't like the answers, you've decided that someone with 20 years senior-level experience in economic analysis (Kimberly Amadeo, not me), doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the economy.

Originally Posted by Guest

"Gross domestic product is the best way to measure a country's economy. GDP is the total value of everything produced by all the people and companies in the country." (Kimberly Amadeo, president of World Market Watch.)

Since it was originally indicated that other countries economies were way better than ours, I used GDP (because it's the best way to measure a country's economy. See quote above) to refute those ridiculous assertions.

I am still discussing this because I was asked to compare the American economy to the German and French economies at different time periods. But since you don't like the answers, you've decided that someone with 20 years senior-level experience in economic analysis (Kimberly Amadeo, not me), doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to the economy.

Kimberly can say whatever she wants...she's wrong...actually, she's a shill...GDP shows how much things COST...it's a "money" statistic. "Money" is fake. It's AIR...it's numbers in a computer...it has ONLY the value the bankers who create it...give it. Fiat currency, fractional reserve banking...that's ALL I'll say about it. Banking IS a ponzi.

I said the US is HUGE compared to those individual countries and it's NOT a fair comparison...YOU keep going on and on about it. The US has going on 400 million people...Germany has 82 million. The US is HUGE...Germany is the size of Montana. It's NOT a fair comparison.

A FAIR comparison would be the entire EU...but you disagree.

I'm done.

Originally Posted by Guest

I said the US is HUGE compared to those individual countries and it's NOT a fair comparison...YOU keep going on and on about it. The US has going on 400 million people...Germany has 82 million. The US is HUGE...Germany is the size of Montana. It's NOT a fair comparison.

A FAIR comparison would be the entire EU...but you disagree.

I'm done.

That's why you should use per capita GDP. Duh! It corrects for population differences. Again, landmass is meaningless. Empty spaces don't raise or lower economic activity.

BTW - US per capita GDP dwarfs both German and EU.