Every 2 years China adds a Russia

[American_Millenium]

China GDP (nominal), 2010: $5.945 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2011: $7.314 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2012: $8.387 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2013: $9.469 trillion

(Figures exclude Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan)

China grew by $1.369 trillion between 2010 and 2011, $1.073 trillion between 2011 and 2012, and $1.082 trillion between 2012 and 2013.

These numbers are set to increase even as China's growth decreases, because of China's exponentially larger GDP after such growth (compound interest).

China is averaging $2.155-$2.451 trillion biannually. This is larger than Russia's $2.097 trillion GDP (2013), and significantly higher than India's $1.877 trillion GDP (2013). In fact, China is producing almost as much as the UK's entire GDP of $2.523 trillion (2013) every 2 years.

Source, IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/index.aspx

Source, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)#IMF_estimates_between_2010_and_2019

 

[American_Millenium]

What I find particularly funny is this desperate attempt by many an "analyst" to throw India and China into the same grouping every time 'emerging economies' are mentioned, as if they have had anywhere near the same performance.

India for the same time period:

India GDP (nominal), 2010: $1.709 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2011: $1.880 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2012: $1.859 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2013: $1.877 trillion

India, 2010-2011 = $171 billion

India, 2011-2012 = -$21 billion

India, 2012-2013 = $18 billion

And here's China at the beginning of the decade... India is not even adding onto it's economy the same amount that China was when China's economy was smaller than India's back in 2004. Clearly, the gap between India and China is growing... exponentially.

China, 2000-2001 = $124 billion

China, 2001-2002 = $139 billion

China, 2002-2003 = $195 billion

China, 2003-2004 = $294 billion

China, 2004-2005 = $342 billion

China, 2005-2006 = $506 billion

China GDP (nominal), 2000: $1.193 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2001: $1.317 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2002: $1.456 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2003: $1.651 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2004: $1.945 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2005: $2.287 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2006: $2.793 trillion

 

[Nova2]

What I find particularly funny is this desperate attempt by many an "analyst" to throw India and China into the same grouping every time 'emerging economies' are mentioned, as if they have had anywhere near the same performance.

India for the same time period:

India GDP (nominal), 2010: $1.709 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2011: $1.880 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2012: $1.859 trillion

India GDP (nominal), 2013: $1.877 trillion

India, 2010-2011 = $171 billion

India, 2011-2012 = -$21 billion

India, 2012-2013 = $18 billion

And here's China at the beginning of the decade... India is not even adding onto it's economy the same amount that China was when China's economy was smaller than India's back in 2004. Clearly, the gap between India and China is growing... exponentially.

China, 2000-2001 = $124 billion

China, 2001-2002 = $139 billion

China, 2002-2003 = $195 billion

China, 2003-2004 = $294 billion

China, 2004-2005 = $342 billion

China, 2005-2006 = $506 billion

China GDP (nominal), 2000: $1.193 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2001: $1.317 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2002: $1.456 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2003: $1.651 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2004: $1.945 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2005: $2.287 trillion

China GDP (nominal), 2006: $2.793 trillion

That's incorrect that India didnt add anything to its ECONOMY ,it was growing in rupee terms,the stagnant growth from 2011-13 is because of depriciation of rupee from 45/$ in 2011 to 60/$ in 2013 a depriciation of over 20%..
It feels amazing to watch china grow every year bt cut this d!ck measuring crap.

 

[American_Millenium]

That's incorrect that India didnt add anything to its ECONOMY ,it was growing in rupee terms,the stagnant growth from 2011-13 is because of depriciation of rupee from 45/$ in 2011 to 60/$ in 2013 a depriciation of over 20%..
It feels amazing to watch china grow every year bt cut this d!ck measuring crap.

I'm not d!ck measuring just making an observation.

Yes, I know it was due to the depreciation of the rupee. It still happened though. GDP is calculated with US dollars, and on a US dollar basis this is accurate. If you have a problem you should take it up with the IMF and World Bank, not me. They are the one's using the US dollar instead of the Rupee for their metrics.

 

[Nova2]

I'm not d!ck measuring just making an observation.

Yes, I know it was due to the depreciation of the rupee. It still happened though. GDP is calculated with US dollars, and on a US dollar basis this is accurate. If you have a problem you should take it up with the IMF and World Bank, not me. They are the one's using the US dollar instead of the Rupee for their metrics.

It was to let you know that Indian economy has been growing though it has remained stagnant in dollar terms,i dont have any issues with the data bud,we know our economy has slowed down and we have to face this fact.it was just to remind you that we are still growing,and mocking India for what had happend to its economy in the past 2yrs has become boring.Anyways u cn carry on wid ur comparision's.

 

[pher]

That's incorrect that India didnt add anything to its ECONOMY ,it was growing in rupee terms,the stagnant growth from 2011-13 is because of depriciation of rupee from 45/$ in 2011 to 60/$ in 2013 a depriciation of over 20%..
It feels amazing to watch china grow every year bt cut this d!ck measuring crap.

the exchange rate of your currency reflect your competitive ability or economic power in international arena, making all countries comparable. otherwise you india could be world no 1 by just printing rupee relentlessly. learn some basics.

 

[American_Millenium]

mocking India for what had happend to its economy in the past 2yrs has become boring.Anyways u cn carry on wid ur comparision's.

I dont know why Indian's always do this. Making a comparison is not mocking. The title of the thread and the majority focus was on Russia because it has a larger GDP, but somehow you brought the mockery of India into this.

The only reason I made a comparison with India is because analysts are always comparing the two and pretending like they've had the same growth. I'm proving they've had nowhere near the same growth since the 1990's.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Russia has a lot of strengths that are not accounted for in their nominal GDP.

Russia is a former superpower, an industrialized nation, the largest oil producer in the world, they have the largest natural gas reserves in the world (by far), they have the largest territory/landmass in the world, and they are a military superpower.

There is a reason Russia could annex Crimea, and no one could do anything about it. They have power that goes far beyond their nominal GDP, which by the way is still very impressive when compared to their population.

 

[American_Millenium]

Russia has a lot of strengths that are not accounted for in their nominal GDP.

Russia is a former superpower, an industrialized nation, and they are a military superpower.

There is a reason Russia could annex Crimea, and no one could do anything about it. They have power that goes far beyond their nominal GDP, which by the way is still very impressive when compared to their population.

Russia's strengths that are not accounted for in their nominal GDP exist only because of their past nominal GDP. Throughout the 70's and 80's Russia's GDP reached over half the US, and at one point reached 65% of the United States.

Russia's large amount of military equipment and large amount of equipment and knowledge in many industries is not irrespective of their GDP, but rather because of their GDP in past decades. Imagine if China had a GDP at it's level today for another 20 years. That's what it's predecessor the Soviet Union had. It's no surprise that they still retain much of the equipment, know-how, and skill-sets from such a large economic power.

the largest oil producer in the world, they have the largest natural gas reserves in the world (by far), they have the largest territory/landmass in the world

These have to do with the luck of being born on such land, and having the past economic might to extract such resources. Not some metric that we can only guess at.

Besides, it's not a positive that Russia's natural resources represent such a large amount of their total GDP. It's one of the highest in the world.

 

[Beidou2020]

China needs to translate its economic power into national strength (financial power, technological sophistication, military power, political power, etc).

It's like the year China's economy is bigger than the American economy, no one will say China is a more powerful country than America. America has had multiple decades to turn that economic might into comprehensive national strength.

Russia already translated its economic power into national strength when it was a superpower. This is why despite China having a much larger economy, Russia has more national power than China.

 

[C130]

just shows how small and weak Russia economy is. I don't even think Russia economy is going to double til around the 2030's
-China
-India
-Brazil
-Nigeria
-Mexico
countries to look out for major growth

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Russia's strengths that are not accounted for in their nominal GDP exist only because of their past nominal GDP. Throughout the 70's and 80's Russia's GDP reached over half the US, and at one point reached 65% of the United States.

Russia's large amount of military equipment and large amount of equipment and knowledge in many industries is not irrespective of their GDP, but rather because of their GDP in past decades. Imagine if China had a GDP at it's level today for another 20 years. That's what it's predecessor the Soviet Union had. It's no surprise that they still retain much of the equipment, know-how, and skill-sets from such a large economic power.



These have to do with the luck of being born on such land, and having the past economic might to extract such resources. Not some metric that we can only guess at.

Besides, it's not a positive that Russia's natural resources represent such a large amount of their total GDP. It's one of the highest in the world.

Regardless, the bottom line is that Russia does have the power.

If we really were adding a Russia every 2 years, in terms of military and diplomatic power, that would be the best thing ever. But unfortunately we are not.

Our problem is that we are starting from a low base, Russia has had decades of being a superpower to build up their military and diplomatic power.

Russia is still a very good example for us in terms of nation-building, we have a lot to learn from both their successes and their mistakes. They have already tread the path before, and are looking to do so again. It would be foolish of us to think we have learned all we can from Russia, their power is much deeper and much more complex than many people give them credit for.

 

[Arya Desa]

Who let this supremacist back? Needs a chapaad.

 

[beijingwalker]

Russia GDP (Nominal) is still bigger than India's, so the title of this article would be also true if replaced Russia with India.

 

[birju]

Russia's strengths that are not accounted for in their nominal GDP exist only because of their past nominal GDP. Throughout the 70's and 80's Russia's GDP reached over half the US, and at one point reached 65% of the United States.

Russia's large amount of military equipment and large amount of equipment and knowledge in many industries is not irrespective of their GDP, but rather because of their GDP in past decades. Imagine if China had a GDP at it's level today for another 20 years. That's what it's predecessor the Soviet Union had. It's no surprise that they still retain much of the equipment, know-how, and skill-sets from such a large economic power.



These have to do with the luck of being born on such land, and having the past economic might to extract such resources. Not some metric that we can only guess at.

Besides, it's not a positive that Russia's natural resources represent such a large amount of their total GDP. It's one of the highest in the world.

View attachment 138122

"With a GDP more than ten times the size of the Soviet Unions, the U.S. could spend five percent of GDP on defense, and far outspend the Soviet Union. " from strategypage ( i cannot post links as i am a new member but have been guest reader for more than 7 years)

while when you search search "soviet gdp vs us gdp" on google and you get in kushnirs org

Comparison GDP of USSR and leaders

Year United States Japan GermanyFrance Italy USSR
1970 1075.9 209.1 208.9 146.4 109.3 433.4
1980 2862.5 1087 919.7 690.3 459.8 940
1990 5979.6 3103.7 1714.4 1244.1 1138.2 776.

The Soviet GDP was just 15% of US economy in 1990 but it matched or outclassed USA in some of the the most cutting edge technology like largest and very useful cargo aircraft like An-124/an-225 and helicopter Mi-26, Akula, Typhoon and Oscar submarines, and Mig-31/29 su-27 aircraft and tu-160 aircraft. while it lagged just slightly in other r fields ALL THE WHILE IT WAS DENIED EVEN A CLOSER LOOK AT US made Boeing-747 up until 1992.

but most important USSR was just 5 years behind USA in key tech areas and it even matched US achievements in most hi tech areas when it was just out of total devastation during world war 2 and made TU-95, mig-15/19 and an-12, tu-104 aircraft in just 15 years after 1945 when it was virtually destroyed.