Posts by Jack Hill2

analogbear5 said:I usually drop this in just to clear things up whenever someone brings up big GDP numbers. People love using it—along with exchange rates—to try and prove whether Russia is actually thriving or tanking under all those sanctions.

So, you're saying GDP isn't a reliable metric...?

analogbear5 said:Friendly reminder:

GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + exports – imports

Go ahead, spin it however you want.

What’s the point?

There is also the income approach to calculating GDP (the result is identical...

GDP = wages + interest + rent + corporate profits

George Robinson43 said:I honestly can't see how that graph showing total EU imports by currency from 2016 is relevant here.
It doesn't connect to our discussion at all.
If you're wondering why the UK has such a high share of other currencies, there's a simple explanation—it's mostly due to trade with Australia and Canada, involving the Commonwealth.
Actually, the Canadian dollar ranks as the 6th most used currency, right after the Australian one.

This looks like European Union trade, but only internal to the EU if I am reading this correctly.

I didn't realize the dollar was quite this strong. Everything my companies did with the European Union was handled in Euros; the only ones who mostly asked for Pounds were the Britons. For instance, Mexicans want Euros. Turks usually ask for dollars (rarely Euros), and almost every country outside of Europe asks for USD (Asia).

Is there a breakdown of this by industry somewhere? What exactly is being traded in dollars within the EU? I assume someone importing from outside the EU (China) pays in dollars, so they are happy if they can convince buyers to pay in Euros, but if they are dealing with end consumers, they can't.

Edit: Sorry, this shows trade with countries outside the EU. That makes sense now.

Zachary Jackson4 said:😁 I was wondering which nation would actually fare best under total global sanctions. The USA?

It would likely be somewhere like Samoa, or a small nation with very little trade activity.

But among the major powers, I suspect the USA has the lowest import-to-GDP ratio. It really depends on what specifically is being imported, but since the USA is self-sufficient in critical sectors like energy—oil, gas, and so on—they are probably one of the strongest candidates for surviving isolation...

urbanotter said:Exactly; propaganda is a "devilish thing," while facts tell a different story.

https://troskovazivota.com/cijene-i-...rusija-zemlja/

https://troskovazivota.com/cijene-i-...vatska-zemlja/

All things considered, they aren't living worse than we are. In fact, because their energy costs and utilities are so much cheaper, their actual purchasing power is higher than ours "wealthy" citizens.

And if you look at GDP per capita, we are neck and neck—ranked 56th and 57th—though I know GDP isn't the most realistic indicator of an average person's quality of life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Our pensions were "adjusted" by a measly 2.2%, yet inflation for basic necessities has surged well above 40-50%.

The US has a 40 percent higher real GDP per capita. If that's the case, just give me a 40 percent raise and we'll call it even...

Also, why is there an eight-year difference in life expectancy? Just curious, since the link is closed...

Amanda Allen4 said:Up until this point, we’ve enjoyed steady gains in labor productivity—which, naturally, helped keep commodity prices in check—largely thanks to relentless technological leaps. But let's face it: in several key sectors of the economy, that progress has hit a ceiling and isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future.

Now, we are finally being forced to deal with the fallout—consequences that were conveniently ignored, not just in terms of the environment, but within the political arena as well—and these issues demand immediate, decisive action before they spiral further.

So, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends—brace yourselves for a much leaner future.

That slice of sourdough and those few ounces of premium deli meat? You better get used to cutting them in half.😁.

I doubt anyone in the Middle East would care about anything if they had a Scandinavian GDP. Mexico would sign a treaty with Russia as a mortal enemy if it meant reaching that level of prosperity. Who gives a damn about Russia or their propaganda when you can afford a month-long vacation in Portugal for next to nothing? You wouldn't have any existential crises, and even an entry-level job at 18 would provide a higher standard of living than what people in the Middle East struggle to achieve after twenty years of building a career.

Right now, we are stuck somewhere between a poverty-stricken Russia and a developed Europe. And here, those hollow ideologies still find some traction... mostly among people struggling just to survive. Out of pure rage and desperation, they swallow stupid propaganda from the East, where there is likely even more hunger, oppression, and theft.

Dana Robinson4 said:"Quote:"

Jack Hill2 Asks: Reading through your take, I can't help but wonder—wouldn't it be far more plausible to expect a 10 percent contraction in Russia's GDP alongside a 2 percent growth in the US this year, rather than the exact opposite of what you've suggested? Honestly, who even cares about GDP figures anymore when all anyone wants to talk about is Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Putin?

What is the point of seeing a two percent increase in your salary when inflation is sitting at ten or even twenty percent?

We are talking about real GDP here—adjusted for inflation—not just nominal numbers.

real GDP growth in both the US and the euro area is now expected at 2.7% in 2022 and 2.3% in 2023, down from 4.0% and 2.8%.

So, Europe is still looking at growth, but it’s been trimmed by 1-2 percent because of the issues with Russia.

The last forecast I saw for Russia was a 9 percent drop in GDP. It might not be the total collapse some people are hoping for, but it certainly isn't good news for them...

This isn't gospel, but it's a far more serious analysis than some random internet article about bra sizing.

The United States will grant permission for two companies from Venezuela to supply oil to Europe.😁

bluerider63 said:I’m sitting here asking the same thing you are after scrolling through that Guardian piece. Here's my take on it.

What does this article even have to do with the war in Ukraine?

If the point is that Europe will suffer because of this conflict, that's obvious. The war is happening in Europe, and it isn't their fault. They would suffer regardless of what they do...

But if you want to measure something specific, use the actual data that's already out there instead of this nonsense.

bluerider63 said:With all these sanctions hitting, I bet Putin is out there telling his own people to shower in your bra and cook in the kettle instead of leaving that kind of nonsense to wealthy Englishmen 🤷

It’s funny how much we have to pay just to play the "democracy" card 🧐

Based on your comment, I wouldn't expect Russia's GDP to drop by 10% while the EU grows by 2% this year. It should be the exact opposite...

But who cares about GDP? It’s all about Lavrov and Putin...

Pepper said:Yeah, according to the Ukrainians.

But you're just using them as a source.

Pepper said:Hold on, seriously... Zelenskyy himself stated that Ukraine sees 100 dead and 500 wounded every single day. Not to mention how he constantly complains about everything, from funding to weaponry...

Regarding comparisons, sure, the Russians haven't wasted twenty years and countless billions just to swap one set of Taliban for another.

From the Ukrainian perspective, Russian losses are even higher. Plus, Ukraine's recruitment potential for this conflict is significantly greater. Ukrainians actually want to defend their home. In Russia, no sane person wants to fight a war in someone else's country. It’s not like you would volunteer to fight for some politician in a special operation over in Mexico or Mexico. That is why Putin is doing everything possible to avoid forced mobilization; he knows the people might revolt. He can try filling the ranks with mercenaries or impoverished people dying for a few bucks, but that pool isn't infinite—it's already drying up. Now it's clear: Russia either needs total mobilization or they lose the war...

Forget about Americans, it doesn't make sense. You can argue about the strategic futility of American involvement in the Middle East, but those aren't military failures, they are political ones. Militarily, Americans have defeated them whenever they chose to. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the Russians. After 100 days of war, the Russians can't even make a dent in Kyiv... in fact, they were defeated in the battle for it.

The U.S. can conquer a nation of 60 million people halfway across the world in a month without anyone back home even noticing. If there weren't news reports, nobody would even know. To them, it's just routine military exercise. That is the scale of their power...

Russia has exhausted itself trying to seize two villages near the border, wrecking its own economy, draining its resources, losing its fleet and aircraft, decimating its professional military, and isolating its people... all to achieve nothing...

Noah Diaz said:They have all of it, but it’s less sophisticated, more expensive, or they simply can't scale production. Besides, even the US Army isn't immune to the fallout of globalization and the relentless pursuit of profit margins.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/03/us-p...r-program.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-us...ed-from-china/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ge-chunk-25966
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defen...-parts-prices/

etc.

True, but the US outsources its intellect and tech to other nations primarily to leverage cheaper labor. They make sure that if an emergency hits, they can pivot production back home relatively easily...

The Russians just assemble foreign parts because they lack the homegrown technology and expertise to compete at that level...

Pepper said:It took the US two months just to take Fallujah, and even then, Fallujah was defended by an organized army that NATO had spent years training and equipping...

But the Russians are just losing people, equipment, and the war itself, and we're already approaching the six-month mark...

Man, stop dragging the US military into comparisons with Russia. It doesn't make sense. We could be comparing the Pakistani military to Russia or something else entirely... Just leave the USA out of it. If the Russians are struggling against Ukraine, they certainly aren't a match for the USA...

Pepper said:The calibers and Kinzals are plenty accurate, as we've seen in Ukraine. Honestly, Russia sends people into space and leads the way in rocket tech.

Russia might be masters of space, but they can't even take three small villages in two months...

From what I can gather, all the forecasts suggest Russia's GDP will drop by about 10% this year.

The impact of sanctions is undeniable. Without them, they would be seeing growth. Some sectors might be performing better or worse than expected, but there is no question that sanctions have hit them hard.

However, I believe the military blow is what hurts them most. Even before these sanctions, Russia's economy was already struggling, much like Italy's economic situation. They were essentially a broken economy even before the restrictions kicked in. Population-wise, they have fewer people than the two largest countries in the EU, let alone the rest of Europe. They simply aren't, and cannot be, a global player. Their only two real arguments were their military and their natural resources.

1. Militarily, they've been stalled just a few miles from their own borders without even needing NATO to step in. That says everything you need to know about their status as a global superpower.

2. As for energy, they've been brushed off. In five years, Europe likely won't give a damn about their energy supplies because they'll have organized alternative channels. Good luck to them trying to blackmail China or India... those are ten times larger and more powerful nations, and they're only going to get stronger...

1. If the goal is to flood the European market with oil by ramping up production elsewhere...

2. And since other nations have been successfully meeting their own energy demands up until now (which they have), nothing fundamental changes here.

The logic follows: Russia will be forced to cut production, but until then, they'll have to dump their surplus at a discount. Because if anyone actually wanted Russian oil at full market value, they would already be buying it.