The World’s 9 Biggest Economies

These are the figures from the World Bank, which doesn’t rank anything because that might embarrass the U.S. regime and encourage questioning how it can justify its having 900 foreign military bases and justify its claim to being “the one indispensable nation” and that all other nations — including ones that are larger than itself — are “dispensable.” So: since the World Bank doesn’t rank them on the basis of their numbers, I will do that, here, and will explain what each of the rankings actually are comparing or “mean.”

First of all, then, the meanings:

GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, measures the dollar-value of each country’s economic output from the standpoint of the “producers” or corporations that are selling there. To simplify this, it is the GDP that international investors, especially in the stock markets, pay attention to.

GDP PPP, or Gross Domestic Product at Purchasing Power Parity, measures how much the residents in each country can buy as calculated on the basis of adjusting the nation’s local currency’s exchange-rate ratio in the foreign exchanges, and so it represents the standpoint of the “consumers” or buyers and users, including workers there — not merely the far fewer corporate owners. To simplify this, it is the “adjusted” GDP that the residents in the given country, the consumers there, pay attention to.

Here are those rankings:

GDP in 2022 as measured in the number of millions of dollars

  1. U.S. $25,439,700
  2. China $17,963,171
  3. EU $14,135,993
  4. Japan $4,256,411
  5. Germany $4,082,469
  6. India $3,416,645
  7. UK $3,059,073
  8. France $2,779,092
  9. Russia $2,240,422

GDP PPP in 2022 as measured in the number of millions of dollars at PPP

  1. China $30,337,137
  2. U.S. $25,439,700
  3. EU $19,599,966
  4. India $11,904,797
  5. Japan $5,703,678
  6. Russia $5,326,854
  7. Germany $5,323,854
  8. Indonesia 4,038,239
  9. Brazil $3,838,532
  10. France $3,764,758
  11. UK $3,678,727

For examples: Russia is #9 from the standpoint of international investors but is #6 from the standpoint of the country’s residents. And India is #6 from the standpoint of international investors but is #4 from the standpoint of its residents. And China is #2 from the standpoint of international investors but is #1 from the standpoint of its residents.

worlds-economiesThese figures are not per-capita but for the entire nation. So: these numbers indicate each country’s national economic impact or influence in the world. However, these numbers additionally indicate something very important about the distribution of wealth in each of the countries, because the GDP versus GDP PPP comparisons display the relative importance that the actual rulers of each given country assign to international investors on the one hand, and to the country’s own residents on the other.

For example: there is only a single nation on this list that does not have lower GDP than GDP PPP figures, and it is the United States, and what this shows — displays, actually — is that the rulers of this country are by far standouts for their having the highest ratio (100% identity) between serving the interests of international investors as compared to serving the interests of its residents. This is what one would expect from a Government that slants exceptionally high toward the aristocratic and exceptionally low toward the democratic end of the political-ideological spectrum. If any of these countries is a dictatorship, that is the United States, because its actual rulers care the least about serving the welfare of their residents, and the most about serving the interests of international investors. This would suggest that America is the most capitalistic and the least socialistic of all of the biggest 9 national economies. What this also suggests is that whereas socialism (concern about serving the welfare of the public) generally reflects democracy, capitalism (concern about serving the interests of international investors) generally reflects dictatorship (BY that aristocracy of international wealth). In other words: Marxism was an abortion of socialism, not a viable embodiment of it. Whereas fascism (rule by the super-rich) is natural (for example, feudalism was the prior version of that) and can succeed long-term, Marxian communism is unnatural (as both Russia and China concluded to be the case at around 1990) and therefore cannot succeed long-term. So, today’s world is a contest between the more socialisticallly inclined countries versus the fascistically dominated ones. Mussolini used the term “corporationism” as a synonym for his “fascism.” Although Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, lost the military war in WW2, they won the ideological war, starting on 25 July 1945, when Dwight Eisenhower seconded, to Truman, Churchill’s Rhodesist version of fascistic imperialism, which then became America’s dominant ideology for the post-WW2 period, and was propagandized under the label of “anti-communism.” It was all a con, and it worked. Truman established this form of fascism as America’s ideology. And pitting it against self-defeating Marxism made it a breeze to succeed.

As one would expect, given that America is #1 on Governmental policy favoring the owners of corporations at the expense of consumers (everyone else), the latest figures indicate that 93% of America’s corporate stocks are owned by the richest 10% of the population, and 54% of America’s corporate stocks are owned by the richest 1% of the population. So: only 46% are owned by the poorer 99% of Americans. And, of course, the vast majority of political donations come from the super-rich. In fact, the wealthiest 1% of the wealthiest 1% of Americans — the wealthiest ten-thousandth of Americans — donate 57.16% of all the money that funds U.S. political campaigns. The “Top 400 Donors” (all of whom are multi-billionaires, not merely billionaires) donate 29.86%, or virtually 30%, of all political money, in the U.S. So: the U.S. Government is put up for auction during each and every ‘election’ cycle. It’s the dollars that really count, not the mere votes (because long before a winning candidate won at the polls, that person won at the campaign funding).

NOTE: On March 4th I headlined “Statistical Comparisons U.S. v. Russia (etc.)”, and focused not on today’s economies but on economic growth of the leading economic powers calculated as a multiple of the 1998 GDP and of the GDP PPP numbers over the last 25 years — in other words: each economy’s comprehensive growth-rate during the past 25 years going back to the starting-point of 1998.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply