Wouldn’t a lower number of billionaires to a higher amount of profits be more favorable to everyone except billionaires? So that particular example actually favors the system in the USA, oddly.
Of course, GDP only accounts for excess goods and services sold to other nations, which for the USA includes financial services like trading platforms and exchanges, heavily skewing their actual production capacity.
I think so, yeah. Also, billionaire means anything more than 1 billion, right? It might help to look at how much wealth they actually have; for example, if one nation has 1 billionaire (with $30 billion) and another has 30 billionaires (each with $1 billion), I wouldn’t argue that the former is especially better off.
It’s worth noting, though, that this doesn’t take into account the levels of inequality beyond comparing numbers of billionaires/non-billionaires.
The Gini coefficient is a popular method of measuring economic inequality, on a scale from 0 (total equality) to 1 (one person owns the entire nation’s wealth).
It’s a good thing that all that time and resources and blood was spent making the CCP the only instrument of significant political power in China so they could [check notes] as a much-poorer country, have about the same number of billionaires as the poster country for capitalism!
The PRC, which is run exclusively by the CCP, is kind of the topic of discussion here. Is that too complex for you to grasp?
in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the econony and quality of life since its inception.
It’s hilarious that tankies throw fits over capitalist countries using the same measure to judge their successes, but immediately resort to it when their favorite fascist state is questioned.
Not making a point here, I just like numbers:
China has a population of ~1.4 billion
China has 698 billionares
China has the one billionare for every 2,005,730 people.
United States has a population of ~340 million
United States has 724 billionaires
US has one billionaire for every 469,613 people.
Edit: I like numbers. I don’t like Reddit/Lemmy formatting.
I think it’d be better when adjusted for GDP.
China gdp: $17.96 trillion
China has 1 billionare / $25.73 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $18.22 GDP / capita
US gpd: $27.94 trillion
US has 1 billionare / $38.59 billion GDP or 1 billionare / $114.88 GDP / capita
Ohhhh numbers. Very yummy.
Wouldn’t a lower number of billionaires to a higher amount of profits be more favorable to everyone except billionaires? So that particular example actually favors the system in the USA, oddly.
Of course, GDP only accounts for excess goods and services sold to other nations, which for the USA includes financial services like trading platforms and exchanges, heavily skewing their actual production capacity.
I think so, yeah. Also, billionaire means anything more than 1 billion, right? It might help to look at how much wealth they actually have; for example, if one nation has 1 billionaire (with $30 billion) and another has 30 billionaires (each with $1 billion), I wouldn’t argue that the former is especially better off.
I don’t know, seems better to have 1 money hoarding asshole than 30…
Removed by mod
Hell / yeah / brother
This isn’t reddit. -3.14
Force of habit
It’s worth noting, though, that this doesn’t take into account the levels of inequality beyond comparing numbers of billionaires/non-billionaires.
The Gini coefficient is a popular method of measuring economic inequality, on a scale from 0 (total equality) to 1 (one person owns the entire nation’s wealth).
As of 2019, the US and China had Gini coefficients of 0.481 and 0.465 respectively, making them extremely similar in overall wealth inequality, which is extremely high for both nations.
Ooohhh… new types of numbers…
Tonight, we feast…
you are being generous if you think your average reactionary will understand such a heavy concept of per capita
I’m not trying to make anyone understand anything, I just like numbers.
A man of strong conviction, I see.
The numbers have no conviction. The numbers are objective.
numbers are fine i guess
Numbers care not for your approval.
but i have mild approval for them anyway.
It’s a good thing that all that time and resources and blood was spent making the CCP the only instrument of significant political power in China so they could [check notes] as a much-poorer country, have about the same number of billionaires as the poster country for capitalism!
Power to the people('s billionaires)!
did i say anything about the ccp?
in any case the country has seen the unprecedented growth in the economy and quality of life since its inception. not perfect, not too shabby.
The PRC, which is run exclusively by the CCP, is kind of the topic of discussion here. Is that too complex for you to grasp?
It’s hilarious that tankies throw fits over capitalist countries using the same measure to judge their successes, but immediately resort to it when their favorite fascist state is questioned.
i dont recall throwing any fits about measures of success. the person you are thinking of is not me.
Only reactionary I see here is… you.ml
yo you might be looking into a mirror here. ml is a popular leftist instance, wonder why you hate it mmmmmmmmm 🤔