Over the weekend, we provided a graphic illustration of how much of the planet you could eliminate for a "budget" of 5 percent of global GDP. But what if, instead of having 5 percent to work with, you instead had 23.4 percent, or about 14.3 trillion dollars, which was the United States' share of world GDP in 2008 as according to the International Monetary Fund?
It turns out that you could wipe out 5.3 billion people for this amount: all of Africa except Libya, all of South America except Venezuela, Mexico and the Rest of Central America, China, Southeast Asia (except Taiwan and Hong Kong), the Indian Subcontinent, all of Central Asia, most of Eastern Europe, and quite a few tiny Pacific Islands.
Note that a few countries, like Cuba and Somalia, survive here merely because the IMF does not publish data on them, but they're generally impoverished and it probably would not be too much trouble to rid yourself of those ones too.
7.02.2009
Destroying the Planet, Part II
@ 6:19 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments
And...
It is pretty cool to know just how much of the world GDP the US accounts for, but two important points include the BRIC countries moving UP while our standard of living goes down (a post on this?) and the fact that this post is not tied to ANYTHING meaningful.
"Econometrics"?
Not for nothing, but this is a rich-ass world.
I just feel compelled to note while these maps really do show just how much inequity there is on a global scale, it'd be really interesting to think about all of these countries on a regional scale. Countries like Brazil, South Africa, India, and others that are starting to enter the cycle of neoliberal economics and see rapid GDP increases are leaving vast percentages of their population behind. In short, this map could eliminate even more people if you were able to differentiate Sao Paulo's wealthy from the rest of Brazil, Afrikaaners from South African Blacks, and the other sort of inequities that are just as striking but perhaps at a lower scale.
I see where this is going. Next will be how much energy different parts of the world use. Typical liberal guilt garbage.
...interesting post Nate. Good illustration of the fact that the world's wealth is tied up in a small group of countries. I have two thoughts to share on my favorite political site. #1, "Sovereignty Day" should be considered a hard slap to the face of the W/Cheney administration. Please take it for what it is, the US cannot push aside the fact that they/we chose to go to war with a country for no reason whatsoever and took away their sovereignty. THE US had never done that before. In fact, we hwere the exact opposite. We came to the rescue after Germany invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia, after North Korea invaded South and North Vietnam, South, etc. We were the beacon of hope and the moral high ground. We've lost that moral high ground forever...and I mean forever. If we are a major power for the next 500 years the rest of the world will not forget about Iraq War #2 by Bush and Co.. Countries like Iran and North Korea, etc. will say, not only will we not disarm or build a nuclear program, but instead we will push forwatd because we're concerned that the US might invade us at some point. This is the legacy that W. left us. Fortunately we have Obama, who is as good as we could hope for. He will do a lot of damage control and help mitigate the proble, but make no mistake W. is a severe problem that we will be dealing with for a long time. Thank god we have a President that can earn some goodwill moving forward. Point #2, I hope Sarah Palin is the GOP candidate in 2012, that would be funny. ...lastly a side note, Reagan was in many ways a terrible President. His legacy is being felt today with this economic crisis spurred on in the 80s by the greedy atmosphere he helped create. Let's call a spade a spade. W. Bush was likely the worst PResident we ever had and Reagan was in the bottom 10. The only reason Reagan doesn't land lower is he helped end the Cold War and that's a big positive, the rest of his legacy is absolute garbage...
"those ones"?
Nate, you are brilliant, but you could benefit greatly from a copyeditor.
May I suggest "those countries" or just "them"?
@AtSwimTwoBirds
I took an econometrics course a long time ago, one of the few solidly mathematical courses I have taken in econ. Not I do not have a degree in econ, but took several courses while working on my degree because it is fascinating and generally easy to grasp(at least undergrad econ).
Decent explanation
Is anybody else worried that Nate seems to enjoy writing these "how much of the world can we destroy" posts a bit too much?
"nova_middle_man said...
I see where this is going. Next will be how much energy different parts of the world use. Typical liberal guilt garbage."
Absolutely right!
As a member of the Stock Exchange I say we should sell the widows and orphans and go into South American oil futures!
Away with all this namby-pamby liberal guilt mongering! Have you seen my yacht?
Update us on how you do....also I was wondering if you will be doing senate rankings this month?
So, about $3000 per person to kill, is that your point?
I agree with Nova... what is the point?
As a member of the Stock Exchange I say we should sell the widows and orphans and go into South American oil futures!
If you have a retirement plan or invest, you are probably a member (that term is being used loosely here) of the stock exchange. Don't knock it.
What's the over/under on Eric? 19? 20?
Ha ha liberal guilt! Personally I prefer to think of it as liberal conscience, but I don't think that's the point of this post. No one would suggest Americans should make less. But it does seem worth pointing out just how much economic power the US still has.
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/newzealand/19965/pdfs/ESpotlite%20-%20Econ2007.pdf
Just wanted to point out that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of Southeast Asia. Geographically they are closer to Japan and the Koreas, which would place them in Northeast Asia.
@beavis: I know what econometrics is.
I have a postgraduate qualification in econometrics.
This ain't econometrics.
Are you using nominal GDP numbers to compare across countries? I understand that many people use these numbers to talk about global costs of climate change or other policies, but it is a little disingenuous not to account for price differences across countries, don't you think? How about doing a map using GDP measured in Purchasing Power Parities, instead of the less meaningful nominal GDP.
Cuba and Somalia are nothing alike in terms of poverty
I read where Bachmann says we should not allow the IMF to collect statistics on us, since there are published plans to eliminate most countries on which the IMF has data.
@Michael (mbw).
I've read (published) science fiction about plans to eliminate every country. These stories generally didn't mention the IMF.
I would guess that any serious plans (by anyone with a credible ability to do it) to eliminate existing countries are not published.
How about seeing how small a percentage of the population has to be destroyed to eliminate 50% of the energy usage?
Taiwan and Hong Kong are in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Singapore is in Southeast Asia; I find it weird that the map destroys it even though with only 4 million people, it has a higher GDP than North Korea, Somalia, and Cuba combined.
For the love of god...
The point is that the right's tendency to frame the discussion of climate change in terms of GDP (or any other strictly economic term) essentially ignores the human element. Are we willing to sacrifice 5 or 10% of our GDP in order to save 100 million lives? Are we willing to sacrifice 100 million lives in order to save 5 or 10% of our GDP?
I doubt this thread is still alive but you can't be serious.
More liberal guilt. If this bothers you so much reduce your energy usage by 50%..... still there I thought so.
I just have to chalk it up to two different parties.
Herea another point. Job creation and innovation (you know actual longterm growth) is a direct result of the most devleoped and devloping countries. If you start cutting this job creation/innovation standards of living will nosedive. Then you will have 100 million poor people in the US alone. (Ok a bit of an exaggeration but this whole post/string is)
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Patricia
http://forextradin-g.net
Post a Comment