BF2S Forums China Wants to Have Fun Too

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

mikkel wrote:

So you're suggesting that population, rather than gross domestic product, determines the purchasing power of a nation?

Taxes.

Not an issue when the government owns the industrial base. That's why the per capita numbers for China don't represent the same thing as per capita numbers from most Western countries.

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not an issue when the government owns the industrial base. That's why the per capita numbers for China don't represent the same thing as per capita numbers from most Western countries.

Right.  But it does matter for American tax payers.

eh?

FEOS wrote:

Wait...wasn't it amount of GDP per capita spent on defense? That's different than amount of government revenue (taxes) per capita spent on defense. And government revenue includes many things other than income taxes.

So...I guess that comparison actually means nothing. Systems are completely different, no clear delineation between amount of income tax per capita spent on defense versus amount of GDP per capita spent on defense. Plus, the numbers will be skewed (per capita) anyway based solely on population differentials.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2008-03-05 02:48:47)

RoosterCantrell wrote:

There is no more room hre on Earth.  IF nations would just evolve beyond paranoia and imperialism, maybe we could work TOGETHER with all that money, and as a global alliance, actually move beyond earth.

sergeriver wrote:

You are 300 million, not a low population.

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You are 300 million, not a low population.

Still less than one third the population of China. Plus, their development costs would be much lower, as their government doesn't really have to pay state-owned corporations to build their stuff...mostly just materials cost.

Actually 1/4.  But you are kinda right, both countries can't be compared.  Totally different systems and distribution of wealth.

siciliano732 wrote:

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.

Ok here we go:

USA: $623,000,000,000
China: $58,700,000,000 (59bn)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures

USA spends practically 10x more, and the population is like a quarter of China

And even the UK spends more than China

you do know Wikipedia is not a reputable source right?

.Sup wrote:

geNius wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP


1     North Korea     22.90     2003 est.
2     Oman     11.40     2005 est.
3     Qatar     10.00     2005 est.
4     Saudi Arabia     10.00     2005 est.
5     Iraq     8.60     2006
6     Jordan     8.60     2006
7     Israel     7.30     2006
8     Yemen     6.60     2006
9     Armenia     6.50     2001
10     Eritrea     6.30     2006 est.
11     Burundi     5.90     2006 est.
12     Syria     5.90     2005 est.
13     Angola     5.70     2006
14     Mauritania     5.50     2006
15     Maldives     5.50     2005 est.

This is more of a concern to me.

I couldn't care less about the big man that could damage me if he wanted.  I'm worried about the little man that feverishly spends his resources to better his odds against me.

Whos the top spender on attack resources? I wonder who...

Marinejuana wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Where did you find this? Fox? CNN? NYT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures



predictable.

What, that you've once again failed to defend your stance? You posted a uselessly manipulated list of countries ranked by military spending, of course I'm going to tease you and suggest you found it in some shit news article. Just because you found it on wikipedia (far from an academic resource, anyway) doesn't mean that it contains data useful in commenting on 'top military spenders.' I've explained your table in simple enough terms. It has little to do with 'top military spending' and a lot more to do with the overall size of GDP. Do you dispute that?

Using Saudi Arabia as my case in point: their economy is 2% the size of ours, but they have 4% of our military expenditures. That fully explains why they are high on a list of countries by military expenditure expressed as a % of GDP. Obviously it hasn't a thing to do with big spending, because we spend 25 times more than they do. Their spending only comprises a larger percentage of their total GDP because they have 50 times less money to work with and the price of weapons and food isn't scaled to their economy. It's not like the price of ammo in Saudi Arabia is 50 times cheaper, and its not like they can call their military sufficient while deciding to defend 50 times less of their land or people. With such a tiny GDP, having an army at all is going to take up a more noticeable chunk of the economy than what we see for the world's super-rich top military spenders.

Anyway, I clearly expressed this in the previous post that you failed to rebut. As it stands, the initial table you posted is almost completely irrelevant to the matter of 'top military spending.' And figures such as this (below), found at the top of the wiki page where you were cherry picking, more than prove my point:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … ers%29.jpg

On another note, this data is misleading too. At a glance, Europe appears to spend a lot less, unless you actually add up the figures and see that per area and population the US and Europe spend very comparable amounts.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

The US, excuse me for this, doesnt really care what the rest of the world thinks about its defense spending.  Its an internal issue.