You must log in or register to comment.

ferrel_hadley t1_j1yoyjp wrote

Congratulations, you have managed to list 8 of the 10 largest economies by nominal GDP.

With ROK and Saudi replacing Italy and Canada.


jonp5065 t1_j20biic wrote

Would love to see military spending / tax revenue


GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j20khwi wrote

There is a twist.... Military Expenditure contributes to GDP.


I know, weird, not the way I'd do it... but economists aren't ordinary people.


Suspicious-Feeling-1 t1_j21nf6t wrote

Why would we exclude it?


GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j21whrz wrote

GDP is generally regarded as a "more is better, everyone benefits, the economy thrives" thing.

Military Expenditure is black hole into which you pour money and misery emerges.


PandaDerZwote t1_j23e9xp wrote

GDP is also generally regarded as highly misunderstood because people don't know what it actually means other than "size of the economy".


Suspicious-Feeling-1 t1_j24o0my wrote

It's interesting you say that, one of the primary architects of the modern metric (Kuznets) had a similar critique, in that no one should use national income metrics as a shorthand for all encompassing prosperity. Totally agree on that point.

I think calling military expenditure a black hole is a little bit reductive. Many of our technological advances were at least partially accomplished by military funding. We probably wouldn't even be having this online thread without the billions of $ the US military put into ARPANET.


GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j26c1by wrote

There is an applicable term here... "Opportunity Cost" what is the cost of lost opportunities to advance peaceful technologies?


77Gumption77 t1_j25nsqn wrote

> Military Expenditure is black hole into which you pour money and misery emerges.

World peace exists because of, and not in spite of, US military spending. The last 30 -50 years are among the most peaceful in human history.


GrimeOfTheAncients t1_j26ccz2 wrote

Once the US stops bombing the rest of the planet into peace, they'll commence their Next Grand Plan... Fucking for Virginity.


SodaWithoutSparkles t1_j1z7mzl wrote

US's budgets is higher than the other 9, combined


pastdecisions t1_j1zx8zj wrote

Only 4% of the gdp though. So compared to the percent of gdp, it's a lot less than other countries.


zoom100000 t1_j2055fs wrote

According to this the US is 16th in spending compared to GDP in 2020. Looking at the top 20-30, I can’t really say I feel like we’re in good company.


hitemlow t1_j20bnzf wrote

That's mostly because most of Europe doesn't meet NATO's minimum recommended defense spending.


Few_Time_7441 t1_j20dlve wrote

4% is double the minimum requirement.


ferrel_hadley t1_j20hbao wrote

>4% of the gdp though. So compared to the percent of gdp, it's a lot less than other countries.

3.3%ish. And most of the west relies on US logistics and intelligence.

Even as a European I would be happy for the US to spend less and the Europeans to build out more logistics capability. The UK is the only country with a reasonable airlift capacity. French operations in west Africa partially depend on that and the US.


hitemlow t1_j20gpa8 wrote

Yes, and 2% is the minimum. Should "developed" countries in Europe really be hitting just the minimum (of which they're not even meeting that) every year?


PandaDerZwote t1_j23eehs wrote

Seeing how Russia is fairing (which NATO is the explicit counterweight to), 2% seems high if anything.


Few_Time_7441 t1_j20hu19 wrote

Well, it's their budget. Nato is a US project, they were able to increase their sphere of influence due to it. Why would these smaller countries do more than they can get away with?

They can spend extra money on what they care about. Sound like a pretty smart and developed move.


Suspicious-Feeling-1 t1_j21o6kg wrote

It's a great strategy for peacetime. I think a lot of European nations are rethinking it in light of Russian aggression.


protosser t1_j22b8hr wrote

And they'll never have to, the US isn't (can't) going to enforce it...because military bases (which the US has a lot of in Europe) are more important than NATO member spending the minimum


mr_ji t1_j21bfgs wrote

Bang for buck, I don't think anyone else even comes close. You could hand the actual dollar amount we spend to any other country and they couldn't produce a force with a fraction the capability.


zoom100000 t1_j21mh5s wrote

Got a source on that?


mr_ji t1_j21qn76 wrote

...a military career with heavy exposure to FMS, logistics, and strategic planning? You can't quantify the value or benefit of global military power projection, so obviously there isn't some peer-reviewed study to cite. However, the infrastructure of the U.S. military is light years ahead of anything else the world has ever seen. It's past the point that money is a limfac in what's possible or not.


zoom100000 t1_j21tit9 wrote

That’s fair thanks for sharing. I didn’t think your comment was completely outrageous, but definitely was a big statement to make.


D_is_for_Dante t1_j207dtr wrote

The US also has the largest airforce. Followed by the US Navy with the second largest.


topthrill08 t1_j214evs wrote

of the top five

  1. US airforce
  2. US Navy
  3. Russian Air Force (not sure how thats going these days)
  4. US Army
  5. US Marines

D_is_for_Dante t1_j214lix wrote

Holy shit I wasn’t aware that the army has its own batch of aircraft (I mean that’s what the airforce is for?). For the marines it makes sense I guess that they have their own.


topthrill08 t1_j218g9t wrote

for the army and marines I believe they have aircraft so they dont have to rely on another branch of the military that has different protocals and chain of commands. also Different Missions, Different Aircraft. Different Capabilities


mr_ji t1_j21b3my wrote

That's only going by number of aircraft. Going by value of aircraft, China and Russia are probably 2 and 3.


topthrill08 t1_j21bntb wrote

That is probably true!. the marines are a great example. numerous smaller specialized aircraft.


garret1033 t1_j220wah wrote

What? Going by value of aircraft probably makes the ranking less weighed in favor of Russia and China, no?


fail-deadly- t1_j205od3 wrote

Even discount the larger U.S. economy, because we’re trying to project force around the world it is FAR more expensive than just trying to defend U.S. soil.


SodaWithoutSparkles t1_j22jn9s wrote

From an non-American perspective, sometimes I do think that the US is "invading" others in the name of "world peace". The middle-east is a great example. That's just my own thought tho. Not trying to start an argument as that would obviously be un-wise to do in an environment full of Americans


Ajek2760 t1_j20ztxh wrote

That's the gross dollar amount, what's more interesting is when you take into account PPP and what actually goes into a military budget (does coast guard get included? How about special projects like an aircraft carrier?)


thediesel26 t1_j20ibe7 wrote

Yes. Cuz it’s about what world peace costs, and the US is the only country wealthy enough to be able to guarantee this.


IAmDrNoLife t1_j22u8or wrote

Something that is never mentioned for these posts, is the value of money, or PPP. The value of 1 USD varies from country to country. In the EU, you might be able to get a tiny 2 cm piece of chocolate, while in Africa you can actually buy proper food. This applies for defence spending as well.

Furthermore, there is a lot of stuff that is not included in the e.g. Chinese defense budget, that IS however included in the US one (but stuff that China nonetheless spends money on). This should be corrected before one can make a proper comparison.

If one applies a modifier accounting for the PPP difference, then China is suddenly at $465 to $514 billion.

If one applies a modifier for both PPP and wage differences, then the equivalent budget would be around $882 to $988 billion.

Short video that goes over this, if one might be curious:

But well, do note. It's China. So numbers are only guesstimates.


timduhe t1_j22w0zq wrote

I'm more interested to see purchasing power, like what can 800B$ buy you in US vs what can 300B$ buy you in China.

I assume Chinese workers are paid like a lot less than US's, most materials in China should be cheaper so therefore difference might not be that huge.

Russia might be spending 65B$ but corruption is huge there, so who knows how much money really goes where it should go.


noxx1234567 t1_j1z3rqx wrote

The fuck is Oman doing ? Are they Arming themselves due to Yemen ?


destuctir t1_j1z6c1j wrote

Oman is critical to western interests and as such they have naval bases that directly support the patrolling of the Persian gulf, this huge number is in part western funds to keep them strong and independent as a safe foothold in the area


cerebralsexer t1_j20k1oc wrote

What about Algeria?


Narpity t1_j20wisl wrote

Not Algerian, but they have historically been a bit of a punching bag to all their neighbors, Morocco, Libya, France, and Spain have all not been particularly friendly. Then more recently there have been more rebellions in Libya and Morocco with Islamic Terrorists in Mali. Think they are just not in a particularly stable area with few friends to rely on.


brotatowz t1_j1zl8ko wrote

It basically is an Israeli Colony.


belaltth t1_j1zynie wrote

Other than geopolitical significance, Oman (as well as Saudi and Algeria) also has a very large young male population who either become police or soldiers. It is basically giving them a job since there aren't many others. This is a better option than having them running around unemployed and frustrated.


noxx1234567 t1_j200cfp wrote

I am not sure if 5-7% GDP spending on excess military personnel is going to solve unemployment crisis in any meaningful way

They could have been made teachers or scientists to provide more boost to the economy than just foot soldiers


paperclip_nazi t1_j207xpp wrote

There are plenty of scientists and engineers and teachers(of sorts) in the military. It’s not just meatheads with guns


Avicennaete t1_j1ylkgx wrote

Saudi Arabia spends billions on guns yet can't win a war against their poor neighbors who fight wearing floppers


ssaaff t1_j1ytgvl wrote

USA lost to rice farmers, soviets lost to afghanis . War is not won only by better guns


fail-deadly- t1_j208pfd wrote

The North Vietnam had tanks, artillery, surface-to-air missiles and even jet fighters, much supplied by the USSR and PRC.

The Afghans had weapons supplied by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The stinger surface-to-air missiles sent by the U.S. were as sophisticated as any of the Soviet weapons.

Don’t act like simple rice farmers were using SA-2s they slapped together in their fields to shoot down B-52s.


khwaled t1_j22v339 wrote

And who supplied the afghans with weapons they used to win against the US?


fail-deadly- t1_j230o0l wrote

Often it was the U.S. supplying both the weapons and the training, but Pakistan, China, and Iran were all involved too.


ssaaff t1_j20vmpp wrote

They did indeed have soviet support . They also knew their way around the jungle .


brainblasttt t1_j1zt8oa wrote

USA lost to rice farmers being supplied by communist China, Soviets lost to Afghanis being supplied by the US. Russia is currently losing to a Ukraine supplied by NATO. All wars would’ve been won by the superior opponent without outside intervention.


Wanderlust1994 t1_j1z7dao wrote

The British lost to Icelandic fishermen with scissors.


aljokerr02 t1_j1zt0uo wrote

Australians lost to Emus


provocative_bear t1_j20le3n wrote

Yeah, but the emus were propped up by Mussolini, who had an interest in a fascist flightless bird state in the Pacific.


brk51 t1_j1zu3xd wrote

Bro I hate when mfs say this. Those rice farmers were literal seasoned fighters that have been fighting consistently for over 30 years. Technology aside - Pound for pound - they were objectively well trained, determined, and effective


[deleted] t1_j1yz17a wrote

Its a little more complicated than that. Geopolitics define rules of engagement that can result in neutering one sides advantage. Just like Russia is losing the war in Ukraine, but could realistically win it any day they wanted by just nuking Kiev.


brotatowz t1_j1zl350 wrote

could realistically win it any day they wanted by just nuking Kiev. How do you define win?

They kill their own country men. They bomb their own land with radiation. The entire world comes after them, unlike how USA got away with doing the same twice.


Jerund t1_j1zr2ew wrote

The usa got away with it because those that were invaded by the axis did more damage and harm for those countries. You aren’t gonna hear china/Korea complaining about Japan being nuked because Japan was occupying china and Korea. Russia ain’t gonna complain because Russia was also being invaded to some extent. Etc…


Bawstahn123 t1_j21ckw3 wrote

>rice farmers

Those "rice farmers" were at that point hard-core veteran light infantry who had been fighting for over 3 decades by the time the Vietnam War kicked off, and were receiving shit-tons of military aid from China


tirikai t1_j1ymevk wrote

Correct, enemy faction amongst poor neighbours are supported by Iran and are willing to persist through enormous losses


Gadew64 t1_j1ziwxl wrote

Suppressing armed enemies is so much harder than oppressing their wives.


Avicennaete t1_j1yolx9 wrote

You don't really have a choice but to persist if you're being invaded in your country.


tirikai t1_j1yp5wl wrote

Well, it is a civil dispute as well, the other half of Yemen wouldn't view a Houthi victory over Saudi as good for them


Prometheus-505 t1_j1ywufe wrote

You’re delusional if you think the entirety of yemen wants houthis, like there isn’t a southern portion of the country that wants to revert the mistake of unification.


Led4355 t1_j1zatst wrote

Including % of GDP and $ for all countries identified on this map would be helpful


BilingualThrowaway01 t1_j20j1h9 wrote

Would've been so much better if you didn't use a linear scale for the colour mapping. The image itself barely conveys any useful information other than the fact the US and China lead. Right now it looks like the UK spends roughly the same on their military as Panama or Kosovo.


boomer_stoke t1_j207aw8 wrote

Mr. Mercator says Greenland STRONG


FrankyMihawk t1_j1ylk9s wrote

You need to remove the outlier to be able to clearly show detail, looking at you mr dystopia


timbucktwentytwo t1_j1z2di6 wrote

Unless the point of the map was not to actually compare data but to demonstrate how much more the US spends on defense than every other country. If that was the goal I would say it is pretty successful.


ZecroniWybaut t1_j205aj8 wrote

Yeah, and makes the map pretty damn useless for its title at the same time.


HW90 t1_j1yzqae wrote

Or use a logarithmic scale


seanmonaghan1968 t1_j1yogkm wrote

This is a bad map, why don’t they just colour allies and show what their total combined annual spend is and how that compares to the rest. An attach on an allied member is an attack on all


Noodles_Crusher t1_j1yyk94 wrote

that's just a different map, which does not mean this is a bad one.


BigBobby2016 t1_j1yo17s wrote

From what I’ve been reading a time lapse over the next few years could be really interesting. When countries like Germany and Japan start talking about increasing defense spending you know things are serious


SirCharlesLucasII t1_j21rt21 wrote

I love how everyone is about avrage, china is there being a bit above... And then there is America being America


tbb2796 t1_j22rfjq wrote

terrorists ur game is thru

cause now u have to answer to


(so lick my butt; suck on my balls)


csl512 t1_j208gpv wrote

Why is the table at the bottom of Highest by GDP formatted the way it is? Is the empty space between the country name and percentage proportional the percentage?


JuliusErrrrrring t1_j21vbth wrote

Defense per GDP is a biased statistic invented by pro defense budget people in the U.S. The U.S. has by far the largest GDP in the world so they use this statistic to water down our gigantic budget into a manipulated number. A poor man with a gun is paying just as much as a rich man with the same gun.


BigBayesian t1_j23im5i wrote

I feel like the “Rich man, poor man” metaphors don’t go that well to argue against this metric, because the next step is “Do you want to be a rich man without a gun surrounded by poor men with guns?”


JuliusErrrrrring t1_j23w13n wrote

I think it fits perfectly. There are two men equally spending for a gun. To muddy the waters with a statistic like price per gun per income is misleading. Military spending per GDP is equally as misleading and it is misleading on purpose to justify outrageous budgets in the U.S.


KaTaLy5t_619 t1_j1z7u55 wrote

I'd love to see a breakdown of how much of the stated figures actually make their way through to defence spending. Case in point being Russia and those "1.5 million military uniforms" they had bought and stored away that ended up not existing.

I feel like there has to be some level of corruption or "palm greasing" that goes on everywhere, but based on evidence seen this year during the war in Ukraine, Russia must be number 1 on the chart of "allegedly spent on defence but actually bought a yacht for some dude instead".


BigBayesian t1_j23k7xt wrote

It’d be great if there were some good way to measure corruption and put it into the graph. But I suspect that’d be hard. It might also be divisive - if a US senator holds up a defense appropriations bill until some spending for their district is added, is that corruption? I suspect you can find conflicting, earnest, legitimate answers to that question.


KaTaLy5t_619 t1_j23m4pu wrote

Very true. It's probably impossible to ever know for sure the true level of actual corruption. What might be easier to find is what proportion of the budget actually made it through to nee hardware or training, although I'm sure there's plenty of creative accounting that can be done to disappear a couple of billion pretty easily.


OG_ninnyhammer t1_j20epl7 wrote

Can we see the paired map of countries protected militarily by the US, please?


BigBayesian t1_j23jpl8 wrote

That sounds incredibly complicated (like, literally a sizable fraction of the complexity of all US foreign policy), and really divisive (I.e. would all NATO countries count? Would Ukraine? India? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Taiwan?). You can make really good arguments that the answer for any of those is “yes” or “no”. For that reason, I think such an illustration would be difficult to construct, and impossible to treat as data without an agenda.


Sahanrohana t1_j20ofrn wrote

That Mercator projection though.


codemajdoor t1_j20r5he wrote

Per capita or at least normalize by gdp ffs


nicat97 t1_j21lb57 wrote

Whom US is afraid of?! Mexico? Canada?


BigBayesian t1_j23ixzm wrote

Believe it or not, the US has a military presence outside of it’s immediate geographic neighbors. It also projects force even further than that.

I don’t think Mexico and Canada are at the top of the list of countries that the US spends it’s military budget worrying about. Perhaps it’s border security budget (but even then, maybe not - airport security).


Musole t1_j22thzk wrote

It’s mind boggling that the US of A spends more than all of Africa combined. Military expenditure in Africa increased to 43 billion U.S. dollars in 2020, growing from roughly 41 billion U.S. dollars in the previous year. (Statista)

The US still outspend China ($750 bn vs $237 per year.


BigBayesian t1_j23idvn wrote

US has about 20% of Africa’s population, and a GDP of $25T compared to $3T for Africa.


JohnTo7 t1_j2335ud wrote

All that money wasted. We could have colonized Alfa Centauri by now.

Time for a change.


coronaflo t1_j217eu2 wrote

A lot of the defense expenditures have to do with maintaining the military force structure including pay, healthcare both current and post service.


OptimalBeans t1_j21u5y4 wrote

Pretty sure those China numbers are incorrect.. unless the msm is lying to me


keestie t1_j21zkf4 wrote

Is it my colour-blindness, or is that colour scale reeeeeally bad?


Twentydragon t1_j232v7s wrote

It's not just you! This is one of the hazards of plotting data with severe outliers onto colors.


masher_oz t1_j2212k9 wrote

You also managed to use on of the worst map projections.


khwaled t1_j22v83n wrote

Algeria's budget increased a 100% to $22b, at 10% of the gdp


fierceinvalidshome t1_j218xtn wrote

If US military spending goes down Europe, Israel, and a handful of others will go up. Better one big bad bully instead of dozens.


Holyvigil t1_j20pp0k wrote

I get it. The middle east really likes war.


spongebobama t1_j208c26 wrote

800, thats ridiculous. I live in a shithole and have become a phisician on free university education and have acess to a free universal healthcare that has provided for oncology treatment for more than one relative. You guys deserve better than this, americans are just awesome. Hope this change. Being a sole superpower is just sad. You guys could be colonizing the solar system by now


thediesel26 t1_j20hte4 wrote

We Americans spend that much on the military so the ‘shithole’ you live in can provide you with free university education and free universal healthcare. We spend that much on our military so your government doesn’t have to.


spongebobama t1_j20lo7y wrote

That doesnt make any sense. And I made compliments to your people. The only agressor around these parts ar the US itsef my friend...


emsiem22 t1_j202neb wrote

This is so depressive. And manic.


buzzzzz1 t1_j1z7oo8 wrote

For the U.S., this wouldn't include aid to Ukraine, which is over 68 Billion. The amount would be the 4th highest in the world.


Here is a list of the U.S. federal budget deficits for the last 10 fiscal years (October 1 to September 30):

Fiscal year 2022: $3.1 trillion

Fiscal year 2021: $3.1 trillion

Fiscal year 2020: $3.1 trillion

Fiscal year 2019: $984 billion

Fiscal year 2018: $779 billion

Fiscal year 2017: $665 billion

Fiscal year 2016: $587 billion

Fiscal year 2015: $438 billion

Fiscal year 2014: $483 billion

Fiscal year 2013: $680 billion


OG_ninnyhammer t1_j20f1ro wrote

Maybe the map should should show Total Military Budget divided by Number of Countries Protected.


MapsActually t1_j206edd wrote

Did you know that Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland. Please don't use the Mercator projection for maps like this. I suggest Equal Earth or Eckert IV.