If the 2021 US GDP is $23.2 trillion, then China's $17.7 trillion GDP makes up about 76.5% of US GDP.
If the 2021 US GDP is $22.9 trillion, then China's $17.7 trillion GDP makes up about 77.5% of US GDP.
In any case, China's GDP is between $5.2 trillion to $5.5 trillion of US GDP, well below estimates that put a gap of $6 trillion to $7 trillion.
Fed officials projected that the US economy would grow 4% in 2022. The Conference Board forecasts growth of 3.5%; Goldman Sachs is forecasting 3.8%. The Bank of America says 4%. Analyzes made even last year.
The World Bank in December 2021 cut its 2022 growth estimate of China's economy from 5.4% to 5.1%. Goldman Sachs also cut its estimate of China's economic growth from 4.8% to 4.3%.
We'll see next year who gets it right or if everyone gets it wrong.
Considering the most optimistic estimates from these analyses, this means that China will stagnate or even decline in 2022 with the total percentage of the US economy falling below 76%, for this change not to occur, China would need to grow at least 6%, or the US economy grow less in 2022.
One consideration, if 2021 Chinese GDP was US$17.7 trillion, based on SIPRI China's military spending at 1.7% of GDP, that would mean that China would be spending this year US$300.9 billion in value. nominal? There's more, is the PPP GDP count for 2021 out yet?
There are calories and then there are calories...
Not all GDP is the same.
In terms of what is 'useful', would paying people to manually dig ditches and then another group just to undo that by also getting paid to fill the ditches back up be considered economically "useful" activity? Surely from a thermodynamic standpoint it is a waste, as energy is expended but the end result is the same, ending up exactly where it began. One could say a lot of the modern day jobs have some degree of this same "hurry up and wait" sort of uselessness to it all...
You have the food industry poisoning people with junk sugar, carbs and then you have the so called health or medical industry that prescribes all sorts of drugs to treat the diseases caused by the foods etc.... this all adds to both sides on the GDP, infact healthcare is a huge chunk of US GDP, and yet was any of this activity "useful"?
Modern
"money" is a claim on existing energy supply/deposit's future ability to do "work", when that money is spent/exchanged/actualized in the context of a society that still has readily access to available net energy for use. Thus money derives almost entirely it real purchasing power (and thus value) from the underlining "work/force/producitivty multiplier effect" of energy.
At the end of the day
Net Energy is what counts because it alone powers all the other non-energy sectors of the economy. And all of the goods and services in the modern economy, without exception, require such an energy input. As that societies/civilizations primary energy sources dwindle and/or its EROEI (total net usable energy) threshold declines, then so does that societies money likewise deflate and devalue. The same unit of money will be able to fetch less energy, produce less work, contribute to less productivity, and thus enable less real economic activity etc
In such a situation,
using money to measure economic activity is like using an ever shrinking ruler/yardstick to measure the dimensions of your physical property and volume of your tangible assets.... even as you get poorer and had to sell off more of your things, if your ruler or measurement device is shrinking at a faster pace then it would still appear by all measurements you were well off (for example using money to measure GDP as a signifier of the health or status of a nation or global economy)
Per capita net energy (accounting for EROEI) has already dropped off a cliff and that is the underlining reason why productivity and real wages have gone down even as technology was suppose to increase the productivity of workers. (an increase in economic growth rate by one percentage point is associated with an increase in primary energy consumption by 0.96 percent).
We are essentially, for all intents and purposes, living in a so-called
"fractional-reserve Energy economy", in that there is not a commensurate amount of energy set aside or locked away for each unit of money invested, printed, earned or saved.
Energy is priced on the basis of output vs consumption demand, even as the total global reserves themselves are starting to run empty/dry but as long as it can be pumped out at roughly the same rate then the price stays relatively stable...
But this false stability is misleading because the total remaining extractable/usable net energy reserves in the world are already far less than the amount of total money out there in circulation and in terms of monies saved up or in the form of investments, retirement funds, profits earned and accumulated etc etc
Energy is in essence being priced by an economic system that itself relies upon the assumption that the very instruments of what it is relying on to price will always exists into perpetuity.
In a decreasing EROEI world, money loses ability to accurately price/value the remaining energy thus causing a viscous cycle of energy being monetarily cheaper than it should otherwise be, which again in turn CONtributes to propping up the value of money itself -- (recall that modern money derives almost entirely it real purchasing power (and thus value) from the underlining "work/force/productivity multiplier effect" in the context of the society in which it exists in. ) -- which it itself in turn means it only serves to accelerates and compounds the errors in pricing or accounting for subsequent consumption of energy and the remaining energy and so on and so forth...
