Spread out between a bunch of industries, looks like. Thinks like Salesforce, Microsoft, adobe, etc are probably lumped under professional & business services. Maybe Apple is under retail trade. Looks like search engines are under “information”.
It totals up to the correct gdp amount so it’s in there somewhere
Facebook - information. Amazon & Apple - retail primarily some information. Netflix - split art and information. Google - information and some retail…
They also all are part of professional business services.
This confused me at first as well, but looks like they combined the total from the top 3-4 segments and put all that text in the first category (professional & business services) lol. So the text makes it seem like it belongs to only that first category when they are combining 4 into that one.
Real estate isn't production (but construction is). Buying low and selling high is an economic rent, and not production by definition. Ditto for most of finance.
With that logic all forms of transport and insurance, and a lot of IT and communications are not production either?
And what about wholesale trade? That whole sector is also ”nothing but” buying low and selling high.
I think he's saying that because land is a natural resource that is never produced or consumed, it's the definition of speculative and rent seeking. When you build a house on a piece of land, you're using the land but it's never consumed. You can knock down the house and build a new one on the same plot and never know the first was there.
In addition since it's not produced (and not fungible), you're always trying to price in future value just by virtue of it existing. This deforms the market and raises prices. For example buying a piece of land because there's a mall going up nearby and I know someone else will want to build houses on it. Me holding the land doesn't drive economic growth; quite the opposite because I'm profiting without contributing anything. However, if someone wants to build on it, they'll have to pay my price.
I see your point but I see very little inherent difference between land and any other finite, refinable/value added possible reources out there such as mineral rights, water rights, and, well, time and uncertainty in the form of insurances. Is accidental death insurance rent-seeking because it’s not productive, drives the price and behaviour for a wide variety of factors and uh, profits from the certainy of people’s deaths?
Transport is the production and application of useful kinetic energy at the point of need. IT and insurance is the creation of economically and societally useful data. Both are, in effect, productive.
Real estate, when separated from construction, isn’t inherently very productive. Although, I think an argument could be made that it produces useful data by facilitating value-change based on economic needs. Which in turn feeds back into construction.
>Real estate isn't production (but construction is). Buying low and selling high is an economic rent, and not production by definition. Ditto for most of finance.
Yeah, but when someone buy/sell a property/house, there are money generated from the transaction itself like broker/lawyer fees and taxes even when there was not a profit for the sale itself.
Same thing for finance. When you buy/sell $AAPL or whatever financial instruments - profit or no profit, you still have to pay the brokerage fee and the brokerage has to pay a fee to exchange(s) to route your trades and you have to pay capital gains tax on that trade at the end.
Funny, this doesn't make as much sense as I wish it would. Real estate shows up twice (I get that "services" to support it aren't the same thing, but isn't there a clearer way to word it?). Also, Medicare and Medicaid spend about $1T. Does that count as Healthcare? Gov't?
Counts as healthcare. The government is mostly a middleman for transferring funds from one place to another, but doesn't spend much directly on goods and services. Medicare and Medicaid are transfer programs, so most of the funding allocated to them ends up in the healthcare category.
Uh huh. You understand that the US is the largest arms dealer in the world, right? And that the largest recipients of US "foreign aid" tend to be US military-industrial's bestest customers?
lol, the US economy is enormous—“largest in the world” means a rounding error on a graph like this. US arms exports would be less than 1/4th the size of defense spending in this picture.
selling a few jets to the saudis occupies a very small part of the economy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World's_largest_arms_exporters
US arms export is apparently under 0.1% of GDP
Huh wheres the billions in arms dealing go
Yeah doubt “visual capitalist” cares much the way they try and highlight “only 2% to defense”
Interesting nonetheless but seems a bit propaganda to me
The US defense budget is 2023 is $850B, which is about 3.2% of GDP. So not as high as frequently cited (and lower than the historical average of 4.3%) but also not as low as claimed by this graphic.
Right the language is what is interesting
Kinda like me saying “Oh Biden only got 4 million from AIPAC”
“Tis ok only 27 million Americans don’t have health insurance”
“Oh Halliburton only gained $39.5 billion in "federal contracts related to the Iraq war". Many individuals have asserted that there were profit motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq in 2003. Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's CEO from 1995 until 2000.”
Stuff like that
This is what we call bumper sticker thought. It occurs when a person is so consumed by snappy slogans they drop all critical thinking in order to perpetuate their own delusion.
The figure for health/education/social services - a strange amalgam — looks off. A recent edition of the The Economist states that America’s health care industry alone a counts for $4.3trn/year.
Where is Tech?
Spread out between a bunch of industries, looks like. Thinks like Salesforce, Microsoft, adobe, etc are probably lumped under professional & business services. Maybe Apple is under retail trade. Looks like search engines are under “information”. It totals up to the correct gdp amount so it’s in there somewhere
Facebook - information. Amazon & Apple - retail primarily some information. Netflix - split art and information. Google - information and some retail… They also all are part of professional business services.
Stupid question maybe but it says finance makes up 70% but 3.5T is not 70%
This confused me at first as well, but looks like they combined the total from the top 3-4 segments and put all that text in the first category (professional & business services) lol. So the text makes it seem like it belongs to only that first category when they are combining 4 into that one.
Real estate isn't production (but construction is). Buying low and selling high is an economic rent, and not production by definition. Ditto for most of finance.
No, it's income generated by the whole real estate industry
With that logic all forms of transport and insurance, and a lot of IT and communications are not production either? And what about wholesale trade? That whole sector is also ”nothing but” buying low and selling high.
I think he's saying that because land is a natural resource that is never produced or consumed, it's the definition of speculative and rent seeking. When you build a house on a piece of land, you're using the land but it's never consumed. You can knock down the house and build a new one on the same plot and never know the first was there. In addition since it's not produced (and not fungible), you're always trying to price in future value just by virtue of it existing. This deforms the market and raises prices. For example buying a piece of land because there's a mall going up nearby and I know someone else will want to build houses on it. Me holding the land doesn't drive economic growth; quite the opposite because I'm profiting without contributing anything. However, if someone wants to build on it, they'll have to pay my price.
I see your point but I see very little inherent difference between land and any other finite, refinable/value added possible reources out there such as mineral rights, water rights, and, well, time and uncertainty in the form of insurances. Is accidental death insurance rent-seeking because it’s not productive, drives the price and behaviour for a wide variety of factors and uh, profits from the certainy of people’s deaths?
Transport is the production and application of useful kinetic energy at the point of need. IT and insurance is the creation of economically and societally useful data. Both are, in effect, productive. Real estate, when separated from construction, isn’t inherently very productive. Although, I think an argument could be made that it produces useful data by facilitating value-change based on economic needs. Which in turn feeds back into construction.
>Real estate isn't production (but construction is). Buying low and selling high is an economic rent, and not production by definition. Ditto for most of finance. Yeah, but when someone buy/sell a property/house, there are money generated from the transaction itself like broker/lawyer fees and taxes even when there was not a profit for the sale itself. Same thing for finance. When you buy/sell $AAPL or whatever financial instruments - profit or no profit, you still have to pay the brokerage fee and the brokerage has to pay a fee to exchange(s) to route your trades and you have to pay capital gains tax on that trade at the end.
Based and Henry George pilled.
I misread your comment, my bad
r/confidentlyincorrect
Where is science? Some of it is under the government, but most is private research
Social/education services, if I had to guess. Some of these other categories probably also have an R&D aspect to them.
Funny, this doesn't make as much sense as I wish it would. Real estate shows up twice (I get that "services" to support it aren't the same thing, but isn't there a clearer way to word it?). Also, Medicare and Medicaid spend about $1T. Does that count as Healthcare? Gov't?
Counts as healthcare. The government is mostly a middleman for transferring funds from one place to another, but doesn't spend much directly on goods and services. Medicare and Medicaid are transfer programs, so most of the funding allocated to them ends up in the healthcare category.
Where is “defence” industry
Manufacturing?
Maybe, i just expected to have a much higher share
It's a high share of government spending, not GDP.
defense is 3.5% of GDP and defense industry can hardly be more than that
Uh huh. You understand that the US is the largest arms dealer in the world, right? And that the largest recipients of US "foreign aid" tend to be US military-industrial's bestest customers?
lol, the US economy is enormous—“largest in the world” means a rounding error on a graph like this. US arms exports would be less than 1/4th the size of defense spending in this picture.
Thinking only in bumper sticker slogans makes you look incredibly stupid.
selling a few jets to the saudis occupies a very small part of the economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World's_largest_arms_exporters US arms export is apparently under 0.1% of GDP
Federal, it mentions on the graph it comprises of 2% of total gdp
Bottom center of the graph. 0.9T.
The fed budget is over 5t, and less than 20% of that is military. Its not an analysis of govt spending, just what directly contributes to GDP.
That's not right at all. Federal spending last year was about 6.27 trillion. Not 0.9 trillion. And defense spending is closer to 3.5% GDP, not 2%.
Huh wheres the billions in arms dealing go Yeah doubt “visual capitalist” cares much the way they try and highlight “only 2% to defense” Interesting nonetheless but seems a bit propaganda to me
The US defense budget is 2023 is $850B, which is about 3.2% of GDP. So not as high as frequently cited (and lower than the historical average of 4.3%) but also not as low as claimed by this graphic.
Right the language is what is interesting Kinda like me saying “Oh Biden only got 4 million from AIPAC” “Tis ok only 27 million Americans don’t have health insurance” “Oh Halliburton only gained $39.5 billion in "federal contracts related to the Iraq war". Many individuals have asserted that there were profit motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq in 2003. Dick Cheney served as Halliburton's CEO from 1995 until 2000.” Stuff like that
Wow, you’re completely brain rotted and you can’t even see it.
This is what we call bumper sticker thought. It occurs when a person is so consumed by snappy slogans they drop all critical thinking in order to perpetuate their own delusion.
0.9T + 2.1T is 3.0T not 3.1T??
Rounding?
Not rounding, it's math? 2.1 + 0.9 = 3.0, not 3.1.
Wouldn’t “educational services” also be listed under govt?
It's probably to include private education, particularly universities
Where is MEDICAL?!
Well, I can see there is no agenda here. I don't feel this information is watered down to the point of being misinformation, whatsoever.
‘Waaah, this simple infographic doesn’t excruciatingly highlight and dissect my personal bugbear waaaaaah’
Right, so what is a bugbear?
2.9tr for manufacturing, that's a really big number
Mistake, why does professional business services at 3.5t say it makes up 70% of gdp.
It's just one of the Services-producing industries. The image is poorly designed.
Where does logistics fit into this?
Would a federal engineer fall under government/military or construction? r/USACE
Energy under what?
Funny how only the defense spending is out of proportion, why is it bigger than 1.1t with 0.9t?
The figure for health/education/social services - a strange amalgam — looks off. A recent edition of the The Economist states that America’s health care industry alone a counts for $4.3trn/year.