California overtakes Japan to become the world's fourth largest economy(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
California overtakes Japan to become the world's fourth largest economy
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/business/california-japan-economy-tariffs-intl-hnk/index.html
115 comments
>The fact that the US and China show up as single countries (and not "continents"/regions) whereas the EU shows up as a bunch of "small" countries is source of a lot of inferiority complex in Europe.
On the one hand, yes, you're right, the EU is more powerful economically as a whole than as individual states. But on the other hand the individual states are a bit less unified than the US or China. So they are a bit more individual in the first place.
On the one hand, yes, you're right, the EU is more powerful economically as a whole than as individual states. But on the other hand the individual states are a bit less unified than the US or China. So they are a bit more individual in the first place.
The EU is still fairly new. It's only been around in its current form for a few decades or so.
EU countries still have:
- their own laws and constitutions
- their own foreign policy, embassies, intelligence services, armies, etc.
- their own taxation; there actually is no EU tax (though there is some pressure to create such a thing)
- their own policies for education, healthcare, social security, taxation, trade, etc.
- their own currency in some cases (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Poland and many other eastern European countries)
- border disputes like Cyprus, the Balkans (several former Yugoslav countries are members or aspiring to be). And though not part of it, you might count Greenland here as it is Danish with a special status.
As a trade block, the EU is pretty large. And the sphere of influence also includes former soviet states not part of the EU, Turkey, Northern Africa, etc. But it doesn't speak with one voice like the US and China tend to do. Also there is a lot of division on topics like e.g. the Ukraine war, energy, and a lot of other topics.
EU countries still have:
- their own laws and constitutions
- their own foreign policy, embassies, intelligence services, armies, etc.
- their own taxation; there actually is no EU tax (though there is some pressure to create such a thing)
- their own policies for education, healthcare, social security, taxation, trade, etc.
- their own currency in some cases (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Poland and many other eastern European countries)
- border disputes like Cyprus, the Balkans (several former Yugoslav countries are members or aspiring to be). And though not part of it, you might count Greenland here as it is Danish with a special status.
As a trade block, the EU is pretty large. And the sphere of influence also includes former soviet states not part of the EU, Turkey, Northern Africa, etc. But it doesn't speak with one voice like the US and China tend to do. Also there is a lot of division on topics like e.g. the Ukraine war, energy, and a lot of other topics.
Each US state also has
- its own laws and constitution, search "Constitution of California"
- its own taxation (e.g. sales tax differs between states, just as VAT rates differ between EU countries; Americans pay income tax to their state as well as the federation)
- its own policies for education, healthcare (not sure about social security, and not for trade)
- some US states have border disputes with other states, e.g. Tennessee vs Georgia (Possibly the EU does not, they must be resolved before joining, though I can't find a good article on this).
- the USA as a whole has border disputes with Canada
The EU presents more division on more topics than the USA, but the USA isn't united on e.g. energy policy.
- its own laws and constitution, search "Constitution of California"
- its own taxation (e.g. sales tax differs between states, just as VAT rates differ between EU countries; Americans pay income tax to their state as well as the federation)
- its own policies for education, healthcare (not sure about social security, and not for trade)
- some US states have border disputes with other states, e.g. Tennessee vs Georgia (Possibly the EU does not, they must be resolved before joining, though I can't find a good article on this).
- the USA as a whole has border disputes with Canada
The EU presents more division on more topics than the USA, but the USA isn't united on e.g. energy policy.
> I'm curious how high up Guandong or Shanghai would be for example
Surprisingly far down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-level_administra...
California, Texas, England, New York, Guangdong, Jiangsu. Both with slightly smaller GDP than Russia, the 11th largest economy.
More interesting is the PPP table where Guangdong is close to California.
Surprisingly far down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-level_administra...
California, Texas, England, New York, Guangdong, Jiangsu. Both with slightly smaller GDP than Russia, the 11th largest economy.
More interesting is the PPP table where Guangdong is close to California.
>The fact that the US and China show up as single countries (and not "continents"/regions) whereas the EU shows up as a bunch of "small" countries is source of a lot of inferiority complex in Europe.
is it? I've only ever seen USians push the "country of europe" thing
[deleted]
The EU is very frequently included in data comparing nation states, along with it's individual members. It's the only supranational organization usually included on those kinds of lists, though sometimes you'll see groups like the G20.
The EU is also the only organization of its kind on the planet. It's not a federal state, but it's also way, way more integrated and unified than something like the G20, OECD, etc.
It's also the only thing that can work in Europe. Anything smaller would make Europe irrelevant on the global stage, and something much more invasive would erase Europe as we know it.
The current mood in smaller European countries is that even though many are skeptical of French and German influence, our interests align most of the time, especially now that the US has succumbed to fascism and stupidity.
It's also the only thing that can work in Europe. Anything smaller would make Europe irrelevant on the global stage, and something much more invasive would erase Europe as we know it.
The current mood in smaller European countries is that even though many are skeptical of French and German influence, our interests align most of the time, especially now that the US has succumbed to fascism and stupidity.
The title almost implies that CA had some unnatural acceleration to put it past japan. I think it's more that japan has been declining.
This won't last once the US population starts declining. We've been held afloat by immigration but even that's running out.
Japan was ahead of the curve in terms of modernity. Looking at them is almost like looking at our own future.
This won't last once the US population starts declining. We've been held afloat by immigration but even that's running out.
Japan was ahead of the curve in terms of modernity. Looking at them is almost like looking at our own future.
In 2023, Germany overtook Japan as the world's third largest economy. This year, India is projected to overtake Japan as the world's fourth largest economy. I wonder if the article has taken India into account.
Japan’s population will start declining faster than the US though xD we have maybe 10 years before basically the entirety rural population starts dying from old age.
It's not even really that, I think; given that it's nominal GDP, it's likely mostly currency fluctuations, likely taken at end of 2024. If so, the nominal GDP situation has likely reverted, as the dollar has fallen about 9% vs the yen since the start of the year.
This is one of the reasons that nominal GDP isn't all that useful a metric.
This is one of the reasons that nominal GDP isn't all that useful a metric.
>We've been held afloat by immigration but even that's running out.
'Running out' - cute euphemism for 'you're not welcome', and very much worser: 'deportation'.
'Running out' - cute euphemism for 'you're not welcome', and very much worser: 'deportation'.
No I seriously did not mean that. Basically global birth rates are declining. You can offset this decline in local microcosms via immigration but if global birth rates are declining inevitably the external sources will dry up. Lots of immigrants from say China coming to the US right? This props the US population up, but logically speaking Chinese birth rates are declining... So that means immigration won't last.
In fact, when immigration begins drying up, the US will become much much more open to it.
In fact, when immigration begins drying up, the US will become much much more open to it.
The US has immigration
Japan might want to consider it soon too.
Japan already is. Going to Japan today you’ll see that it’s an extremely multicultural country loaded with tourists and immigrants.
Why?
Because the country will die soon (in civilization time scale)?
With that argument the world will die soon, migration is just a temporary measure in civilization time scale. So better fix it now than push it to the next generation.
Eh, this seems dubious. If there's something structural within a nation that is leading to lower birth rates, importing excess humans from other countries doesn't actually address the root problem.
Magically, immigration is the _one_ supply shock that has zero impact on wages. Or, the _one_ demand shock that has zero impact on housing prices. The only impact it apparently does have is to make the GDP number go up.
Anything sounds wonderful if you ignore the problems.
suraci(8)
I wish we had the same outsized influence over the US federal policy as well.
Honestly 80% of California's problems are self-inflicted
NIMBYs limiting growth.
Crazy crime handling policies in SF (which are getting reverted now).
Cities outside the main centers (SFBA, LA, etc) dying.
Complete political ineptitude for things like HSR
No wonder they're losing population
NIMBYs limiting growth.
Crazy crime handling policies in SF (which are getting reverted now).
Cities outside the main centers (SFBA, LA, etc) dying.
Complete political ineptitude for things like HSR
No wonder they're losing population
> No wonder they're losing population
They’re not. Net change went negative during the pandemic but has since rebounded. California’s population fell in only 3 of the years 2011 - 2024.
They’re not. Net change went negative during the pandemic but has since rebounded. California’s population fell in only 3 of the years 2011 - 2024.
I agree with you about many of those problems but those things are also true in any other US state. It’s not like Texas or Tennessee or Minnesota have huge HSR networks that California doesn’t.
Austin is quickly building more housing though, which I am a fan of.
Austin is quickly building more housing though, which I am a fan of.
[deleted]
What, 12% of the population, 14% of the economy. 2% of the voting power in the Senate. Pretty similar for Texas, New York, Florida. Malapportionment is a disease.
https://prospect.org/features/senatorial-privilege/
https://prospect.org/features/senatorial-privilege/
Tying economic output to political power gets hairy pretty quickly. You incentivize states to put economic outcome before the wellbeing of the citizens and give states with rare natural resources more power than those that rely on value produced by a workforce.
Tying population to political power definitely makes sense though.
In general yes, but all democracies have this guiding principle, including the EU, where small nations have much more electoral power per capita than larger nations.
For example, each Maltese member of the European Parliament is elected by 90,000 voters in Malta. Each German member is elected by ~878,000 voters in German, meaning each Maltese citizen has about 10x more power than each German citizen.
In this case, the German "bloc" is still vastly more powerful, but the disproportionate representation is important to ensure the loyalty of small nations, who are always incentivized to navigate much narrower interests.
For example, each Maltese member of the European Parliament is elected by 90,000 voters in Malta. Each German member is elected by ~878,000 voters in German, meaning each Maltese citizen has about 10x more power than each German citizen.
In this case, the German "bloc" is still vastly more powerful, but the disproportionate representation is important to ensure the loyalty of small nations, who are always incentivized to navigate much narrower interests.
I wouldn't say the US Senate and Electoral College make much sense.
In Australia we had a Prime Minister publicly refer to our Senate as “unrepresentative swill”.
Try New Zealand. 40% of our members of parliament are selected by the parties, without true voter representation.
Under MMP, 120 MPs are elected to Parliament — 72 are elected by just the voters in individual electorates around the country and 48 are from political party listsI think they make an incredible amount of sense. The population centers don't deserve to dictate how the entire country works just because they pack a ton of people in. For the Senate, it's important to have a body where all the sovereign states get equal say, because after all they are supposed to be the primary unit of government. Not only that, but the fact that there's equal representation in the Senate is the social contract on which this country is founded, without which California wouldn't even exist.
The electoral college is flawed but I also find it better than the alternative. It's important that the president should represent a wide variety of perspectives in the country, not just pander to the population of the n biggest cities and call it a day. The people living in small or unimportant states deserve to have a president who gives a damn about them, too. Ultimately I think both of these mechanisms are important ones to ensure that the country doesn't turn into a classic tyranny of the majority, which is something I value quite a bit.
The electoral college is flawed but I also find it better than the alternative. It's important that the president should represent a wide variety of perspectives in the country, not just pander to the population of the n biggest cities and call it a day. The people living in small or unimportant states deserve to have a president who gives a damn about them, too. Ultimately I think both of these mechanisms are important ones to ensure that the country doesn't turn into a classic tyranny of the majority, which is something I value quite a bit.
“Rural centers don't deserve to dictate how the entire country works just because they pack a ton of land in”
Also works though
Also works though
As it stands a person in California has less say than a person in Wyoming. Yes California as a group has more say but that is to be expected because it has more people.
[deleted]
And Japan is still the most peaceful place to live!
California’s GDP is now twice as large as Russia’s.
Yet the President of the United States seems to spend a lot of time trying to make Russians happy, and zero time making Californians happy.
Yet the President of the United States seems to spend a lot of time trying to make Russians happy, and zero time making Californians happy.
On a per capita basis, California still has some work to do. Washington, Massachusetts, and New York are all significantly higher. No one should get bonus points for having a large population.
Especially not China.
California should acquire some nuclear weapons then.
I doubt its realistic for powerful states like California to cecede. Is there a path from here to a near (think 50 years) future, where California and the US, sans California, exist?
I don't want the US to break up.
But I wonder if it wouldn't be more healthy for you if the states grew a bit more independent.
It would give the president less power to decide exactly how schools and universities should be run or would open up for social welfare reforms in the states that want it.
But I wonder if it wouldn't be more healthy for you if the states grew a bit more independent.
It would give the president less power to decide exactly how schools and universities should be run or would open up for social welfare reforms in the states that want it.
> “But I wonder if it wouldn't be more healthy for you if the states grew a bit more independent.”
Land borders and water rights. I don’t see it working out.
Land borders and water rights. I don’t see it working out.
Water rights have been regulated across borders forever. And same thing with land borders. EU has it, and people don't move as much as you expect.
Fun to see people derive Federalism from first principles.
I mean, a United States of America would be better. But not the Bickering States of America that exists. Might be better to have them all go their own way.
Yes, this was the pre-Civil War intent. There's a vast archive of history here that elaborates in great detail about how the Founders expected the country to be run. All that changed in the late 19th century, and was codified in the early 20th.
It would absolutely be more healthy. One of the big problems facing our country is that we have centralized so much power in the federal government (which wasn't meant to have it), that everything the federal government does becomes super contentious. The election of a president should be, in a better world, relatively boring because the real action is happening at the state or even local levels. But instead, the president has so much power to affect things that the elections become a desperate fight as people perceive it to be an existential threat if the wrong person gets elected.
It's been a long process to get that much power in the federal government - it goes back at least to FDR (so, near a hundred years now), and I've seen arguments that it goes all the way back to the Civil War. But I do firmly believe that the centralizing of power is destroying us. We got away with it when the nation was more united in its values and culture, and even then it could be contentious. But today vast swathes of the country share little to nothing in the way of values or culture. Of course we can't get along when such widely disparate groups of people are tied together and a single government body is controlling large portions of their lives.
It's been a long process to get that much power in the federal government - it goes back at least to FDR (so, near a hundred years now), and I've seen arguments that it goes all the way back to the Civil War. But I do firmly believe that the centralizing of power is destroying us. We got away with it when the nation was more united in its values and culture, and even then it could be contentious. But today vast swathes of the country share little to nothing in the way of values or culture. Of course we can't get along when such widely disparate groups of people are tied together and a single government body is controlling large portions of their lives.
> the real action is happening at the state or even local levels
A lot of it is. For example the California housing shortage? It’s all state and local. But the same single family zoning pattern played out in many places.
A lot of it is. For example the California housing shortage? It’s all state and local. But the same single family zoning pattern played out in many places.
> It would give the president less power to decide exactly how schools and universities should be run
He doesn’t have that power. But he’s taking it, and the parties who are supposed to be stopping him are uninterested in doing their job.
He doesn’t have that power. But he’s taking it, and the parties who are supposed to be stopping him are uninterested in doing their job.
But it is the same with the department of education that DOGE is threatening to close down.
This may actually be a good thing (although they missed the chance to gain some confidence by doing it in a chaotic way).
I am certain that California could run their own DOE.
This may actually be a good thing (although they missed the chance to gain some confidence by doing it in a chaotic way).
I am certain that California could run their own DOE.
I doubt its realistic for powerful colonies like America to declare independence.
Why secede when we can just get our state sold to Denmark?
They should promise him a cut.
Supposedly there are hundreds in Concord.
Nuclear weapons aren't a magical cloak that when you put it everybody has to do what you say. Its one of many consideration in foreign policy.
And the idea that you have to make 'Russia happy' because they have nukes, if fucking beyond dumb.
And the idea that you have to make 'Russia happy' because they have nukes, if fucking beyond dumb.
or some kompromat
All our GDP is in software. We don't know how to make anything except AI and web apps. We wouldn't know what to do with a nuke.
Incredibly wrong.
Hollywood is still a thing. Manufacturing, yes manufacturing. Agriculture. The Bay Area is a fraction of that GDP, and a small geographical part of California.
Hollywood is still a thing. Manufacturing, yes manufacturing. Agriculture. The Bay Area is a fraction of that GDP, and a small geographical part of California.
Something is seriously broken with this world now that completely normal and well educated person like GP is not realizing his words aren't making sense. Apple Park to LLNL is under an hour's drive. You guys can probably achieve nuclear independence in a day if needed.
It just can't be done economically, because yields of a nuke(pun intended) don't immediately map onto economical values. Not just immensely positive or negative, but actually tangential to the currency dimensions.
It just can't be done economically, because yields of a nuke(pun intended) don't immediately map onto economical values. Not just immensely positive or negative, but actually tangential to the currency dimensions.
Agriculture is essentially a rounding error on California's GDP, <$60B or <2%. There are individual companies more economically significant than the entire agricultural industry.
The disproportionate power relative to its economic significance is a political choice.
The disproportionate power relative to its economic significance is a political choice.
Ask Nevada.
California is anti-American and disloyal, because they voted for the other party. /s
Russia, on the other hand, supports the President, so they deserve to be rewarded.
Russia, on the other hand, supports the President, so they deserve to be rewarded.
Plus they helped and continue to help the president dismantle or incapacitate his own government.
>Russia, on the other hand, supports the President, so they deserve to be rewarded.
You forgot the /SS [Not being historical, damn autocorrect, i mean hysterical, but comments; comments, they're a beautiful thing, comments - i meant /sarcasm, sarcasm. Beautiful sarcasm, they had sarcasm-such a beautiful word - two hundred years ago...etc, etc.
You forgot the /SS [Not being historical, damn autocorrect, i mean hysterical, but comments; comments, they're a beautiful thing, comments - i meant /sarcasm, sarcasm. Beautiful sarcasm, they had sarcasm-such a beautiful word - two hundred years ago...etc, etc.
Or how JP "plummeted" from 6 trillion economy to 4 trillion because their FX went from 100:1 USD to 160:1 (at peak last year) now 140:1. Still eaking slow growth in yen terms.
JP can still be 1/3 larger than california US compels them to appreciate. I think 140 is probably a good balance for JP exports (high tech) and imports (energy, commodities/inputs).
Or Trump makes USD weaker.
JP can still be 1/3 larger than california US compels them to appreciate. I think 140 is probably a good balance for JP exports (high tech) and imports (energy, commodities/inputs).
Or Trump makes USD weaker.
It would be interesting to compare economies of the same scale, regardless of legal status: If you are considering the US and China, maybe you should include the whole of the EU. And if you are looking at Germany, Japan, ... It makes sense to not only include California, but also to split up other countries. I'm curious how high up Guandong or Shanghai would be for example.
The fact that the US and China show up as single countries (and not "continents"/regions) whereas the EU shows up as a bunch of "small" countries is source of a lot of inferiority complex in Europe.