> Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago.
That turns out to be easier than I thought thanks to [1]. In 1986 it looked like this (PPP, million USD):
China: 647,219
USA: 4,579,625
EU ex UK: 4,368,019
UK: 805,518
EU total: 5,173,537 [2]
The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
> Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be. Feel free to post your own calculations if you want, but be careful with dates and exchange rates; the USD index is down about 9% over the past year.
[2] In 1986, the EU had 12 members: Belgium (161,613), Denmark (100,996), France (866,333), West Germany (1,319,247), Greece (120,566), Ireland (40,169), Italy (953,257), Luxembourg (10,542), Netherlands (246,164), Portugal (92,824), Spain (456,308) and UK (805,518):
Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
> I disagree; we are comparing three global powers which would be quite capable of satisfying their needs internally if need be
Not my intention at all. My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures" - i.e. the ability to project military and economic power. Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
> The big standout is obviously China's rise since then.
The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated. If you look at this list of countries by PPP GDP you will see India, Indonesia and Brazil are ahead of the UK and France. The only European country in the top five is Russia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
> Your link to the list of past PPP GDPs does not say what unit is used - it says "international dollars" without specifying an year.
Irrelevant since we are comparing relative sizes, like EU vs US, now and then.
>> but be careful with dates and exchange rates
> The numbers you are quoting are already corrected for that.
Indeed, that's why I use them instead of the nominal ones you requested. My warning was about the latter.
> My claim was about Europe's ability to act independently of the US and "go off on adventures"
Your claim, quoted verbatim, was this:
> The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately.
The GDP figures say otherwise: US and EU were and are roughly equal, EU + UK were and are larger.
I am willing to grant you half a point: neither US nor EU are large enough to separately dominate the world like they once did. Together, they are still #1.
> Europe is not a global power, it is a potential alliance of mid size powers.
The EU is a little more than "potential". Currently ineffective, yes, but that's the topic of the article. Says right in the subtitle: "Without America to rely on, the EU is gearing up to be a global power in its own right."
> The big change is that everyone else has risen since then. while Europe has stagnated.
If that is the case, then it's evident from the relative GDP figures now and 40 years ago that the US has stagnated just about as much, which contradicts your original claim.
> The only European country in the top five is Russia!
Breaking out individual European countries instead of considering the EU as a whole (the topic of the article you are ostensibly commenting) makes about as much sense as breaking out individual US states instead of considering the US as a whole.
Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.