Support NeoGAF

[Cagey]

Papa Doc

HE WENT TO CRANBROOK
That's a private school.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

It's whomever is the current sitting PotUS, whether you like him or not.

2016 Rank Country GDP
(millions of US$)
1 United States 18,569,100
— European Union 16,408,364
2 China 11,218,281
3 Japan 4,938,644
4 Germany 3,466,639
5 United Kingdom 2,629,188

But China is the largest economy in the world.

PPP is the more accurate measurement of a countries GDP in comparison to another country.
Anyways, no one is the leader of the "free world" whatever the heck that is.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Really GAF, really? It cannot be the Canadian prime minister, not a large enough economy and not enough global influence.

Doesn't mean it can't be someone else, but it cannot be him, the logic doesn't work out.

 

[Dazzler]

Macron, Merkel and Trudeau are leading via committee these days since America decided to shit the bed

 

[I H8 Memes]

We were called the "leader of the free world" because other countries around the world followed our lead on international issues. That is clearly not true now that trump is president.

Really GAF, really? It cannot be the Canadian prime minister, not a large enough economy and not enough global influence.

Doesn't mean it can't be someone else, but it cannot be him, the logic doesn't work out.

He is also one of the few leaders to be wary of criticizing trump whereas Macron and Merkel are not. Treudeau may act like a lion at home but he is a kitten against trump.

 

[le.phat]

We were called the "leader of the free world" because other countries around the world followed our lead on international issues. That is clearly not true now that trump is president.

Yup. The US is irrelevant now in moving the needle of the world's future.

 

[Pancake Mix]

He is also one of the few leaders to be wary of criticizing trump whereas Macron and Merkel are not. Treudeau may act like a lion at home but he is a kitten against trump.

They aren't as dependent on his goodwill as Trudeau/Canada is. He's a smart man, but yes, he's not the leader at anything on a global scale. Shouldn't be in this discussion.

 

[azyless]

We were called the "leader of the free world" because other countries around the world followed our lead on international issues. That is clearly not true now that trump is president.

Who was calling you that apart from Americans ? It's not like other countries suddenly coined the term in honor of the great USA, it literally comes from an American propaganda film on war and the US army.

 

[Diprosalic]

Trump, America still has a ton a freedoms that no country offers.

So many freedoms. You have the best freedoms.

 

[water_wendi]

So many freedoms. You have the best freedoms.

Free to go bankrupt from illness and have to live in a tent city under a bridge .

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

We were called the "leader of the free world" because other countries around the world followed our lead on international issues. That is clearly not true now that trump is president.




He is also one of the few leaders to be wary of criticizing trump whereas Macron and Merkel are not. Treudeau may act like a lion at home but he is a kitten against trump.

No one called you/us the leaders of the free world, that is a title invented by the US for the US and its sad that it is even utterd.

 

[TetraGenesis]

 

[Angelus Errare]

Who was calling you that apart from Americans ? It's not like other countries suddenly coined the term in honor of the great USA, it literally comes from an American propaganda film on war and the US army.

.

 

[Perfect Blue]

No matter how great leader you might think he is for Canada, how can anyone seriously(?) suggest Trudeau is the leader of free world? Canada has almost no international significance whatsoever.

One of the most, if not THE most admired country in the world. Everyone wanna be Canadian, fam.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Being a leader implies others want to follow you. No one wants to follow where Trump is taking the USA.

 

[azyless]

One of the most, if not THE most admired country in the world.

I guess Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are international leaders too, then.

 

[ldcommando]

Trump

 

[PdotMichael]

I don't get your reference, I looked it up and it bought me to a DC comic, but I don't read DC comics lol.

Basically I was saying, when talking to Trump, they walk on a tightrope with fear of antagonizing him. Which I completely understand, but that shows just how much influence U.S have even with an idiot like Trump running it.

EDIT: I think I get what you are saying lol

The USA isolated themselves from the international community and its natural allies. And that how it gets communicated by the other countries.

Not sure what you want to hear, should Merkel make jokes about Trump's little hands? Unlike Trump the other national leaders are real politicans who know how to act.

 

[bionic77]

China seems to be far more forward thinking than any western country these days.

Not sure if they are a leader for anyone else.

Probably no one is the answer. Trunp left a vacuum. The question is who is going to fill it. For me it has not been filled yet. We are still in limbo.

 

[Theorry]

Papa Doc

Haha my man. Just was thinking the same thing haha.

 

[patapuf]

The USA gave up that role, the EU isn't unified enough to take the mantel, China is an authoritarian regime.

There is no one else with the economic and military projection necessary to be "leader of the free world".

So the current answer is: no one.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Trump is the leader of the free world since he is the President of the United States. However, depending on how his presidency goes down the road (I mean it's only been 155 days as of now), there could be an unofficial shift in recognition to either Merkel or possibly Macron, depending on how his presidency goes as well. I doubt Trudeau will, however, since he is not as high up on the global stage. Either that or the concept will collapse until the world gets its shit together.

 

[Zekes!]

As a Canadian, we don't have the kind of relevance that people sometimes delude themselves into thinking we have

 

[amanset]

There hasn't been one for a while now, it is just that no one liked to admit it.

 

[Shig]

MY MOM

 

[amanset]

The USA has the title of "Leader of the Free World" because they also protects / encourages world democracy, "The World Police". Both, go hand in hand.

Sorry to break it to you, but the rest of the world realised that wasn't true quite some time ago.

 

[O_Atoll]

Probably Putin.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Canada doesn't even have free trade between it's provinces. The EU does, therefore Merkel.

 

[Trumplestiltskin]

But Nominal is also very flawed. For example, Trump mentions us on a Twitter and that means our economy instantly collapses by 2%? Then, our federal bank sells $100M USD and our economy then grew 3%?

But it's not Trump changing perception of your currency/economy, the market is. And if a tweet from Trump is enough to rattle the market's perception of your country - then it isn't all that strong.

I've seen my currency depreciate spectacularly since oil prices came down. It's a real cost and real impact that hugely impacts your ability to trade, invest overseas, which is exactly why it needs to be accounted for.

 

[The_Joker]

the german mutti

 

[Regginator]

Since the original meaning of "Free World" consisted of NATO members and affiliates, and seeing as how Partnership for Peace is a program of the NATO, and Russia is a member of this PfP, the answer is Putin.

Whether or not he's actually seen as "the leader" of the "free world" is of course debatable.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Been laughing for several minutes at that Nikki Haley post

America's donezo lol

 

[AcademicSaucer]

No one called you/us the leaders of the free world, that is a title invented by the US for the US and its sad that it is even utterd.

Yeah, pathetic even when is used unironically.

 

[TarNaru33]

The USA isolated themselves from the international community and its natural allies. And that how it gets communicated by the other countries.

Not sure what you want to hear, should Merkel make jokes about Trump's little hands? Unlike Trump the other national leaders are real politicans who know how to act.

My point is they literally can't tell Trump to fuck off as my way of saying that if U.S wanted to, it can easily grab the leadership position. This whole conversation is moot unless Trump does a lot more damage, all he is for U.S, is a set back.

The other countries are doing good, but I was mainly referring to things like Trudeau not wanting to mention climate change to not antagonize Trump.

 

[Frankfurter]

What's the difference between nominal and real GDP?

Nominal GDP just takes whatever is produced in a country and multiplies that by the respective price. Real PPP GDP takes the price out of the equation for the same goods. For instance China produce 10 cars at $10,000 each, the US produce 10 cars at $100,000. Let's assume those cars are of the same quality. Now in nominal GDP, China would be at $100,000 while the US would be at $1,000,000, although both produced the exact same amount and quality of goods.

No, stop.

GDP (PPP) accounts for lower price levels within a country. So China does well because it has lower prices for things like food and haircuts.

But if you were to convert the money into Yuan or USD or Euros you'd get the same nominal order. In terms of globally relevant costs (like military equipment, cutting edge technologies, major infrastructure) nominal will be what matters.

PPP is good to assess living standards, and by that measure on a per capita basis Botswana does better than China.

No, you stop

PPP GDP is way more precise than nominal GDP (see above example). The exact reason for this is that money conversion by official currency rates does not properly represent the real economy.
Look, as another example, at the exchange rate of the British pound versus the Dollar or the Euro mid 2016 vs. mid 2017. Going by nominal GDP in Dollars, the British economy shrunk by ~20% compared to a year ago - but in real terms this simply has not happened. Britain has not produced 20% less goods, it actually has produced MORE goods (real GDP grew).

Look up the Big Mac index for example, if you are curious. It's a very simple way to show how nominal does not matter all. I.e. ten Big Macs count for more in terms of the Dollar value in the US than in for example China, although it's exactly the same product.

In terms of globally relevant costs (like military equipment, cutting edge technologies, major infrastructure) nominal will be what matters.

No, it's not. China can build infrastructure for cheaper than say the US or Switzerland - for various reasons, with one certainly being lower wages. For things where there is no price difference - say the US and China would each buy 100 planes from country X for $1 billion a piece - PPP does not change anything compared to nominal GDP.

 

[Xando]

The USA has the title of "Leader of the Free World" because they also protects / encourages world democracy, "The World Police". Both, go hand in hand.

Maybe you guys should promote democracy in your own country instead of pretending to bringing it to others.

 

[dc89]

Give it 6 months and it will be Corbyn.

 

[protomouse]

Mutti.

 

[Muffin1611]

The title is utter bullshit and Americans should really stop with searching for a "replacement" outside of their country now that their usual title holder is someone who isn't even fit to lead a company.

Or a school club, for that matter.

 

[scorcher59]

Mance Rayder?

Close the thread, this is the right answer.

 

[Damon Bennet]

Wtf is calling Angela Merkel "mutti" still a thing? Apparently. Weird.

 

[Norris1020]

It has no meaning anymore as it did when Soviet and Western Communism dominated over half the civilized world.

 

[lensoftruth]

Who has the most freedoms? It certainly isn't the USA

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Wtf is calling Angela Merkel "mutti" still a thing? Apparently. Weird.

She is full on Queen of Europe, nein, Ze World now. What is German for Queen?

 

[TTOOLL]

Thanks God there's no such thing. We don't need a free world leader.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Who has the most freedoms? It certainly isn't the USA

It kinda does...

...for rich white men.

 

[Muffin1611]

What is German for Queen?

Königin.

 

[Syf]

Macron, Merkel and Trudeau are leading via committee these days since America decided to shit the bed

This is how I see it. Sure as fuck isn't the USA.

 

[Syder]

If it isn't Donald Trump, it's Angela Merkel.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Nah man scew Trudeau, I voted for the guy and he turned his back on electoral reform. Hope you enjoy Conservative minority when the NDP turn their backs on you! I feel so betrayed.

I'l say Merkel, but this was true even when Obama was in office.

electoral reform was a shitty idea

We don't need full proportional electoral system, and end up with many parties dividing power and getting the government getting stale. Instead we need to take care of our democratic institutions so we can easily take out any party that doesn't get the job done after 4 years

I agree totally with Deutsch on this and he explains it much better than I do.

dition is that each district (or ‘constituency’) in the country is entitled to one seat in the legislature, and that seat goes to the candidate with the largest number of votes in that district. This is called the plurality voting system (‘plurality’ meaning ‘largest number of votes’) – often called the ‘first-past-the-post’ system, because there is no prize for any runner-up, and no second round of voting (both of which feature in other electoral systems for the sake of increasing the proportionality of the outcomes). Plurality voting typically ‘over-represents’ the two largest parties, compared with the proportion of votes they receive. Moreover, it is not guaranteed to avoid the population paradox, and is even capable of bringing one party to power when another has received far more votes in total.

These features are often cited as arguments against plurality voting and in favour of a more proportional system – either literal proportional representation or other schemes such as transferable-vote systems and run-off systems which have the effect of making the representation of voters in the legislature more proportional. However, under Popper’s criterion, that is all insignificant in comparison with the greater effectiveness of plurality voting at removing bad governments and policies.

Let me trace the mechanism of that advantage more explicitly. Following a plurality-voting election, the usual outcome is that the party with the largest total number of votes has an overall majority in the legislature, and therefore takes sole charge. All the losing parties are removed entirely from power. This is rare under proportional representation, because some of the parties in the old coalition are usually needed in the new one. Consequently, the logic of plurality is that politicians and political parties have little chance of gaining any share in power unless they can persuade a substantial proportion of the population to vote for them. That gives all parties the incentive to find better explanations, or at least to convince more people of their existing ones, for if they fail they will be relegated to powerlessness at the next election.

In the plurality system, the winning explanations are then exposed to criticism and testing, because they can be implemented without mixing them with the most important claims of opposing agendas. Similarly, the winning politicians are solely responsible for the choices they make, so they have the least possible scope for making excuses later if those are deemed to have been bad choices. If, by the time of the next election, they are less convincing to the voters than they were, there is usually no scope for deals that will keep them in power regardless.

Under a proportional system, small changes in public opinion seldom count for anything, and power can easily shift in the opposite direction to public opinion. What counts most is changes in the opinion of the leader of the third-largest party. This shields not only that leader but most of the incumbent politicians and policies from being removed from power through voting. They are more often removed by losing support within their own party, or by shifting alliances between parties. So in that respect the system badly fails Popper’s criterion. Under plurality voting, it is the other way round. The all-or-nothing nature of the constituency elections, and the consequent low representation of small parties, makes the overall outcome sensitive to small changes in opinion. When there is a small shift in opinion away from the ruling party, it is usually in real danger of losing power completely.

Under proportional representation, there are strong incentives for the system’s characteristic unfairnesses to persist, or to become worse, over time. For example, if a small faction defects from a large party, it may then end up with more chance of having its policies tried out than it would if its supporters had remained within the original party. This results in a proliferation of small parties in the legislature, which in turn increases the necessity for coalitions – including coalitions with the smaller parties, which further increases their disproportionate power. In Israel, the country with the world’s most proportional electoral system, this effect has been so severe that, at the time of writing, even the two largest parties combined cannot muster an overall majority. And yet, under that system – which has sacrificed all other considerations in favour of the supposed fairness of proportionality – even proportionality itself is not always achieved: in the election of 1992, the right-wing parties as a whole received a majority of the popular vote, but the left-wing ones

http://www.readsbird.com/beginning-infinity-david-deutsch?page=0,171