World PPP GDP is about $130 trillion today. In 2011 dollars World GDP PPP is about $110 trillion. The per-person GDP PPP (2011 dollars) is about $13,600. Around 1940, the average national per capita PPP GDP in the richest country in the world (USA) was about $11,000. Over 80 years, the world average per person GDP has exceeded the average of the richest country in the world by about 25%.
If this was to happen again by 2100, then the world per capita PPP GDP would surpass $66,000 by 25% to $82,500. World population in 2100 would be about 11 billion. This would be a world economy of $902 trillion. The 5.5 billion people in Asia by 2050 should mostly be fairly close to the per capita income of the US and other developed countries.
If there is radical life extension to an average life expectancy of 140, then World population would be 16 billion in 2100. World PPP GDP in 2100 would be $1.32 quadrillion ($1320 Trillion).
80 years before 1940 it was 1860. The most productive countries in 1960 had a per capita GDP PPP of about $5000 per person. There was 2.2X from 1860 to 1940 for the most productive countries and 6X from 1940 to 2020.
If there was another tripling of improvement rate over 80 years from 2020 to 2100, then instead of 6X it would be 18X and world per capita PPP GDP in 2100 would be $250,000. This would take an increase of 1.5% annual GDP growth globally over the 79 years. This would be a $4 quadrillion world economy.
If World economic growth rate increased by 1% per year from now to 2100 then the world economy would be about twice as large in 2100.
If there was technological acceleration, then the world should do far better. This acceleration could come from molecular nanotechnology or vastly superior AI. There could be a massive increase in resources from the development of space.
The $1 quadrillion economy is something that is mostly following current trends. The $4 quadrillion level is just matching the acceleration of 1940-2020 over 1860-1940.
Getting to four times better with molecular nanotechnology and other technology would make the average global citizen a millionaire in PPP 2011 dollars in 2100.
SOURCES- Indexmundi, Wikipedia
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
This is of course a good thing that the world average is increasing.
People tend to complain that the USA makes too much money but the real problem is other countries not making enough.
Some of the underlying factors would be availability of energy, transportation, education, governmental stability/integrity, personal liberty, and the Rule of Law.
A world population of 16 billion? Yes, that is what I wish to live 140 years to see (heavy sarcasm). Africa is going to increase by 2 billion and many of them are going to starve or flood into Europe to try to escape starvation. And lets increase China and India by billions more too, I'm sure that will help reduce international frictions between them (more heavy sarcasm). I love your optimism Brian but I don't think you're very realistic about current political reality. How about your commuting speed, are you driving around faster than the people of the 1940s? Can you quickly find a spot to stop and be by yourself without the din of humanity around you like you could in the 1940s? Not everything has been an improvement.
Hong Kong, California. In many ways they are practically identical.
Politically speaking I mean. Obviously HK has a better climate.
Isn't that just a matter of personal choice, like smoking and suicide?
when the mean is 7x the median… there's a problem…
I don't think a planned system run by a government agency will accomplish any LT climate changes. The only country to meet the Paris accords in the last several years has been the USA that did not belong to it. Credit natural gas usage. Most scientists I read claim we should fear melting ice and rising oceans because NYC and Miami will get flooded. I think that is the least of our concerns. The tilt of the earth during seasonal changes is very much dependent upon the weight distribution of the oceans in a relatively small area around the equator. I would like to have scientist explain why historically massive ice melting has been followed by long periods of a minny ice ages. Mars used to have oceans on it. It sure must have been warmer. Now its tilt is 24 degrees vs our 23 degrees. If excess weight distributed around an equator controls the tilt of a planet I assume this can be calculated and the necessary weigh and distribution calculated. Getting more sunlight on Mars in this manner would be a lot cheaper than blasting A bombs on the poles or other planting schemes. Might be a good place to position the waste once we start to mine asteroids.
If you truly think that Brian lives in Hong Kong, you haven't been paying attention. Therefore, I will stop paying attention to anything you post here.
THAT YOU KNOW OF…
It was just reported recently the Washington Post issued a major correction on it's reporting regarding Trump's call with the Georgia election officials with the actual recording of the conversation was revealed. The correction was significant enough that it significantly changed the tone and tenor of the original reporting.
It was also recently revealed the Pentagon was lied to the Trump administration about troop levels in Afghanistan by over 1,000 soldiers. This is on top of this particular lie, the Pentagon also lied about troop levels in Syria on a similar scale.
Aren't you in Hong Kong?
If so, you do have an overlord telling you what you can spend money on. That doesn't mean you can't resort to a black market, so technically you can spend your money as you please, but that doesn't negate the fact a bureaucracy is attempting to deny you choice.
Here in the United States there are 6 Doctor Seuss book you can no longer purchase from the publisher or online, because it offended someone.
Atlas Shrugged… there are far more important things, like freedom of conscience, than getting rich.
Not enough space to finish…
Yeah, our ability to make public comments without being attacked by various power groups has retreated a bit in recent years.
But is it any worse than say… the 1980s? Did you even have the ability to make public comments in the 1980s without going through the filter of say a newspaper editor picking which letters to publish? Or forking out enough money to publish it yourself? (Those options are still open to you.)
We had a brief flowering of truly free speech, but to a large extent it was running on borrowed time and money.
Corporations such as youtube were running at a loss, allowing anything from their users, to build up market share. Now that stage is finishing as they are converting their growth into cash cows, and that means making the content acceptable to the real sources of cash: advertising.
Likewise, the torpidly moving dinosaurs of political power were slow to notice the newly evolved critters running between their feet. But they've finally woke up (boom boom) and now we have a range of velociraptors, utahraptors, and tyrannosaurs ready to attack if they see anything that looks like either prey or a challenge.
Short of a meteor strike that takes them all out, we have to remember how to live with them. And remember that the meteor strike wiped out most of the mammals and birds of the time as well, so be careful what you wish for.
Is that the same huge amount of money that had to be invested to prevent climate change before 1990?
Or the same as the even more money that was needed to be invested before 2000?
Or the same as what was absolutely needed before 2010? Or 2015? Or 2020?
The boy who cried wolf is getting very hoarse at this point.
Global wealth databook 2019
Wealth per adult, (US dollars)
Rank Country Median Mean
1 Switzerland 227,891 564,653
2 Australia 181,361 386,058
3 Iceland 165,961 380,868
4 Hong Kong 146,887 489,258
5 Luxembourg 139,789 358,003
6 Belgium 117,093 246,135
7 New Zealand 116,433 304,124
8 Japan 110,408 238,104
9 Canada 107,004 294,255
10 Ireland 104,842 272,310
11 France 101,942 276,121
12 United Kingdom 97,452 280,049
13 Singapore 96,967 297,873
14 Spain 95,360 207,531
15 Austria 94,070 274,919
16 Italy 91,889 234,139
17 Malta 76,016 143,566
18 South Korea 72,198 175,015
19 Norway 70,627 267,348
20 Republic of China 70,191 210,525
…
22 United States 65,904 432,365
…
33 Germany 35,313 216,654
…
44 People's Republic of China 20,942 58,544
An important thing to remember along these lines is that much "free market" dialog is not claiming that we have a free market, but that we have a *market*. Free or distorted, the market is going to win! Fantasies of control and manipulation are just power addict wet dreams.
I can spend on whatever I want other than the percentage that goes for taxes. I do not let media tell me what to think. People I know can spend as they please. Even people who end up getting brainwashed by media still do fine financially. You will need to show evidence of this claim. Especially, that this is a huge counter trend. As Ludus points out there is now less socialism and communism in the world.
Don't confuse capitalism with free markets… and free markets don't have an overlord telling you what you can spend money on and telling you what to think.
The World more thoroughly embraces free market economics than at any time in history. There are no significant economies that are centrally planned or isolated. This was never true before. In the absence of any serious movement to counter this trend, why is it about to come to an end? In say 1940, the majority of the world economy was either Marxist-Leninist central planning, Colonial mercantilist, or Hunter-gatherer economies. Now those barely exist.
Asia (China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia etc…) are all still maintaining capitalist systems. The US-Europe etc… still capitalist systems. The Big Tech companies and globalist companies are running the show in most places. We will see if the talk actually changes systems. Just trying to increase taxes does not actually increase taxes.
Reuters Matthew Green Tue, March 16, 2021, 2:05 AM: "investment in clean energy must increase by 30% to a total of $131 trillion by 2050 to avert catastrophic climate change, with the need to massively scale up hydrogen production particularly acute, according to a study https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/March/World-Energy-Transitions-Outlook published on Tuesday. . . . .global electrolyser capacity will need to expand to almost 5,000 Gigawatts from 0.3 GW today." That's 5 TWe, so
"There could be a massive increase in resources from the development of space" such as:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2009/70070criswell/ndx_criswell.pdf.html
On Earth, perhaps. But the Primal Revolution is upon us, so it is a race!
Thanks to free market economics… but that's all about to come to an end.