Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ghostmastergeneral t1_j3a8dnn wrote

What does it even mean to compare market cap to GDP?

382

hiccupseed t1_j3a9po1 wrote

Even odder, comparing a flow to a stock. Come on now...

154

wombatlegs t1_j3c5k83 wrote

Is that the same as saying the numbers have different units?

One is dollars, the other is dollars per year, and the time length is somewhat arbitrary. Market cap is not even real money.

15

PolemicFox t1_j3aa6t1 wrote

Nothing, it's just numbers vs numbers

/r/dataisboring

103

Arowhite t1_j3bs36g wrote

The number of baryons in my body envelope is bigger than Apple's market cap. Therefore, me greater

5

newpua_bie t1_j3ag58v wrote

It means OP doesn't understand basics of economy and just likes to compare random numbers to each other.

100

Amity83 t1_j3anyzt wrote

This sub is increasingly becoming r/dataisnotbeautiful

39

BrupieD t1_j3c92kh wrote

"All models are wrong but some are useful" --George E.P. Box.

Some of the data visualized here might be technically correct but are utterly useless.

2

dolledaan t1_j3bewfc wrote

One is a teoretical value and the other is true money that goes round in a economy on the yearly basis.

5

avl0 t1_j3c9lng wrote

Literally nothing, but let's do it anyway.

​

I mean, revenue to GDP would be meaningless enough

4

CMastication t1_j4avi00 wrote

I think annual revenue to GDP would be much more meaningful. They are at least both annual flows of product.

1

aknabi t1_j3bl8eh wrote

But numbers, capitalism bad… take money from these folks and give it to me to pursue my dream of performative basket weaving which will change humanity.

2

twitchyeye84 t1_j3a9s5g wrote

I think it means rich people are rich and poor people are poor. See the chart? The rich people put their money in apple stock, while even all these poor countries put together couldn't come up with enough money to buy as much apple stock as the rich people have.

If you think about it though, say they did try to somehow harness the entire GDP and pump it into apple. It would just help the rich who already own the stock become even richer!

Yeah it means nothing.

−30

EisenAlchemist t1_j3ace5q wrote

It means that apple provides more valuable services to the rest of the world than those countries

−30

rubenbmathisen OP t1_j3agata wrote

I’m not sure what you mean by «mean». The comparison is simply one way of putting Apple’s market cap into a bigger perspective.

−85

RD__III t1_j3ahdml wrote

Market cap isn’t the equivalent of a corporations “GDP”. The appropriate comparison would be to compare gross revenue to GDP.

60

Eric1491625 t1_j3ajdes wrote

Even that is too much. You need to compare a company's Economic Value Added to GDP, not all revenues.

If a country imports $200 of components to assemble a $300 Apple product it generates only $100 of GDP. But from Apple's perspective, if Apple imports $200 of components to sell a $300 product it generates the full $300 as revenue (but only $100 of EVA, which would be the correct comparison).

39

rubenbmathisen OP t1_j3aliyf wrote

The comparison in the graph simply says that Apple’s market cap is approximately equivalent to the value of what 110 countries produce in a year. Nothing more, nothing less. There are certainly other interesting comparison one could make, but they dont undermine that fact.

−64

RD__III t1_j3anh4a wrote

Yes. I can read English. why do you compare the market cap to GDP. Why don’t you compare the value of what apple produces in a year to these other countries? That would make sense for a comparison. Market Cap to GDP doesn’t make sense.

To better phrase it, a monkey can throw two numbers on a bar chart. What makes your data beautiful compared to a monkeys?

39

[deleted] t1_j3as4x8 wrote

[deleted]

−34

dadarknight07 t1_j3bdfej wrote

That’s just it. It DOESNT show how massive apples market cap is via a comparison for perspective because the comparison is invalid.

It just shows apples market cap and then a separate number next to it. No perspectives obtained from a comparison.

18

[deleted] t1_j3ckuok wrote

[deleted]

−1

dadarknight07 t1_j3d897c wrote

Worth (stock) and income (flow) are two different categories of measurement. It doesn’t make sense to compare one of those of one entity with the other of those of an entirely different entity. It’s non sequitur.

Your example is more valid as a comparison as net income and revenue are both in the flow category of measurement.

OPs example is like comparing the total incomes of a neighborhood in LA with the total enterprise value of all the McDonald’s in Ecuador. You can put them next to each other in a chart. But doesn’t really make sense.

3

[deleted] t1_j3baql4 wrote

Next you might as well compare the number of iPhones manufactured to the GDP of these countries.

16

bosssx t1_j3bijle wrote

You labeled the chart and they still don't want to read.

I wonder if some on told them it would take 5 years of their income to buy a sports car. They would say that "income and cars are different you can't compare the two"

−8

homerjdimpson t1_j3bzgtk wrote

Isn’t the purpose of visual data to make it more easily understandable for valid comparisons? This is like Purdue pharma showing logarithmic data and saying, you labeled it and they still don’t wanna read.

Depending on OPs intended conclusions it’s sort of misinformation or manipulation.

5

rubenbmathisen OP t1_j3bjv8u wrote

Exactly. There is no rule that says you cant compare a flow to a stock (as many here seem to believe). Its freqently done in economics, and in general it can be quite helpful to understand the size of the stock (as with your sports car example).

−5