Huh yeah, weird. Here’s the source (Chichilnisky 1996), quote is on p. 5
Strangely they don’t actually lay out the “simple computation.”
I thought maybe they were getting down to a few hundred thousand by not factoring in a growth rate, but that still leaves you at a little over $3 billion.
So I’m not sure what’s going on. Maybe Chichilnisky 1996 started with a much lower global GDP estimate? It was done 23 years ago.
For her calculations to be correct, present world GDP, absent growth, would have to be USD ∼3×1050.95200≈8.5×109. Back in 1996, when the paper was published, world GDP was over USD 4×1013. Unclear what’s going on here.
Huh yeah, weird. Here’s the source (Chichilnisky 1996), quote is on p. 5
Strangely they don’t actually lay out the “simple computation.”
I thought maybe they were getting down to a few hundred thousand by not factoring in a growth rate, but that still leaves you at a little over $3 billion.
So I’m not sure what’s going on. Maybe Chichilnisky 1996 started with a much lower global GDP estimate? It was done 23 years ago.
For her calculations to be correct, present world GDP, absent growth, would have to be USD ∼3×1050.95200≈8.5×109. Back in 1996, when the paper was published, world GDP was over USD 4×1013. Unclear what’s going on here.