Next time you intend to make a relative statement, use the word "relative". Of course, that was not what the post to which you responded was discussing, so your post would have been more obviously beside the point.
Next time you intend to make a relative statement, use the word "relative". Of course, that was not what the post to which you responded was discussing, so your post would have been more obviously beside the point.
Be careful with Europeans, they get pissed off easily. Slovenia has a GDP (PPP) per capita of $28,195. While that's half of the US it is actually a lot, they're definitely not subsistence farmers in Mali. You cannot really compare it with Moldova - $4,182. First world versus close to third world :)
I agree that it wasn't the main point of the post i was replying to but I found that point just smug and incorrect, backed-up with cultural bias rather than historical fact.
EDIT: sorry, I wasn't clear enough, my comparison was mostly in the "most powerful" part rather than "richest"
It is interesting to note that in the 60 years that the US has been the ascendent world power, they've withdrawn from all sizeable wars with objectives unmet. If you're using actual active warfare as the yardstick, then the US is not powerful at all on comparison to historical powers. If you're using sensible measurements of power, then of course the US is powerful, most of it from projection of force and cultural/soft power.