I don't think that's quite the right interpretation. EBIDTA is the value added of the company net its employees (and I'd quibble over depreciation and taxes), whereas GDP includes the labour share.
Imagine we had a single-company country, where every worker was also a customer, all costs were internalized, and capital did not depreciate. The GDP of the country would be equal to the profit of the company plus the wages of the employees.
Using the EBITDA equivalence, however, the GDP of the one-company country would be more (possibly far more) than "the one company's earnings."
In principle, Twitter’s market value is the net present value of its future profits, which excludes input costs. So the closest concept to parent’s comparison (GDP vs. market value) is GDP vs. profits.
> The GDP of the country would be equal to the profit of the company plus the wages of the employees.
Also plus any other input costs, like rent, electricity, loans, etc., right?
So GDP vs. revenue would be the comparison that would include both profits and input costs.
I don't think that's quite the right interpretation. EBIDTA is the value added of the company net its employees (and I'd quibble over depreciation and taxes), whereas GDP includes the labour share.
Imagine we had a single-company country, where every worker was also a customer, all costs were internalized, and capital did not depreciate. The GDP of the country would be equal to the profit of the company plus the wages of the employees.
Using the EBITDA equivalence, however, the GDP of the one-company country would be more (possibly far more) than "the one company's earnings."