This comparison is silly. First of all, Cisco's scale was assembled through acquisitions, and hardware is a commodity business. Nvidia has largely grown organically and has CUDA software as a unique differentiator.
More importantly, Cisco's margins and PE were much higher than Nvidia's today.
You should use actual financial measures and not GDP national accounts which have zero bearing on business valuation.
I don't think GP's comparison is as silly as you think. People thinking about "money" take many different numbers, from a shitload of source, into account.
There's a relation between P/E and future actual revenues of a company.
Imagine that a similar comparison would imply that it's projected that in a few years NVidia's revenues shall represent 10% of the US's GDP: do we really believe that's going to happen?
The Mag 7 + Broadcom have a market cap that is now 60% of the US's GDP. I know you think it's silly but... Doesn't that say something about the expect revenues of these companies in a few years?
Do we really think the Mag 7 + Broadcom (just an example) are really to represent the % of the actual US's GDP that that implies?
Just to be clear: I'm not saying it implies the percentage of the US GDP of these 8 companies alone is going to be 60% but there is a relation between the P/E of a company and its expected revenues. And revenues of companies do participate in the GDP computation.
I don't think it's as silly as several here think.
I also don't think GP should be downvoted: if we disagree, we can discuss it.