Europe Overtakes North America As Richest Region In the World

[SirJosephPorter]

A new report on global wealth says that Europe has overtaken the United States to become the richest region in the world.

Fewer US Millionaires: Europe Overtakes North America As Richest Region In the World - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

World recession has taken its toll particularly on USA. US wealth has dropped by 22%, almost double the worldwide average.

The "Global Wealth Report" released by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on the anniversary of the Lehman Brother's bank collapse indicates that Europe has overtaken North America to become the world's wealthiest region.

This, combined with the recent report that UN is calling for a world currency, probably means that the baton of world leadership is slowly being passed from USA to Europe.

 

[taxslave]

Not surprising. The US economy is and has been based on credit and military spending unsupported by any relevant economic underpinning.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not only that taxslave, but I think European economy is more efficient than American economy. They have smaller cars; gas there is more expensive, so people use public transport much more than they do over here.

They live in smaller houses, they don’t consume as much electricity, as many resources per person, their carbon footprint is smaller. So there also they have an advantage over Americans.

 

[taxslave]

Not only that taxslave, but I think European economy is more efficient than American economy. They have smaller cars; gas there is more expensive, so people use public transport much more than they do over here.

They live in smaller houses, they don’t consume as much electricity, as many resources per person, their carbon footprint is smaller. So there also they have an advantage over Americans.

We had about half of Germany come through our house this summer ranging from students to a fairly a senior bureaucrat and from talking to them it would appear Europe is much farther ahead than us in health care, education and alternative energy as well. But they do pay a lot more taxes than we do as well as having way more government intrusion in their every day lives, which may simply have more with having so many people in such a small area. But then I may be somewhat spoilt living in a rural area as They were all amazed that we have no building permits or inspections here while they need a permit to fart on alternate days.
I can see their point about wanting a currency with something behind it other then a very high speed printing press. Pricing in US dollars is difficult for our exporting industries as well.

 

[Machjo]

A new report on global wealth says that Europe has overtaken the United States to become the richest region in the world.

Fewer US Millionaires: Europe Overtakes North America As Richest Region In the World - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

World recession has taken its toll particularly on USA. US wealth has dropped by 22%, almost double the worldwide average.

The "Global Wealth Report" released by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on the anniversary of the Lehman Brother's bank collapse indicates that Europe has overtaken North America to become the world's wealthiest region.

This, combined with the recent report that UN is calling for a world currency, probably means that the baton of world leadership is slowly being passed from USA to Europe.

I take issue with your premise that 'global leadership' must necessarily go in hand with wealth. If we should link them so closely, then we ought to clarify 'economic leadership' or 'leadership in material development' or something else of the sort. After all, based on the premise above, Gandhi was no leader as he'd renounced his wealth.

Personally, I see moral leadership to be of greater value than any 'material leadership'.

 

[Machjo]

Not only that taxslave, but I think European economy is more efficient than American economy. They have smaller cars; gas there is more expensive, so people use public transport much more than they do over here.

They live in smaller houses, they don’t consume as much electricity, as many resources per person, their carbon footprint is smaller. So there also they have an advantage over Americans.

Agreed, overall. However, our motivation for going in that direction ought not be pure materialism, but rather sharing our limited resources with all persons.

 

[Machjo]

We had about half of Germany come through our house this summer ranging from students to a fairly a senior bureaucrat and from talking to them it would appear Europe is much farther ahead than us in health care, education and alternative energy as well. But they do pay a lot more taxes than we do as well as having way more government intrusion in their every day lives, which may simply have more with having so many people in such a small area. But then I may be somewhat spoilt living in a rural area as They were all amazed that we have no building permits or inspections here while they need a permit to fart on alternate days.
I can see their point about wanting a currency with something behind it other then a very high speed printing press. Pricing in US dollars is difficult for our exporting industries as well.

I do agree that government intervention can contribute to efficiency in some areas. In some areas, the private sector is more efficient (even a die-hard socialist would likely admit that the local restaurant could opperate more efficiently in private hands with government regulation only to the extent necessary). And in other areas, the government is more efficient (even a die-hard capitalist would agree with restraining our freedom to drive on either side of the road as we wish). I think Europe may have foud a better balance than Norh America, where we even want to privatize natural monopolies and underfund universal education.

 

[Lou Garu]

I do agree that government intervention can contribute to efficiency in some areas. In some areas, the private sector is more efficient (even a die-hard socialist would likely admit that the local restaurant could opperate more efficiently in private hands with government regulation only to the extent necessary). And in other areas, the government is more efficient (even a die-hard capitalist would agree with restraining our freedom to drive on either side of the road as we wish). I think Europe may have foud a better balance than Norh America, where we even want to privatize natural monopolies and underfund universal education.

I tend to think of U.S.A as a "hot house culture" that they got big ( and so fast historically ) from the relative undevelopement of the land.
Wereas Europe has re-invented itself with the conditions as they are, a Lesson that they ( and we) have yet to learn.
or to re phrase......the easy times are gone, time to root hog or die..

 

[Liberalman]

The upcoming trade war will even things out

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Agreed, overall. However, our motivation for going in that direction ought not be pure materialism, but rather sharing our limited resources with all persons.

That is an admirable sentiment, Machjo, but that is not how it works in practice. Many more people are motivated by self interest than are motivated by altruism.

Europe has been concerned about greenhouse effect much longer than North America, now they are the leaders in producing green jobs. But even materially, now it turns out that they are wealthier than USA.

So it may very well be that eventually altruism and self interest merge together.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I take issue with your premise that 'global leadership' must necessarily go in hand with wealth. If we should link them so closely, then we ought to clarify 'economic leadership' or 'leadership in material development' or something else of the sort. After all, based on the premise above, Gandhi was no leader as he'd renounced his wealth.

Personally, I see moral leadership to be of greater value than any 'material leadership'.

You have a point; there is many kinds of leadership. There is the military leadership; it depends upon how big an arsenal a country has. There is the moral leadership, which depends upon what kinds of moral code a country follows. There is economic leadership, which depends upon GDP, productivity and other economic indicators.

USA will remain the undisputed military leader for a long time to come. I don’t think USA ever had much of a claim for moral leadership. While being a democracy at home, it has a long record of supporting brutal dictatorships abroad. At one time USA was an ardent supporter of Saddam Hussein (there is the famous photograph of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand).

USA has also got involved in questionable wars, like Vietnam war, or its support for the Contras in Nicaragua, or its support of Fundamentalist Islamic fighters against USSR in Afghanistan (who later morphed into the Taliban) etc.

So I don’t think USA ever had the moral leadership. Until now, it had the military and economic leadership, but now it looks like the economic leadership may be slipping away.

 

[petros]

I doubt carbon use has much to do with having more "riches". It our "painted rust" infrastructure, loss of nearly all manufacturing, high cost of living, diminishing health and education standard and most of all personal and corporate greed over the past 30 years has led to this downfall of the once great America.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I tend to think of U.S.A as a "hot house culture" that they got big ( and so fast historically ) from the relative undevelopement of the land.
Wereas Europe has re-invented itself with the conditions as they are, a Lesson that they ( and we) have yet to learn.
or to re phrase......the easy times are gone, time to root hog or die..

This is most evident in the city centres of North America and Europe. The downtowns in most North American cities tend to be crime pits at night, one has to take precautions if venturing in to downtown at night, after all the offices and businesses are closed down.

European city centres by contrast are bustling, hives of activity at night. Europeans have limited land, so they keep building in the same place again and again. So the city centre remains vibrant and active, even at 10 or 11 o’clock at night.

Space is plentiful in North America, so in North Americas they keep on expanding outwards from downtown, rather than build in the same place. The result is slums areas and urban sprawl.

 

[Kreskin]

Europe isn't one country.

 

[Trex]

Another thread starter that's years and years out of date.

The EU if considered a community is far larger economically than the United States.
Has been for years.
And it's growing larger all the time.

The Americans have by far the largest and most powerful military of any country on the planet.
And they will continue to do so for quite some time yet.

Economically and financially, as a country, they also remain number one.

The EU,however, if considered a single entity financially and economically dwarfs the Americans.
It's old news.
The Euro's are going to get financially stronger.
So are the BRIC nations.
The Americans are going to get weaker.
Comparatively speaking.
And so on.

Trex

 

[petros]

The Americans have by far the largest and most powerful military of any country on the planet.

Then why are a bunch of piss poor wife beaters and previously (for a decade) disarmed Iraqis giving them such grief?

Lets hope someone tough like Brazil or Botswana doesn't come along like and start trouble.

 

[AnnaG]

Then why are a bunch of piss poor wife beaters and previously (for a decade) disarmed Iraqis giving them such grief?

Lets hope someone tough like Brazil or Botswana doesn't come along like and start trouble.

Geeez, you make it sound easy. Maybe Canada could invade.

 

[petros]

Geeez, you make it sound easy. Maybe Canada could invade.

We can't afford it after signing NAFTA.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then why are a bunch of piss poor wife beaters and previously (for a decade) disarmed Iraqis giving them such grief?

Lets hope someone tough like Brazil or Botswana doesn't come along like and start trouble.

That is terrorism, guerilla warfare, Petros. For that strong and mighty military machine is not sufficient, other tactics are called for.

Thus USSR had a might military machine when they invaded Afghanistan, but a rag tag band of Mujaheedin (with American help) managed to defeat them.

And I don’t think USSR ever caught on what happened in Afghanistan, why they managed to lose the war. I remember a few years later they were interviewing a USSR General on CNN. He claimed that USSR managed to win 98% of the ground battles in Afghanistan.

He had no clue that in guerilla warfare, the guerrillas may lose every battle, yet win the war.

 

[petros]

In reality Russia is the one with the superior military. it always has been. But it is all beside the point. Russia never "lost" the cold war. It is stronger than ever.

The US military is set up for one purpose only. To fight Russia or China. That leaves the rest of the world being 4 Billion guerillas.

To put it bluntly; without WMD the US military is useless.