Why is he even comparing a whole country to a mere US state? You could do such a thing with anything.
I mean, we could compare the US GDP per capita, or each of its states, with that of Gloucestershire or Hertfordshire or Norfolk or Kent and see how it fares. Berkshire's GDP per capita of $47,516 is higher than that of the vast majority of US states.
We could compare the GDP per capita of the US to each English region, or compare Alaska's GDP with London's. It's silly.
The article overlooks the fact that the place with the highest GDP per capita in the WORLD - yes, the entire WORLD - is west London (the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames) which has a mind-boggling GDP per capita of $152,116 (PPP). So the people who live in that part of west London are far wealthier on average than the Yanks.
I also have an issue with the GDP (PPP) figures of US states in that Spectator article. They all seem a bit high. According to that article, Alaska is the richest state with a GDP (PPP) per capita of $80,741 yet, according to the OECD, the richest US state is actually Delaware, with a GDP (PPP) per capita of just $59,591.
I'm a fan of The Spectator, but the figures in that article are suspect.
West London is the richest place on earth: List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(the US has five areas in the list of Top 20 GDPs per capita in the world; Britain has four; Canada only has one).
What's your cut of Britins GDP? I'll save you the trouble, fluck all, the filthy rich make up the bulk of GDP, the commoners are dirt.