Europe v America Germany edges out Arkansas in GDP

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
There's a great graph accompanying the article- may pay to register


REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.

Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.





But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
Capitaliste... They are comparing a Socialist economy to a capitalist one. Also, Europe has more population relative to land mass. Also, older infrastructure. Remember, Europe is centuries old, compared to us (North America) that are only 400-500 years old. Some still only 100 years old (Western North America).
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Numure said:
Capitaliste... They are comparing a Socialist economy to a capitalist one. Also, Europe has more population relative to land mass. Also, older infrastructure. Remember, Europe is centuries old, compared to us (North America) that are only 400-500 years old. Some still only 100 years old (Western North America).

That's all a given-- but I think the key here are the European underground economy, taxes and in the future, the ramifications of an EU Constitution.

Also, I think the issue of relative output per capita is more of an issue. HOW the various European countries choose to spend tax money is they're business. Canada too, can be considered a 'Socialist' economy, but the Canadian GDP is substantially higher-- with a lower population, the problems of distance, etc. An argument can be made however, that Canada GDP is grossly inflated by natural resource sales, but in the end, Canada does have world class industries with high productivity, so I'm not sure how valid that argument is. I also believe that European farm subsidies greatly impact the GDP.

Also telling are the statistics on the poor.

Anyway, it's good fodder for debate and interpretation.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
I can't exactly understand this article. I do understand it, but I don't get where these supposed numbers are coming from.

I agree with Numure, you cannot exactly compare socialist vs. pure capitalists. Don't forget to calculate the "spending power" that Americans spend on healthcare. That spending cost in Europe is lower and it's already paid for in advance.

Don't forget about the extremely weird exchange rate Euro vs. USD has been experiencing. The Euro (last time I checked), was trading at well over 1,60$ CAD or around 1,20$ USD. The exchange rate can be taken, ofcourse, as the average state of the European economy.

Another thing to consider is the cost of living in European countries and the relative incomes. An American who would want to live in the UK, let's imagine, who was making US dollars.. or just had US dollars. He could exchange them.. but look at the exchange rate! He could only live there for a short while until he ran out of money, assuming he's the average American. The Brits make money relative to their cost of living... So their cost of living and their incomes are higher. So it's hard to base something on that.


I won't take this article as anything to base an opinion on. I've read some absurd things from the Wall Street Journal before.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
I also wanted to add that the lifestyles and way of living in European countries that I've visited (piticularly Germany and the UK) are much higher than anything American.


From first hand experience, Brits and Germans seem "richer" than Americans or Canadians.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Andem said:
I also wanted to add that the lifestyles and way of living in European countries that I've visited (piticularly Germany and the UK) are much higher than anything American.


From first hand experience, Brits and Germans seem "richer" than Americans or Canadians.

I understand your point-- but the study was done a European outfit, Timbro, not American. The WSJ only reported the findings.

As for lifestyle, I do agree, but that is a personal opinion (though, it is impossible to find a decent hamburger). I lived in Europe for a while (UK).

But lifestyle comparisons are subjective. many Americans and Canadians think their lifestyle is better, so I think that issue is hard to quantify.
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
A Hamburger isnt good for lifestyle, its quite bad for your health. Europeans, are much healthier then Americans, you must also add that to the equation.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Numure said:
A Hamburger isnt good for lifestyle, its quite bad for your health. Europeans, are much healthier then Americans, you must also add that to the equation.

LOL

Fair enough-- does that also apply to poutine?
 

Numure

Council Member
Apr 30, 2004
1,063
0
36
Montréal, Québec
researchok said:
Numure said:
A Hamburger isnt good for lifestyle, its quite bad for your health. Europeans, are much healthier then Americans, you must also add that to the equation.

LOL

Fair enough-- does that also apply to poutine?

Poutine is possibly worse. It might be our typical fast food meal, but most only eat one ever no and then. Not as a daily diet :p
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
I have to tell you-- I actually MISS a good poutine.

That.... and smoked meat.........

Great-- now I'm homesick!
 

American Voice

Council Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,172
0
36
May I throw a couple of additional spices into the mix?

First, in the United States, the absurdly easy availability of consumer credit accounts for much of the excess consumption that looks, to the naive eye, as an indication of prosperity. Research the rate of consumer bankruptcies in recent years.

Second, rate of unemployment in the U.S. only counts the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits, which are not paid indefinitely. Someone drops off the statistic only means that he has stopped receiving benefits; it doesn't mean he's employed.