Chart of the Day: World Shares of GDP
1. The chart above of world GDP shares (data here) from 1969 to 2011 shows America's amazingly stable share of world output, which has remained at about 26% for more than forty years, with only a gradual decline in recent years. The U.S. share of world GDP in 2011 (26%) was actually higher than in 1982 (25.8%).
2. It's also interesting to note that: a) the shares of world GDP in 2011 were almost exactly the same for the U.S. (25.9%), the EU-15 (26.2%) and Asia/Oceania (26.9%). For both of the last two years (2010 and 2011), Asia/Oceania's share of world GDP has been slightly higher than both the EU15 and the USA. The combined GDP of Latin America, Middle East and Africa has also been relatively stable at about 10%, with recent increases to above 12% in the last two years.
3. The biggest changes over time have been the gradual decline in the EU-15's share of world GDP from almost 36% in 1969 to roughly 26% by 2011, while Asia/Oceania's share has increased from less than 15% in 1969 to almost 27% in 2011. The fact that America's share of world GDP has remained constant over time is a testament to how America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship have enabled us to continue to be productive and competitive in a "tough world." In contrast, the EU-15's declining share of the world economy demonstrates the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations that have created a culture of dependency and entitlement.
4. For the first time ever, real world GDP (in 2005 dollars) exceeded $50 trillion in 2011, a new record high level of world output, and 2.7% above last year. At the global level, there's been a complete recovery from the worldwide slowdown in 2008 and 2009 with world output now at an all-time high.
38 Comments:
Were the population growth rates for all those areas similar, or would charts for GDP per capita tell a different story?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The pie is growing. (So much for slavery.) But Europe is losing. Will US be next?
Looks like the US reversed a downward trend in the '80s and, after two decades of bucking the rich world trend of decline, has been going down since 2000 again. Given the massive population of Asia, it is inevitable that the US share goes down to something closer to its population share, but it'll do so a lot slower than Europe.
Actually, much of Europe has gone to market reforms in the last 20 years, especially Sweden, but also Denmark. Germany is a powerhouse. Spain and Portugal much more market-oriented, and also Ireland.
Add on: China makes up a greater fraction of world GDP, and it is run by the Chinese Communist Party.
"Asia and Oceania" includes Japan.
Exclude Japan, and the growth rate over the last 10 years is a lot faster.
Benjie, you say "much of Europe has gone to market reforms" so let's look at the actual numbers for the countries you list, adding France, Italy, and Japan in for good measure. Let's look at their Heritage freedom scores, debt-to-GDP ratios, using the IMF numbers that include state debt, and GDP PPP per capita, the best measure of their wealth:
US 77.8 94.4 $47k
Sweden 71.9 39.7 $39k
Denmark 78.6 43.7 $37k
Germany 71.8 84.0 $36k
Spain 70.2 60.1 $30k
Portugal 64.0 92.9 $23k
Ireland 78.7 94.9 $39k
France 64.6 82.3 $34k
Italy 60.3 119.0 $31k
China 52.0 33.8 $8k
Japan 72.8 220.0 $34k
What stands out? Well, nobody comes even close to touching the US in GDP per capita, particularly the "Communist Party"-run China, which comes in last. While a few European countries have liberalized, as you note while picking out the few who did, none come close to being as productive as the US, even the ones who have a higher freedom score. Denmark and Ireland now score higher than the US on the freedom index, which leads to their higher GDP number than the European countries who aren't as free, with the exception of Sweden.
The numbers show that Germany is no powerhouse in comparison to the US, and Sweden isn't as market-oriented as Denmark. Spain and Portugal lag far behind, just like France and Italy, imagine how much worse the rest of Europe is? Japan did great for some time, till their govt started running the credit card like crazy up to 220% of GDP, and now they're actually lagging the pack in the developed world. So what's the point? Nobody comes close to the US in terms of amount of time being more free, which is why nobody can touch us on the GDP numbers. Unfortunately, while a few of them are learning their lesson and embracing markets more, many ignorant people in the US, including you sometimes, seem to want us to lag back to meet them, by becoming less free and poorer in the process.
The U.S. has been the main engine of global growth, because it consumes more than produces (up to $800 billion a year), which raises GDP of its trading partners.
The U.S. has been a "black hole" in the global economy, attracting imports, capital, and the owners of that capital themselves.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government has been a black hole in the U.S. economy, by destroying capital through inefficiencies, taxing efficiencies, reducing output through excessive regulations, etc..
I am really curious about the dubious nature of Chinese GDP numbers. Building empty cities and all of their spending on unused infrastructure as well as some allegations of provincial corruption in reporting leads me and many others to think that their GDP is far far less than the 10% growth they are reporting. They have a housing bubble building and so much corruption in their communist / totalitarian centrally planned system and they account for so much of Asia's GDP that I am not sure of anything that comes from China anymore.
Mark J. Perry: The fact that America's share of world GDP has remained constant over time is a testament to how America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship have enabled us to continue to be productive and competitive in a "tough world." In contrast, the EU-15's declining share of the world economy demonstrates the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations that have created a culture of dependency and entitlement.
Based on your own resource, that is not correct. The difference between the US and the EU15 is simply a difference in population growth.
From 1969 to 2010, US GDP per capita rose 100%, while EU15 GDP per capita rose 110%. However, US population rose 54%, while the EU15 rose only 17%. Europe started at a lower GDP per capita level, largely due to the ravages of the world wars.
Just curious if this fairly straightforward result will cause anyone to reevaluate their position on the relative merits of the American and European economic systems.
"Add on: China makes up a greater fraction of world GDP, and it is run by the Chinese Communist Party."
LOL!
China is communist in name only. Their government spends less as a % of GDP than ours. Their taxes are lower, too. And inequality is higher.
Plus, their fantastic growth started IMMEDIATELY after they implemented market-based reforms. Before that, they were all subsistance farmers.
There's no better example of the superiority of capitalism over socialism than China.
Well, that and N.Korea vs. S.Korea, USSR vs. Russia, Chile, etc, etc, etc. Basically everywhere you can directly compare the two capitalism is superior. Hell, even in the anarchy and civil war in Somalia, the standard of living has risen since when they were starving under Socialism.
Of course, there's a lesson in there somewhere. It's the same lesson expressed by the fall in Europe's share shown in the above graph.
zach-
it's easier to show big % jumps if a) you start from a depressed level and b) you start from a low level.
%'s can be very misleading.
you'd much rather have the 50% growth from $10 to $15 than 200% growth from $1 to $3.
where are you getting your data?
according to ERS stats,
the EU 27 real GDP was 17k per capita in 1980 and 27k in 2010
the us was 25k in 1980 and 42k in 2010.
thus, they gained 10k and the us gained 17k. our wealth gain was 70% higher than theirs in nominal dollars.
the fact that they grew 59% and we grew 68% make it look like the results were much closer than they actually were in nominal terms.
you care about actual income, not percentages.
measured this way, the US has crushed europe in terms if increased wealth over the last 30 years.
i think you are cherry picking dates and looking at the numbers the wrong way.
once europe ran out of tailwind from rebuilding, they fell far behind. 70% out-performance is pretty dramatic.
now, you can get some huge % numbers out of china, whose real pc dgp was only $235 in 1980, but the fact is that the US experienced growth in income over this period that was several multiples of the entire chinese per capita GDP now.
favoring %'s as you do leads to very perverse conclusions.
and rational person would rather gain $17k than 10k or make 42k instead of 27, much less the 4-8k of china.
so no zach, i don't think you proved anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
morganovich: %'s can be very misleading.
The original post reached a conclusion unsupported by the data. The difference in growth in GDP appears to be primarily due to the relative increase in U.S. population, not due to "America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship" as opposed to "the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations."
morganovich: the EU 27 real GDP was 17k per capita in 1980 and 27k in 2010
The original post and our own comment concerned the EU15.
A chart of GDP per unit of energy used would be instructive, too.
Europeans are credited with using less energy, but they get a lot less out of it as well. Despite Americas large energy use, we use it pretty well. Japan is the leader in this area, I believe.
Their government spends less as a % of GDP than ours.
=============================
Pretty easy to do if you do not have to spend all your time arguing, filibustering, and campaigning.
Also you can tell a lot about China's reaql GDP growth from the growth in energy usage.
zach-
using the EU 15 does not change the data much.
per capita real gdp in 1980 was 20k which rose to 32k in 2010. (about 3/4 of the US level)
thus, it rose 12 vs 17 in the US meaning the US grew 42% more.
your population comments are irrelevant to this discussion, because we are using per capita figures.
actually, that number may well work against you.
the US has has a bigger influx of mostly poor immigrants.
to gain so much more per capita in spite of such makes the vast out performance all the more striking.
regardless of what the post said, the per capita data does back up the conclusion about dynamism vs socialism.
the US has vastly outperformed the EU in real per capita wealth creation in the last 30 years and remains much richer.
almost every country in the EU 15 would be the poorest state in the US by per capita income.
"Just curious if this fairly straightforward result will cause anyone to reevaluate their position on the relative merits of the American and European economic systems."
Not so straightforward once you realize the fastest growth in the EU has been from countries with economies nearly as liberal as the USA, like Ireland, Iceland, and to a lesser extent, the UK.
Plus, given that the European countries were starting from a lower figure, you'd figure they'd do better in a global economy, as they had more "low hanging fruit". It's the same reason you see 8-10% annual growth in many developing countries, which no developed western country could ever hope to match.
"Pretty easy to do if you do not have to spend all your time arguing, filibustering, and campaigning."
Yep. China has more to tell us about the ideological battle between Democracy and Autocracy than it does between Capitalism and Communism.
morganovich: using the EU 15 does not change the data much.
It still shows that the US and EU15 each increased GDP per capita at about the same rate.
morganovich: per capita real gdp in 1980 was 20k which rose to 32k in 2010. (about 3/4 of the US level)
You just changed the years used in the original post. Are you cherry-picking? In any case, over the 1980-2010 range, the US increased 64%, the EU15 58, comparably. Again, the original post is not supported. Rather the most important changes are demographic.
morganovich: the US has has a bigger influx of mostly poor immigrants.
Yes, however, immigrants tend to be among the most ambitious of their original populations. Nevertheless, maintaining growth while absorbing new populations is a positive development.
morganovich: almost every country in the EU 15 would be the poorest state in the US by per capita income.
Europe started out with much lower production due to the ravages of two world wars. Economic development is measured in degree of change.
KPres: Not so straightforward once you realize the fastest growth in the EU has been from countries with economies nearly as liberal as the USA, like Ireland, Iceland, and to a lesser extent, the UK.
Increase in per capita GDP, from 1969 to 2010:
US 100%
Germany 106%
France 104%
Sweden 109%
morganovich, you're wasting your time with Zach, who has a view of what the data should say and will keep looking till he finds it somehow. ;) He wants to believe in Europe's more socialist model so he'll keep saying "percentage growth over certain timeframes was the same, ignore the actual levels dammit!" :) His excuse that Europe still can't recover from WWII devastation to rise to US levels is incredibly silly, particularly given how Japan rose to 81% of US GDP PPP per capita briefly in 1990 before falling back again.
Zach, why can't Europe ever recover from the post-war "ravages," like Japan did? Why does Europe develop and commercialize very little new innovation compared to the US? Could it be that their more socialist economic model means they must forever copy more capitalist economies to even stay perpetually 30-40% behind them, implying they'd be even farther behind if they didn't have us on the leading edge to copy? Nah, couldn't be. ;)
"Pretty easy to do if you do not have to spend all your time arguing, filibustering, and campaigning."
What does that even mean?
Correct it to penalize for slavery in Asia, and that will go down. That'll also correct for the fraud that represents that GDP rise.
Sprewell: why can't Europe ever recover from the post-war "ravages," like Japan did?
From the data provided in the original post, the per capita GDP of the US and EU15 have grown comparably. The EU15 is highly developed and technologically advanced.
Zach, nope, try again. You claimed that "Europe started out with much lower production due to the ravages of two world wars." You seem to be implying that that setback can never be recovered from, because they can only grow so fast out of it. But we know that over certain timeframes, growth rates differ, for example, the US outgrew Italy, Germany, and Japan since 1990, even though the US started at a much higher level! That is amazing outperformance by the US and I've pointed out that Japan did the same during their '80s boom, before falling behind again.
So I ask the question again, why can't Europe ever catch up from a world war that took place almost 70 years ago? Could it be that's just an excuse and the real reason is that their socialism is like competing with one hand tied behind their back? You may call them "highly developed" but when my link above shows that most of them do worse than Alabama, one of the most backward US states, the data renders your claim laughable. :) In fact, given that most innovation is developed in the US, I've posited that Europe would be much farther behind than the 30-40% they perpetually are, if they weren't getting the free lunch of US pharmaceutical and technological innovation handed to them, a sobering thought for how broken their model is.
Sprewell: You claimed that "Europe started out with much lower production due to the ravages of two world wars."
That's hardly a controversial position.
Sprewell: You seem to be implying that that setback can never be recovered from, because they can only grow so fast out of it.
The EU15 have not only regained their previous levels of production, but per capita GDP has more than doubled since 1969. The EU15 has approximately the same GDP as the United States.
Sprewell: Could it be that's just an excuse and the real reason is that their socialism is like competing with one hand tied behind their back?
The original post claimed that the difference in growth from 1969-2010 was primarily due "America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship" as opposed to "the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations." That conclusion is not supported by the data provided. Rather, from that data, it is clear that the difference in growth is primarily due to the difference in population growth.
Yes, the EU15 is highly developed and advanced technologically. Post-WWII innovations include the compact cassette, telesurgery, the discovery of HIV, mp3, ultrasound, gamma knife, pacemaker, in vitro fertilization, CT scan and the bikini.
Zach, Haha, I love how you simply keep evading the question, now lowering the bar so much that you simply trumpet Europe recovering to the pre-war levels of production. XD That's not the question: the question is, why, after 70 years, can't they ever catch the US and come up to our level? Who cares if the EU 15 has a similar GDP when they do it with a lot more people? That's like saying we should be impressed that it takes 3 chinese to produce a fifth of the GDP PPP of one American. :) The original post was spot on because it showed that European share of GDP has been declining for decades despite having a 30% larger population than the US.
Population growth? Lol, don't make me laugh. Our population growth comes from mostly poor and lower class Hispanics, so they actually drag our stats downward. Europe probably has the same phenomenon with Turkish or African immigrants, but as the GDP per capita numbers I listed show, they're still way behind once you divide by population. Do you consider Alabama "highly developed and advanced technologically?" Because Alabama beats most European states. Yes, the Europeans have had a handful of innovations also (the CT scan was actually developed based on math set out by a South African working in the US, Cormack, which is why he shared the Nobel prize with the British researcher who built the first one), but it's amazing how many of the major innovations one would think of didn't come from Europe, which is why you need to pad your list out with the bikini. ;)
Sprewell: you simply trumpet Europe recovering to the pre-war levels of production.
Huh? You misstated our view when you said "You seem to be implying that that setback can never be recovered from, because they can only grow so fast out of it." We corrected your misstatement. Clearly, Europe recovered from WWII.
Sprewell: That's not the question: the question is, why, after 70 years, can't they ever catch the US and come up to our level?
That wasn't the question. The original post claimed that the difference in growth from 1969-2010 was primarily due "America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship" as opposed to "the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations." That conclusion is not supported by the data provided. Rather, from that data, it is clear that the difference in growth is primarily due to the difference in population growth.
Sprewell: The original post was spot on because it showed that European share of GDP has been declining for decades despite having a 30% larger population than the US.
Yes, EU15 share of GDP has decline with respect to the U.S. even though per capita growth has been about the same because the U.S. population has been growing faster. That's clear from the data provided in the original post.
Zach, lol, it is hilarious to see you trying to wriggle your way out of answering the question, which has always been "why can't Europe ever catch up from a world war that took place almost 70 years ago?" Instead, you try answer to nonsensical questions of your own, saying "The EU15 have... regained their previous levels of production" from before WWII. What?! Who gives a shit if they regained their pre-war levels, they would have to be retarded not to! The question is why can't they ever catch the US, always has been. You earlier implied that they can't ever catch us because of WWII, which you're still using as an excuse after 70 years, so clearly you don't think "Europe recovered from WWII," if it's still an excuse to this day. XD
Haha, I love you simply repeat your lies about EU population growth, which as usual, you have no data for, and which I directly contradicted by mentioning some of the actual numbers. Other than my throwing out some population numbers, neither any of your comments or the original post mention population growth, so I don't know why you keep acting as though they do. That's because population growth has essentially nothing to do with this issue, as I said before. Look, I know you don't care what the data says and want to keep believing the crap you do. It's just hilarious to see the intellectual convulsions you go through to avoid the basic fact of European poverty relative to the US and all the nonsense diversions you make up to try and avoid these facts. :D
Sprewell: it is hilarious to see you trying to wriggle your way out of answering the question, which has always been ...
Well, no. That wasn't the original question which concerned the relative growth rates of the U.S. and the EU15 from 1969 to 2010.
Sprewell: why can't Europe ever catch up from a world war that took place almost 70 years ago?
In terms of GDP, the EU15 has fully recovered from WWII. They have had comparable growth rates to the US.
Sprewell: The question is why can't they ever catch the US, always has been.
Though the GDP per capita of the EU15 has grown a bit faster than the US, the US has increased its population much faster, and started at a significantly higher level. This has already been stated several times.
Sprewell: You earlier implied that they can't ever catch us because of WWII, ...
We never implied such a thing.
Sprewell: I love you simply repeat your lies about EU population growth, ...
We relied upon the data used in the original post.
Sprewell: Other than my throwing out some population numbers, neither any of your comments or the original post mention population growth, so I don't know why you keep acting as though they do.
GDP per capita encompasses population as it is the result of dividing national GDP by population. You can find the history of population, GDP per capita and national GDP figures in the data cited in the original post.
The relevant result concerning the claim in the original post is the GDP per capita. If the difference in growth of GDP were primarily due to "America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship" as opposed to "the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations," then we would expect US GDP per capita to rise much faster than that of the EU15. Instead, EU15 GDP per capita actually rose a bit faster than the US.
Zach, there was no "original question which concerned the relative growth rates," as there was no question in the original post. I posed the only question, which you keep running away from. If "the EU15 has fully recovered from WWII," why can't they ever catch up to the US level of GDP per capita? The fact that you are still using WWII as an excuse 70 years later implies that you think they never really recovered. You don't want to admit that, so you keep running away from your own excuse now. XD Your stating "several times" that population growth supposedly increased faster in the US still has nothing to do with the fact that GDP PPP per capita is much higher in the US. Since it is a per capita figure, population is irrelevant, as the population is divided out. I'm not sure why I have to explain this obvious fact, other than you seem incapable of understanding it or you want to act like you don't, so you can hide from the fact of relative poverty in Europe. :)
"Sprewell: You earlier implied that they can't ever catch us because of WWII, ...
We never implied such a thing."
Sure you did. You said that "Europe started out with much lower production due to the ravages of two world wars." We all know they started lower, but why haven't they ever been able to catch up, like Japan almost did in the '80s? That is the question you don't want to answer because it is deadly to your socialist ideology. :D
"Sprewell: I love you simply repeat your lies about EU population growth, ...
We relied upon the data used in the original post."
The original post had no data on population, as I've pointed out repeatedly. You presumably are referring to the data linked by the original post, as you finally mention "the data cited in the original post," which is why I had no idea what you were talking about until your latest post. The original post says nothing about GDP per capita, you and I brought that up because it is the most salient stat. As morganovich patiently explained to you, it is much easier to grow from $15k to $30k, as Europe did, than it is to grow from $24k to $48k, as the US did. You then say "they both doubled," and ignore that we gained much more real income in the process, $24k vs $15k, and that it is harder to stay on the leading edge and earn much more, as we do. All Europe has to do is copy our iPads and HIV drugs and everything else that comes out of our freer markets and laze around the rest of the time, so we're giving them a handout by pushing at the frontiers and blazing a trail for them to follow, and yet somehow they can't ever seem to get to our level of GDP PPP per capita, currently at a much higher $47k. That is incredibly damning for their system and it is hilarious that you point to their growth off a much smaller base as a rejoinder to their relative poverty. XD
Sprewell: there was no "original question which concerned the relative growth rates," as there was no question in the original post.
It's not all that difficult to understand. Mark J. Perry made a claim. That claim is not supported by his cited data.
Mark J. Perry: The fact that America's share of world GDP has remained constant over time is a testament to how America's dynamism, resiliency, and culture of innovation and entrepreneurship have enabled us to continue to be productive and competitive in a "tough world." In contrast, the EU-15's declining share of the world economy demonstrates the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations that have created a culture of dependency and entitlement.
Zachriel: Based on your own resource, that is not correct. The difference between the US and the EU15 is simply a difference in population growth. From 1969 to 2010, US GDP per capita rose 100%, while EU15 GDP per capita rose 110%. However, US population rose 54%, while the EU15 rose only 17%. Europe started at a lower GDP per capita level, largely due to the ravages of the world wars.
Sprewell: The fact that you are still using WWII as an excuse 70 years later implies that you think they never really recovered.
You may want to refrain from trying to read between the lines. You aren't very good at it.
It's a simple fact that the EU15 in 1969 had a lower GDP per capita than the US. It is uncontroversial that this is largely due to the ravages of two world wars, the latter of which destroyed nearly the entire industrial infrastructure of Europe.
Sprewell: Your stating "several times" that population growth supposedly increased faster in the US still has nothing to do with the fact that GDP PPP per capita is much higher in the US.
GDP per capita is higher in the US because it started higher and grew nearly as fast as in the EU15 from 1969-2010. And that is exactly why Mark J. Perry's point is unsupported by the data he cited. If his contention were true, we would expect GDP per capita growth to be substantially higher in the US. It wasn't.
Sprewell: The original post had no data on population, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
The original post was based on data that Mark J. Perry cited. We referred to the citation, which not only had GDP, but per capita GDP and population histories.
: You presumably are referring to the data linked by the original post, as you finally mention "the data cited in the original post," which is why I had no idea what you were talking about until your latest post.
Zachriel (1st post on thread, directed to Mark J. Perry): Based on your own resource, that is not correct.
: All Europe has to do is copy our iPads and HIV drugs
That's funny, as it was French scientists who discovered the HIV virus. It shows that science is a cooperative effort, with each scientist building on the discoveries of other scientists.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/
"Sprewell: there was no 'original question which concerned the relative growth rates,' as there was no question in the original post.
Your response: It's not all that difficult to understand."
Apparently it is very difficult for you to understand even basic English. You keep referring back to some nonexistent question in the original post, when there was no question there, only the one I asked.
"Mark J. Perry made a claim. That claim is not supported by his cited data."
Of course it is, as the cited data show the same GDP per capita poverty in Europe as every other data set.
I don't have to "read between the lines" when you directly say "Europe started at a lower GDP per capita level, largely due to the ravages of the world wars" and then repeat that "this is largely due to the ravages of two world wars, the latter of which destroyed nearly the entire industrial infrastructure of Europe," using the war as an excuse for why Europe lags behind to this day. You might want to try learning how to read in the first place, forget about what's between the lines. :)
"GDP per capita is higher in the US because it started higher and grew nearly as fast as in the EU15 from 1969-2010. And that is exactly why Mark J. Perry's point is unsupported by the data he cited. If his contention were true, we would expect GDP per capita growth to be substantially higher in the US. It wasn't."
Haha, the sheer ignorance this quote shows is quite hilarious. Anyone involved in any business knows that it is much harder to grow at the same rate from a higher revenue level than from a lower one, as you are already much bigger and advanced to begin with. The fact that you cast the US outperformance from a higher level- somehow managing the same growth rates as a much poorer Europe, meaning larger gains in real income in the US- as some kind of negative really showcases your special kind of idiocy. :)
As for HIV, you already mentioned that it was French scientists who isolated the virus, which is why I pointed out that it was Americans like David Ho who actually arrested the disease. Science and innovation can be incredibly cooperative but not everybody contributes the same, and Europe's poverty means they just can't contribute that much. It's too bad, because if they would just let go of the moronic socialist policies that you seem to prefer, they could actually chip into our global economy much more, rather than stagnating into oblivion like they're doing now.
Sprewell: You keep referring back to some nonexistent question in the original post, when there was no question there, only the one I asked.
You must be kidding. To recap, Mark J. Perry made a claim. We showed that the data he cited did not support the claim. You have contested this interpretation of the data.
Your argument is that the EU15 per capita GDP grew at a rate comparable to the US, and that can only be attributed "the failure of anti-growth, European-style socialism with high taxes and excessive regulations that have created a culture of dependency and entitlement." That seems a rather perverse justification.
Sprewell: Of course it is, as the cited data show the same GDP per capita poverty in Europe as every other data set.
The people of the EU15 are hardly poor, and are considered highly developed advanced economies by virtually all economists.
Sprewell: Science and innovation can be incredibly cooperative but not everybody contributes the same, and Europe's poverty means they just can't contribute that much.
The fact that U.S. scientists developed treatments for HIV only after the French discovered the virus hardly shows that Europe is not technologically advanced.
Post a Comment
<< Home