Thursday, April 30, 2026

When Europeans Find Out How Poor They Are

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/what-happens-when-europeans-find-out-how-poor-they-are-270cff5d?mod=WTRN_pos4

What Happens When Europeans Find Out How Poor They Are?

The Continent trails far behind U.S. economic output. Politics is bound to catch up sooner or later.

Joseph C. Sternberg

 


Do Europeans understand how poor they are? And what will happen when they find out? Those are the Continent’s big political-economy questions for the next few years—perhaps decades.

The widening gap between American and European prosperity is among the most important facts of the global economy. The clearest manifestation is the chasm in per capita gross domestic product: $94,400 in the U.S., according to the International Monetary Fund, compared with $65,300 in Germany, $61,000 in the U.K. and $52,000 in France.

While America’s prosperity advantage isn’t new, today’s scale is. From a fairly narrow edge throughout the 1980s, the gap widened a bit in the 1990s. Since 2007, however, European per capita incomes have more or less stagnated while the U.S. has enjoyed another growth spurt.

I know what you’re going to say, and it’s no excuse. The U.S. per capita figure is flattered by a small cohort of fabulously successful companies, which create a cohort of fabulously wealthy entrepreneurs. But those companies could just as easily plant their headquarters in Europe (some are even European by birth) and skew the per capita data there instead. Switzerland amps up its per-capita GDP to $126,000 by attracting finance and pharma.

This is another indictment of European shortcomings. The wealth skewing American per capita economic data is a result of innovation and entrepreneurship. Europe lacks America’s per capita output not because it lacks American tech companies and billionaires but because it lacks American-style productivity growth capable of creating tech companies and billionaires in Europe.

Serious economists understand all too well how far behind Europe is falling. The U.S.-vs.-Europe income gap was at the core of a major investigation of European competitiveness produced in 2024 by Mario Draghi, a former president of the European Central Bank.

Yet voters so far remain unaware. Consider a recent report from the Institute of Economic Affairs, a London-based think tank that advocates free markets. The main conclusion: British voters don’t know how far behind they’ve fallen.

Respondents to a January poll commissioned by the think tank were asked to guess how the British economy compares with the U.S. On average, respondents thought that if the U.K. were a state, it would be the seventh-richest in terms of per-capita GDP, behind the likes of New York and California. The reality is that Britain is toward the bottom of the table, roughly on the level of Mississippi.

Why doesn’t anyone do anything? Economically, the divergence isn’t always noticeable on the ground. So far this column has relied on nominal GDP data. Europe looks better if one uses purchasing-power-parity figures to correct for differences in price levels to understand how much households can consume with a given income. Using the PPP metric, U.S. GDP per capita is $94,400, Germany’s is $76,800, Britain’s is $67,600, and France’s is $68,600.

That means, broadly, that a nominal per capita income of $61,000 in the U.K. allows a Briton to consume the same amount of goods and services that would cost $67,600 in America. But that’s merely a different way of stating Europe’s problem. Europe’s economies look healthier in PPP terms to the extent a lower price level allows households to stretch their euros and pounds further. Those lower prices reflect Europe’s lower productivity. Meanwhile nominal GDP expresses Europe’s ability to consume global resources, which is lagging.

Politically, bliss is ignorance. European welfare states, by creating relatively comfortable lives for voters, conceal the full extent of Europe’s prosperity gap.

A common refrain in Britain, for instance, is “But we have the National Health Service, and in America everyone has to pay huge sums for medical care.” The people who say it don’t understand how enlightening the observation is. The NHS launders money the indebted government doesn’t have into terrible health outcomes. This feels like a benefit because it conceals from patients the true cost of their care, while its shortcomings relative to other countries are noticeable only to policy nerds. That’s how most of Europe’s welfare states work.

Aligning voters’ perceptions with reality is the central political challenge for reformers. The IEA report argues, optimistically, that better voter education might help. Participants in its focus groups expressed shock and anger when informed of how (relatively) poor they truly are. Yet many seemed hazy regarding what to do about it.

A collision with reality may be required. The bliss will run out when the funding for welfare does. Voters then will have to confront their failure to generate enough growth to pay for social benefits. Rising demands for defense spending are another stressor. Europe can use social welfare to hide from its economic failures, but it can’t run from them forever.


He deserves several trillion

Response to allocation of capital post.


Is this why Elon needs $1 trillion payout?



Translated from French
It's exactly the opposite of your question. And it deserves us taking the time to demonstrate it properly. The market is the only honest mechanism we've ever invented to identify who creates real value. Every dollar Elon has accumulated is a voluntary vote from millions of people who judged that what he offered was worth their money. Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink. No one was forced. No one voted with a gun to their head. People pulled out their wallets freely because the product solved a problem better than the alternatives. That's what wealth created by the market is. Not theft. Not capture. Value added, measured in real time by billions of voluntary transactions. Now, the real question. Why should someone like Elon keep wanting to earn more when he could stop, buy an island, and spend the rest of his life drinking cocktails? Because past a certain threshold, money is no longer about consumption. It's capital. It's ammunition to execute a vision. Elon doesn't want more money to buy a twelfth villa. He wants more capital because making humanity multi-planetary is expensive. Building a constellation of 40,000 satellites is expensive. Reinventing the automotive industry is expensive. Buying Twitter to defend free speech costs 44 billion. Every dollar he accumulates becomes a dollar he can allocate to a problem that no one else has the courage, the competence, or the means to solve. And that's where your question reveals its fundamental flaw. You reason as if wealth were a fixed pie and his huge share deprived others. But the economy isn't a zero-sum game. Elon didn't take someone's money to build SpaceX. He created a company that divided the cost of access to orbit by 10, opening up space to thousands of players who could never have gotten there otherwise. He created Tesla, which forced the entire global automotive industry to shift to electric 20 years earlier than expected. He created Starlink, which connects entire villages in Africa and the Amazon that would never have had internet otherwise. Elon's wealth counter isn't a selfish trophy. It's a score that measures how much value he's injected into the system. And the mechanism that drives continuing this game is exactly what makes it healthy. The day we tell an Elon "stop, you've had enough," we kill the incentive for the next generation to try to do the same. We send the signal that beyond a certain level, your ambition will be punished. And then, we no longer have SpaceX. We no longer have Neuralink. We no longer have Starship. We have flabby bureaucracies producing PowerPoints on ecological transition while China sends taikonauts to the Moon. Elon is the Leonardo da Vinci of our time. Except that where Leonardo had to beg for funding from Medicis to draw his flying machines, Elon built his own Medici internally. That's precisely what allows him to execute at a scale no public institution can match. Not because civil servants are incompetent, but because bureaucratic structures are mathematically incapable of absorbing the risk that an entrepreneur can take alone with his own capital. So yes, he deserves a trillion. He deserves several trillion. As long as he keeps grinding as hard as he does, sleeping on the factory floor, pushing projects that no one else would dare fund, the market must keep rewarding him. That's the signal the system sends him to say "keep going, we need you, don't let up." The day we find it scandalous that a man who makes humanity multi-planetary becomes immensely rich, that's when we've lost all understanding of what drives a civilization forward.


Man the Starlink doubters are hilarious in retrospect.




When Europeans Find Out How Poor They Are

  https://www.wsj.com/opinion/what-happens-when-europeans-find-out-how-poor-they-are-270cff5d?mod=WTRN_pos4 What Happens When Europeans Find...