I periodically (some would say over and over and over again, though occasionally made more palatable by using humor and cartoons) warn that the United States should not become a European-style welfare state.
But I wonder whether I spend enough time explaining why this would be a bad idea.
After all, some people may think that you get more security and benefits with the European approach, so why not head in that direction. And these folks aren’t just pointing with approval to the Nordic nations. A writer for the New York Times actually thinks we should copy Italy.
So it is fortuitous that I’m currently in Poland as part of the Free Market Road Show and got to hear a speech by Prof. Leszek Balcerowicz of the Warsaw School of Economics (and former Deputy Prime Minister and head of Poland’s central bank).
Prof. Balcerowicz specifically compared economic performance in Western Europe and the United States, and the results are not very favorable to the welfare state.
Standard economic theory suggests that poor nations should catch up with rich nations. This “convergence theory” actually worked for the first few decades after World War II.
But as you can see from Prof. Balcerowicz’s chart, the convergence process slowed down after the welfare state began to expand in the 1960s. And after the pro-growth reforms of the Reagan years and Clinton years, the United States actually has opened up a bigger lead.
But maybe this chart doesn’t make things sufficiently clear. So I went to the OECD website and found the most recently available data on “average individual consumption,” which is a measure of actual living standards.
The United States is way ahead of Europe. The only three nations close to us include Norway, which has the good fortune of major oil fields, and Luxembourg and Switzerland, which have the advantage of being tax havens.
By the way, I also shared that data series last year, and you can also see some older AIC data in this 2010 post. But it doesn’t matter how you slice the numbers or when you look at the numbers, the United States has a big lead.
And that lead is now getting larger over time. Heck, the Europeans apparently think any growth – even anemic growth of less than 1 percent – is worth celebrating. Talk about low expectations!
This is why we don’t want to copy Europe. If higher living standards are a good idea (and they are!), then we should copy Hong Kong and Singapore, not France and Italy.
P.S. I’ve always thought that this comparison of the per-capita income of Swedes in Sweden and the per-capita income of folks of Swedish ancestry in the United States is very persuasive.
P.P.S. Leszek Balcerowicz has the honor of being named this year’s winner of the Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. He’ll receive his award at a very nice black-tie dinner in New York City on May 21.
P.P.P.S. Speaking of swanky black-tie events, the PotL and I got dressed up last Thursday for the annual CIFA dinner in Monaco.
She’s a lucky girl, huh?
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
Nice, kudos … if the girl is you’re daughter, congrats on helping to make such a pretty thing … if that’s your date, congrats on your writing … it must be paying off or something 😛
So, nerds can get the girl.
I can’t do a lot of research since multitasking is difficult on my phone, so I’m sorry if I couldn’t find otherwise easy answers to these on my own.
Could the Average Individual Consumption be skewed in favor of a particular country if someone buys a bajillion-dollar car or something? I couldn’t for the life of me find what the AIC measured, so I’m going off the assumption that it’s just the amount spent on goods divided by the number of adults (or something along that line.) Is there a way to skim AIC of the bottom 10% or top 10% from each country to account for any outliers that might screw with the average?
I have read/heard before that other parts of the world put more into savings compared to the average American. If true, does that lower a given country’s AIC number? Does the AIC account for differences in buying power? For example, I live in a small midwestern town and things are generally less expensive, so I can consume a similar number of things on a lower budget compared to someone in New York City. Would my standard of living be considered lower because I’m spending less for the same stuff?
Is there an AIC breakdown by state somewhere, or a similar measurement for intra-country states/regions?
[…] a “convergence” theory in economics that suggests, over time, that “poor nations should catch up with rich […]
[…] a “convergence” theory in economics that suggests, over time, that “poor nations should catch up with rich […]
[…] a “convergence” theory in economics that suggests, over time, “poor nations should catch up with rich nations.” But in the real world, that […]
[…] are already considerably lower than they are in the United States. Yet instead of the “convergence” that’s assumed in conventional economic theory, the Europeans are falling further […]
[…] But Europe has a lot of these policies, so unemployment is higher. And we have politicians in America who want to copy Europe’s mistakes. […]
[…] is absurd. Living standards in Europe (even Western Europe) are far below American standards. And even though convergence theory tells us that poorer nations should grow the fastest, Europe no […]
[…] But I’m digressing. Let’s get back to the main focus of the study. The authors note that Europe isn’t converging with the United States, which is what standard economic theory says should be happening. […]
[…] poorer nations should automatically catch up to richer nations. Yet Europe’s catch-up period came to halt in the 1980s and the continent has since been losing […]
[…] much higher? Are we “paying dearly” because our growth rates are higher and Europe is failing to converge? Are we “paying dearly” because America’s poorest states are rich compared to […]
[…] to that final sentence. Stagnation is the result of bad […]
[…] to that final sentence. Stagnation is the result of bad […]
[…] up to the United States after World War II, just as predicted by the theory, but then convergence ground to a halt once those nations imposed some bad policy – such as costly welfare […]
[…] And the adverse effect of bad policy is a big reason why Europe continues to lag. […]