Europeans aren't poor. They are illiquid. Much of Europe's wealth is stored in safe streets, nice parks, public transit, "free" healthcare, etc. which, it turns out, are too socially expensive for Americans to maintain. Americans take the money instead. The rest is only natural.
The EU has triple the population density of the United States and doesn't believe in "suburbs," just "cities." Given how much more space there is in America, it's surprising that the numbers are so close, if anything.
Americans would kill each other to live in Manhattan, which they treat like a utopia and pay exorbitant prices to live in because it has corner stores and you don't need to drive a car.
But that Manhattan-tier density is common for even small and unremarkable European cities.
I've lived in every major U.S. city and all over Europe for many years each. What Europeans consider "unsafe" would be considered a national paragon of urban policing in America.
The homicide rates speak for themselves. America is 3-6x more dangerous.
If, in a country, you can live like a Manhattanite for a tiny fraction of the cost and this lifestyle is considered unremarkable, then how is this evidence that Europeans are poor? Isn't it evidence that Europeans are fantastically wealthy?
I am not aware of any country that has squared the circle of "American-tier private financial compensation" with "European-tier public goods." I'm sure it's possible, somehow, but not without a political revolution.
In the meantime, Remote-Americans can just move to Europe.
This America vs. Europe wealth debate resurfaces every few months and I feel compelled to give the final judgment, since I am actually the most qualified person to judge, since I have actually lived in both extensively:
America and Europe are roughly equally as wealthy overall.
The numbers say America is far wealthier than Europe. But, literally, wealth is not numbers: the numbers are supposed to represent wealth i.e. actual real goods.
When you compare actual real goods, most things are comparable and each skews positive or negative on a few things.
Europeans are definitely low-income and definitely getting poorer overall nowadays. But they have started from an extremely, unprecedentedly high base. That wealth is still there and plainly visible even if not captured in the numbers. Silly to ignore.
The fact that apparently all food in America is so poisoned that the resulting widespread obesity has been normalized should really count against the idea of America being wealthy.
European food is closer to what the kings of old feasted on. Sorry but it's true.
In terms of actual real goods i.e. actual wealth, both America and Europe are past their peak and are now getting poorer. We can debate how fast for each, but only America can hide its decline with propaganda and money-printing. Europe just has to rationalize it as "degrowth."
This @bismarckanlys Brief gives an excellent explanation and overview of how European social democracy preserves wealth at the expense of growth (and income). Subscribe and read: brief.bismarckanalysis.com/p/the-family-t…
The numbers I'm getting from detractors are not as dramatic as they want them to be, in my opinion, and are well within my observations:
Measuring by real wealth, which definitely includes "not being shot, stabbed, or pushed onto subway tracks" and "not commuting in traffic for hours every day" and so on, because these greatly reduce leisure time, which is wealth, it is not clear who wins.
The two main American conservative copes I've heard have been "but the U.S. military pays for Europe's defense," which is just rah-rah, and the far funnier and more blatantly false "Americans do not want to live in NYC":
Europeans know they are being scammed by high taxes and overregulation.
Americans however convince themselves that healthcare is for losers, that driving two hours to work every day is what real men do, and that psychotically violent crime is just part and parcel of city life.
Money, wealth, and value are all three completely different things.
Money is what you use to exchange wealth (actual goods, intangible and tangible) in order to derive value (some personal satisfaction or joy).
Confusing the three is either cope or a deliberate scam.
Daily reminder to teach your kids that they can easily find the e-mails and phone numbers of domain experts in any field online (e.g. a medical professor or a niche historian) and literally just politely ask them some questions, gaining priceless expert opinion for free.
Daily reminder to teach your kids that, if they are smart enough and willing to put in the time, they can most likely learn everything the accountant or lawyer knows online, or from a book, and fill out the scary government forms themselves, thus saving thousands of dollars.
Daily reminder to teach your kids that, if an organized group to do something basic doesn't exist, or does exist but is failing to coordinate (e.g. a homeowners' association) they can literally just start the group themselves or tell everyone else what to do and why.
This week, a single pioneering donor gave gifts worth $640 million to hundreds of advocates of equity, environmentalism, public health, and gender justice.
Does anyone know how much advocates of space exploration, nuclear power, or good city governance received this week?
When the directions of intellectual, ideological, artistic, and cultural philanthropy are lopsided by five orders of magnitude or so in one direction rather than another, it's hardly surprising that society follows in that direction.
A tremendous number of people seem to think that investing in businesses or working on technology balances out this kind of philanthropy somehow.
But better businesses and technology don't make a society's need for intellectuals, culture, art, or ideology go away.
The fact that outright billionaires are choosing to spend their time being irate online commentators and podcast hosts rather than, like, literally anything else productive, seems like a sign of one of the most important and unspoken sociological facts about modern America.
Billionaires are poor.
Having more money doesn't make you wealthier or more powerful.
Some academics got mad at my bespoke categorization of Africa's geo-economic regions, but it perfectly explains why colonial borders were drawn up so randomly.
They intentionally fragmented every natural economic region btw. multiple empires to maintain the balance of power! 🧵
French Africa wasn't some rational unified whole, it was most of the Maghreb and half of "The Gulf" divided by the Sahara.
They gave France and Italy bits of the Red Sea so that Britain couldn't just dominate it outright.
Germany got a random slice of every region, just cuz.
If you wanted maximum economic growth and development, you'd have turned entire geo-economic regions into vast unified states or spheres that could transcend ethnic conflict and benefit from economies of scale.
Like a Super-Nigeria across all West Africa. A Nile Confederation.
"The elite" is not shadowy or mysterious. America is ruled by technocratic lanky GenX Ivy League white guys who fly under the radar because they are powerful.
For example, pictured below are the American foreign minister, information minister, and AI minister.
While flaccid debates about Ukraine, wokeness, or AI safety or whatever soak up attention on here, the American foreign minister is fighting a global proxy war with Russia/China, and the American information minister is scientifically determining the correct level of wokeness.
The AI minister has not been formally sworn in yet but to be fair he would be the inaugural officeholder.