19 ms·

A 400-year story of progress – How America became the world’s biggest economy

131 points by mxschumacher 9y ago

jorvi 9y ago
When will this myth stop? Until the UK has left, the EU is the biggest economy in the world, not the US. Edit: damn, hit a painful nerve here apparently. For the tired old '28 countries vs 1 country', America its states and the EU its countries are very comparable in economic size.
- treehau5 9y ago
  > the EU is the biggest economy in the world Yes, the EU, or otherwise known as that giant land mass consisting of 28 different countries with unique economies. Ironically, trying to treat each member state as some homogeneous member is what is leading to the fracturing and growing nationalism. UK won't be the last to try and break off.
  - skissane 9y ago
    The EU in many ways acts like one big economy due to its customs union, freedom of movement of workers, capital, goods and services, extensive harmonised regulations, partially harmonised taxation, wealth transfers between members, a common currency to a substantial part of it, etc. It is a lot more tightly integrated than some mere 28 member free trade area would be, although still not as tightly integrated as say the 50 states of the US are. (And the 50 US states all have distinct economies from each other, with sectors that are big in one state being small or even non-existent in another.)
    - pwnage 9y ago
      While everything you said is true, I think the gap in homogeny of economies between the EU and the states of the US is much much larger than you make it sound.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - Retric 9y ago
      States can't leave the USA countries can leave the EU, which is a massive difference. NAFTA and EU are not countries they are an agreement between countries.
      - skissane 9y ago
        States can leave the US with the consent of Congress. Congress has never given its consent, and it is hard to predict how it would behave if such a request was seriously made today. Congress did reject the demand of the Confederate states to secede, but there was a strong moral argument against allowing their secession–their primary reason for secession were to continue to evil practice of slavery. If a state wanted to secede today, I doubt there would be such a strong argument against allowing them to do so. EU member states have only been able to unilaterally leave the EU since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009. Prior to that, there was no legal provision for a member state to leave without a treaty amendment. So the situations between the EU and the US are not as dissimilar as you suggest.
        DrScump 9y ago
        States can leave the US with the consent of Congress. How do you conclude that? Where in the Constitution do you find a mechanism for doing so? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession...
        skissane 9y ago
        Well, it is definitely possible by constitutional amendment, which normally means a two-thirds majority of Congress and 75% of the state legislatures. (Or the convention process...) But, I don't think we can definitely say that a constitutional amendment is necessary. Suppose that a state requested to secede, and the request for secession was approved by both popular vote and by the state legislature; and that Congress then passed ordinary legislation approving the secession. Would the Supreme Court rule that legislation unconstitutional? I don't think anyone can really predict how the Supreme Court would act, but I don't think it is certain that they would rule it unconstitutional. But if it is possible that they might not rule it unconstitutional, it is possible that secession with Congressional consent is constitutional. Certainly it would be easy for the Supreme Court to distinguish this scenario from the Civil War scenario of attempted secession against the will of Congress, if a majority on the Supreme Court felt so inclined. If the majority of Congress, and the President, was in favour of permitting the attempt at secession, the Supreme Court might not be inclined to overrule them. What counts is not what the document literally says, what counts is how it is interpreted in practice. And when dealing with hypotheticals, no one can really know how it will be interpreted in practice unless and until that hypothetical becomes an actuality.
    - treehau5 9y ago
      And still the obvious fact remains: 1 country versus 28 separate countries. The UK voted to break off. France came dangerously close to heading down that path with Le Pen. Greece's government might not want to, but the people would be on board for the same. Potentially Germany when they get tired of carrying the rest of the EU (especially after UK) on it's back can all leave whenever they want -- they just need to vote on it. However, If California, for example, tries to succeed, it would be illegal.
      - jorvi 9y ago
        America's states and the EU its countries are very comparable, speaking in terms of economic size. Why do Americans always feel so attacked and start to bring contorted justifications when they aren't #1 in something..?
      - DrScump 9y ago
        If California, for example, tries to succeed, it would be illegal I think you mean secede. It's still legal to succeed in California... for the moment, anyway.
        treehau5 9y ago
        Yes, secede, thank you, funny typo though. You are right about that.
  - revelation 9y ago
    Which isn't too different from the US. There is California, then... not much more. East coast and west coast is basically a different country.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  Well why stop there? How about we combine the Anglosphere and call that an economy? What about NATO? Furthermore 320mm people in the US versus 600mm in Europe? I mean, if you want to do that comparison I’d take the US economy all day.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  The US has the biggest national economy in the world. It has a central government than can wield that economic power for its own purposes. The EU as a singular entity can do relatively little with its members' wealth, which is why measures of that wealth aren't very meaningful. It's like saying that Asia has the biggest economy in the world. Well yeah, but large chunks of that economy are segregated from one another along national boundaries.
  - orf 9y ago
    > Well yeah, but large chunks of that economy are segregated from one another along national boundaries. Except with a customs union, shared currency and free movement.
    - lisper 9y ago
      Exactly. The EU is actually closer to the federalist vision of what the U.S. should be than the U.S. actually is.
  - manojlds 9y ago
    Without your last para, you make a valid point. The EU is not a nation, but we all know that it can wield united power in lots of areas and you cannot compare the EU with the continent that is Asia.
- copenja 9y ago
  I guess the distinction is that the US is a single country? Also, it seems there is a notable body of work out detailing the shortcomings of the US economy. At least in the US, it is thoroughly documented. Maybe, because the general consensus is that the US is doing so poorly, this piece meant as a simple reminder to Americans that we are not completely doomed.
  - brownbat 9y ago
    A bit of googling and it's really unsatisfying to try to get a clear answer to this question. I think you're right the US "wins," just... that may not mean anything. One might argue the country distinction is a bit arbitrary and look for regions with the highest per capita GDP. It looks like Washington, D.C., USA dominates that list. Then the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia, then the Canton of Zurich.[0] That top 20 contains 7 US regions ("political subdivisions"). Also in the top 20: Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, and France for the EU. Schengen members Norway and Switzerland would bring it up to seven. I don't know if we're comparing "Europe" or pretending that Norway and Switzerland are radically distinct from the rest of Europe by historical accident. Yet if we go that far then maybe Canada earns a point to the US. Another odd thing, DC's incredibly high per capita GDP is odd, the area doesn't feel particularly rich. Home prices reflect it, I guess. But many places in California seem nicer. Hell, many places in Ohio seem nicer. I have a sneaking suspicion the numbers are skewed by lobbyists or businesses supporting government that don't impact the local area as directly. Or commuters who really live (and spend) in other areas. It's like saying Delaware is full of companies. Well, on paper, yeah... but it's not some bustling Trantor where corporate skyscrapers block out the sun. Maybe we should be comparing median regions? Or judge governments by how well off their worst regions are? Would you rather visit the rural south or in the Balkans? Where would you rather live for a year or two? I'm skeptical about comparing such sprawling areas, I'm not sure it tells us much about the world. On the other hand I'm not going to be offended if someone refers to a region as the wealthiest in the world as a rhetorical device, they were just endorsing an economic history about the US, they're going to say it's important, which seems at the very least worth granting for the sake of argument. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_by_GDP_over_100_billion_US_dollars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_b...
- demonshalo 9y ago
  so you are comparing a country to a union of countries to demonstrate that one country is not equal to 28... Here is the funny thing: depending on how you look at it, the US is still bigger than all those 28 combined. So no it's not a myth, it's just you conflating two different things!
- admiralpumpkin 9y ago
  Strange so much arguing with no data presented or sourced. IMF US 18.6 EU 16.4 China 11.2 World Bank US 18.6 EU 16.4 China 11.2 UN US 18.0 EU 16.8 China 11.2 All figures nominal GDP, US$, trillions, 2016, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... __ Things are a bit different when switching to PPP though. IMF (2017) China 23.2 EU 20.9 US 19.4 World Bank (2016) China 21.4 EU 19.7 US 18.6 CIA (2016) China 21.1 EU 20.0 US 18.6 All figures nominal GDP, US$, trillions, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
  - adventured 9y ago
    Might want to include the population base for fair comparison: China: 1.4 billion EU: 743 million US: 323 million
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pizza 9y ago
The plantation economy developed in the southern states, and the initial political dominance of Virginia (which provided four of America’s first five presidents) ensured the continued survival of slavery in the newly independent country. By 1860 auction prices suggested that the collective value of American slaves was $4bn at a time when the federal government’s annual budget was around $69m. That explains both why southern slaveowners, many of whom had borrowed against their slaves as collateral, would never give up the practice, and why a financial settlement of the issue was out of the question. I guess this too would be an example of the 'banality of evil'. (btw to get around the paywall just clink on 'web' to find it through google; it'll let you read it if google is the referrer)
- lukas099 9y ago
  I agree. Although we like to think of them as psychopaths, people who do evil are mostly pretty normal people.
- kolbe 9y ago
  Just an aside, but I wonder if the north stood to profit from this dynamic. Like, if farms were held as collateral against the slave loans, did northern banks get to take that land when the owners went into default?
  - pizza 9y ago
    I know of a different way the North profited -- the opportunity cost of a firm refusing to do transactions with members from a different group (i.e. both hiring black labor or collaborating with black enterprise) is equivalent to institutionalized forfeiture of feasible income (of adding more laborers) [0] Southern capitalism thus negated capitalism's mission: that society improves when parties can fulfill each other's desires efficiently if they each have something that the other desires. So Northern capitalism did tend towards greater capitalist prosperity, because it wasn't contradicting post-slavery capitalism like the South. That contradiction depends upon the Southerners not seeing blacks as anything but "technology", rather than economic agents. But the result is that white refusal to cooperate with blacks hurts both blacks and whites: neither blacks improve their lot (no productivity), nor do whites improve theirs (forced to relinquish maximum efficiency and profit that would otherwise be allowed by allowing black employment) - simply because of racial stubbornness. [0] https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/58e/1a4/aa6/58e1a4aa6e9fd533879253.pdf https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/5...
vacri 9y ago
No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms (and a temperate climate), that was largely seized by killing the people who owned it and taking their stuff. No mention of the Louisiana Purchase. without which 'Manifest Destiny' would never have occurred, nor the Mexican-American war which added Texas and California, two of the engine-rooms of American wealth today. No mention of the point that once 'manifest destiny' was complete, the US was safe on all sides - much weaker countries to the north and south, and giant ocean-sized moats to the east and west; rather than deploy military in defense, it could be used to project power in support of the economy. All of these things are pretty major additions to why the US is such an economic powerhouse today. Edit: wow, I've really touched a nerve with this one. Enough to get some revenge downmodding on past comments of mine. Wow.
- saryant 9y ago
  It's a book review, not the book itself.
- lukas099 9y ago
  I would guess and hope that the book covers those topics. Very good points.
- AndrewGaspar 9y ago
  Well, this is a one column review of a book that's 576 pages. :)
  - vacri 9y ago
    Given the significance of the items I mentioned, if the book does cover it in sufficient detail, the review should have at least hinted at it.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  The fact that the US is separated from a huge chunk of the world by the oceans is tremendously important. But pretty much all nations and cultures have spread by one group dominating other groups and taking their land. That's a given. What happens after the land is taken and the nation established is more important, which is what this book seems to address. The US has huge material advantages over other nations, but it has also fostered a powerful innovative culture that is just as important to it's success.
Razengan 9y ago
Honest question: How much of it is thanks to the US being far away and largely untouched by all the wars in Europe, especially WW2, while still ostensibly profiting from them? And then being the ones to end it with the strongest display of force?
- losvedir 9y ago
  None of it, technically. The U.S. became "the world's largest economy" before WW1.
  - afpx 9y ago
    I wasn't sure, so I had to look it up. But, it seems like losvedir may be correct. According to these numbers [1], the U.S. was the largest single country economy several years before 1914. And, if these numbers can be trusted, its growth trajectory would have sustained that position even without WWI. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_the_ten_largest_economies_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of...
- adventured 9y ago
  Not much. The US had demonstrated vast industrial capability prior to WW2 and had long since passed Britain, Germany and France as the world's largest economy and manufacturing center. It had also proven itself as one of the primary centers of invention prior to WW2 and throughout the industrial revolution. The US expansion west and the further development of cities including Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle and others, is another example of how the US still had a lot of growth left just to fill into its own territory regardless of WW2. The present alignment of global economies has seen the US return to a normalized position in terms of both GDP and manufacturing share globally. The temporary artificial expansion after WW2 lasted for roughly 40 years. During that time, the US spent vast treasure protecting other nations, rather than annexing territory or attempting to conquer other nations and plunder their resources (eg: Western Europe, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan).
- reactor4 9y ago
  A large part of it but it's ww1 that really sealed the deal: http://online.wsj.com/ww1/wall-street http://online.wsj.com/ww1/wall-street
adwhit 9y ago
Given that 400+ years of growth has got us into a position where the likelihood is that the planet will be unable to sustain human life within a few hundred years, I'd be curious to find out what future historians will make of the West's supposedly proud story of progress. In the end, would we all have been better sticking with the Native American way of life? Benjamin Franklin: “When white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good opportunity of escaping again into the woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.” Perhaps some kind of voluntary winding down is necessary. "It was good while it lasted. For some people."
- orf 9y ago
  The native American life wasn't all roses, but there are things we could and should learn from them and other peoples about community and the environment.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  I write about a possible future where communities of people purchase robots that do most of the work they need for survival, and they otherwise live a simpler non-consumerist life. I’d like to make this a reality. http://tlalexander.com/sanctuary/ http://tlalexander.com/sanctuary/
  - ViktorV 9y ago
    I just wrote you a mail about that.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    What's better about your future than the exact same future except humans do the work and the robots are just disembodied AIs who teach the humans how to be useful?
    - 9y ago
spodek 9y ago
The review implies the people and culture caused economic growth. I'd say they resulted from it, which resulted from two oceans and friendly neighbors that make the country difficult to invade, fertile soil, lots of natural resources.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dasil003 9y ago
  Your conditions are necessary but not sufficient, I would say, considering the history of Brazil.
zizek23 9y ago
Let's call it as it is, an entire continent was usurped, a gigantic fertile landmass rich in resources was stolen along with unlimited slave labour and IP from Europe. The consequence is predictable. Using jingoism to spin this into some sort of exceptionalism celebrates the loot and plunder without a hint of self consciousness or remorse, and cements a barbaric ideology that fuels more indiscriminate global plunder in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You sound bitter. Find a society without historical sin and then we can talk. You went off on some tangent about jingoism without explaining where the book supports that. Did you read the book or the review or did you just want to rant?
  - tmax6 9y ago
    It sounds like he/she just read “A People's History of the United States.”
    - gerdesj 9y ago
      I have just read the Amazon puff on that beast (never heard of it before - being British.) I suspect I wont be adding it to my must read list. Ta for the heads up 8)
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    > Find a society without historical sin The Minoans
    - labster 9y ago
      Didn't they trap young people in a giant maze with minotaurs? I'm pretty sure minotaurs are specifically forbidden under the Geneva Convention.
      - 9y ago
maxxxxx 9y ago
It will be interesting to see how the next 400 years will go. For a long time the US could just keep growing into new territories and absorb a lot of ambitious immigrants that way. It seems this phase is over. The US is now a grown up country where everything is owned already so it will be much harder to grow. The Trump success seems a symptom of this. Instead of just growing as the US had always done Trump's message was about distributing the pie.
- adventured 9y ago
  Your premise isn't very well supported by the facts. The US added $5 trillion to its GDP in the last ten years, despite the great recession - a time in which the most powerful economies of Europe didn't grow at all, nor did Japan. US wages routinely grow three to five times faster than those in Japan, Germany, France or Britain. Where's the lack of growth? GDP per capita went from $46,000x to $57,000x over those ten years and shows no sign of actually stopping, in contrast to most of its peers. To put the growth in context, that $5 trillion is more than Russia, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech, Romania, Slovakia, New Zealand, South Africa - all added combined.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    It seems the US is doing a lot of things right. But I still believe that its main advantage over the last few hundred years was the ability to grow into "empty" land and also the fact that it's protected by oceans. Edit: Based on this the US is not really outperforming: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-europe-outperforming-the-united-states/ http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-europe-outperf...
    - seibelj 9y ago
      The vast majority of the United States is undeveloped. No need to worry about land
  - walterstucco 9y ago
alistproducer2 9y ago
Why is this article on the front page? This is just troll bait.
gnasr 9y ago
Stop calling it america, it's north america..
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Hey can someone explain this position? You see it a lot on the internet - we all know it's just short for the mouthful of "The United States of America", right? Is it just garden variety anti-Americanism, or is it based on something else? You also see the form "American means anyone from both continents," which is off in exactly the same way.
  - adventured 9y ago
    In the case of that topic, the answer to your question is always located in the tone of the person you're replying to.
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    No one from Canada or Mexico would say “I am an American”. You only here that from someone from the USA. So whatever the official title is the popular usage is that is some says they are “American” it means they are a citizen of the United States Of America.
sremani 9y ago
The 13 colonies fighting for self-determination would not have imagined becoming the sole super power of the world. Louisiana purchase for strategic depth, Texas joining the Union and the Mexican American War, leading to manifest destiny to the west ward expansion. The Civil war, would have ripped the continent into warring nations, the nation building of USA from sea to shining sea is never obvious, and its bloody, brutal and downright ugly. In spite of becoming bi-coastal power, US was still a poor country in 1880s, and what has transpired in Europe with two world wars and its own role in Pacific Theater thrusted US into its current role. Its convenient to dismiss, and over simplify this whole enterprise of making of America. I am amazed, and simply amazed by the American experiment and I am not even "technically" American.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tmnvix 9y ago
Defaulting on debt helps: https://mises.org/library/short-history-us-credit-defaults https://mises.org/library/short-history-us-credit-defaults
cerealbad 9y ago
page 12[] is where the interesting numbers are. machinery, iron and steel, cotton, lumber. that's how it became the world's economy. ww1 and ww2 is how it became the world's military power. the military industrial complex is how it maintained both of these positions. manufacturing, construction and population is how china overtook them. america should be pushing open borders, tax relief on families with multiple children, ban on abortion, if it even wants to compete for the 21st century. a ussr type dissolution and depressing collapse is sure to come when their inevitable debt burden default happens by the 2040s or 2050s. the only question is, will this occur before or after the eurozone currency implosion and german re-armament. []https://web.archive.org/web/20081230063039/http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jmokyr/Graphs-and-Tables.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20081230063039/http://faculty.wc...
eighthnate 9y ago
The US became the world's biggest economy in the late 1890s. So how did we become the largest economy? Stealing a large landmass blessed with abundant resources and fertile arable land. Growing the population immensely via high birth rates and immigration. Industrious population and business friendly laws helped. But it was mostly OIL. The US was the saudi arabia of oil for nearly 100 years from mid 1800s to ww2. Standard Oil became the largest company in the world for a reason. We had a ridiculous amount of oil and we exploited it. Oil was discovered in the 1850s and it helped the american economy become the largest in the world.
- churchill1944 9y ago
  Oil was but one strong American industry. And oil itself didn't turn out to be in such high demand until the mass production of the automobile, which was another American thing.
ionised 9y ago
Imagine playing a game of Civilization, but you start at 1700-AD-level technology, with only tribal natives as a threat, on a massive landmass with oceans on two sides rich in natural resources and you have no immediately threatening enemies. That's the US. A game of Civ on easy mode.
googletazer 9y ago
America became the biggest economy because of brains and innovation driving it, its as true a hundred years ago as it is today. The opportunity to make money for yourself - thats what drove the American economy and still drives it today. A lot of people are commenting that American wealth came from slavery, but that is simply not so - nearly every country on Earth had some degrees of slavery, but how many had succeeded? Slaves didn't smelt steel, nor designed and built battleships to be sold to the Russian Empire in 1900s. Today though, you can see countries like Germany take the lead with their better protections for inventors and better incentives and protections for the employees.

131 points by mxschumacher 9y ago

When will this myth stop? Until the UK has left, the EU is the biggest economy in the world, not the US. Edit: damn, hit a painful nerve here apparently. For the tired old '28 countries vs 1 country', America its states and the EU its countries are very comparable in economic size.

treehau5 9y ago
> the EU is the biggest economy in the world Yes, the EU, or otherwise known as that giant land mass consisting of 28 different countries with unique economies. Ironically, trying to treat each member state as some homogeneous member is what is leading to the fracturing and growing nationalism. UK won't be the last to try and break off.
- skissane 9y ago
  The EU in many ways acts like one big economy due to its customs union, freedom of movement of workers, capital, goods and services, extensive harmonised regulations, partially harmonised taxation, wealth transfers between members, a common currency to a substantial part of it, etc. It is a lot more tightly integrated than some mere 28 member free trade area would be, although still not as tightly integrated as say the 50 states of the US are. (And the 50 US states all have distinct economies from each other, with sectors that are big in one state being small or even non-existent in another.)
  - pwnage 9y ago
    While everything you said is true, I think the gap in homogeny of economies between the EU and the states of the US is much much larger than you make it sound.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - Retric 9y ago
    States can't leave the USA countries can leave the EU, which is a massive difference. NAFTA and EU are not countries they are an agreement between countries.
    - skissane 9y ago
      States can leave the US with the consent of Congress. Congress has never given its consent, and it is hard to predict how it would behave if such a request was seriously made today. Congress did reject the demand of the Confederate states to secede, but there was a strong moral argument against allowing their secession–their primary reason for secession were to continue to evil practice of slavery. If a state wanted to secede today, I doubt there would be such a strong argument against allowing them to do so. EU member states have only been able to unilaterally leave the EU since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009. Prior to that, there was no legal provision for a member state to leave without a treaty amendment. So the situations between the EU and the US are not as dissimilar as you suggest.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        States can leave the US with the consent of Congress. How do you conclude that? Where in the Constitution do you find a mechanism for doing so? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession...
        skissane 9y ago
        Well, it is definitely possible by constitutional amendment, which normally means a two-thirds majority of Congress and 75% of the state legislatures. (Or the convention process...) But, I don't think we can definitely say that a constitutional amendment is necessary. Suppose that a state requested to secede, and the request for secession was approved by both popular vote and by the state legislature; and that Congress then passed ordinary legislation approving the secession. Would the Supreme Court rule that legislation unconstitutional? I don't think anyone can really predict how the Supreme Court would act, but I don't think it is certain that they would rule it unconstitutional. But if it is possible that they might not rule it unconstitutional, it is possible that secession with Congressional consent is constitutional. Certainly it would be easy for the Supreme Court to distinguish this scenario from the Civil War scenario of attempted secession against the will of Congress, if a majority on the Supreme Court felt so inclined. If the majority of Congress, and the President, was in favour of permitting the attempt at secession, the Supreme Court might not be inclined to overrule them. What counts is not what the document literally says, what counts is how it is interpreted in practice. And when dealing with hypotheticals, no one can really know how it will be interpreted in practice unless and until that hypothetical becomes an actuality.
  - treehau5 9y ago
    And still the obvious fact remains: 1 country versus 28 separate countries. The UK voted to break off. France came dangerously close to heading down that path with Le Pen. Greece's government might not want to, but the people would be on board for the same. Potentially Germany when they get tired of carrying the rest of the EU (especially after UK) on it's back can all leave whenever they want -- they just need to vote on it. However, If California, for example, tries to succeed, it would be illegal.
    - jorvi 9y ago
      America's states and the EU its countries are very comparable, speaking in terms of economic size. Why do Americans always feel so attacked and start to bring contorted justifications when they aren't #1 in something..?
    - DrScump 9y ago
      If California, for example, tries to succeed, it would be illegal I think you mean secede. It's still legal to succeed in California... for the moment, anyway.
      - treehau5 9y ago
        Yes, secede, thank you, funny typo though. You are right about that.
- revelation 9y ago
  Which isn't too different from the US. There is California, then... not much more. East coast and west coast is basically a different country.
muninn_ 9y ago
Well why stop there? How about we combine the Anglosphere and call that an economy? What about NATO? Furthermore 320mm people in the US versus 600mm in Europe? I mean, if you want to do that comparison I’d take the US economy all day.
meri_dian 9y ago
The US has the biggest national economy in the world. It has a central government than can wield that economic power for its own purposes. The EU as a singular entity can do relatively little with its members' wealth, which is why measures of that wealth aren't very meaningful. It's like saying that Asia has the biggest economy in the world. Well yeah, but large chunks of that economy are segregated from one another along national boundaries.
- orf 9y ago
  > Well yeah, but large chunks of that economy are segregated from one another along national boundaries. Except with a customs union, shared currency and free movement.
  - lisper 9y ago
    Exactly. The EU is actually closer to the federalist vision of what the U.S. should be than the U.S. actually is.
- manojlds 9y ago
  Without your last para, you make a valid point. The EU is not a nation, but we all know that it can wield united power in lots of areas and you cannot compare the EU with the continent that is Asia.
copenja 9y ago
I guess the distinction is that the US is a single country? Also, it seems there is a notable body of work out detailing the shortcomings of the US economy. At least in the US, it is thoroughly documented. Maybe, because the general consensus is that the US is doing so poorly, this piece meant as a simple reminder to Americans that we are not completely doomed.
- brownbat 9y ago
  A bit of googling and it's really unsatisfying to try to get a clear answer to this question. I think you're right the US "wins," just... that may not mean anything. One might argue the country distinction is a bit arbitrary and look for regions with the highest per capita GDP. It looks like Washington, D.C., USA dominates that list. Then the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia, then the Canton of Zurich.[0] That top 20 contains 7 US regions ("political subdivisions"). Also in the top 20: Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, and France for the EU. Schengen members Norway and Switzerland would bring it up to seven. I don't know if we're comparing "Europe" or pretending that Norway and Switzerland are radically distinct from the rest of Europe by historical accident. Yet if we go that far then maybe Canada earns a point to the US. Another odd thing, DC's incredibly high per capita GDP is odd, the area doesn't feel particularly rich. Home prices reflect it, I guess. But many places in California seem nicer. Hell, many places in Ohio seem nicer. I have a sneaking suspicion the numbers are skewed by lobbyists or businesses supporting government that don't impact the local area as directly. Or commuters who really live (and spend) in other areas. It's like saying Delaware is full of companies. Well, on paper, yeah... but it's not some bustling Trantor where corporate skyscrapers block out the sun. Maybe we should be comparing median regions? Or judge governments by how well off their worst regions are? Would you rather visit the rural south or in the Balkans? Where would you rather live for a year or two? I'm skeptical about comparing such sprawling areas, I'm not sure it tells us much about the world. On the other hand I'm not going to be offended if someone refers to a region as the wealthiest in the world as a rhetorical device, they were just endorsing an economic history about the US, they're going to say it's important, which seems at the very least worth granting for the sake of argument. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_by_GDP_over_100_billion_US_dollars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_subdivisions_b...
demonshalo 9y ago
so you are comparing a country to a union of countries to demonstrate that one country is not equal to 28... Here is the funny thing: depending on how you look at it, the US is still bigger than all those 28 combined. So no it's not a myth, it's just you conflating two different things!
admiralpumpkin 9y ago
Strange so much arguing with no data presented or sourced. IMF US 18.6 EU 16.4 China 11.2 World Bank US 18.6 EU 16.4 China 11.2 UN US 18.0 EU 16.8 China 11.2 All figures nominal GDP, US$, trillions, 2016, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... __ Things are a bit different when switching to PPP though. IMF (2017) China 23.2 EU 20.9 US 19.4 World Bank (2016) China 21.4 EU 19.7 US 18.6 CIA (2016) China 21.1 EU 20.0 US 18.6 All figures nominal GDP, US$, trillions, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
- adventured 9y ago
  Might want to include the population base for fair comparison: China: 1.4 billion EU: 743 million US: 323 million

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pizza 9y ago

The plantation economy developed in the southern states, and the initial political dominance of Virginia (which provided four of America’s first five presidents) ensured the continued survival of slavery in the newly independent country. By 1860 auction prices suggested that the collective value of American slaves was $4bn at a time when the federal government’s annual budget was around $69m. That explains both why southern slaveowners, many of whom had borrowed against their slaves as collateral, would never give up the practice, and why a financial settlement of the issue was out of the question. I guess this too would be an example of the 'banality of evil'. (btw to get around the paywall just clink on 'web' to find it through google; it'll let you read it if google is the referrer)

lukas099 9y ago
I agree. Although we like to think of them as psychopaths, people who do evil are mostly pretty normal people.
kolbe 9y ago
Just an aside, but I wonder if the north stood to profit from this dynamic. Like, if farms were held as collateral against the slave loans, did northern banks get to take that land when the owners went into default?
- pizza 9y ago
  I know of a different way the North profited -- the opportunity cost of a firm refusing to do transactions with members from a different group (i.e. both hiring black labor or collaborating with black enterprise) is equivalent to institutionalized forfeiture of feasible income (of adding more laborers) [0] Southern capitalism thus negated capitalism's mission: that society improves when parties can fulfill each other's desires efficiently if they each have something that the other desires. So Northern capitalism did tend towards greater capitalist prosperity, because it wasn't contradicting post-slavery capitalism like the South. That contradiction depends upon the Southerners not seeing blacks as anything but "technology", rather than economic agents. But the result is that white refusal to cooperate with blacks hurts both blacks and whites: neither blacks improve their lot (no productivity), nor do whites improve theirs (forced to relinquish maximum efficiency and profit that would otherwise be allowed by allowing black employment) - simply because of racial stubbornness. [0] https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/58e/1a4/aa6/58e1a4aa6e9fd533879253.pdf https://www.nationalaffairs.com/storage/app/uploads/public/5...

vacri 9y ago

No mention of an incredibly wealthy continent, both in mineral and agricultural terms (and a temperate climate), that was largely seized by killing the people who owned it and taking their stuff. No mention of the Louisiana Purchase. without which 'Manifest Destiny' would never have occurred, nor the Mexican-American war which added Texas and California, two of the engine-rooms of American wealth today. No mention of the point that once 'manifest destiny' was complete, the US was safe on all sides - much weaker countries to the north and south, and giant ocean-sized moats to the east and west; rather than deploy military in defense, it could be used to project power in support of the economy. All of these things are pretty major additions to why the US is such an economic powerhouse today. Edit: wow, I've really touched a nerve with this one. Enough to get some revenge downmodding on past comments of mine. Wow.

saryant 9y ago
It's a book review, not the book itself.
lukas099 9y ago
I would guess and hope that the book covers those topics. Very good points.
AndrewGaspar 9y ago
Well, this is a one column review of a book that's 576 pages. :)
- vacri 9y ago
  Given the significance of the items I mentioned, if the book does cover it in sufficient detail, the review should have at least hinted at it.
meri_dian 9y ago
The fact that the US is separated from a huge chunk of the world by the oceans is tremendously important. But pretty much all nations and cultures have spread by one group dominating other groups and taking their land. That's a given. What happens after the land is taken and the nation established is more important, which is what this book seems to address. The US has huge material advantages over other nations, but it has also fostered a powerful innovative culture that is just as important to it's success.

Razengan 9y ago

Honest question: How much of it is thanks to the US being far away and largely untouched by all the wars in Europe, especially WW2, while still ostensibly profiting from them? And then being the ones to end it with the strongest display of force?

losvedir 9y ago
None of it, technically. The U.S. became "the world's largest economy" before WW1.
- afpx 9y ago
  I wasn't sure, so I had to look it up. But, it seems like losvedir may be correct. According to these numbers [1], the U.S. was the largest single country economy several years before 1914. And, if these numbers can be trusted, its growth trajectory would have sustained that position even without WWI. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_the_ten_largest_economies_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of...
adventured 9y ago
Not much. The US had demonstrated vast industrial capability prior to WW2 and had long since passed Britain, Germany and France as the world's largest economy and manufacturing center. It had also proven itself as one of the primary centers of invention prior to WW2 and throughout the industrial revolution. The US expansion west and the further development of cities including Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle and others, is another example of how the US still had a lot of growth left just to fill into its own territory regardless of WW2. The present alignment of global economies has seen the US return to a normalized position in terms of both GDP and manufacturing share globally. The temporary artificial expansion after WW2 lasted for roughly 40 years. During that time, the US spent vast treasure protecting other nations, rather than annexing territory or attempting to conquer other nations and plunder their resources (eg: Western Europe, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan).
reactor4 9y ago
A large part of it but it's ww1 that really sealed the deal: http://online.wsj.com/ww1/wall-street http://online.wsj.com/ww1/wall-street

adwhit 9y ago

Given that 400+ years of growth has got us into a position where the likelihood is that the planet will be unable to sustain human life within a few hundred years, I'd be curious to find out what future historians will make of the West's supposedly proud story of progress. In the end, would we all have been better sticking with the Native American way of life? Benjamin Franklin: “When white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good opportunity of escaping again into the woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.” Perhaps some kind of voluntary winding down is necessary. "It was good while it lasted. For some people."

orf 9y ago
The native American life wasn't all roses, but there are things we could and should learn from them and other peoples about community and the environment.
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I write about a possible future where communities of people purchase robots that do most of the work they need for survival, and they otherwise live a simpler non-consumerist life. I’d like to make this a reality. http://tlalexander.com/sanctuary/ http://tlalexander.com/sanctuary/
- ViktorV 9y ago
  I just wrote you a mail about that.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  What's better about your future than the exact same future except humans do the work and the robots are just disembodied AIs who teach the humans how to be useful?
  - 9y ago

spodek 9y ago

The review implies the people and culture caused economic growth. I'd say they resulted from it, which resulted from two oceans and friendly neighbors that make the country difficult to invade, fertile soil, lots of natural resources.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dasil003 9y ago
Your conditions are necessary but not sufficient, I would say, considering the history of Brazil.

zizek23 9y ago

Let's call it as it is, an entire continent was usurped, a gigantic fertile landmass rich in resources was stolen along with unlimited slave labour and IP from Europe. The consequence is predictable. Using jingoism to spin this into some sort of exceptionalism celebrates the loot and plunder without a hint of self consciousness or remorse, and cements a barbaric ideology that fuels more indiscriminate global plunder in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You sound bitter. Find a society without historical sin and then we can talk. You went off on some tangent about jingoism without explaining where the book supports that. Did you read the book or the review or did you just want to rant?
- tmax6 9y ago
  It sounds like he/she just read “A People's History of the United States.”
  - gerdesj 9y ago
    I have just read the Amazon puff on that beast (never heard of it before - being British.) I suspect I wont be adding it to my must read list. Ta for the heads up 8)
- walterstucco 9y ago
  > Find a society without historical sin The Minoans
  - labster 9y ago
    Didn't they trap young people in a giant maze with minotaurs? I'm pretty sure minotaurs are specifically forbidden under the Geneva Convention.
    - 9y ago

maxxxxx 9y ago

It will be interesting to see how the next 400 years will go. For a long time the US could just keep growing into new territories and absorb a lot of ambitious immigrants that way. It seems this phase is over. The US is now a grown up country where everything is owned already so it will be much harder to grow. The Trump success seems a symptom of this. Instead of just growing as the US had always done Trump's message was about distributing the pie.

adventured 9y ago
Your premise isn't very well supported by the facts. The US added $5 trillion to its GDP in the last ten years, despite the great recession - a time in which the most powerful economies of Europe didn't grow at all, nor did Japan. US wages routinely grow three to five times faster than those in Japan, Germany, France or Britain. Where's the lack of growth? GDP per capita went from $46,000x to $57,000x over those ten years and shows no sign of actually stopping, in contrast to most of its peers. To put the growth in context, that $5 trillion is more than Russia, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech, Romania, Slovakia, New Zealand, South Africa - all added combined.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  It seems the US is doing a lot of things right. But I still believe that its main advantage over the last few hundred years was the ability to grow into "empty" land and also the fact that it's protected by oceans. Edit: Based on this the US is not really outperforming: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-europe-outperforming-the-united-states/ http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-europe-outperf...
  - seibelj 9y ago
    The vast majority of the United States is undeveloped. No need to worry about land
- walterstucco 9y ago

alistproducer2 9y ago

Why is this article on the front page? This is just troll bait.

gnasr 9y ago

Stop calling it america, it's north america..

JBReefer 9y ago
Hey can someone explain this position? You see it a lot on the internet - we all know it's just short for the mouthful of "The United States of America", right? Is it just garden variety anti-Americanism, or is it based on something else? You also see the form "American means anyone from both continents," which is off in exactly the same way.
- adventured 9y ago
  In the case of that topic, the answer to your question is always located in the tone of the person you're replying to.
- myrandomcomment 9y ago
  No one from Canada or Mexico would say “I am an American”. You only here that from someone from the USA. So whatever the official title is the popular usage is that is some says they are “American” it means they are a citizen of the United States Of America.

sremani 9y ago

The 13 colonies fighting for self-determination would not have imagined becoming the sole super power of the world. Louisiana purchase for strategic depth, Texas joining the Union and the Mexican American War, leading to manifest destiny to the west ward expansion. The Civil war, would have ripped the continent into warring nations, the nation building of USA from sea to shining sea is never obvious, and its bloody, brutal and downright ugly. In spite of becoming bi-coastal power, US was still a poor country in 1880s, and what has transpired in Europe with two world wars and its own role in Pacific Theater thrusted US into its current role. Its convenient to dismiss, and over simplify this whole enterprise of making of America. I am amazed, and simply amazed by the American experiment and I am not even "technically" American.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tmnvix 9y ago

Defaulting on debt helps: https://mises.org/library/short-history-us-credit-defaults https://mises.org/library/short-history-us-credit-defaults

cerealbad 9y ago

page 12[] is where the interesting numbers are. machinery, iron and steel, cotton, lumber. that's how it became the world's economy. ww1 and ww2 is how it became the world's military power. the military industrial complex is how it maintained both of these positions. manufacturing, construction and population is how china overtook them. america should be pushing open borders, tax relief on families with multiple children, ban on abortion, if it even wants to compete for the 21st century. a ussr type dissolution and depressing collapse is sure to come when their inevitable debt burden default happens by the 2040s or 2050s. the only question is, will this occur before or after the eurozone currency implosion and german re-armament. []https://web.archive.org/web/20081230063039/http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jmokyr/Graphs-and-Tables.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20081230063039/http://faculty.wc...

eighthnate 9y ago

The US became the world's biggest economy in the late 1890s. So how did we become the largest economy? Stealing a large landmass blessed with abundant resources and fertile arable land. Growing the population immensely via high birth rates and immigration. Industrious population and business friendly laws helped. But it was mostly OIL. The US was the saudi arabia of oil for nearly 100 years from mid 1800s to ww2. Standard Oil became the largest company in the world for a reason. We had a ridiculous amount of oil and we exploited it. Oil was discovered in the 1850s and it helped the american economy become the largest in the world.

churchill1944 9y ago
Oil was but one strong American industry. And oil itself didn't turn out to be in such high demand until the mass production of the automobile, which was another American thing.

ionised 9y ago

Imagine playing a game of Civilization, but you start at 1700-AD-level technology, with only tribal natives as a threat, on a massive landmass with oceans on two sides rich in natural resources and you have no immediately threatening enemies. That's the US. A game of Civ on easy mode.

googletazer 9y ago

America became the biggest economy because of brains and innovation driving it, its as true a hundred years ago as it is today. The opportunity to make money for yourself - thats what drove the American economy and still drives it today. A lot of people are commenting that American wealth came from slavery, but that is simply not so - nearly every country on Earth had some degrees of slavery, but how many had succeeded? Slaves didn't smelt steel, nor designed and built battleships to be sold to the Russian Empire in 1900s. Today though, you can see countries like Germany take the lead with their better protections for inventors and better incentives and protections for the employees.