When the EU was performing well in comparison to the USA, no one had any issue using the long-standing growth metrics. The same metrics which now paint the EU a

When the EU was performing well in comparison to the USA, no one had any issue using the long-standing growth metrics. The same metrics which now paint the EU as falling behind. This headline of this article implores a false conclusion as one would assume this is in reference to the traditional growth metrics, which it is not. The process of choosing new, rosier, metrics is disingenuous and nothing more than marketing, because it raises the question: If those metrics are doing so well, why are the traditional metrics not reflecting this performance gain? I.E. It demonstrates that the metrics don't have a legitimate relationship to overall performance and thus the piece is almost certainly built to support a pre-determined conclusion. If one is going to discard metrics such as GDP for new metrics, one needs to certainly prove why these metrics are better than the old measure. That includes outweighing the historical reasons for why these metrics are used. Another misleading device is including various weaknesses of the EU, as if these were levied against the EU and not just the direct results of their own policy making decisions. It's disappointing to see articles like this, because reporting on these metrics would be an interesting way to better understand business in the EU. Instead the metrics are being needlessly spun so someone could write the words "The European Union’s remarkable growth performance relative to the United States".