Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorvi | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

  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...

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.

> States can leave the US with the consent of Congress.

No, they can't. The Constitution only provides for rules on forming new states and forming states from parts of other states. There is no text on what happen should a state decide it wants to live. In the Civil War, some states argued that the Constitution was a voluntary compact of sovereign states, such that a state could unilaterally leave if it so desired (no need to get consent of Congress). SCOTUS later held that these declarations of secession never held validity.

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.

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..?

  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.

Yes, secede, thank you, funny typo though. You are right about that.

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.

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.

> 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.

Exactly. The EU is actually closer to the federalist vision of what the U.S. should be than the U.S. actually is.

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.

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.

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_b...

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_(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)

Might want to include the population base for fair comparison:

China: 1.4 billion

EU: 743 million

US: 323 million

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com