Who should Australia copy? The choice between the EU and the US is stark
The Australian government is full of copycats, and that can be a wonderful thing.
Australia's typical approach when it comes to fixing problems is to sit back, see what the rest of the world does, and then pick the winning approach.
It's a great strategy, but leaves one question to be answered: who should we copy? Australia can (and should) pick and choose from whoever has good ideas. But, at a system-wide level, there's really only two options - the EU and the US - and the choice between them is stark.
Over the past 30 years or so, the US has adopted a more laissez-faire approach: preferring less regulation, less intervention and letting businesses and markets do their thing.
The EU has been heavier on regulation. It has preferred government decisions over market outcomes. It has preferred higher taxes with generous social services, whereas the US has preferred the opposite.
Which approach has been better?
The logical place to start is GDP per capita: a basic measure of income per person. After all, it's hard to argue your approach is better when your citizens are poorer.
By this measure, the US wins hands down. GDP per capita, measured at purchasing power parity, is almost twice as high in the US compared to the EU.
The US is the clear winner on this measure. But there are reasonable counterarguments to this.
The first is that the US had a head start. Wasn't the US already bigger when the EU was created in 1993?
This is true. US GDP per capita was already 65 per cent higher than that of the EU in 1993. But even if we start the clock at 1993, the US still outperforms the EU by about 20 per cent. The US had a head start, but it has grown it considerably.
The second counterargument is about distribution: that the US has higher inequality. A billionaire might prefer the US, but someone on a low or average income might prefer the EU, right?
Not necessarily. It's true that US has higher inequality than the EU. Measured by the "gini coefficient", inequality is about a third higher in the US. But, for most people, this difference is unlikely to be big enough to justify incomes being twice as high in the US.
The third counterargument is that people in the EU get more free social services from the government. Putting aside that these services aren't "free" since they are paid for through much higher taxes, these social services are unlikely to be enough to offset the GDP-per-capita story.
The US spends 19 per cent of its GDP on social expenditure. The EU spends more, but not that much more, at about 25 per cent of GDP.
People commonly believe that the EU redistributes more of its national income than the United States: a fancy way of saying that the EU takes more money off rich people and gives it to poor people than in the US.
MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS:
Surprisingly (at least to me), this is not true. A recent study published in the journal Applied Economics found that the US actually redistributes a greater share of its national income than the EU.
In sum, the US approach has achieved better outcomes than the EU for its citizens. It's true that the US has higher inequality and provides fewer government services to its citizens, but these do not offset per capita GDP being twice as high in the US, let alone that the gap between the US and the EU is growing.
What's causing this? And what should Australia do?
A great many commentators in the Europe, most notably Mario Draghi - one of Europe's top economists, former head of the European Central Bank and, more recently, former prime minister of Italy - point to one cause: Europe is simply far too regulated; stifling innovation, stifling productivity.
"For the most part, we have done all we can to limit innovation in the EU," Draghi said in a scathing critique.
Countless leaders, ministers, central bank governors, economists and lawyers agree with him.
Europe has had some stinkers. Its General Data Protection Regulation was meant to boost data privacy. While there's no evidence it worked, there is ample evidence that it caused the new entry of apps fall by a half and saw data storage in Europe fall by more than 25 per cent.
We don't know who will win the AI race, but we know the EU will come dead last.
Early signs are that its Digital Markets Act - a suite of new regulations on digital platforms that outlaw conduct without having to prove any harm - is having the same effect. Google's DMA compliance has seen a 30 per cent fall in traffic and a 36 per cent fall in direct hotel bookings, for example, and this is only early days.
To be clear, none of this is to say the EU is bad or that regulations are bad. Quite the opposite. The EU is a wonderful idea. Having a free trade block with harmonised standards and regulations is the dream of economists. The UK was bonkers for leaving it.
The challenge is ensuring those regulations are the right ones and that they properly balance the regulatory goal (e.g. privacy) against the need to raise living standards.
Well, the jury is in, and the EU has failed to get the balance right.
So, the next time you hear a politician try to justify a new law or regulation in Australia based on it having been adopted in the EU, be suspicious.
The Australian government is full of copycats, and that can be a wonderful thing.
Australia's typical approach when it comes to fixing problems is to sit back, see what the rest of the world does, and then pick the winning approach.
It's a great strategy, but leaves one question to be answered: who should we copy? Australia can (and should) pick and choose from whoever has good ideas. But, at a system-wide level, there's really only two options - the EU and the US - and the choice between them is stark.
Over the past 30 years or so, the US has adopted a more laissez-faire approach: preferring less regulation, less intervention and letting businesses and markets do their thing.
The EU has been heavier on regulation. It has preferred government decisions over market outcomes. It has preferred higher taxes with generous social services, whereas the US has preferred the opposite.
Which approach has been better?
The logical place to start is GDP per capita: a basic measure of income per person. After all, it's hard to argue your approach is better when your citizens are poorer.
By this measure, the US wins hands down. GDP per capita, measured at purchasing power parity, is almost twice as high in the US compared to the EU.
The US is the clear winner on this measure. But there are reasonable counterarguments to this.
The first is that the US had a head start. Wasn't the US already bigger when the EU was created in 1993?
This is true. US GDP per capita was already 65 per cent higher than that of the EU in 1993. But even if we start the clock at 1993, the US still outperforms the EU by about 20 per cent. The US had a head start, but it has grown it considerably.
The second counterargument is about distribution: that the US has higher inequality. A billionaire might prefer the US, but someone on a low or average income might prefer the EU, right?
Not necessarily. It's true that US has higher inequality than the EU. Measured by the "gini coefficient", inequality is about a third higher in the US. But, for most people, this difference is unlikely to be big enough to justify incomes being twice as high in the US.
The third counterargument is that people in the EU get more free social services from the government. Putting aside that these services aren't "free" since they are paid for through much higher taxes, these social services are unlikely to be enough to offset the GDP-per-capita story.
The US spends 19 per cent of its GDP on social expenditure. The EU spends more, but not that much more, at about 25 per cent of GDP.
People commonly believe that the EU redistributes more of its national income than the United States: a fancy way of saying that the EU takes more money off rich people and gives it to poor people than in the US.
MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS:
Surprisingly (at least to me), this is not true. A recent study published in the journal Applied Economics found that the US actually redistributes a greater share of its national income than the EU.
In sum, the US approach has achieved better outcomes than the EU for its citizens. It's true that the US has higher inequality and provides fewer government services to its citizens, but these do not offset per capita GDP being twice as high in the US, let alone that the gap between the US and the EU is growing.
What's causing this? And what should Australia do?
A great many commentators in the Europe, most notably Mario Draghi - one of Europe's top economists, former head of the European Central Bank and, more recently, former prime minister of Italy - point to one cause: Europe is simply far too regulated; stifling innovation, stifling productivity.
"For the most part, we have done all we can to limit innovation in the EU," Draghi said in a scathing critique.
Countless leaders, ministers, central bank governors, economists and lawyers agree with him.
Europe has had some stinkers. Its General Data Protection Regulation was meant to boost data privacy. While there's no evidence it worked, there is ample evidence that it caused the new entry of apps fall by a half and saw data storage in Europe fall by more than 25 per cent.
We don't know who will win the AI race, but we know the EU will come dead last.
Early signs are that its Digital Markets Act - a suite of new regulations on digital platforms that outlaw conduct without having to prove any harm - is having the same effect. Google's DMA compliance has seen a 30 per cent fall in traffic and a 36 per cent fall in direct hotel bookings, for example, and this is only early days.
To be clear, none of this is to say the EU is bad or that regulations are bad. Quite the opposite. The EU is a wonderful idea. Having a free trade block with harmonised standards and regulations is the dream of economists. The UK was bonkers for leaving it.
The challenge is ensuring those regulations are the right ones and that they properly balance the regulatory goal (e.g. privacy) against the need to raise living standards.
Well, the jury is in, and the EU has failed to get the balance right.
So, the next time you hear a politician try to justify a new law or regulation in Australia based on it having been adopted in the EU, be suspicious.
The Australian government is full of copycats, and that can be a wonderful thing.
Australia's typical approach when it comes to fixing problems is to sit back, see what the rest of the world does, and then pick the winning approach.
It's a great strategy, but leaves one question to be answered: who should we copy? Australia can (and should) pick and choose from whoever has good ideas. But, at a system-wide level, there's really only two options - the EU and the US - and the choice between them is stark.
Over the past 30 years or so, the US has adopted a more laissez-faire approach: preferring less regulation, less intervention and letting businesses and markets do their thing.
The EU has been heavier on regulation. It has preferred government decisions over market outcomes. It has preferred higher taxes with generous social services, whereas the US has preferred the opposite.
Which approach has been better?
The logical place to start is GDP per capita: a basic measure of income per person. After all, it's hard to argue your approach is better when your citizens are poorer.
By this measure, the US wins hands down. GDP per capita, measured at purchasing power parity, is almost twice as high in the US compared to the EU.
The US is the clear winner on this measure. But there are reasonable counterarguments to this.
The first is that the US had a head start. Wasn't the US already bigger when the EU was created in 1993?
This is true. US GDP per capita was already 65 per cent higher than that of the EU in 1993. But even if we start the clock at 1993, the US still outperforms the EU by about 20 per cent. The US had a head start, but it has grown it considerably.
The second counterargument is about distribution: that the US has higher inequality. A billionaire might prefer the US, but someone on a low or average income might prefer the EU, right?
Not necessarily. It's true that US has higher inequality than the EU. Measured by the "gini coefficient", inequality is about a third higher in the US. But, for most people, this difference is unlikely to be big enough to justify incomes being twice as high in the US.
The third counterargument is that people in the EU get more free social services from the government. Putting aside that these services aren't "free" since they are paid for through much higher taxes, these social services are unlikely to be enough to offset the GDP-per-capita story.
The US spends 19 per cent of its GDP on social expenditure. The EU spends more, but not that much more, at about 25 per cent of GDP.
People commonly believe that the EU redistributes more of its national income than the United States: a fancy way of saying that the EU takes more money off rich people and gives it to poor people than in the US.
MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS:
Surprisingly (at least to me), this is not true. A recent study published in the journal Applied Economics found that the US actually redistributes a greater share of its national income than the EU.
In sum, the US approach has achieved better outcomes than the EU for its citizens. It's true that the US has higher inequality and provides fewer government services to its citizens, but these do not offset per capita GDP being twice as high in the US, let alone that the gap between the US and the EU is growing.
What's causing this? And what should Australia do?
A great many commentators in the Europe, most notably Mario Draghi - one of Europe's top economists, former head of the European Central Bank and, more recently, former prime minister of Italy - point to one cause: Europe is simply far too regulated; stifling innovation, stifling productivity.
"For the most part, we have done all we can to limit innovation in the EU," Draghi said in a scathing critique.
Countless leaders, ministers, central bank governors, economists and lawyers agree with him.
Europe has had some stinkers. Its General Data Protection Regulation was meant to boost data privacy. While there's no evidence it worked, there is ample evidence that it caused the new entry of apps fall by a half and saw data storage in Europe fall by more than 25 per cent.
We don't know who will win the AI race, but we know the EU will come dead last.
Early signs are that its Digital Markets Act - a suite of new regulations on digital platforms that outlaw conduct without having to prove any harm - is having the same effect. Google's DMA compliance has seen a 30 per cent fall in traffic and a 36 per cent fall in direct hotel bookings, for example, and this is only early days.
To be clear, none of this is to say the EU is bad or that regulations are bad. Quite the opposite. The EU is a wonderful idea. Having a free trade block with harmonised standards and regulations is the dream of economists. The UK was bonkers for leaving it.
The challenge is ensuring those regulations are the right ones and that they properly balance the regulatory goal (e.g. privacy) against the need to raise living standards.
Well, the jury is in, and the EU has failed to get the balance right.
So, the next time you hear a politician try to justify a new law or regulation in Australia based on it having been adopted in the EU, be suspicious.
The Australian government is full of copycats, and that can be a wonderful thing.
Australia's typical approach when it comes to fixing problems is to sit back, see what the rest of the world does, and then pick the winning approach.
It's a great strategy, but leaves one question to be answered: who should we copy? Australia can (and should) pick and choose from whoever has good ideas. But, at a system-wide level, there's really only two options - the EU and the US - and the choice between them is stark.
Over the past 30 years or so, the US has adopted a more laissez-faire approach: preferring less regulation, less intervention and letting businesses and markets do their thing.
The EU has been heavier on regulation. It has preferred government decisions over market outcomes. It has preferred higher taxes with generous social services, whereas the US has preferred the opposite.
Which approach has been better?
The logical place to start is GDP per capita: a basic measure of income per person. After all, it's hard to argue your approach is better when your citizens are poorer.
By this measure, the US wins hands down. GDP per capita, measured at purchasing power parity, is almost twice as high in the US compared to the EU.
The US is the clear winner on this measure. But there are reasonable counterarguments to this.
The first is that the US had a head start. Wasn't the US already bigger when the EU was created in 1993?
This is true. US GDP per capita was already 65 per cent higher than that of the EU in 1993. But even if we start the clock at 1993, the US still outperforms the EU by about 20 per cent. The US had a head start, but it has grown it considerably.
The second counterargument is about distribution: that the US has higher inequality. A billionaire might prefer the US, but someone on a low or average income might prefer the EU, right?
Not necessarily. It's true that US has higher inequality than the EU. Measured by the "gini coefficient", inequality is about a third higher in the US. But, for most people, this difference is unlikely to be big enough to justify incomes being twice as high in the US.
The third counterargument is that people in the EU get more free social services from the government. Putting aside that these services aren't "free" since they are paid for through much higher taxes, these social services are unlikely to be enough to offset the GDP-per-capita story.
The US spends 19 per cent of its GDP on social expenditure. The EU spends more, but not that much more, at about 25 per cent of GDP.
People commonly believe that the EU redistributes more of its national income than the United States: a fancy way of saying that the EU takes more money off rich people and gives it to poor people than in the US.
MORE FROM ADAM TRIGGS:
Surprisingly (at least to me), this is not true. A recent study published in the journal Applied Economics found that the US actually redistributes a greater share of its national income than the EU.
In sum, the US approach has achieved better outcomes than the EU for its citizens. It's true that the US has higher inequality and provides fewer government services to its citizens, but these do not offset per capita GDP being twice as high in the US, let alone that the gap between the US and the EU is growing.
What's causing this? And what should Australia do?
A great many commentators in the Europe, most notably Mario Draghi - one of Europe's top economists, former head of the European Central Bank and, more recently, former prime minister of Italy - point to one cause: Europe is simply far too regulated; stifling innovation, stifling productivity.
"For the most part, we have done all we can to limit innovation in the EU," Draghi said in a scathing critique.
Countless leaders, ministers, central bank governors, economists and lawyers agree with him.
Europe has had some stinkers. Its General Data Protection Regulation was meant to boost data privacy. While there's no evidence it worked, there is ample evidence that it caused the new entry of apps fall by a half and saw data storage in Europe fall by more than 25 per cent.
We don't know who will win the AI race, but we know the EU will come dead last.
Early signs are that its Digital Markets Act - a suite of new regulations on digital platforms that outlaw conduct without having to prove any harm - is having the same effect. Google's DMA compliance has seen a 30 per cent fall in traffic and a 36 per cent fall in direct hotel bookings, for example, and this is only early days.
To be clear, none of this is to say the EU is bad or that regulations are bad. Quite the opposite. The EU is a wonderful idea. Having a free trade block with harmonised standards and regulations is the dream of economists. The UK was bonkers for leaving it.
The challenge is ensuring those regulations are the right ones and that they properly balance the regulatory goal (e.g. privacy) against the need to raise living standards.
Well, the jury is in, and the EU has failed to get the balance right.
So, the next time you hear a politician try to justify a new law or regulation in Australia based on it having been adopted in the EU, be suspicious.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Whitlam-esque': Zoe McKenzie blasts Labor's divisive tax hike on super accounts, slams Tasmanian opposition for triggering early election
Victorian Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie has lambasted Labor for continuing to advance its plan to hike taxes on superannuation accounts and impose levies on unrealised gains whilst hammering the Tasmanian opposition for sending punters to a winter election. Labor's plan to raise taxes on superannuation accounts over $3 million to 30 per cent and to target unrealised capital gains has sent shockwaves throughout the political and business arena, with financial doyens accusing the government of discarding decades of precedent. The Coalition was previously in talks with the Albanese government to revise certain elements of the legislation, chiefly the concept of taxing unrealised gains, however shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien officially confirmed on Thursday the LNP would oppose the bill. Yet, former Reserve Bank board members Donald McGauchie and Roger Corbett, in addition to a litany of major Liberal Party donors, have pressed the Coalition to remain at the negotiating table and to secure what it deems crucial exemptions for illiquid assets including farms and small businesses. Ms McKenzie, an outspoken moderate who holds one of the Liberal's last outer-suburban seats, railed against the policy, but did not address if the Coalition would resume talks with Labor to modify the legislation. 'I think this is a terrible piece of policy and a terrible precedent for the future, Labor is effectively saying that they will tax money in your pocket, and you do not yet have this money,' she told Sky News on Saturday. The Member for Flinders echoed criticism from industry magnates in relation to the controversial concept of taxing unrealised gains, stating, 'you may have it in the future, you may not have it in the future, but you will be taxed on it'. 'You may incur a loss in the figure, and you won't get that tax back and that's the principle that we must fight here, because once it's started, it could go anywhere,' indicating that the tax could be extended to a range of other assets including real estate and stocks. 'This is a devilish tax and should be fought by the Coalition parties most stridently, this government is very good at speaking liberal-light in terms of their economic narrative, but it is utterly Whitlam-esque in terms of its impact on the Australian economy'. While the Coalition has vowed to fight the legislation, the bill is expected to pass both houses of parliament unopposed, with the Greens joining with Labor in the Senate despite lobbying for the policy to be levied on those with super accounts over $2 million. 'The point is they're going after money no one yet has, these are paper profits, these are family businesses, these are farms held in super funds that people may well have to liquidate just to pass a putative profit that may not exist when finally realised in years to come," Ms McKenzie said. 'They will need the Greens support in the Senate and as you know, the Greens are pushing to lower that threshold from three million to two million. So, it gives the Australian people a very clear indication of what might happen when Labor and the Greens run the show for the next three years'. The shadow assistant minister then turned her attention to the ongoing political chaos in Tasmania. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, with the speaker casting the deciding vote, resulting in the state heading to it's second election in as little as 14 months. Ms McKenzie savaged Tasmanian Labor leader Dean Winter for sending the state to a snap winter poll and argued the opposition parties had collectively torpedoed a popularly elected government. 'I think the Tasmanian people would be very disappointed with what's happened this week, basically holding an elected government hostage, so it looks like they will be going back to a mid-winter election. We've all done them and they're horrendous," she said. 'I'm sure the people of Tasmania will not be grateful for being dragged back to the polls so soon after a federal election and indeed just 14 months after a state election." Tasmanians will have to wait until next Tuesday to find out when they will return to the polls, with the parliament scrambling to draft emergency legislation to fund government services of which are due to be tabled on the same day. Independent MPs including Craig Garland have called on the beleaguered Premier to resign, with Mr Rockliff guaranteeing he would not sell off state-owned assets to pay down debt if he won the election, of which served as a key factor in sparking the political row.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Australian released from Iraqi prison after more than four years behind bars
The federal government is welcoming the release of an Australian engineer from a jail in Iraq. Robert Pether has been granted bail, emerging from a prison in Iraq after spending more than four years behind bars. Mr Pether was arrested in April 2021 alongside his Egyptian colleague, charged with deception, however, he has always maintained his innocence.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Former Victorian opposition leader John Pesutto served bankruptcy notice
John Pesutto has accepted a bankruptcy notice served to him yesterday, as the consequences of Liberal colleague Moira Deeming's successful defamation action against him continue to play out. One source close to the proceedings confirmed that the official notice had been served. Deeming successfully took Pesutto to Federal Court, which last December ruled he defamed her five times after an anti-transgender rights rally she organised in March 2023. That rally was unexpectedly gatecrashed by Neo-Nazis, and the court agreed with Deeming that in the aftermath, Pesutto defamed her as a Nazi sympathiser. Last month, a court ordered Pesutto to pay Deeming $2.3 million in legal costs by Friday, May 30, a deadline which he missed. Loading Only about one third of the money has been raised, including $212,000 via crowdfunding - and about $4000 of that in the past week. Under Australian bankruptcy law, Pesutto now has 20 days to either pay the $2.3 million in full or come to an arrangement where he can pay in instalments. Deeming's lawyers have previously said they plan to pursue third parties for costs if Pesutto is left bankrupt — including former premiers Jeff Kennett, Denis Napthine and Ted Baillieu and serving MPs Georgie Crozier and David Southwick.
