"Western Europe GDP per capita - not taking into account the new accession counties - was lower in 2001 relative to that of the US than any time since the 1960's"
About this Quote
A single comparative statistic, deployed like a warning flare. Hutton isn’t just noting that Western Europe trailed the US in 2001; he’s picking a historically loaded low point - “any time since the 1960’s” - to frame the gap as abnormal, even embarrassing. The phrasing makes the economic story feel like a reversal of a long postwar narrative in which Europe steadily “caught up” through the welfare state, coordinated capitalism, and integration. By invoking the 1960s, he subtly reminds listeners: Europe once looked structurally behind, then engineered its way forward. Now, he implies, it has slipped.
The parenthetical caveat - “not taking into account the new accession countries” - is doing quiet but essential political work. It preempts an easy rebuttal (“enlargement dragged the average down”) and keeps the argument aimed at the old, wealthy core. Subtext: the problem isn’t solidarity with poorer entrants; it’s stagnation in places that should be outperforming.
Contextually, 2001 sits at the hinge between the 1990s “new economy” boom in the US and Europe’s more cautious growth model, with rigid labor markets and lower hours worked often blamed for weaker productivity. Hutton’s intent reads as persuasion: a technocratic case for reform that can travel across party lines, because it’s framed as arithmetic rather than ideology. Yet the choice of metric - GDP per capita - smuggles in values. It treats national success as output and income, not leisure, equality, or security. The quote’s power is that it sounds neutral while quietly forcing a question: if Europe wants its social model, can it still pay for it without matching American dynamism?
The parenthetical caveat - “not taking into account the new accession countries” - is doing quiet but essential political work. It preempts an easy rebuttal (“enlargement dragged the average down”) and keeps the argument aimed at the old, wealthy core. Subtext: the problem isn’t solidarity with poorer entrants; it’s stagnation in places that should be outperforming.
Contextually, 2001 sits at the hinge between the 1990s “new economy” boom in the US and Europe’s more cautious growth model, with rigid labor markets and lower hours worked often blamed for weaker productivity. Hutton’s intent reads as persuasion: a technocratic case for reform that can travel across party lines, because it’s framed as arithmetic rather than ideology. Yet the choice of metric - GDP per capita - smuggles in values. It treats national success as output and income, not leisure, equality, or security. The quote’s power is that it sounds neutral while quietly forcing a question: if Europe wants its social model, can it still pay for it without matching American dynamism?
Quote Details
| Topic | Wealth |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
