One of Pierre Poilievre's favourite talking points is that parts of the United States—Alabama, Mississippi, or the country as a whole, depending on the speech—now produce more GDP per person than Canada.
The statistic is real. The conclusion does not follow.
GDP per capita measures how much an economy produces. It does not measure how much wealth the typical person owns, or how that wealth is distributed.
Does the generate wealth flow broadly through society or accumulate among a relatively small number of shareholders, executives, and asset owners? I think we all know the answer to that.
If GDP per capita were all that mattered, economists would have stopped measuring everything else decades ago.
UBS's Global Wealth Report measures something entirely different: net wealth per adult. By that measure, the median* Canadian adult owns more than twice the wealth of the median American adult. Meanwhile, the United States has a dramatically higher average wealth per adult than Canada.
Those two facts are not contradictory. They tell us something important.
(* median means half above, half below.)
America is exceptionally good at creating wealth. It is considerably less successful at ensuring that the wealth it creates is broadly held.
That distinction matters because the people invoking American GDP figures are not merely making an economic observation. They are making a policy argument. The implication is that Canada should emulate the American model because it produces better outcomes.
But which outcomes?
If the result is a country where aggregate wealth soars while the typical citizen owns comparatively little of it, that is hardly a self-evident success. It is a policy choice—and one that deserves scrutiny rather than admiration.
To put recent history "down there" mildly: Recent American policy has moved toward weaker antitrust enforcement, reduced consumer-protection enforcement, and greater political control over regulatory agencies that were designed to operate independently. This reflects a philosophy that places greater faith in concentrated private economic power and less in institutional checks upon it.
There is no evidence that simply pointing Canada in the same direction would cause the median Canadian to become wealthier. If anything, the available evidence suggests otherwise. The United States generates extraordinary wealth while the benefits are distributed far less evenly than in many comparable countries.
If the problem we face is reclaiming prosperity for middle class that we also hope to expand, anyone suggesting that the United States has already solved the problem, or is at least on its way, is a person at best stumbling into endorsing regulatory capture in the least. In reality, evidence of outright corruption is not hard to find—what are they thinking?
Trump has publicly praised the Gilded Age—a period of extraordinary industrial expansion and immense fortunes built by men like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt. It was also an era of minimal regulation, weak labour protections, rampant political patronage, and vast concentrations of economic power. By the end of the Gilded Age, while a handful of industrialists possessed fortunes unprecedented in human history, many ordinary Americans endured dangerous working conditions, child labour, tenement housing, repeated financial panics, and wages that left them only a paycheck away from destitution.
Sound familiar?
Regardless of Canada's own challenges, pointing to the United States as the obvious answer is simply not credible. Before we decide to imitate another country's economic model, we should first ask whether it is producing the outcomes we actually want.
No comments:
Post a Comment