[alephnerd]

Productivity in economics is different from the colloquial definition. Productivity in this case means economic output (usually GDP) divided across working population.

As such, variables for productivity can be identified via back-of-the-napkin math, and in America's case is largely due to the rise of the tech and biotech industry along with Obama and Biden era protection for core industrial sectors like automotive, semiconductors, and renewables.

> How much heavy lifting is done by oil, by currency, by historical happenstance, versus by deliberate policy?

The productivity and GDP gap between the EU and US only began after the Great Recession and Eurozone Crisis.

The US decided to invest in subsidizes and simplified financing. Much of the EU decided to concentrate on austerity and reduce financing.

[strken]

I don't know if back of the napkin maths helps understand exactly what the US is doing right.

You can point to a sector with high GDP, sure. But US tech ascendancy has its roots in DARPA spending around the bay area, which was enabled by US economic and military supremacy, which was in turn driven by the US having a lot of oil and staying out of WW2 and a host of other factors.

I agree with the point that investment vs austerity looks more impactful than the history of DARPA spending, but I just find economic analysis an overwhelming problem to even think about.

[alephnerd]

The EU and the US had a comparable GDP and population size around 2007. The gap between European and American performance only arose in the 2008-13 period when the GFC and Eurozone Crisis occured.

As such, it is important to dig into how the US and the EU approached these crises, as both took entirely different approaches.

The crux of the EU's laggard performance arose during that period.