Comparing each state’s relative share of the global economy, or its ‘market share’ as measured by its gross domestic product (GDP), I noticed four of the G7 states have been steadily losing their share since at least 1900. They are the four largest European economies of Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Much unlike the US, Canada and Japan.
How will Europe’s decline affect the world?
Graph 1. German share of the global economy (1900-2008), including both East and West Germany. (Notice that volatility flat-lined since 1950—evidence of a communist plan economy?)
Since 1900, Germany has lost around two-thirds of its share of the global economy, down from nearly 12% at its peak to below 4% today.
Hitler’s Third Reich briefly restored German power, but only because of its expansionist economy that robbed neighboring countries. In the subsequent decade, Germans would pay for their hubris with economic demise. Despite having rebuilt their economy during the 1950s, the German economy is no more powerful today than it was immediately after Hitler’s defeat in 1945.
German economic influence in the world isn’t just waning, it’s dying. One doesn’t need to wonder why Germany decided to open its borders to millions of cheap labor immigrants. Not just to prove how progressive they have become, but because native German workers so accustomed to richer lifestyles cannot compete with Chinese and Indian wages.
Third World immigrants to the West can easily underbid their hosts. Not, as Indian supremacist Fareed Zakaria would like us to believe,1 because Indian immigrants supposedly are more productive, but because immigrants can undercut Western salaries by accepting poorer lifestyles. Although immigrants are less productive than native Westerners, they are willing to do the same work for far less money.
Globally, the threat of a Chinese-Indian miracle forces further mass immigration to the West: the only people still able to underbid Asian and Indian wages are Africans (from Africa). Unsurprisingly, Italian President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, recently told German newspaper Die Welt that Europe will have to absorb 30 million black Africans over the next decade. They will supply factories and assembly lines with fresh workers.
Note that progressive ideology has played no role whatsoever in the decision to open Europe’s borders. Economics comes before political fantasy, although the multicultural worldview conveniently serves to keep native Europeans in a passive state of denial, as their lives are gradually being supplanted by foreign populations.
Children of rich white parents will never be able to compete with Third World immigrants.
Graph 2. French share of the economy (1900-2008).
Like Germany, France has also lost over half of its global economic influence since 1900. The Second World War briefly hurt the French economy from 1939 to 1945 during its Nazi occupation, but unlike Germans the French were then able to rebuild their economy rather quickly.
France, too, has joined the race to the bottom and opened its borders to mass immigration. In need of low-wage labor in order to remain economically competitive, France already houses Europe’s largest North African, Central African and Muslim populations. Immigrants are the only people willing to work below livable French wages.
The United Kingdom
Graph 3. The British share of the global economy (1900-2008).
In 1900, the British economy was as powerful as that of Germany (12% of the global economy), despite having had a smaller population at the time. British citizens were more productive, perhaps thanks to resources it could obtain from its colonial empire.
Not having been occupied by Nazi forces, the British economy appears to have benefited from war efforts. Nonetheless, the British economy as a whole has kept on sliding into forgetfulness since. Today, the British economy represents a measly 3% of the global economy, even less than that of Germany (4%). Perhaps #Brexit will help Britain regain some of its lost pride.
Having lost nearly 75% of its global power since 1900, British economic power is clearly dying.
Graph 4. Italian share of the global economy (1900-2008).
Unlike Germany, the formerly fascist state of Italy hardly suffered from its military defeat after World War II. Italy recovered within several years and was even able to maintain a relatively stable share of the global economy since, until decline finally set in around 1980.
What Is Going on Here?
Why are European G7-economies failing to maintain their global relevance? Aging demographics and a subsequent shortage of native laborers explain why politicians must invite Third World immigrants to come and apply for jobs, but it doesn’t explain why Europe’s economies had already begun to decline before the advent of mass immigration and even before the Second World War.
We must conclude that immigrants haven’t caused Europe’s economic decline. Immigrants have likely postponed Europe’s impending collapse, but that doesn’t mean they’ve prevented it indefinitely. If the process of mass immigration continues, Europe’s economies eventually won’t be run by Europeans, but by Arabs, Asians and Africans. In the very long term, Europeans are facing both their economic and biological extinction.
What, then, should European peoples do differently in order to turn the tide and defend a future for native progeny? If Europeans continue to cling to their wealth, preferring luxury cars over children, they will never be able to underbid Chinese and Indian wages. Western addiction to wealth has certainly condemned Europeans. (Evolution obviously does not favor the rich.)
If, on the other hand, Europeans were to forgo luxury goods and divert their wealth to raising family sizes, aside from rendering itself less attractive to immigrants, their slightly rising numbers would still not be enough to compete with four to six billion Asians, nor with a projected two to four billion Africans before the end of this century. Europeans, it seems, stand to lose no matter what they do.
The Fate of Europe
There is, of course, one unspoken approach to this European dilemma that may yield a solution. According to ecologist Paul Colinvaux, author of The Fates of Nations, richer nations always resort to war against poorer nations whose continuously rising populations pose an economic threat.
He writes, “Aggressive war is caused by the continued growth of population in a relatively rich society.” In our time, that rich society is the globalized world, and the growing Third World populations certainly threaten to crush the richer West. If Colinvaux’s historical analysis proves correct, we’re in for a show.