Poland's Economy Set to Enter Global Top Following Another Strong Year(www.wsj.com)

21 pointsby danielam11 hours ago1 comment

croes11 hours ago
So the EU can stop paying 2.9 billion Euros in subsidies to Poland, EU‘s 2nd largest net recipient.
- martchat7 hours ago
  Poland receives subsidies in exchange for opening its market and for following the tax and labor regulations. All the poorer EU countries do. In the end, it is Germany that benefits the most from large markets for its goods. It would have probably been way more beneficial in the 90s for Poland to have a more closed economy, emulate South Korea and become a "small China in EU" with cheap labor and factories. I believe it was a grave mistake of the Western Europe to invest so much in producing high-tech goods in China, when during a period of 1990-2005 they had access to cheap and educated labor force close in Eastern Europe. You should never transfer your strategic industries into countries that you cannot influence or control.
- torlok7 hours ago
  Poland is still low on the EU ladder in terms of GDP per capita and PPP. What I wish is that the amount of subsidies from the EU was better communicated in the face of rising anti-EU sentiments, and the periodically-returning topic of WW2 reparations.
- jakobnissen8 hours ago
  When we pay aid to poor countries and they remain poor, we gripe. When we subsidize poor countries and they get rich, we also gripe.
  I for one am happy to see what the Poles have achieved since independence, and proud to have supported them.
  I mean, isn’t this exactly the European project working as intended? A strong market economy, a democracy (if they can keep it so), a strong ally and partner, and a bulwark against Russian aggression. What could you possibly find more worthy to invest in than that?
- KptMarchewa7 hours ago
  There are countries getting much more per capita.
  And no one is close to Luxembourg.
  https://cdn.cursdeguvernare.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/be...
- fred_is_fred7 hours ago
  We do the same here in the US for Mississippi, Arkansas, and other states and they only get worse - at least Poland has a path out here.
  - rayiner6 hours ago
    We don’t have any similar program in the U.S. You seem to be talking about the fact that some states pay a larger share of the federal tax burden. That’s just a consequence of progressive taxation and those states having more rich people.
    In terms of federal grants to states on a per-capita basis, Mississippi gets less than California, and a bit more than Massachusetts: https://ffis.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SA24-02-1.pdf. Some of the states with very high grants relative to population are states that have a lot of natural resources and get federal lease payments and things like that.
    Also, the gap between richer states and poorer states has closed dramatically. In 1950, the nominal per capita personal income in New York was 2.4 times higher than Mississippi. Today’s it’s about 60% higher. Adjusted for cost of living, incomes in New York today are only about 11% higher today: https://flowingdata.com/2021/03/25/income-in-each-state-adju...
  - KptMarchewa7 hours ago
    The net per capita amount we get is dropping every year - mostly by the fact the contributions are rising fast.
    scyzoryk_xyz6 hours ago
    Might be worth adding that US comparisons aren't quite relevant. Poland is a relatively new member-country, not an existing state within a long standing union.
    The Polish economy and success is simply the result of disciplined economic decisions and hard work. Apart from few political turbulences and ongoing constitutional crises we've managed to spend all the investment correctly. An enormous and matter-of-fact win-win.
    Federal support for disadvantaged states is different (though really shouldn't be).
    rayiner6 hours ago
    There is no federal support for disadvantaged states in the sense we are talking about with the EU. You’re referring to the fact that federal taxation is progressive, so states with more rich people carry a larger share of the federal tax burden than states with fewer rich people. You can think of that as a form of subsidy, but it’s really just how progressive taxation works. The alternative would be a system where the federal tax burden is apportioned based on population, which is what the constitution required before the 16th amendment.
    The EU system is totally different. About a third of the EU budget is allocated to reducing economic disparities between member states. The U.S. doesn’t have anything like that.
    skissane4 hours ago
    Most other federations have formal mechanisms for ensuring fiscal equity between their federal constituents – Australia has the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Canada has its Equalization Program, Germany has the Länderfinanzausgleich, Switzerland has Nationaler Finanzausgleich, Brazil has the Fundo de Participação dos Estados, Mexico has Participaciones Federales, Argentina has the Régimen de Coparticipación Federal de Impuestos; the UK is a devolved unitary state not a federation, but it has the Barnett formula – the United States is unusual in being a federation without formal fiscal equity mechanisms, although its informal mechanisms (progressive taxation, social security, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, Congressional earmarks and pork-barrelling, etc) end up achieving much the same end with less transparency in the process.
    And I don't know why people keep on comparing the US and the EU. One is a federal nation, the other is a supranational entity. Other nations with federal systems–Canada, Mexico, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil–are better comparators–comparing an apple with (smaller) apples instead of with an orange.
    rayiner3 hours ago
    Progressive taxation and welfare don’t achieve the same end, because they’re directed to individuals rather than the government. Mississippi can’t use social security payments to build infrastructure.
    Also, programs like Medicaid aren’t as redistributive as you might think. For example, Mississippi gets less federal medicaid spending per capita than Massachusetts, New York, or California, despite being the poorest state: https://ffis.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/SA23-01.pdf (p. 4). In terms of federal K-12 education funding, Mississippi receives about $3,000 per student, but California receives almost as much, $2,750 per student: https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti.... Utah meanwhile receives only $1,300 per student, while Alabama receives about the same as New York, at $2,400 per student.
    skissane2 hours ago
    > Mississippi can’t use social security payments to build infrastructure.
    Indirectly, it can, because social security recipients spend the payments they receive, and then some of those payments incur state sales taxes, and contribute to revenue of businesses which pay further state taxes (such as income tax for employees).
    And direct federal grants can't always be spent on infrastructure either – you can't use Medicaid funding to build highways.
    > Also, programs like Medicaid aren’t as redistributive as you might think.
    If you zoom out from individual programs and look at the overall fiscal balance: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
    In FY2024, Mississippi residents received (per capita) $11K more in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes; only West Virginia, Alaska and New Mexico received more.
    Meanwhile, Texas residents paid $2K more per capita in federal taxes than they received in federal spending; New York residents $4K more per capita; Massachusetts residents $5K more per capita; California, New Jersey and Washington state residents $7K more.
    Nebraska got the worst fiscal deal of any US state, with its residents paying $10K more in federal taxes than they received in federal spending
- nubg7 hours ago
  German cope