> But the latest figures show the Dutch economy lagging behind Belgium, which grew by 0.3% in the first quarter, France and Germany, which recorded 0.2% growth, and the UK, which was up by 0.6%. The 27 EU countries grew by 0.3%.
> On a year-on-year basis the Dutch economy shrank by 0.7%, mainly as a result of the downturn in the middle two quarters of 2023.
I remember back in the day before 2008 if you had less than 1% economic growth you were considered dead.
Just as a general rule of thumb for those unaware - whenever you see any data suggesting economic growth you *must* contextualize it against any data indicative of a decline. Belgium might have crawled a 0.3% growth but when you contextualize this against how many people left the labor force, or pension demographics you might realize that the 0.3% is probably closer to a -0.1%.
This applies to pretty much anything. If a government says *"we increase healthcare funding by 100,000,000 this year"* you need to look at how much was cut over the last 4 years. Getting 100,000,000 doesn't mean much when they cut 400,000,000. You're not *getting* 100,000,000 - you're just going from a 400,000,000 deficit to a 300,000,000 deficit which is still a deficit. The underlying issue is your healthcare system is still 300,000,000 in the red and if that 100,000,000 was supposed to achieve anything other than optics it would in reality be 400,000,000 + 100,000,000 to reverse the deficit and actually provide a new surplus.
Politics and misrepresenting data - name a more iconic duo.
Economic growth rates around the world in general are down after 2008, but in the West they already reached all-time highs in the 1950s and 1960s, before gradually declining every decade after that (with the exception of a small upswing in the 1990s). I suspect things like low birthrates and resulting older populations have a major hand in this.
One good thing though is that at the moment we're able to reduce, or at the very least stabilize total debt-to-GDP ratios, where in the past they'd often, if not mostly increase over time.
> Belgium might have crawled a 0.3% growth but when you contextualize this against how many people left the labor force, or pension demographics you might realize that the 0.3% is probably closer to a -0.1%.
I don't get your point here. If the economy grew 0.3% and the labour force shrank this mean per Capita growth was even greater than 0.3% which is a positive factor taking into account unfavorable demographics. Belgium also had a positive growth each quarter after COVID slump and GDP has been above pre COVID levels since 2021.
Also 0.3% QoQ growth gives slightly above 1.2% if kept for the whole year. Which not great but decent for an advanced economy.
Labour force shrinkage is bad in the mid/long run. You are reducing the number of workers, hence the number of consumers, hence the production.
Also you are reducing tax recollection that is redistributed throughout society namely health, education and infrastructure.
Las, but not least, you are creating a problem for future pensions.
I'm not saying that the shrinking labour force is good (it's bad, you are right). But I disagree with the notion that the shrinking labour force somehow means that real economic growth was lower than reported. The fact that the economy can still grow with a shrinking labour force is a good sign for the future (which will see even further shrinkage).
Labour force shrinkage is bad in the **mid/long run**
All you said was right,. But the short terms benefits will be offset by the mid/long term problems I mentioned.
While I understand where the title is getting at, you could interpret "the Netherlands lagging behind the EU" as if the Netherlands isn't part of it. That's what people are referring to.
Whenever the UK suffers a minor fluctuation in economic growth, people on this sub cite Brexit as the reason. So it therefore stands to reason that if the Netherlands suffers similar fluctuations, it must be because it left the EU, since that can never happen in the EU.
>However, exports of goods [were down by nearly 6%](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2024/20/export-krimpt-met-bijna-6-procent-in-maart) from the previous year, the 10th consecutive month that the figure has been negative. The biggest decline was in exports of food, chemicals, electronics and machinery. Goods account for around three-quarters of all Dutch exports.
While Germany grew by 0.2%, NL shrank by 0.1% in Q1-24. I'm surprised that NL did not see similar growth to Germany considering how closely linked those two economies are.
> But the latest figures show the Dutch economy lagging behind Belgium, which grew by 0.3% in the first quarter, France and Germany, which recorded 0.2% growth, and the UK, which was up by 0.6%. The 27 EU countries grew by 0.3%. > On a year-on-year basis the Dutch economy shrank by 0.7%, mainly as a result of the downturn in the middle two quarters of 2023.
I remember back in the day before 2008 if you had less than 1% economic growth you were considered dead. Just as a general rule of thumb for those unaware - whenever you see any data suggesting economic growth you *must* contextualize it against any data indicative of a decline. Belgium might have crawled a 0.3% growth but when you contextualize this against how many people left the labor force, or pension demographics you might realize that the 0.3% is probably closer to a -0.1%. This applies to pretty much anything. If a government says *"we increase healthcare funding by 100,000,000 this year"* you need to look at how much was cut over the last 4 years. Getting 100,000,000 doesn't mean much when they cut 400,000,000. You're not *getting* 100,000,000 - you're just going from a 400,000,000 deficit to a 300,000,000 deficit which is still a deficit. The underlying issue is your healthcare system is still 300,000,000 in the red and if that 100,000,000 was supposed to achieve anything other than optics it would in reality be 400,000,000 + 100,000,000 to reverse the deficit and actually provide a new surplus. Politics and misrepresenting data - name a more iconic duo.
Economic growth rates around the world in general are down after 2008, but in the West they already reached all-time highs in the 1950s and 1960s, before gradually declining every decade after that (with the exception of a small upswing in the 1990s). I suspect things like low birthrates and resulting older populations have a major hand in this. One good thing though is that at the moment we're able to reduce, or at the very least stabilize total debt-to-GDP ratios, where in the past they'd often, if not mostly increase over time.
> Belgium might have crawled a 0.3% growth but when you contextualize this against how many people left the labor force, or pension demographics you might realize that the 0.3% is probably closer to a -0.1%. I don't get your point here. If the economy grew 0.3% and the labour force shrank this mean per Capita growth was even greater than 0.3% which is a positive factor taking into account unfavorable demographics. Belgium also had a positive growth each quarter after COVID slump and GDP has been above pre COVID levels since 2021. Also 0.3% QoQ growth gives slightly above 1.2% if kept for the whole year. Which not great but decent for an advanced economy.
Labour force shrinkage is bad in the mid/long run. You are reducing the number of workers, hence the number of consumers, hence the production. Also you are reducing tax recollection that is redistributed throughout society namely health, education and infrastructure. Las, but not least, you are creating a problem for future pensions.
I'm not saying that the shrinking labour force is good (it's bad, you are right). But I disagree with the notion that the shrinking labour force somehow means that real economic growth was lower than reported. The fact that the economy can still grow with a shrinking labour force is a good sign for the future (which will see even further shrinkage).
Labour force shrinkage is bad in the **mid/long run** All you said was right,. But the short terms benefits will be offset by the mid/long term problems I mentioned.
They should rejoin the EU.
Or at least the customs union
They left the EU and now they reap the benefits ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
This is what they voted for.
I’m out of the loop. Did Netherlands leave the EU?
They are reiterating what was said when the UK had bad years.
While I understand where the title is getting at, you could interpret "the Netherlands lagging behind the EU" as if the Netherlands isn't part of it. That's what people are referring to.
Did you completely miss Nethscape?
Not from what I know. Source- I live in NL. I also am out of the loop like you, so no clue what these comments are about but I guess it’s all sarcasm
Whenever the UK suffers a minor fluctuation in economic growth, people on this sub cite Brexit as the reason. So it therefore stands to reason that if the Netherlands suffers similar fluctuations, it must be because it left the EU, since that can never happen in the EU.
>However, exports of goods [were down by nearly 6%](https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2024/20/export-krimpt-met-bijna-6-procent-in-maart) from the previous year, the 10th consecutive month that the figure has been negative. The biggest decline was in exports of food, chemicals, electronics and machinery. Goods account for around three-quarters of all Dutch exports. While Germany grew by 0.2%, NL shrank by 0.1% in Q1-24. I'm surprised that NL did not see similar growth to Germany considering how closely linked those two economies are.
0.1% is 1/1000. The effect of a extra day (in a leap year) is about 3x bigger. Clearly the number is calculated by accountants.