American Poor still better then European

[John Uskglass]

America's Poorest
June 16, 2004

If Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest U.S. states in gross domestic product per capita. Most other European countries would rank below the U.S. GDP average. As the accompanying chart shows, four of the least wealthy U.S. states are almost as productive as Euroland heavyweights France, Germany and Italy.

These are some of the surprising revelations economists Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag presented in their study "The EU vs. USA" published this month by the Swedish think tank Timbro.

Mr. Bergstrom, president of The Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr. Gidehag, the institute's former chief economist, admit that focusing on GDP alone to measure a country's "well-being" has some shortcomings. GDP doesn't capture output in the "black" economy, which can be quite significant given Europe's high taxes. It also doesn't measure such less tangible benefits as "the value of leisure or a good environment" or "equality" -- the way the prosperity is being spread across the society.

But those caveats aside, a rising tide lifts all boats. As the authors conclude, "material resources, which in the ultimate analysis are generated by an efficient, fast-growing economy, are a precondition of much of the well-being which people like to call intangible," In 2000, U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average. Europe's standing hasn't improved since then.

Consider this thought experiment: Let's assume the American economy had been frozen at the 2000 level while the European economies expanded according to growth projections provided by the EU's statistics office in that same year. Ireland, which emulates many of the U.S. policies of lower tax burdens and fewer regulations, would be the first to catch up with the U.S., but it would still take until 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and the U.K. are the only other countries that would be able to catch up with a stagnant U.S. economy before the year 2010. Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would need until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita helps the average American to spend about $9,700 more than the average European on consumption per year. Americans, therefore, have by far more cars, TVs, computers etc. than Europeans. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the study says.

But what about the poor people in America Europeans like to talk about? Well, good economic development with a high level of per capita GDP is also a good antidote to poverty. The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden, that model of European welfare states, were judged by the same standard, about 40% of all households would be considered low income.

But what does it mean to be poor in the U.S.? A large proportion of the "poor" (45.9%) own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, still considered a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor ones, is 1,000 square feet.

"In an affluent economy . . . it is not unlikely that those perceived as poor in an international perspective are relatively well off," the authors write.

So why has Europe's economic development been so sluggish over the last 30 years? The authors say it is impossible not to notice the one factor that essentially distinguishes large parts of Europe from the U.S., namely "the expansion of the political sphere in general and taxes and the size of the public sector in particular." In 1999, average EU tax revenues amounted to over 40% of GDP; in the U.S. they were below 30% of GDP. "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," Mr. Bergstrom and Mr. Gidehag write. They add that how badly Europe compares to the U.S. "is probably something that Messrs Chirac, Schroeder and Berlusconi don't wish to know,"

Unfortunately, they seem to be right. As EU leaders gather this weekend to discuss the EU's constitution, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will fight hard to give the Union more power over taxation to impose their own high rates on those EU countries, which like the U.K., Ireland and the new members from the East, understand that low marginal tax rates promote economic growth.

The next time Europe tries to assert moral superiority over the U.S. on economic policy issues, Washington should simply reply, "let's look at the facts."

 

[Sander]

If Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest U.S. states in gross domestic product per capita. Most other European countries would rank below the U.S. GDP average. As the accompanying chart shows, four of the least wealthy U.S. states are almost as productive as Euroland heavyweights France, Germany and Italy.

Eh...accompanying chart? linkorstfu

But those caveats aside

Ugh. Mention problems and completely ignore them for the rest of the article. Nice.

As the authors conclude, "material resources, which in the ultimate analysis are generated by an efficient, fast-growing economy, are a precondition of much of the well-being which people like to call intangible," In 2000, U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average. Europe's standing hasn't improved since then

That depends much more on the country where you're in than the economy. The Netherlands, for instance, produces quite a small amount of material resources, but has had quite a good economy for completely different reasons. Focusing on material resources alone is much too one-sided.

Consider this thought experiment: Let's assume the American economy had been frozen at the 2000 level while the European economies expanded according to growth projections provided by the EU's statistics office in that same year. Ireland, which emulates many of the U.S. policies of lower tax burdens and fewer regulations, would be the first to catch up with the U.S., but it would still take until 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and the U.K. are the only other countries that would be able to catch up with a stagnant U.S. economy before the year 2010. Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would need until 2022.

That's odd. Ireland, not exactly the richest country, and the UK, again not really rich and Switzerland, rich, would catch up first. If countries that are among the least rich of the Western economies catch up first, doesn't that mean there's something wrong with the simplification here?

Higher GDP per capita helps the average American to spend about $9,700 more than the average European on consumption per year. Americans, therefore, have by far more cars, TVs, computers etc. than Europeans. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the study says.

Does this take into account the prices of things there? I don't think so. Especially gas prices differ a lot.
These kinds of numbers only mean anything when connected with the prices of the basic products.

But what about the poor people in America Europeans like to talk about? Well, good economic development with a high level of per capita GDP is also a good antidote to poverty. The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden, that model of European welfare states, were judged by the same standard, about 40% of all households would be considered low income.

Aha. More one-sidedness. They look at the people below the poverty line in America, establish that it's gone better since 1959 (something would've been terribly wrong if it hadn't gone better, by the way), but do not compare it to the poverty line in Europe.
Again, this fails to look at purchasing power, and it fails to look at other important factors. I want the whole study, and not just parts of it.

But what does it mean to be poor in the U.S.? A large proportion of the "poor" (45.9%) own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, still considered a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor ones, is 1,000 square feet.

Again, these are all factors that do not depend upon mere income alone. You need to, again, know the purchasing power, the costs of these things (especially with a car, because gas is a lot cheaper in the USA) and the availability and ease of other options. You don't get that information.
Plus, the reason why the average space is so low is that we simply have less room. The USA has more space per poor person because they simply have a lot more room per person.

So why has Europe's economic development been so sluggish over the last 30 years? The authors say it is impossible not to notice the one factor that essentially distinguishes large parts of Europe from the U.S., namely "the expansion of the political sphere in general and taxes and the size of the public sector in particular." In 1999, average EU tax revenues amounted to over 40% of GDP; in the U.S. they were below 30% of GDP. "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," Mr. Bergstrom and Mr. Gidehag write. They add that how badly Europe compares to the U.S. "is probably something that Messrs Chirac, Schroeder and Berlusconi don't wish to know,"

This is yet again oversimplification. They are acting as if the taxes are the same all over Europe, and that therefore Europe can be judged by one standard. It can't. Sweden and the Netherlands had some of the highest taxes, but were also doing very well. This article, and probably the study as well, is very one-sided. Bah.

 

[Jebus]

Hehe... I love studies like this.

Because they seem to equal GDP to standard of living. To some people, high-rolling economy = happy people.

But it ain't.

The writer of the article has mentioned it: the European countries are welfare-states. That means the highest priorities of most governments isn't having the best economy in the world, but having happy people.
Sure, people might not earn the same net income as they do in USA. But education, environment and social security is way better. Same with health care: in Belgium, you can go to the doctor or dentist and pay about €20, and come back as much as you want. And if you lose your job, the government gives you welfare high enough to lead a normal life.

It's all about priorities. You won't meet a lot of people having 2-3 jobs here, (none, actually) but you will have to try damn hard to ever see a beggar around here.
In the economy ratings, Europe might lag behind the USA. But when it comes to standard of living, almost all Westen European countries highly outrank the USA...

 

[Briosafreak]

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=index_indicators.html

In PDF the ranking
http://www.cphr.sk/english/undp2002en_15.pdf
there`s a new one but i can`t find it at the moment.

This data helps interpreting that article, you should also see the data about the gap between poor and rich, that makes GDP only based statistics not reliable, and therefore not used in general in the International Organizations, although it`s an important index to help on abstract economic models.

 

[Johns Volition]

Cheers! Try to find a slum in switzerland, and you'll have to look very very long!
Compared to those nice trailer parks in the states, whose inhabitents apparently have such a wonderfull live.

 

[Montez]

If you make less than $50,000 a year in the US than you are going to be scraping by, probably paying ~50% of your earnings for rent (not including bills and utilities), and will barely be able to save any significant portion of your money. I'm willing to bet that Europe has us beat on this mark.

 

[Brother None]

In PDF the ranking
http://www.cphr.sk/english/undp2002en_15.pdf
there`s a new one but i can`t find it at the moment.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/presskit/HDR03_PKE_HDI.pdf

Notice how the US dropped a place

And Holland rose 2

This data helps interpreting that article, you should also see the data about the gap between poor and rich, that makes GDP only based statistics not reliable, and therefore not used in general in the International Organizations, although it`s an important index to help on abstract economic models.

Exactly.

Briosa, I'm sure you're familiar with the IFI/World Bank's method of determining whether a third world country is doing "good" or "bad". They measure the GDP real growth rate and then declare the country either a "prodigy" or a "failure". Uganda, IFI's favourite sub-Saharan country, has had a real growth rate of 5-7% during the 90's. Based on this, and purely this, the IFI declared it a model of it's 90's "good governance" system (which replaced the earlier predominantly American neo-liberal system).

Guess what this means? Uganda is an oppressed country, with a shame of a democracy described as the "no-party" system, enormous amounts of horrible poverty, worse than its neighbours. Yet it is a "prodigy", 'cause it's GDP real growth rate is high. Gddduh...

Using GDP per capita means NOTHING as lon as you don't consider other factors, as long as you don't consider how expensive houses are, how high rent is, how expensive average shopping is.

The more important factor, which is glossed over in the article, is "spread of wealth". Luxembourg has a high GDP per capita not because it has no poor people, it has a high GDP per capita because it has a lot of rich people.

You see, "average GDP" is not the mean GDP, it simply does not denote how much the average joe is making, it denotes how well the poor people are balanced out by the rich people. As such, it is *completely* meaningless to measure how well-developed a country is when it comes to the spread of wealth and how bad the poorest are off.

I find it surprising this study came out of Sweden, usually this attitude is predominantly American. It's typically American to just denote how rich a country is by how much money is pumped through it. Europeans, however, prefer to look at the spread of wealth.

The percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden, that model of European welfare states, were judged by the same standard, about 40% of all households would be considered low income.

Yeah, mebbe that's because a Swedish person doesn't NEED to make 25,000 to survive. The reason only 60% of the people make more than 25,000 is that, as opposed to the US, 25,000 is a healthy sum in Sweden, and enough to survive by.

Well, good economic development with a high level of per capita GDP is also a good antidote to poverty.

Bull. If the per capita GDP rises, it could just as well mean that the rich are getting richer, while the poor stay the same. This is such a mindless, stupid attitude.

CC, are you familiar with the "Washington Concensus", the IFI system of spreading wealth throughout the world and making third world countries bigger by, guess what, pumping up the per capita GDP and doing nothing else. During the 80's, "strong" (aka oppressive/authoritan) governments were considered fine, as long as the economy was liberated so that everyone had access to it. After all, if everyone has access to the economic growth, the GDP per capita rises, and the country is doing well, right?

Wrong. The "Washington Concensus" was removed in the 90's because it was an enormous failure. Not only did it fail to obtain its goal, it made the lives of many people worse, by thinking free economy without the 90's determined 'good governance' would make lives better. Of course it doesn't, the GDP per capita is not the end-all be-all of quality of life, that's stupid, and that attitude still reverberates in the 'good governance' system, ruining it.

But what does it mean to be poor in the U.S.? A large proportion of the "poor" (45.9%) own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, still considered a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor ones, is 1,000 square feet.

Ahahaha! Don't tell me anyone bought this one.

What's still considered a luxury in most of Western Europe? Our own homes? A car? No, air conditioning. Well duh gypsy, air conditing is a luxury in all countries north of France, because it's *not necessary* and when a commodity is not necessary, it becomes a rarity, and thus expensive. Gee, nice comparison there.

Average space for all households? Ehehehe. Did anyone ever consider that that might be because ground is aplenty in the US, and thus there are huge ranches and other types of large buildings which are simply cheaper in the US than in the EU. While many EU countries, like the Netherlands and other North-Western nations, are densely populated, making ground insanely expensive.

This has *nothing* to do with how rich the country is, or how good the policies are when concerning economic development. This is simply a "geographic handicap" and should hardly be used as a means to criticise Euroep.

CC, that study was bull. It only looked at a limited scope of elements to bring out the best of the US. I could write up a study about the state of living, freedom of press and democracy, healthcare and how expensive it is, the state of living of the very poorest and the quality of schooling ub the US and EU and roundly declare that the "EU is better", but that wouldn't be fair, would it?

 

[John Uskglass]

I did'nt write it, thus I don't think I have to defend everything. But I'll defend most of it anyway.

What's still considered a luxury in most of Western Europe? Our own homes? A car? No, air conditioning. Well duh gypsy, air conditing is a luxury in all countries north of France, because it's *not necessary* and when a commodity is not necessary, it becomes a rarity, and thus expensive. Gee, nice comparison there.

Crap. Thousands of people died in France because of a lack of air-conditioning, and alot of poor people live in the north (ie Flint, Detroit, Boston, NYC), and almost all of them have air conditioning. Hell, the projects have AC.

Average space for all households? Ehehehe. Did anyone ever consider that that might be because ground is aplenty in the US, and thus there are huge ranches and other types of large buildings which are simply cheaper in the US than in the EU. While many EU countries, like the Netherlands and other North-Western nations, are densely populated, making ground insanely expensive.

Yeah, that's true.

CC, that study was bull. It only looked at a limited scope of elements to bring out the best of the US. I could write up a study about the state of living, freedom of press and democracy, healthcare and how expensive it is, the state of living of the very poorest and the quality of schooling ub the US and EU and roundly declare that the "EU is better", but that wouldn't be fair, would it?

WSJ wrote it, thus I don't think it's fair to call it bull, prejudice mabey.

If you make less than $50,000 a year in the US than you are going to be scraping by, probably paying ~50% of your earnings for rent (not including bills and utilities), and will barely be able to save any significant portion of your money. I'm willing to bet that Europe has us beat on this mark.

45000 is the average income, thus I don't think that's fair.

Cheers! Try to find a slum in switzerland, and you'll have to look very very long!
Compared to those nice trailer parks in the states, whose inhabitents apparently have such a wonderfull live.

Depends on what you mean by trailer parks. I'd rather live in one of them then some rundown Glasgow federal housing.

This data helps interpreting that article, you should also see the data about the gap between poor and rich, that makes GDP only based statistics not reliable, and therefore not used in general in the International Organizations, although it`s an important index to help on abstract economic models.

That's true.

The writer of the article has mentioned it: the European countries are welfare-states. That means the highest priorities of most governments isn't having the best economy in the world, but having happy people.

Yeah, while America is teetering on a Socialist revolution due to the wealth gap. We have a fairly good government, even if our school system is not doing too well.

Sure, people might not earn the same net income as they do in USA. But education, environment and social security is way better. Same with health care: in Belgium, you can go to the doctor or dentist and pay about €20, and come back as much as you want. And if you lose your job, the government gives you welfare high enough to lead a normal life.

Poor people can see the doctor here. Government usually takes care of that. It's not like we have millions of people in the Projects dying of tiberculosis because they can't get medical care.

Enviorment is a priority here. If anything, it's just annyoing we can't dig for oil in Alaska where the only thing it does is increase the Moose population.

It's all about priorities. You won't meet a lot of people having 2-3 jobs here, (none, actually) but you will have to try damn hard to ever see a beggar around here.
In the economy ratings, Europe might lag behind the USA. But when it comes to standard of living, almost all Westen European countries highly outrank the USA...

Show me a study where the EU is better then America in terms of standards of living.

Sander, frankly, arguing with you is like arguing with my 3 year old sister-you may not understand anything, but you think you do, thus you just keep typing. I'm tired of it, even if you are'nt.

 

[Jebus]

It's all about priorities. You won't meet a lot of people having 2-3 jobs here, (none, actually) but you will have to try damn hard to ever see a beggar around here.
In the economy ratings, Europe might lag behind the USA. But when it comes to standard of living, almost all Westen European countries highly outrank the USA...

BULLSHIT. That's total shit. Show me a study where the EU is better then America in terms of standards of living.

Believe it or not, but I've searched my ass of at the UN site, and couldn't find the damn thing. But I'm pretty sure there's a UN studie that ranks Norway, Belgium and some other EU countries above the US. Dunno where to find it, tho'

Plus, you really need to fix your goddamn attitude. You're seriously starting to get on my nerves

 

[John Uskglass]

Believe it or not, but I've searched my ass of at the UN site, and couldn't find the damn thing. But I'm pretty sure there's a UN studie that ranks Norway, Belgium and some other EU countries above the US. Dunno where to find it, tho'

It's there. I don't entirely trust the UN (like any good American), and it's fairly high up there nonetheless.


However, those are specific nations in the EU, thus they are not comparable. Show me a study in which the EU as whole is better then the US. And compare Greece or Italy to Washington state, or Maine, or the Democratic People's Republic of Minnesota.

Plus, you really need to fix your goddamn attitude. You're seriously starting to get on my nerves

I got kind of angry. Fixed.

 

[Montez]

If you make less than $50,000 a year in the US than you are going to be scraping by, probably paying ~50% of your earnings for rent (not including bills and utilities), and will barely be able to save any significant portion of your money. I'm willing to bet that Europe has us beat on this mark.

45000 is the average income, thus I don't think that's fair.

I don't think it's fair either, but going by the experiences of myself, my family and friends it's true. Single people in the $20,000 - $50,000 range can get by fairly comfortably, but even so it's likely that 3/4's or more of their income is going straight to the costs of living and they're probably aquiring debts at the same time. Families in that range pretty much have to cut every single corner they can in order to just make due, and usually end up saddled with more debt than they can ever repay if they want a house and car as well. Singles or families making less than $20,000 a year are either at the brink of poverty, living in a trailer home or both.

I guess my point is that the luxuries that our poor are credited with having in that report are only aquired through loans (cars, houses) and usually credit cards as well (air conditioners, other luxuries) rather than actual money-in-hand, so to speak, and it gives a false impression of our standard of living. Yeah, low-income families might have these things, but at the cost of paying 8-15% interest on every dollar spent on them for the rest of their life. It doesn't seem to me like something that we can hold over Europe's head and feel superior about.

 

[Brother None]

Crap. Thousands of people died in France because of a lack of air-conditioning, and alot of poor people live in the north (ie Flint, Detroit, Boston, NYC), and almost all of them have air conditioning. Hell, the projects have AC.

Which is why I said north of France. The France episode was terrible, however, AC simply ís a luxury here, not a commodity. this, however, has little to do with how rich people are, people simply don't care for them, it's not an industry here, like in the US.

WSJ wrote it, thus I don't think it's fair to call it bull, prejudice mabey.

*considers*

No, still bull.

Depends on what you mean by trailer parks. I'd rather live in one of them then some rundown Glasgow federal housing.

Oh, right, GB. Reminder note: GB was run for a long time by a neo-liberal crackhead, which ruined any semblance the state had to a working wellfare state, making it more similar to the US, in many ways, than to the average North-Western European state.

Yeah, while America is teetering on a Socialist revolution due to the wealth gap. We have a fairly good government, even if our school system is not doing too well.

You should try to grasp the difference in culture here. Americans think it's fine that their country strives for the law of "might makes right" or "only the strongest survive". Europeans generally don't like that idea, we strive more for equality. Deal with it, your ultimate goal is not our ultimate goal.

Poor people can see the doctor here. Government usually takes care of that. It's not like we have millions of people in the Projects dying of tiberculosis because they can't get medical care.

Uh-huh, bull. Healthcare, including dental care, are seen as commodities here, accesible to everyone. That means that you don't get a doctor only if your arm was just lopped off, you get a doctor if you feel a mild sting in your side, no matter your position in society (except the absolute dregs of society, who're not insured). Dental, also, is a cheap commodity.

This is not the truth in the US. You have, what, 8 million uninsured people? That's some sick shit, dude.

Show me a study where the EU is better then America in terms of standards of living.

The EU? Excuse me, but the EU just encorporated 10 economically and socially weak nations, and even before the expansion, we had some pretty terrible countries on our list, standard of living wise, including Ireland, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Funny thing is that those countries are not the highest taxated countries, or the ones with the best health care. Those are the Germanic nations (Benelux and Germany) and the Scandinavian countries. And that's another thing that makes that article pure bullshit. It names problems of the EU in general, than criticises the mode of government of those EU countries that're better off.

Bull. The healthcare state is *not* our problem. One of the EU's economically richer countries which is socially in a deplorable state is the UK, which tried to copy the US in every way. But American policies simply do not work here, our people don't have the attitude for it.

Sander, frankly, arguing with you is like arguing with my 3 year old sister-you may not understand anything, but you think you do, thus you just keep typing. I'm tired of it, even if you are'nt.

Eheheehe. Very apropos, CC.

Singles or families making less than $20,000 a year are either at the brink of poverty, living in a trailer home or both.

20,000 EUR a year will get you by fine and comfortably here in Holland.

 

[Sander]

Sander, frankly, arguing with you is like arguing with my 3 year old sister-you may not understand anything, but you think you do, thus you just keep typing. I'm tired of it, even if you are'nt.

Wow. Just....you know, wow. I said a lot of things that Kharn has said, and you reply to Kharn with a nice civilised post, and you give me this. On the same arguments.
Right, that makes me a sucker for thinking you'd gotten a bit better.

 

[welsh]

Seems I've missed most of this, but trying to estimate a person's standard of living by GDP or even GDP per capita, is problematic.

How, for instance, do you accommodate income disparities. WHy are you using GDP or even GDP per capita instead of purchasing power parity (PPP) scales.

Take for instance, I live in Charlottesville Va, currently marked one of the top places in the US to live, and it has a very high GDP per capita. We also have a lot of very rich people living in Charlottesville. But we also have .25% below poverty.

 

[John Uskglass]

Which is why I said north of France. The France episode was terrible, however, AC simply ís a luxury here, not a commodity. this, however, has little to do with how rich people are, people simply don't care for them, it's not an industry here, like in the US.

I can't understand why, as so many people died.

Oh, right, GB. Reminder note: GB was run for a long time by a neo-liberal crackhead, which ruined any semblance the state had to a working wellfare state, making it more similar to the US, in many ways, than to the average North-Western European state.

Bullshit. Most of the trouble comes from the 80% income tax days when the economy was non exsistant and the pound meaningless. It's not at all Margaret Thatcher's fault that all that crap happened, blame it on the pre-Blair Labour party.

You should try to grasp the difference in culture here. Americans think it's fine that their country strives for the law of "might makes right" or "only the strongest survive". Europeans generally don't like that idea, we strive more for equality. Deal with it, your ultimate goal is not our ultimate goal.

No, not really, the Democratic Party is as large as the Republican and that's thier general goal.

Uh-huh, bull. Healthcare, including dental care, are seen as commodities here, accesible to everyone. That means that you don't get a doctor only if your arm was just lopped off, you get a doctor if you feel a mild sting in your side, no matter your position in society (except the absolute dregs of society, who're not insured). Dental, also, is a cheap commodity.

We have programs to take care of that. We must be doing something right, the primary problem among the poor of the United States is Obesity.

The EU? Excuse me, but the EU just encorporated 10 economically and socially weak nations, and even before the expansion, we had some pretty terrible countries on our list, standard of living wise, including Ireland, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Funny thing is that those countries are not the highest taxated countries, or the ones with the best health care. Those are the Germanic nations (Benelux and Germany) and the Scandinavian countries. And that's another thing that makes that article pure bullshit. It names problems of the EU in general, than criticises the mode of government of those EU countries that're better off.

Bull. The healthcare state is *not* our problem. One of the EU's economically richer countries which is socially in a deplorable state is the UK, which tried to copy the US in every way. But American policies simply do not work here, our people don't have the attitude for it.

The United States of America has a growing population of 293,027,571. Germany, a country you compare the US to, has a population of 82,424,609 . The two are incomparable. I think it's remarkable that a nation like the United States has good population growth and is already the third most populous nation in the world.

20,000 EUR a year will get you by fine and comfortably here in Holland.

We have sufficent housing that costs appropriately.

Wow. Just....you know, wow. I said a lot of things that Kharn has said, and you reply to Kharn with a nice civilised post, and you give me this. On the same arguments.
Right, that makes me a sucker for thinking you'd gotten a bit better.

I have in no way done anything diffirent from what you did. Over the last week I've had more and better discussions with more people then I ever did with you. And unlike with you, I don't want to punch them in the face.

 

[Roshambo]

Which is why I said north of France. The France episode was terrible, however, AC simply ís a luxury here, not a commodity. this, however, has little to do with how rich people are, people simply don't care for them, it's not an industry here, like in the US.

I can't understand why, as so many people died.

NORTH OF FRANCE, MORON.

A little lesson for the USA High School student that obviously failed basic geography:

"here" to Kharn = The Netherlands = North of France (Read the location field near his av if you conveniently forgot or you're purposefully acting stupid again.)
England = North of France
Ireland = North of France
Norway = North of France
Sweden = North of France
France != North of France

I've also been to northern France. The coast keeps the area a bit averaged in temp, and north of that it does get chilly. That is something that most kids, even ones who live near a giant lake, have no clue about.

I could also point out that the number of people who have AC in Alaska is similarily few, as well as Northern Canada. Perhaps you paid enough attention in 3rd grade to understand the climate there and may have some shred of hope of understanding the parallel.

CC, if you can't be bothered to read the discussion or you're trolling again, I would suggest that it stops. It isn't amusing nor welcome in any manner.

 

[Sander]

I have in no way done anything diffirent from what you did. Over the last week I've had more and better discussions with more people then I ever did with you. And unlike with you, I don't want to punch them in the face.

Great. Then say that. But do not come in and spout that I'm just typing away with out knowing anything in a thread where I made the exact same arguments as the other person you were arguing with. You've gotten no better, I see, only worse.

 

[Johns Volition]

ConstipatedCraprunner wrote:

Which is why I said north of France. The France episode was terrible, however, AC simply ís a luxury here, not a commodity. this, however, has little to do with how rich people are, people simply don't care for them, it's not an industry here, like in the US.

I can't understand why, as so many people died.

You have to see that this summer was totally unexpected... for some parts of the country even the hottest summer of the century (20th i mean)... you just can't expect people having a nice AC if they just don't expect the heat.

 

[Brother None]

You have to see that this summer was totally unexpected... for some parts of the country even the hottest summer of the century (20th i mean)... you just can't expect people having a nice AC if they just don't expect the heat.

Exactly. Maybe it'll become more widespread now, but it never was necessary.

Bullshit. Most of the trouble comes from the 80% income tax days when the economy was non exsistant and the pound meaningless. It's not at all Margaret Thatcher's fault that all that crap happened, blame it on the pre-Blair Labour party.

Tsss, hogwash...

The problem was not the pre-Blair Labour party, even tho' they bloated the wellfare state beyond belief. A bloated well-fare state in itself poses some problems, but not enormous ones. The biggest question is what to do with a wellfare state.

Either you let it slowly deflate, keeping the principles of the wellfare state as it is and not doing anything to ruin essential parts of it.

Or you go Thatcher, you tear the wellfare state to shreds and create a shithole of a country, with inneffective ghouls of the former services crawling around the wreckage, as the unemployed people try to eek out an existance in the way-too-larga villa-like ghost houses. But great, nothing of it all is Thatcher's fault.

No, not really, the Democratic Party is as large as the Republican and that's thier general goal.

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? But the Democratic Party is like a heavy right-wing party here in views and goals. The only reason you think of the Democrats are social democrats is because the only thing you have to compare them by is the conservative Republicans. To us, tho', both these parties are right wing parties.

The Democratic goal of equality and a strong wellfare state do not nearly resemble the goals of the left or centre parties of the EU, who're much stronger in this, generally.

We have programs to take care of that. We must be doing something right, the primary problem among the poor of the United States is Obesity

Ok, so how does an uninsured person pay for the dentist? Or regular checkups? Non-lethal diseases or afflictions? Basically, how do the millions and millions of uninsured people in the US get non-vital health care.

The United States of America has a growing population of 293,027,571. Germany, a country you compare the US to, has a population of 82,424,609 . The two are incomparable. I think it's remarkable that a nation like the United States has good population growth and is already the third most populous nation in the world.

What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't comparing any country directly to the US? My point is a difference in cultures, what're you talknig about?

We have sufficent housing that costs appropriately.

Has nothing to do with what I said. The amount of money made a year which constitutes poverty in the US does not do the same in EU countries.

Rosh, don't be mean

Sander and CC. Stop bickering, it's obvious the two of you can't stand each other, so leave each other alone already.

 

[John Uskglass]

Tsss, hogwash...

The problem was not the pre-Blair Labour party, even tho' they bloated the wellfare state beyond belief. A bloated well-fare state in itself poses some problems, but not enormous ones. The biggest question is what to do with a wellfare state.

Either you let it slowly deflate, keeping the principles of the wellfare state as it is and not doing anything to ruin essential parts of it.

Or you go Thatcher, you tear the wellfare state to shreds and create a shithole of a country, with inneffective ghouls of the former services crawling around the wreckage, as the unemployed people try to eek out an existance in the way-too-larga villa-like ghost houses. But great, nothing of it all is Thatcher's fault.

I'm fairly closely related to her husband, so don't expect me to be to hostile of her. Then again, her reformation of the government from it's Sloggoth like all encompasing all-easting mess.

Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? But the Democratic Party is like a heavy right-wing party here in views and goals. The only reason you think of the Democrats are social democrats is because the only thing you have to compare them by is the conservative Republicans. To us, tho', both these parties are right wing parties.

The Democratic goal of equality and a strong wellfare state do not nearly resemble the goals of the left or centre parties of the EU, who're much stronger in this, generally.

That was before the Vietnam era, when they where both fairly right wing and both where baisically diffirent right wing parties.

However, times have changed, and while the Democratic party is closer to say the Torrie or the Blair Labour party, it's still the Leftist party here. And you seem to think of the Democratic party as the party of Southerners who try to be further to the right then the Republicans and not of the commies in San Dieago or Vermont.

Ok, so how does an uninsured person pay for the dentist? Or regular checkups? Non-lethal diseases or afflictions? Basically, how do the millions and millions of uninsured people in the US get non-vital health care.

Simiar to the way people on welfare get food-vouchers & stamps. Though some non-essential surguries are sometimes not had (for cleft pallets for instance).

What does that have to do with anything? I wasn't comparing any country directly to the US? My point is a difference in cultures, what're you talknig about?

The US is the most populated country on that list and one of the fastest growing. It's the only nation on there with any kind of signifigant population growth or a population above 100 million. I'd say thats fairly impressive.