If Europe is better than the U.S. explain this.

That doesn't factor in the facts that:

In general,

Americans are fat.
Americans IQ are lower than average.
Americans are obnoxious.
Americans possess very little taste.
Americans are nosey.
Americans are intolerant.
Americans are vile.
Americans are provincial.

Explanation: cherry-picking by using the irrelevant criterion "five most populous countries". But Europe isn't better than the U.S., because they play Communist Football.

http://tinyurl.com/yzmwe5a

Spoken like a true American!

According to you a higher GDP means a place is better. This is flawed logic. There are many things to consider, individual wealth is not the only indication of happiness.

And countries in Europe are continually ranked at the top when it comes to quality of life, far and above the United States.

New York is the only reason why I live in this annoying country.

But wonderbra, you live in the Bronx, which is the mainland, so you're all of those things. Fine, no problem. The problem is that you left off hundreds of similar "are" phrases to describe yourself.

New York City, that is.

I guess Quatar and Luxembourg are the best, since the per capita GDP is the highest. From the source of Minkew's stats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Americans work longer hours and take less vacation than Europeans. Higher GDP, lower quality of life. Seems simple to me.

According to you a higher GDP means a place is better. This is flawed logic. There are many things to consider, individual wealth is not the only indication of happiness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html

Ah, so the Europe is not an economic success.

"Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works."

According to the source data, either Luxembourg or Qatar are the best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

But note this chestnut: "PPP figures are estimates rather than hard facts, and should be used with caution."

Krugman says the Europe is an economic success. He doesn't say the Europe is THE economic success. He doesn't touch on "better", at least not in the quote you provided, and I'm too lazy to move my mouse to the link you provided.

alanhart, darling, Bronx?

My primary home is Manhattan, and have homes on Star Island (Miami..ok well, it's sold), Fisher Island, Sagaponack, Greenwich. In Europe - Paris and Villefranche.

Nice try though.

If Krugman was trying to refute the argument that: social democracy does not work because europe is not an economic success, I would say he is pretty successful and Mankiw's wikipedia reference backs only supports that argument. I don't see him making a qualitative judgment re which is better, that is the job of free market dogmatics who need a bogeyman.

"sag" is the only correct one, and it's not the casual local short-hand for anything

Envy.

Oh god, another anti-American... just make your move to London or Paris and be done with it. You can eat cheese and drink fine wine and talk with your fellow Europeans about what a shitty country the USA is. Just leave already, you'll be happier and so will we....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

"IQ and Wealth of Nations"

LOL. look at the United States pitiful placing. No surprise, really.

1OneWon, Are you being facetious or trying to prove wonderboy's assertion?

What quality of life would these European countries have if the U.S. military hadn't been protecting them all these decades? And who pays for that?

Many Europeans have a hard life. Some have a good life. Same can be said here. The United States still produces more Googles , Apples etc than Europe.

Thomas Friedman had a series on one of the smarty channels based on the world is flat and such.

The funniest part I saw was when he sat for dinner with 10-15 frenchies in their 20s. They railed on about how the US had no right to intervene in Iraq, because it is wrong to involve yourself in other countries' affairs, even if folks are being killed and such. And they were fairly righteous about it, in that obnoxious lefty way.

Thomas asked, "so we shouldn't have saved you from the Nazis?"

Silence. End scene.

And today Sarkozy is in charge of France and believes that the United States doesn't treat the terrorist threat seriously enough. More interesting was that Sarkozy had better a better relationship with George W and Barack O....but that doesn't fit the narrative

tell me again...this has what to do about nyc real estate?

Correction:
Sarkozy had better a better relationship with George W than Barack O..

The Europe has better political/sex scandals ... who among you wouldn't do these two: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/europe/10ulster.html?hp

Europe is great to visit but not many smart people would want to live there full time. Very little options like you have here. most of the smart people in Europe move here to work and go to school

ok. i have to give the sex scandal vote to Europe.

GDP per capita is not a real measure of quality of life: in Europe your salary is lower but you don't have to pay for health insurance, a basic retirement plan is included, your have more holidays and other bonuses. Europe is not better than the US, but many times you can have a good life without the need to make a lot of money...

And European companies move jobs out of Europe as a result If they need to stay in Europe they move to the lowest cost country.

jason10006,

Welcome back.

That's mr. W67 to you dumass.

Europe sucks cause they r really racist. Try to make it in their country within one generation, otherwise grt food, ppl and sights. Oh don't forget the no speed limit. Koooool.

I've found Americans to be far less provencial than Europeans. A big symptom of proventialism is the expectation that "smart" people must all think and act just like you do, and anyone who thinks differently must be a savage.
As for European "tolerance" - you have got to be kidding.

One important fact: the US defense budget basically pays for the defense of Western Europe. Now, a diehard lefty European say ten years ago might have said "big deal, we don't need you," but the advent of Putin, and the spector of serious terror risk has made that little delusion hard to maintain.

Culturally, the Europeans are in a kind of crisis and haven't figured out what to do about the muslim immigrants. They naturally want to be respectful and tolerant of other religions, but the extremists are taking advantage of that.

WWIII. Think Yugoslav Wars for all of Europe and the Middle East. Guess who will win... Europe. In this case, I say go Europe!

"GDP per capita is not a real measure of quality of life: in Europe your salary is lower but you don't have to pay for health insurance, a basic retirement plan is included, your have more holidays and other bonuses. Europe is not better than the US, but many times you can have a good life without the need to make a lot of money"

You are very confused about what GDP means. Your logic doesn't make any sense when applied to GDP.

Its not salary, its saying the country as a whole has more money to spend on what it wants, whether healthcare or cars or anything. Its not whather its paid in salary or not... its the ability of the country to "buy" what it wants, whether through government or personal consumption.

So, Europeans simply have less.

Also interesting that Europe is shifting right... becoming more and more like the US every day. Sounds like success to me!

And what is with this idea that Europe only has intelligent, educated, fit, tolerant people? Have you been to places in Europe other than the tourist areas? It has its share of dumb slobs just like every other place. Also, in general terms there is far more racism and anti-semitism in Europe than in the U.S.

Krugman is a devout socialist. His economic views are biased toward socialism. Let Europe have socialism; it would be very sad if the U.S. devolved into it.

http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge

Conservatives have correctly viewed the policy agenda of the left as an attempt to undo the economic reforms of the 1980s. They have ­therefore, as a rhetorical and political strategy, downplayed the problems of cohesion — problems like inequality, wage stagnation, worker displacement, and disparities in educational performance — to emphasize the importance of innovation and growth. Liberals, meanwhile, have correctly identified the problem of cohesion, but have generally proposed antediluvian solutions and downplayed the necessity of innovation in a competitive world. They have noted that America's economy in the immediate wake of World War II was in many ways simultaneously more regulated, more successful, and more equitable than today's economy, but mistakenly assume that by restoring greater regulation we could re-create both the equity and prosperity of that era.

Ronald Reagan's solution to the '70s crisis proceeded from two ­diagnoses. The first was that macroeconomic pump-priming was merely creating inflation, not growth. The second was that America's economy had large untapped potential for growth, but that this potential went ­unrealized because of the restrictions on markets intended to promote social harmony as part of the post-war economic consensus. These included everything from price controls to government encouragement of private-sector unionization to zealous anti-trust enforcement. ­Reagan's strategy, therefore, was to promote sound money plus ­deregulation. He succeeded, and America re-emerged as the acknowledged global economic leader. Economic output per person is now 20 to 25% higher in the U.S. than in Japan and the major European economies, and America's economy dominates the world in size and prestige.

But it is important to see that this robust growth means only that America has not lost ground in global economic competition, not that it has gained much. From 1980 through today, America's share of global output has been constant at about 21%. Europe's share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40% of global production in the 1970s to about 25% today. Opting for social democracy instead of innovative capitalism, Europe has ceded this share to China (predominantly), India, and the rest of the developing world. The economic rise of the Asian heartland is the central geopolitical fact of our era, and it is safe to assume that economic and strategic competition will only increase further over the next several decades.

We are between a rock and a hard place. If we reverse the market-based reforms that have allowed us to prosper, we will cede global economic share; but if we let inequality and its underlying causes grow unchecked, we will hollow out the middle class — threatening social cohesion, and eventually surrendering our international position ­anyway. This, and not some world-is-flat happy talk, is what the ­challenge of globalization means for America. But unfortunately, by a combination of carelessness and design, we appear now to be embracing a counterproductive response to this daunting dilemma.

Of course, the European model is not an inherently terrible way to organize human society. It is, however, a model very poorly suited to America's current strategic situation, and would leave us in a far worse position to deal with the challenge of balancing innovation and ­cohesion. We do not have the luxury of drowning our sorrows in borrowed money while watching our power and influence wane.

America's challenge is more serious than that: How do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy, while helping more Americans participate in it more fully?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A NEW APPROACH

It won't be easy. But along with taking steps to better balance America's government finances and reform our entitlement system, several ­preliminary ideas can help guide our thinking as we confront, at last, the reality of America's circumstances.

To begin with, we must unwind some recent errors that fail to take account of these circumstances. Most obviously, government ownership of industrial assets is almost a guarantee that the painful decisions required for international competitiveness will not be made. When it comes to the auto industry, for instance, we need to take the loss and move on. As soon as possible, the government should announce a structured program to sell off the equity it holds in GM. Similarly, the federal government should relinquish direct control of banks and insurance companies. Moreover, one virtue of the slow rollout of spending under the stimulus bill is that most of it can be stopped — and should be. Any programs that have been temporarily increased under the terms of the law should be forced back down to pre-stimulus levels, and attempts to make the increases permanent should be resisted in the absence of a sustainable fiscal regime. Avoiding economically extravagant cap-and-trade legislation and, to the extent possible, a government takeover of health insurance would also help us avoid unforced errors.

Second, the financial crisis has demonstrated obvious systemic problems of poor regulation and under-regulation of some aspects of the financial sector that must be addressed — though for at least a decade prior to the crisis, over-regulation, lawsuits, and aggressive government prosecution seriously damaged the competitiveness of other parts of America's financial system. Since 1995, the U.S. share of total equity capital raised in the world's top ten economies has declined from 41% to 28%. We do not want the systemic risks of under-regulation, but we should also be careful not to overcompensate for them.

Regulation to avoid systemic risk must therefore proceed from a clear understanding of its causes. In the recent crisis, the reason the government has been forced to prop up financial institutions isn't that they are too big to fail, but rather that they are too interconnected to fail. For example, a series of complex and unregulated financial obligations meant that the failure of Lehman Brothers — a mid-size investment bank — threatened to crash the entire U.S. banking system.

As we work to adapt our regulatory structure to fit the 21st century, we should therefore adopt a modernized version of a New Deal-era ­innovation: focus on creating walls that contain busts, rather than on applying brakes that hold back the entire system. Our reforms should establish "tiers" of financial activities of increasing risk, volatility, and complexity that are open to any investor — and somewhere within this ­framework, almost any non-coercive transaction should be legally ­permitted. The tiers should then be compartmentalized, however, so that a bust in a higher-risk tier doesn't propagate to lower-risk tiers. And while the government should provide guarantees such as deposit insurance in the low-risk tiers, it should unsparingly permit failure in the higher-risk tiers. Such reform would provide the benefits of better capital ­allocation, continued market ­innovation, and stability. It would address some of the problems of cohesion by allowing more Americans to participate in our market system without being as exposed — or unwittingly exposed — to the brutal effects of market ­collapses. It would also help get the government out of the banking business and preserve America's position as the global leader in financial services without turning our financial sector into a time bomb.

Third, over the coming decades, we should seek to deregulate public schools. It would be foolish to imagine that we can simply educate everyone in America to be globally competitive. In a nation where about 40% of births occur outside of wedlock, many children will be left behind. Nonetheless, schools remain one of our primary policy instruments for enhancing both social mobility and our competitive position. They are essential to the task of balancing innovation and cohesion. To function effectively, though, America's schools need to be improved ­dramatically. Our basic model of public schooling — ­accepting raw material in the form of five-year-olds, and then adding value through a series of processing steps to produce educated graduates 12 (or more) years later — reflects the vision of the old industrial economy. This worked well in an earlier era, but improvements that might have kept this model up to date have been stalled for decades. We now need a new vision for schools that looks a lot more like Silicon Valley than Detroit: ­decentralized, ­entrepreneurial, and flexible.

For a generation, many on the right have argued for school choice — especially through the use of vouchers — as the primary means of achieving this vision. Their approach, however, has been both too doctrinaire and too artificial. If school choice ever becomes more than ­tinker-toy demonstration projects, taxpayers will appropriately demand that a range of controls and requirements be imposed on the schools they are ultimately funding. At that point, what would be the difference between such "private" schools and "public" schools that were allowed greater ­flexibility in hiring, curriculum, and student acceptance, and had to compete for students in order to capture funding? Little beyond the label.

We should pursue the creation of a real marketplace among ever more deregulated publicly financed schools — a market in which funding follows students, and far broader discretion is permitted to those who actually teach and manage in our schools. There are real-world examples of such systems that work well today — both Sweden and the Netherlands, for instance, have implemented this kind of plan at the national level.

Fourth, we should reconceptualize immigration as recruiting. Assimilating immigrants is a demonstrated core capability of America's political economy — and it is one we should take advantage of. A robust-yet-reasonable amount of immigration is healthy for America. It is a continuing source of vitality — and, in combination with birth rates around the replacement level, creates a sustainable rate of overall ­population growth and age-demographic balance. But unfortunately, the manner in which we have actually handled immigration since the 1970s has yielded large-scale legal and illegal immigration of a low-skilled population from Latin America. It is hard to imagine a more damaging way to expose the fault lines of America's political economy: We have chosen a strategy that provides low-wage gardeners and nannies for the elite, low-cost home improvement and fresh produce for the middle class, and fierce wage competition for the working class.

Instead, we should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital. Once we have re-established control of our southern border, and as we preserve our commitment to political asylum, we should also set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent everywhere: from Mexico City to Beijing to Helsinki to Calcutta. Australia and Canada have demonstrated the practicality of skills-based immigration policies for many years. We should improve upon their example by using testing and other methods to apply a basic tenet of all human capital-intensive organizations managing for the long term: Always pick talent over skill. It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens.

Different priorities.

Europeans prize five week vacations, early retirements, greater income equality.

Americans accept two week vacations, long work hours in search of high incomes and more stuff. Also more of a meritocracy with much greater income differences.

Different strokes for different folks. Which lifestyle would you prefer?

Rabbit: [nodding head] Would you like *condensed milk*,
Rabbit: [shaking head] or *honey* on your bread?
Winnie the Pooh: Both

RS - I think when cut & pasting entire articles like you do, not only should the link be provided (which you did), but also the name of the author be written beneath the link.

Good read....

American rank 27th out of all 1st world nations in mortality rate, we pay twice as much for our health care and end up dying much sooner than those countries with "socialized" healthcare. They get a minimum of 5 weeks vacation, and dont worry about going bankrupt because of illness - over 60% of bankruptcies in America are due to health issues, of that 60% over 75% have health insurance.

America is falling behind fast but at least those Gays cant marry!

American rank 27th out of all 1st world nations in mortality rate,

Is this due to nationalized health care or
lack of exercise, smoking and not eating right?

Another dumb comment by petrfitz. Those mortality rate rankings are flawed. Different countries use different methodologies. Show your source.

This was an interesting part of the Manzi article. Maybe the wage gap is due to changing social norms and not failures of capitalism or deregulation:

Child-rearing has seen a similar split. In 1965, almost no mothers with any level of education reported that they had never been married. Today, this still holds true for mothers who have finished college: Only 3% have never been married. But that figure stands in stark contrast with the nearly 25% of mothers without high-school diplomas who say that they have never been married. In fact, last year, about 40% of all American births occurred out of wedlock. And about 70% of African-American children — as well as most Hispanic children — are born to unmarried ­mothers. But this situation obtains for low-wage, non-­college-­educated whites as well: It is estimated that about 70% of children born to non-Hispanic white women with no more than a high-school education and income below $20,000 per year were born out of wedlock.

The level of family disruption in America is enormous compared to almost every other country in the developed world. Of course, out-of-wedlock births are as common in many European countries as they are in the United States. But the estimated percentage of 15-year-olds living with both of their biological parents is far lower in the United States than in Western Europe, because unmarried European parents are much more likely to raise children together. It is hard to exaggerate the chaotic conditions under which something like a third of American children are being raised — or to overstate the negative impact this disorder has on their academic achievement, social skills, and character formation. There are certainly heroic exceptions, but the sad fact is that most of these children could not possibly compete with their foreign counterparts.

Dumbass conservative Bush lover LICC says " Different countries use different methodologies"

How about the methodology of age of death?????????? Europeans spend significantly less on health care and live longer than Americans.

... and when surveyed they're much more satisfied with their healthcare than we are. So objectively (including fiscally) and subjectively their system works much better than ours.

The Swiss like their system..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html

Yeah but you should note it's easier for a texas born american to become an iranian citizen than for anyone born anywhere other than switzerland to become a swiss citizen.

I'm all for global health coverage but we are putting the cart before the horse.
Adding more people to a broken system doesn't fix the system, it sinks the barely floating ship.

Our health care costs double because our lawsuits are three times the awards.
Of course expecting tort reform out of our lawyer lawmakers is a challenge to say the least.
Immigration policies will need to be addressed as well. The rate that Mexico exports it's poverty is a factor that can't be ignored.

The health care issue has not been properly described.
There are two issues covering more Americans and lower the cost of health care in this country. The firs point will be addressed, but Congress and the Administration are being disingenuous on the second. Nothing is addressing tort reform or is any thought being given to incentive's the insured to seek lower cost services.
I don't believe it's baseless speculation to assume the Democrats met behind closed doors and put out a bulletin saying it needs to be called health reform. After all who is ever against REFORM? REFORM is good. No?

"Our health care costs double because our lawsuits are three times the awards." <--- cite data source

I'm against tort reform, because it's a time-waster that doesn't address the problem. I also have no interest in a baby-with-the-bathwater solution, and lives are indeed ruined by harmful and negligent treatment. It's the truth; it's actual.

That was weird. I'll try again.

"Our health care costs double because our lawsuits are three times the awards." <-- cite source, otherwise it's untrue that our health costs DOUBLE because of anything related to lawsuits.

I'm fully opposed to baby-with-the-bathwater "solutions" to tort issues. Lives are indeed ruined by negligent healthcare. It's a fact; it's actual

Later.

"Our health care costs double because our lawsuits are three times the awards." ... cite source. Otherwise we can establish it as fact that our health costs do not DOUBLE as a result of anything having to do with lawsuits.

I'm opposed to baby-with-the-bathwater "tort reform". Lives are indeed ended prematurely or simply ruined by negligent treatment. It's the truth; it's actual.

Better be middle class in Western Europe imho.

Average is different from Median...

Alanhart, I had no source but it doesn't take much to figure out malpractice in this country is a major factor to the cosrt of healthcare.

You would think there is a site to google # of lawsuits in healthcare statistics but I couldn't find one. And that would not include "settlements," the backbone of our great nation.

Found this Reuter's blog article that claims malpractice insurance can range from 20K per year to 200K and malpractice litigation costs 30 BILLION a year.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/08/06/reduce-the-high-cost-of-medical-malpractice/
Does Europe have these numbers?

Here's an article on average salaries. AVERAGE 200-300K.
http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2008/07/2008-md-salary-survey-by-mh-pulmonology.html

I make no argument that malpractice is to be ignored or unpunished.

If you can find better statistical sources on the subject I'm all eyes.

And I am a big fan of your posts,more than you know, but your if no P then no Q Modus Tollens logic doesn't hold bathwater.
I know you have better.

"Europeans prize five week vacations, early retirements, greater income equality.

Americans accept two week vacations, long work hours in search of high incomes and more stuff. Also more of a meritocracy with much greater income differences.

Different strokes for different folks. Which lifestyle would you prefer?"

*****

Last time I checked, when Americans get hired for a job, they're not given these "choices".

Nobody has comments on immigration effects on healthcare?

We have 5 times as many granted citizenships than any other european country.
Yes I have a source for that.
So our base of receivers is outpacing every european country and increasing exponentially each year forward!

Immigration Statistics > New citizenships (most recent) by country

Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 898 thousand
# 2 Canada: 214.6 thousand
# 3 Germany: 186.7 thousand
# 4 France: 150 thousand
# 5 United Kingdom: 82.2 thousand
# 6 Australia: 70.8 thousand
# 7 Belgium: 62.1 thousand
# 8 Netherlands: 50 thousand
# 9 Sweden: 43.5 thousand
# 10 Switzerland: 28.7 thousand
# 11 Austria: 24.6 thousand
# 12 Denmark: 18.8 thousand
# 13 Japan: 15 thousand
# 14 Spain: 12 thousand
# 15 Italy: 11.6 thousand
# 16 Norway: 9.5 thousand
# 17 Hungary: 7.5 thousand
# 18 Finland: 3 thousand
# 19 Portugal: 0.7 thousand
# 20 Luxembourg: 0.6 thousand

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit-immigration-new-citizenships

Our country worries a little too much about what Europeans think. When they practice what they preach, I may listen.

@truthskr10 It's true, but the numbers are misleading. If you calculate immigration/population ratio, Canada is the winner. While US is very similar to European countries.

Good point. I wonder what "immigration/arable land" yields.

truthskr10, thank you for the compliment. I'm just a little weary of oft-quoted "established truths". It's the oft-quoted that makes me want to see factual evidence. I'm much more willing to accept that data hasn't been compiled, analyzed, published, and critiqued for obscure factual claims. Sorry if I sounded too this or that.

darkbird
Yes, that's true you mean per capita. Also keep in mind this is legal citizenship stats from 2004.

BTW nationmaster is a great source of stats for what they actually do provide stats for. It seems though a lot of their statistics don't go past 2004 maybe 2006 for some reason.

And for those arguing about who lives longer where..France, the best european country at 80.87 years has less than 3 years on the US at 78.14

It's too big a list to cut and paste
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop-life-expectancy-birth-total-population

Ultimately there have to be a lot of reasons why we spend a higher percentage of our GDP (which is more than double than any other country) on our healthcare.

Adding more to a broken system is going full retard.

It would be nice if Europeans spent a little more of their GDP on toothpaste, deodorant (at the very least, the natural kind), and razors.

just sayin'.

alanhart
I get the same way, and truth be told, the more I look for stats and can't find them,the more I want to know what every party in this mess is actually hiding.

On the compliment
Please, your wit is greatly appreciated and under posted.

The above chart PER CAPITA

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita

Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Canada: 6.54169 thousand per 1 million p
# 2 Belgium: 5.9919 thousand per 1 million p
# 3 Sweden: 4.83226 thousand per 1 million p
# 4 Switzerland: 3.83229 thousand per 1 million p
# 5 Australia: 3.52414 thousand per 1 million p
# 6 Denmark: 3.46097 thousand per 1 million p
# 7 Netherlands: 3.04748 thousand per 1 million p
# 8 United States: 3.03651 thousand per 1 million p
# 9 Austria: 3.0055 thousand per 1 million p
# 10 France: 2.47296 thousand per 1 million p
# 11 Germany: 2.26492 thousand per 1 million p
# 12 Norway: 2.06836 thousand per 1 million p
# 13 United Kingdom: 1.36 thousand per 1 million p
# 14 Luxembourg: 1.28049 thousand per 1 million p
# 15 Hungary: 0.749475 thousand per 1 million p
# 16 Finland: 0.574383 thousand per 1 million p
# 17 Spain: 0.297464 thousand per 1 million p
# 18 Italy: 0.199645 thousand per 1 million p
# 19 Japan: 0.117724 thousand per 1 million p
# 20 Portugal: 0.0662502 thousand per 1 million p
Weighted average: 2.4 thousand per 1 million p

Yes jason the point was made.
Which then goes on the next question. As per capita is measured against total population, what affects are emigration on these per capita figures.
I know many canadians that gave up citizenship for an american one, don't know anyone that did the reverse.

And I warn you all that site can get addicting.
We are without a doubt, the fattest yet we live only 3 years less then the french.
(there are many way to twist stats to make them look ugly or pretty)

Health Statistics > Obesity (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Map Correlations

Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 30.6%
# 2 Mexico: 24.2%
# 3 United Kingdom: 23%
# 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
# 5 Greece: 21.9%
# 6 Australia: 21.7%
# 7 New Zealand: 20.9%
# 8 Hungary: 18.8%
# 9 Luxembourg: 18.4%
# 10 Czech Republic: 14.8%
# 11 Canada: 14.3%
# 12 Spain: 13.1%
# 13 Ireland: 13%
# 14 Germany: 12.9%
= 15 Portugal: 12.8%
= 15 Finland: 12.8%
# 17 Iceland: 12.4%
# 18 Turkey: 12%
# 19 Belgium: 11.7%
# 20 Netherlands: 10%
# 21 Sweden: 9.7%
# 22 Denmark: 9.5%
# 23 France: 9.4%
# 24 Austria: 9.1%
# 25 Italy: 8.5%
# 26 Norway: 8.3%
# 27 Switzerland: 7.7%
= 28 Japan: 3.2%
= 28 Korea, South: 3.2%

Ok I think I found where all our extra "healthcare" is from;

Health Statistics > Plastic surgery procedures (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Pie Chart Map Correlations

Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 90,992
# 2 Mexico: 52,956
# 3 Brazil: 47,957
# 4 Japan: 42,842
# 5 Spain: 40,164
# 6 Germany: 23,140
# 7 France: 21,170
# 8 Argentina: 17,698
# 9 Switzerland: 16,073
# 10 Italy: 14,784
# 11 Australia: 13,305
# 12 South Africa: 11,140
# 13 Canada: 11,102
# 14 Taiwan: 10,048
# 15 Korea, South: 9,560
# 16 Greece: 8,300
# 17 Ecuador: 5,979
# 18 Hong Kong: 5,096
# 19 Turkey: 4,865
# 20 United Kingdom: 4,668
# 21 Sweden: 4,326
# 22 Lebanon: 3,270
# 23 Colombia: 2,772
# 24 Finland: 2,277
# 25 India: 2,259
# 26 Jordan: 1,620
# 27 Norway: 1,611
# 28 Cyprus: 1,449
# 29 Russia: 1,200
# 30 Singapore: 1,092
# 31 Slovenia: 1,052
# 32 United Arab Emirates: 783
# 33 Saudi Arabia: 550
# 34 Romania: 239

And that's it, my posting frequency is getting obnoxious.

I had heard that Norway has an absolute lockdown when it comes to immigration, so as to protect its social services system ... apparently not.

And as for the last graph, I know Mexico is an upper-middle-income nation, but I'm surprised so much work was done. I wonder if that includes procedures by surgical tourists.

I had heard that Norway has an absolute lockdown when it comes to immigration, so as to protect its social services system ... apparently not.

And as for the last graph, I know Mexico is an upper-middle-income nation, but I'm surprised so much work was done. I wonder if that includes procedures by surgical tourists.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/conservative-accidentally-makes-the-case-social-democracy

"Europeans live longer than Americans."

No, it just seems longer.

"I had heard that Norway has an absolute lockdown when it comes to immigration, so as to protect its social services system ... apparently not."

Are you sure immigrants get the social services?

we're pretty bad about spending money on services for illegal immigrants, for instance...

"The above chart PER CAPITA

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita"

Bad stat to look at. It includes citizenships. Damn europeans make it easy to get citizenships from other EU countries.

Should look at actual immigration... including illegal.

Americans spend a lot of $$$ on services for illegal immigrants. You can't just leave them out.

"we're pretty bad about spending money on services for illegal immigrants, for instance..."

Define "pretty bad".

We give them free public education, and free medical care if they show up at any of our hospitals.

We also provide them with free police and fire services, as well as free refuse services.

Am I missing something here? What more could we be doing?

alanhart
Good point and I would guess yes(surgical tourists) as Brazil is #3.

jason
lol,nice find for a counter to riversider's last article post.

somewhereelse
"Damn europeans make it easy to get citizenships from other EU countries."
yep

And we didn't even touch dual citizenship.

dual citizenship is great, emigrate twice!

> Am I missing something here? What more could we be doing?

We could be doing less.... what's bad is we spend money on them instead of our own citizens.....and incent more to come...

"Thomas asked, "so we shouldn't have saved you from the Nazis?"
Silence. End scene."

None of them were smart enough to realize that it's not a very good analogy. Germans invaded France. Iraqis invaded Kuwait the first time around, but the second? Not so much. They also failed to remember how the French saved us from the Brits. Nice job by Friedman to use silence as an "answer," but there clearly was one to be made.

"It would be nice if Europeans spent a little more of their GDP on toothpaste, deodorant (at the very least, the natural kind), and razors. just sayin'."

--

And it would be even nicer if Americans spend less time at McDonalds and more time on working on their fat asses on treadmill.

You think all Americans eat at McDonalds?

"And it would be even nicer if Americans spend less time at McDonalds and more time on working on their fat asses on treadmill."

And how many McDonalds' are there in Europe?

Actually thought those Mcdonald's were for tourists. No Ammonia burgers for me.

"No Ammonia burgers for me."

None for me, either. I haven't even been inside a McDonald's in 15 years.

> You think all Americans eat at McDonalds?

Sad part is, according to supersize me, fast food nation, and just the overall stats.... a HUGE chunk of Americans eat there regularly.

Maybe less in NYC, but a HUGE amount of high school kids go there almost daily.... I remember well from when I was in school, the kinds I took the train with in the am all had breakfast from there near daily, and now, post school hours, I always see the same groups of kids hanging out for hours at the mcDs near me.

Rice and beans is healthier.. and cheaper.

"None for me, either. I haven't even been inside a McDonald's in 15 years. " ... but it's the only place you can get coffee on the mainland. Do you just go into withdrawal? Or stay off the mainland?

Moreover, I bet most of the most diehard McDonald's eaters haven't even been inside a McDonald's in 15 years: the drive-through! Yes, it's true ... they don't even get out of their cars.

bjw - you don't think Saddam would have restarted his WMD program and started more major problems once the UN pressure was off, which would have happened in fairly short order.

SO tired of people (boywonder or whatever) assuming that Americans are:

wonderboy
1 day ago
ignore this person
report abuse That doesn't factor in the facts that:

In general,

Americans are fat.
Americans IQ are lower than average.
Americans are obnoxious.
Americans possess very little taste.
Americans are nosey.
Americans are intolerant.
Americans are vile.
Americans are provincial.

East71 to boywonder - if you don't like it, please leave. If Americans are so awful, why does everyone want to come here? Why are you here?

I love the US, and I love the Midwest - it's almost a replication of Northern Europe (genetic wise) and I don't care what people say - the girls are hot. I love the Northwest and West. The South gets a little getting used to but there are pockets that are just fine. "Fly over states" - rolls eyes....

LICC, it's fairly easy to just sit there and speculate, but the fact is, neither you nor I have any idea what would have happened. That's the difference.

"None of them were smart enough to realize that it's not a very good analogy. Germans invaded France. Iraqis invaded Kuwait the first time around, but the second? Not so much."

The U.S. didn't intervene in Europe when the Nazis attacked Poland or France or even the USSR. It was only after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and we responded by attacking the French in North Africa.

bjw, after Saddam was captured he very openly talked. These weren't under enhanced interrogations or anything like that. He directly stated that he did not believe the U.S. was going to attack under any circumstances, and that once the pressure was off he was going to restart his WMD program. He had everything in place to easily restart it. He said that he never admitted that he got rid of his WMDs before the war so he wouldn't appear weak to Iran. These are Saddam's own admissions, so they go beyond mere speculation. You are on shaky ground trying to defend Saddam by saying that, well he wasn't AS BAD as Hitler.

1. no one is defending saddam
2. comparisons with hitler are straw man arguments
3. no evidence that un pressure would have abated; actually, a lot of reason to think it would have been successful

4. we could have completely rebuilt domestic infrastructure for cost of iraq war and have been left with change
5. could have capitalized on world sympathy reaction in ways that can now only be dreamed of