Thread in which the world laughs at America

[giblets]

We're still richer than you are (per capita!), so we're evidently doing something right.

A 2% difference in GDP per capita between the US and Canada is not very meaningful.

[MikeH]

Well hold on, then why are we redistributing to give healthcare to rich people when poor people in the world don't even have food?

Our global system of having different sovereign countries makes the latter difficult... but it's certainly a worthy goal and you are quite right that we should do more towards that.

[Asher]

Barack Obama

Is this a joke?

[Asher]

A 2% difference in GDP per capita between the US and Canada is not very meaningful.

And the difference is largely explained by lower labour productivity (eg, we don't work as much).

On income per capita:

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/economy/income-per-capita.aspx#Lower_usa

Lower labour productivity accounts for the largest component of the income gap between Canada and the United States. To get an idea of the role each component of income per capita (shown in the equation in the section above) played in the 2008 Canada–U.S. income gap, we used the equation to calculate income per capita by keeping four of the components the same and substituting the U.S. data for the final component into the equation. Note that the individual gaps generated using this methodology will not necessarily match the overall Canada–U.S. income gap shown in the first chart.

The results for Canada are described below and shown in the chart for each country.

If Canada’s level of labour productivity had increased to the U.S. level but the other four factors had stayed the same, Canada’s income per capita would have been $8,000 higher.
If Canada’s hours worked had increased to the U.S. level but the other four factors had stayed the same, Canada’s income per capita would have been $1,000 higher.
If Canada’s ratio of employment to its labour force had decreased to the U.S. level but the other four factors had stayed the same, Canada’s income per capita would have been $60 lower.
If Canada’s labour force participation rate had decreased to the U.S. level but the other four factors had stayed the same, Canada’s income per capita would have been $1,000 lower.
If Canada’s share of working age people had decreased to the U.S. level but the other four factors had stayed the same, Canada’s income per capita would have been $1,200 lower.

So, in Canada’s case, lower labour productivity and fewer hours worked caused Canada’s income per capita to be lower than that of the United States. What helped to narrow the gap? Canada’s higher ratio of employment to its labour force, higher labour force participation rate, and higher proportion of working age people all helped to push Canada’s income per capita up relative to that of the United States.

In 2007, a Statistics Canada study raised questions about the reliability of the measures commonly used to compare Canadian and U.S. income per capita.1 It noted shortcomings in the data on coverage, concept, and accuracy of hours of work. Even with adjustments to account for these shortcomings, however, productivity still contributes to a significant portion of the gap in income per capita with the United States. The Conference Board’s longstanding message has not changed: Improving productivity should be a policy priority in Canada—it is the only sustainable way to narrow the Canada–U.S. income gap.

[Hauldren Collider]

WTF?! He's nowhere near as bad as W was for debt.

You could not possibly be more wrong.

[giblets]

WTF?! He's nowhere near as bad as W was for debt.

Yep, that's pretty obvious:

[Asher]

You could not possibly be more wrong.

HC, you are either willfully ignorant or completely delusional...

[MikeH]

Or he's angling for a job at Fox News

[MikeH]

Where did my W debt link go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

[MikeH]

Funny how post Eisenhower the alleged big spending Democrats (Obama aside) tend to reduce the deficit after the Republicans have raised it.

[MikeH]

W Raised the deficit more than Reagan!?!!

As if it was possible to be economically worse than Reagan.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

He matched Reagan in a single term

the other stat on number of jobs created is also interesting, W had barely kept the number of jobs the same over the two terms... the worst performance since Hoover. The man is a legend.

[Asher]

But still clowns like HC blame Obama.

[Tupac Shakur]

WTF?! He's nowhere near as bad as W was for debt.

This actually isn't true.

[Zevico]

What kind of idiot thinks "right" or "wrong" in a debate about human life can be settled without touching on morality?

Human life is affected by every decision, sometimes we cannot even begin to comprehend when the decision is made. The free market system, after all, affects human life, and so does the system whereby human activity is controlled completely by government.
In the abstract, by merely articulating that the government should do X or Y, we cannot know which is preferable. Experience and history teach us democracy succeeds where the other forms of government fail. Democracy is the best form of government, simply put, because it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. That is why it is preferable. So it is with the issue of health care: experience and evidence, not braying about morality, should inform our decisions.