Paul Ryan Poll

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah, you were wrong so you'd like to redefine the rules?

Not what I said. Note that even with those numbers, I'm still basically right. Look at the UK. Look at Italy. Way below the US.

[dannubis]

Jaguar

As much as Jon Miller insists that we go to Sweden and see for ourselves, the fact remains that Europe is simply poorer than the United States, top to bottom, and I'd gladly have our much greater "inequality" than their standard of living.

And HC shows again he grew up in a very well protected coccoon. You know nothing of the world... No-thing. Zip. Nada.

[giblets]

Norway cheated by having more natural resources per capita.

[Jaguar]

Makes sense- people don't "consume" government services and the distribution of income doesn't matter. Wait a minute, those things aren't true. As far as I can tell "household final consumption expenditure" includes private spending on health care but not public spending. Why anyone would think such a measure is a good way to compare the standard of living between countries is beyond me.

Even in the most expansive of European welfare states, the in-kind government services consumed amount to only a few thousand dollars, about 20% of total consumption. 1 It would be relevant if the US advantage over Belgium was, say, a 5% advantage, instead of a 2:1 domination.

[Hauldren Collider]

Norway cheated by having more natural resources per capita.

Considering how much of its economy is just resource extraction, this might be a fair disqualification.

[Jon Miller]

Even in the most expansive of European welfare states, the in-kind government services consumed amount to only a few thousand dollars, about 20% of total consumption. 1 It would be relevant if the US advantage over Belgium was, say, a 5% advantage, instead of a 2:1 domination.

Except for the fact that things like health care (which the US pays a lot on), europe provides for 1/6 (or less) the cost.

And yes, that is almost entirely US being inefficient.

I would argue that the US is less efficient in education too.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

And HC shows again he grew up in a very well protected coccoon. You know nothing of the world... No-thing. Zip. Nada.

I'm sorry, exactly what in this sentence refutes what I'm saying? Fact: Belgium is poorer than the US. Fact: Italy is poorer than the US. Fact: Even the United Kingdom is poorer than the US.

[kentonio]

I'm sorry, exactly what in this sentence refutes what I'm saying? Fact: Belgium is poorer than the US. Fact: Italy is poorer than the US. Fact: Even the United Kingdom is poorer than the US.

I'd agree that your country is richer, but I'd argue that your people are poorer. In numerous ways.

[Jaguar]

Except for the fact that things like health care (which the US pays a lot on), europe provides for 1/6 (or less) the cost.

And yes, that is almost entirely US being inefficient.

I would argue that the US is less efficient in education too.

JM

That's the US being richer. Take this drug, the one used in Libya - Libya! - to treat the Lockerbie bomber. UK residents don't have access to the technology that literal mass-murderers of UK residents enjoy in unstable third world states.

The US, of course, has been happily providing the drug for over a year, the moment it was approved as effective.

[Jaguar]

Oh, and needless to say, I call derp on "1/6."

I'll pull a Mitt Romney and personally send you a check for $10,000 (which, as an American with a job, I can afford) if you can show that to be anywhere close to true for any reasonable Western European country.

[kentonio]

That's the US being richer. Take this drug, the one used in Libya - Libya! - to treat the Lockerbie bomber. UK residents don't have access to the technology that literal mass-murderers of UK residents enjoy in unstable third world states.

The US, of course, has been happily providing the drug for over a year, the moment it was approved as effective.

Aw bless, another American who doesn't understand how the UK works. UK residents can access that drug via private healthcare any time they like if they have the money. Sound familiar?

Oh and did I mention that the UK government set up a special fund to cover treatments like Abiraterone for NHS patients not currently covered by NICE?

[giblets]

Even in the most expansive of European welfare states, the in-kind government services consumed amount to only a few thousand dollars, about 20% of total consumption. 1 It would be relevant if the US advantage over Belgium was, say, a 5% advantage, instead of a 2:1 domination.

It would be truly remarkable if the Scandinavian states managed to tax half of the GDP yet only provide about 20% of total consumption in government services. Something seems wrong here.

[dannubis]

I'm sorry, exactly what in this sentence refutes what I'm saying? Fact: Belgium is poorer than the US. Fact: Italy is poorer than the US. Fact: Even the United Kingdom is poorer than the US.

Have you actually been here ? Or in Italy ?

Are you taking into account income distribution ? - Obviously not since you think it is normal that everybody has 7 bathrooms.

[Jaguar]

It would be truly remarkable if the Scandinavian states managed to tax half of the GDP yet only provide about 20% of total consumption in government services. Something seems wrong here.

There are things called transfer payments that explain the discrepancy you're looking for. Recipients of transfer payments get to spend them normally and include those in their personal consumption expenditures.

[giblets]

Considering how much of its economy is just resource extraction, this might be a fair disqualification.

Simply having more land per capita is a big advantage if we're adjusting income for cost of living.