On 06/01/2009, at 9:41 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. > > > Even GDP per capita? Even after figuring in purchasing power > parity? Is > your arguement that per person income is not a good financial > measure of > the wealth of a country?
How that wealth is distributed is important too. If 10% of a nation is living in poverty and 15% don't have health cover, there's something wrong. > >> And on all those measures, the USA is not doing well compared to >> other > developed >> nations. > > Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree > ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US. US, 6.5% unemployed. Oz, 5%. The US may be up in the top echelon in many measures, but it's no longer top of most of the ones it was top of. > Health is a > very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the > fact that > the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries > then > piggy back on), As are Aus, Japan, Germany, the UK etc. Both the discovery of _Helicobacter pylori_ and the development of the HPV vaccine were Australian. > as is poverty. Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on > either topic, but the realities are very complex. Of course they are. That's my entire point in saying GDP alone is a poor measure. I'm not interested in a "fruitful discussion" on those issues, 'cause I'm sick in bed ironically, I just wanted to make the point that the USA makes some tragic problems for its own citizens, and saying "We're number one!" through GDP masks a lot of the real picture. Don't think this is just US-bashing, when it's relevant I'm just as scathing of the Australian government, and the UK, Cyprus, etc etc. Anywhere I've spent some time. Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
