On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 00:49 -0700, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> I notice that a lot of these numbers are "socialist" or "collectivist"
> statistics. (Not all, but most.)
I noticed that as well.
> For instance, on a libertarian list, it
> should be a "good thing" that the National Science Foundation has had its
> funds cut. WHO is a notoriously socialist organization that measures things
> by socialist standards ("fairness of healthcare"???!!!).
Yeah anytime someone lists "fairness" in statistics it's suspect
regardless of outcome.
> Yes, I'll bet they
> claim Cuba has better health care in certain respects (one of the recent
> ones was infant mortality--until some blogger started looking into the
> details and discovered things like that US preemies that died were included
> and Cuban preemies weren't.) For some more, related info, see:
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/032105B.html.
He's one of the better ones there. This one is also related:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/0202051.html
>
> As for the jobs/companies situation, why is company size a measure of
> success? Also, the author talks about how many jobs were "lost" as if none
> were gained. Fact is that except for the Clinton bubble, we currently have
> an unemployment rate that is on the low side--and MUCH, MUCH lower than most
> European countries (9-10% unemployment in France and Germany vs. 5.2-5.4%,
> here). And our long-term unemployment is lower than nearly ALL European and
> developed countries. And our per-capita income is nearly half again as
> large as the EU and Japan.
Yup these tend to get left out of rants like this. Any statistic that is
non-comparative -- that the author never even attempts to make
comparative -- is pointless in such a rant. In my experience they say
things like "one in five unemployed are unemployed longer than 6 months"
and then fail to compare that to elsewhere to avoid the fact that
elsewhere it's worse. Then there is how it is expressed. Consider the
change:
"80% of involuntarily unemployed persons find a job within six months".
When lamenting the US situation w/o regard to other countries, consider
the following :
Since 1970:
* 2/3rds of all households own their own home, up 4 points
* % of homes w/o complete plumbing went from 6.9 to 0.6
* % of homes w/o a refrigerator went from 17 to .1
* % of homes w/o vehicle went from 20.4 to 10.3
* % of homes w/o telephone went from 13 to 2.4
* % of homes w/o a stove went from 13 to .3
* % of homes w/o a color TV went from 66 to 1.1
Personally, I like to view economic progress with a significant nod at
what increases the poor get over time. For example, in 1970 26 percent
of ALL households had a dishwasher. The percentage of tie spend
acquiring necessities has significantly been reduced.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/071504B.html
Now, to compare (not found in the above link) to Europe.
Percentage of households owning a <item> in <country>:
Washer:
USA: 90
European rough average: upper eighties
Dryer:
Possibly the most lopsided in the list. More than double for the highest
country in Europe: 82 vs. 39. Most are under/around 25% in Europe.
Personal Computer:
We pretty much have 2-5 times as much as Europe here
TVs:
pretty comparable in the upper 90's on a per household with one basis.
However, on TV/1000 people we're about 70% higher (nearly double).
USA: 776
France: 579
VCRs:
We've about 1.5-4 times as high.
Phones are the only two categories we aren't "number 1" or tied for it
in (TVs percentage we tie w/4 other countries at 98%). However, oly
Sweden barely edges us out in phones/100 (68 to 63). Most are ~20 points
lower. This explains cell phones per 1000 being quite the reverse. The
US weighs in around 12.4 cell phones/1000 people. Just under half the
lowest European country. The top honors there goes to Sweden at 229.9
per 1000.
Our recent recession's growth rates (remember: despite the name, the
recession represented a slowdown in the rate of growth, not a negative
rate growth) would represent a big boom in the European economies.
France, Italy, Germany. These "big movers" in European economies have a
lower GDP than all but five US states.
If you had to be poor, which country would you have more and higher
quality in? In nearly each case of comparison between the US and Europe,
the answer is the US.
Looking at the stats, the poor in the US are better off than the average
European. For example, 25% of the US poor households have a computer.
Only two countries in Europe beat this with an ALL households
percentage.
GDP is left out of socialist claims that Europe is kicking our butts
because there is practically no disagreement as to it's
collection/determination. In other words, very little fudge factor; and
of the fudge factor, very little that escapes observation.
If you assume the U.S. had ZERO growth in GDP between 2000 and 2005, and
assume European countries continued their historical growth patterns (a
patently absurd assumption[1]) most European countries would still be in
the 25% LESS than US GDP/C. Only Ireland matches this absurd assumption.
If recent U.S. Growth patterns maintain for 2005, the difference between
most of Europe and the US GDP/C moves from about 32% to about 39%. That
is a staggering difference. And further, GDP/C is rarely a short term
change. Nearly all changes to the positive are the result of *years* of
changes. Thin about it. In the absurd assumption of a standstill U.S.
GDP growth rate and a continued growth rate in Europe, they still can't
catch us in five years. If you were to somehow freeze the US at 2000
levels, it'd take most European countries 15 years of continued "growth"
to catch us.
Fifteen years of catchup against a standstill US economy.
We got here by being the proverbial turtle. US growth is a result of
continued higher annual growth, not spurts and rests.
Alabama and Idaho have a higher GDP/C than the EU15, France, Germany,
Italy, and the UK by around 10 points. Think about that one. Only
Arkansas Montana, West Virginia, and Mississippi come in under the EU15
-- and only by the barest of margins (1-2 points).
But let us leave GDP alone for a bit. at least directly. How about
consumption/C? Well to paraphrase a parody: "Yes, it's true that we
kickass!".
The highest private consumption per capita in Europe is Luxembourg.
American consumption bests it by 29%. Comparing to the EU-15, the
difference is 77% - US per-capital private consumption is nearly double
that of the EU-15.
How about living space? Certainly our poor households fare better here
as well compared to European households. Poor US households have over 40
square/feet per occupant more than the European average. US average 9all
households) are close to double (721.2 vs. 395.7 sq ft).
Tax burden as a percentage of GDP? Do we really need to go there? Sure,
why not?! The EU15 have a tax burden as a percentage of GDP of over 40.
The US is ~38; a difference of no less than 12 points. Not a single
European country has a lower tax burden relative to GDP than the US.
Period. Despite the UK actually decreasing it's tax burden between 1970
and 1999.
On tax burden growth in percent between 1970 and 1999:
US: +1.5
EU-15: +8-9
Some countries in Europe approaching 20% increases.
Then there is the "inverted tax wedge"; or what percent of the amount
paid for service to a service vendor makes it into the vendor's wallet.
In the US it's about 48. Switzerland is next up w/about 39. Nine
European countries are less than 25%, seven less than 20%.
> I notice that most of the info seems to come
> from Jeremy Rifkin--a perennial socialist/environmentalist/lunatic gadfly
> whose predictions can generally be counted on to be wrong.
Not suprised. Why is the socialist weeping over these numbers? Some are
better than Europe's best, and we aren't socialist enough for him/her.
>
> As for all the complaints about the education system, some of it is accurate
> and, my understanding is that some of it is a result of "gaming" the
> testing--comparing kids from a normal US school to those from a "special" or
> "advanced" school in the other countries. And it's pretty tough to have a
> "literate" population when 11% of your people are foreign born and from a
> third world country ("developed" or not) while you are comparing yourself to
> countries that have between 5 and 6% of their population foreign born.
A good point.
> No question the US has problems. But I wouldn't trade them for the problems
> of any other country.
To me what is truly sad isn't the "statistics" used, but that so many
people - particularly on this list and others like it- simply ACCEPT
such articles on faith. Faith that it is so bad here, that things are
getting so much worse, and so on. They would rather lament how bad it
is than look to see how bad it isn't. "The grass is greener, yes sirree
Bob! No wait, don't look. Trust me.".
I think not.
1: Absurd because it's impossible. The European economy can not grow
while a U.S. economy fails to grow.
Cheers,
Bill
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[email protected]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
