Don’t Europeans know they should have faith in the benevolence of corporations?
Befor you read this “sadly no!” post which I’ll just cut and paste – read an Al Mascitti rebuke of David Andersen in the comments of this FSP post. Oh what the hell…I’ll cut to the chase.
Andersen says (among other things) our standard of living is rising, John Edwards is bad and corporations are good.
Mascitti says (among other things):
Your understanding of how corporations operate would be charmingly naive if it weren’t so dangerous.
So true… now then…
That European Socialism Is So Horrible
Posted at 3:15 by Jillian
It’s such a shame that EU countries can’t enjoy the same standard of living that we do here in….what’s that?UK standard of living rises above that in America for the first time in a century
For the first time in more than 100 years, British living standards have risen above those of Americans, a report has declared.
Increasing incomes, longer holidays and “free” healthcare have all contributed to making Britons better off than our friends across the Atlantic, according to the respected Oxford Economics consultancy.
Oh.
Keep telling us how great this economy is doing under Republican administration, guys. And tell us again about how that evil socialized medicine is going to ruin our country.
I’m looking for the joke here, but I’m just not finding teh funny this time. Maybe some of you guys can find it for me.
Jason
Unfortunately, the post (once you click through to the original story) is hardly unambiguous.
Two important caveats: the report admits that the results are “partly due to the current strength of the pound against the dollar” which is, to say, a variable of international currency exchange.
The report also cautions that “the average Briton does not actually feel more wealthy than his or her American counterpart. Goods and services are cheaper in the U.S., meaning that even if they are earning less, they can afford to buy more.”
The chief items upon which the Oxford Consultancy group rated Britain higher were holidays, vacation, and–yes–socialized health care.
So it doesn’t vitiate your point, but I sure don’t see it as the slam dunk you do.
I lived in the UK for a year and I know first hand that they have a better standard of living. The beer alone plays a part, but not being required to own a car is HUGE!
Last I checked, Jason, nobody in America was required to own a car, and in places like Manhattan, where it makes no sense, many people don’t.
Point being: owning no car, a new car, or two cars is a personal economic choice. In Great Britain it is simply economically unfeasible for many people to own vehicles. That’s not an indication of economic wealth.
I’d argue that a personal experience, while valuable, can’t substitute for actual data, and that the very automobile issue you cite is an indication of why such comparisons are not simple. (And yes, I’ve live abroad in Europe as well, and spent considerable time in GB; I came away with a much different conclusion.)
There is no way, in a nation as large as ours, to have a mass transit system as ubiquitous as that of Great Britain. Among other things, the attempt to do so would bankrupt even our economy. Amtrak requires major government subsidies and still does not pull in anything near break-even revenues.
Again, I would argue that you are over-simplifying a very complex comparison to score a hit against the Bush administration and corporations.
Your criticisms of both have merit, but even the comments by British readers on the post you cited almost unanimously indicated that they did not agree with it.
My use of “required” speaks to de facto reality of life in 99% of the country not served by a metro public transit system . Not the laws currently on the books.
Amtrak requires major government subsidies and still does not pull in anything near break-even revenues.
Do our highways “break even.” Give me a break.
Jason,
I’ll give you a break, but the comparison between Amtrak and highways does not hold up; nor do our bridges at the moment. Amtrak fails to break even because not enough people want to use the rail system to purchase tickets on it. So every time somebody does, you and I end up subsidizing the trip.
Highways are at least primarily paid for through user fees (either tolls or gas taxes) and the people who don’t use them generally don’t pay very much for them (except through indirect economic costs of the transportation of consumer goods).
The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that mass transit infrastructure in a country as large as ours necessarily has to follow a different pattern than the one in a country not too much larger than New Jersey.
Scale determines which forms of transit will work or will not work as much as the economic system.
The difficulty with your argument is that single measures of economic comparison never capture the complexity of the two economies.
Of course there is a counter-argument to every point I raise here, but that is precisely my point: you seem to accept a very few indicators (and many of them quite subjective) as evidence to support your contention that the British/European system is superior to ours.
Here’s an example: Kuwait and Bahrain have a much higher standard of living, according to GDP figures, than either the United States or Great Britain. So I should ignore the externalities that produce that GDP and argue that life under a socialized shiekdom form of government is obviously superior to capitalism?
I get it Steve. In thruth I am a Francophile, so screw those Roast Beef eaters and their rail roads.
The chief items upon which the Oxford Consultancy group rated Britain higher were holidays, vacation, and–yes–socialized health care.
The other ‘chief item’ that contributes to the Brits economic change (as noted in the article) is that their incomes have actually been rising over the last years, and not stagnating like the incomes of Americans. This contributes to the fact that goods and services cost more there — they are paying folks abit better to do similar jobs and they have more vacations and universal health care.
He can speak for himself, of course, but I don’t read Jason arguing that any form of government is better than another here. However, if you are comparing GDP to GDP, there aren’t many economic writings that will footnote this data to discriminate among types of governments. Standard of living assessments are traditionally based on some hard econ data plus some consumer confidence data.
Amtrak’s biggest problem is a Congress that won’t let them really curtail the failing part of the business — the cross country trips. Northeast service, CA service and services around Chicago are close to if not already making money. It is the cross country stuff that is the drain. All forms of public transportation in the US get a government subsidy of some kind and they are not entirely funded with user fees.
Good beer. Like beer.
Bad phone service. Don’t need phone service. Good thing. Can’t get it fixed for months, if then.
Free Dental. Don’t like dental. Got bad teeth anyway. Shitty grey weather. Like beer. Did I mention we got soccer?