[moki]

Wow... Germany's GDP per capita is on par with Arkansas? Germany is one of the world's largest net exporters; how is this possible?

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005242

.....

Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.

Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.

The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.



But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.

[Nicko]

Is it just me or are your anti-europe posts getting weirder and weirder?

[eklipse]

A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats.

Eh?

That's a bizarre rationalization.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Is it just me or are your anti-europe posts getting weirder and weirder?

There's nothing anti-European about it. The study was a Swedish study, and I do not understand people who don't wish the EU to succeed. I personally think it'd be one of the best things that could happen for Europe, the USA, and the world in general, for a myriad of reasons.

[Developer]

In other news: moki has a really small penis.

[Taliesin]

Actually that is not surprising, since Europe survived a horreoundous worldwar2 with more than 50 million people killed, from which the US profited the most by selling weapons and lending money to all sides of the war, be it Germany, England, France or Russia, until the US decided to join Britain and France against Germany.

But there is also another aspect most people don't realize. With the end of worldwar 2, the US was able to force a new world-economy based on the dollar. From then on all credits and all international deals, espescially the dealings with ressources had to be done in dollar. That is also not surprising, considering that the europeans' currencies were not reliable anymore after that war, but the consequences are pretty good for the US:

It meant that the US could suck from the productivity of all countries in the world that submissed their economies under the dollar-regime.

The system works on multiple levels, but I just want to put forth one easy to understand example, the borrowing of money. Imagine the US to need money for its economy or its army or for whatever, it asks then either the worldbank or the european countries for that money, and it gets that money in dollars, the same currency that is used inside the US, and pays it back including the interest sometime in the future also in dollars.

Do you get it? No? The US can pay back its debts in a time the US-dollar is weakened, to be more specific when the US has weakened the dollar themselves. That's one of the reasons why the dollar has lost considerably in worth since worldwar2, because the US was making debts, and debts inside its own currency, and paying it back after the dollar has lost enough worth, then making debts again, etc...

That is the reason why the US-economy will always be on top, at least as long as the dollar-regime is in place.

Taliesin

[Troll]

An economist would have this guy for breakfast! There are so many flaws in his logic. First off, as proof of the fact that Europeans are poorer, he cites the fact that more Americans have cars! That's not a valid measurement of wealth. When I lived in the States, I earned a lot less and I had a car. I've lived in Bern, London and Paris and haven't bothered to buy a car even though I earn a lot more than I did in the US and could easily afford a car. I don't buy one because I don't need it and even if I had one, I would hardly be able to use it in the congestion of London or Paris. A car in California was a necessity. Here it's an option. Public transport is so good I only rarely need a car and when I do, then I get one from a car pool service or rent. Ditto for aircon. Until Americans started buying Hummers , Paris was a relatively temperate climate. Aircon wasn't a necessity. Also, there were over a million people living in Paris before the United States (or aircon) was even discovered. The city wasn't designed around aircon because it didn't exist until relatively recently in Paris' history. The same doesn't apply to LA. Now, to say that Swedish people don't have aircon therefore they are poorer is about as stupid as saying that people in Equatorial Guinea don't have central heating therefore they're poorer!

GDP per capita is also not always a valid measurement of wealth. Luxembourg is a country I do a lot of business in. Because of its low tax rate, a lot of European companies have their head office there. The European iTunes Music Store for example. The money isn't actually generated in Luxembourg and is mostly not kept in Luxembourg; the whole purpose of having the company in Luxembourg is to get the money out of Europe with the minimum tax. Luxembourg has a tiny population. A large percentage of the work force crosses the border from Germany or Belgium every day. As a result, a lot of the money generated by commerce in Germany by German workers employed in a Luxembourg company, are attributed to Luxembourg rather than Germany. Luxembourg charges less tax on that money, so the actual benefit to the few who actually live in Luxembourg is not as stark as the figures you have there would suggest.

I think a similar explanation would apply to Delaware.

If you take into account the fact that some of the richest people in the world live in the US and pay comparatively low taxes, then the folly of dividing the GDP by the number of people who live in the country and thinking that reflects anything about standard of living is revealed. If Bill Gates moved to Italy, it would probably have an effect on both countries' figure!

Having lived in both the US and a number of countries in Europe, I'd say that the standard of living in California compares to the standard of living in France. People have different priorities. Europeans tend to save more and be less flashy with their money. They spend more on travel and art and less on electronics perhaps, but their ability to realise their dreams is comparable. IMHO, the average standard of living in California doesn't begin to approach that of Switzerland or Denmark (haven't spent any significant amount of time in Sweden - going over in August) if you start to take into account education levels, security issues, environment.

In short, I don't think dividing the GDP up by the number of people in a country proves anything. This bit from the article says it all, doesn't it.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

In other words, this study proves nothing.

[moki]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
That is the reason why the US-economy will always be on top, at least as long as the dollar-regime is in place.

Yes, I get it. It is another one of your wild conspiracy theories that lacks any substance whatever.

Would you care to explain why this same evil US plot didn't seem to affect Japan (which is incidentally also doing better than the vast majority of Europe, and incidentally also was leveled and then built back up by the USA after WWII).

Apparently you disagree with the Swedish study; you should contact them with your theories, I'm sure they would appreciate your keen insight. They can throw out their research data, and simply blame America.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Apparently you disagree with the Swedish study

Have you read the study or only this INTERPRETATION of the study.

Here's a link to the study although I haven't read it. http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Troll:

Having lived in both the US and a number of countries in Europe, I'd say that the standard of living in California compares to the standard of living in France. People have different priorities. Europeans tend to save more and be less flashy with their money. They spend more on travel and art and less on electronics perhaps, but their ability to realise their dreams is comparable. IMHO, the average standard of living in California doesn't begin to approach that of Switzerland or Denmark (haven't spent any significant amount of time in Sweden - going over in August) if you start to take into account education levels, security issues, environment.

In short, I don't think dividing the GDP up by the number of people in a country proves anything. This bit from the article says it all, doesn't it. In other words, this study proves nothing.

Also, when you measure 'quality of life' there are other things to consider. Don't people in France work less than in the US? I mean, free time with nothing to do could be considered a sign of wealth.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Aircon wasn't a necessity. Also, there were over a million people living in Paris before the United States (or aircon) was even discovered. The city wasn't designed around aircon because it didn't exist until relatively recently in Paris' history. The same doesn't apply to LA. Now, to say that Swedish people don't have aircon therefore they are poorer is about as stupid as saying that people in Equatorial Guinea don't have central heating therefore they're poorer!

erm... first of all, aircon can be put into any building; you can just shove a unit into the window if you don't opt for central air conditioning. It makes no sense to state that Paris wasn't built with air conditioning in mind; it can be retrofitted anywhere.

I think you're getting a bit too hung up on the specifics. The examples of cars and air conditioning were just that: examples. Obviously in colder climates, both in Europe and in the US, you wouldn't bother buying an air conditioner. Likewise if you lived in a large city like NYC or Paris, you might not bother with a car either.

The examples are not the point.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Also, when you measure 'quality of life' there are other things to consider. Don't people in France work less than in the US? I mean, free time with nothing to do could be considered a sign of wealth.

Yep, that's certainly quite true. People do work less in France than in the US; while this is a good thing in terms of leisure time in the short term, it isn't necessarily a good long term strategy. The whole grasshopper and the ant parable.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
An economist would have this guy for breakfast! There are so many flaws in his logic. First off, as proof of the fact that Europeans are poorer, he cites the fact that more Americans have cars! That's not a valid measurement of wealth.

Not only cars. He cites consumption in general as well as other indicia.

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

You may be right, however, that the value of leisure is both part of the equation, and part of the reason that Europeans enjoy a lower economic standard of living. Americans work much harder and longer. We work longer weeks, and take fewer and shorter vacations. That gives us a robust economy with high growth and low unemployment by Western European standards, and a high individual standard of living. But it also carries personal and community costs. People don 't see their kids as much, spend less time enjoying their larger houses full of consumer goods that they don't have time to enjoy.

However, most Americans probably wouldn't change this as the work ethic is pretty engrained here. So is an aversion to being layed off, or not having a retirement plan. And maybe Europeans like their lifestyle too. You make the bed you sleep in.

Now, it is 6:45 am and I am going to work. See you in 12 hours.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Have you read the study or only this INTERPRETATION of the study.

Here's a link to the study although I haven't read it. http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

Yeah, I have read it -- it's a very interesting study actually... it makes the point that countries that are pursuing a lower tax burden and less of a welfare state are generally the better performing countries in Europe.

It's all likely a moot point, because the welfare states in various countries in Europe are going to be going under the knife sooner or later.

[moki]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You may be right, however, that the value of leisure is both part of the equation, and part of the reason that Europeans enjoy a lower economic standard of living. Americans work much harder and longer. We work longer weeks, and take fewer and shorter vacations.

That reminds me of a girl I met in Germany actually. She was Taiwanese, and had just gotten her masters at Leeds in England. She said to me that "When I first arrived in England, I thought the people there were quite lazy. Now that I've traveled in Europe, I think the English are quite hard working!"

I found it amusing.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...That gives us a robust economy with high growth and low unemployment by Western European standards, and a high individual standard of living.

does that equasion also figure in the people who have to work two or three different sh1t jobs (mostly in the "$ervice" industry) so they can afford to pay their medical bills etc? what is that in the us? 35-40%?

talk about standard of living?! unemployment rates don't mean sh1t. quality of life is determined across the board, imho, and not how much the super rich can make up for the very poor quality in the lower 65%.

don't worry though, europe is on its way to becoming a slavewage plutocracy like the us...give it another couple of years...

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
erm... first of all, aircon can be put into any building; you can just shove a unit into the window if you don't opt for central air conditioning. It makes no sense to state that Paris wasn't built with air conditioning in mind; it can be retrofitted anywhere.

As an American you'd think so. As a South African I thought so too, but I've just gone through the whole process in Paris and it isn't that simple. In LA, we went out and bought a big aircon unit and had it put into the window surround. Look godawful from the outside but who cares right? In Paris there are environmental and historical landmark rules that prevent you from doing that. You aren't allowed to attach anything other than a flower box to the outside of a Paris building. It's illegal to hang washing out the window or to put up a satellite dish. You need planning permission for a satellite dish which will be given for 1 dish per building on the roof. That dish then has, by law, to be shared with everyone else in the building. Sounds draconian but it's also one of the reasons Paris is the biggest tourist attraction in the world.

Central aircon for our building was the next possibility. No go since there is no central shaft in our building. It was built before elevators existed mostly out of stone. Wiring is external as is gas. The basement is sand! The only option for us was to buy a mobile unit which we've done. We haven't used it once in the 9 months we've had it.

I gave you two examples - the aircon and the car. There are countless others. There are more cellphones per capita in Europe than there are in the States (12.4 cellphones per 100 people in the US and 229.9 per 100 people in Sweden!). Cellphones being a luxury rather than a necessity, does the fact that the average Swede has 2 and only 1 in 8 Americans has one suggest Swedes are 16 times richer? There are more wireless internet access points per square kilometre in Paris than in any other city in the world (this despite the fact that French people apparently have no money to buy computers). More Europeans go on skiing holidays than Americans. Per capita, more Europeans travel to foreign countries than Americans. What does that suggest?

Come on, this is just ridiculous. Everyone knows that per capita GDP means nothing. Denmark may have a lower per capita GDP than Delaware but to suggest that a Delaware resident is on average better off than a Dane?? You only have to go to those two places to know it's crud!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Troll:
As an American you'd think so. As a South African I thought so too, but I've just gone through the whole process in Paris and it isn't that simple. In LA, we went out and bought a big aircon unit and had it put into the window surround. Look godawful from the outside but who cares right? In Paris there are environmental and historical landmark rules that prevent you from doing that. You aren't allowed to attach anything other than a flower box to the outside of a Paris building. It's illegal to hang washing out the window or to put up a satellite dish. You need planning permission for a satellite dish which will be given for 1 dish per building on the roof. That dish then has, by law, to be shared with everyone else in the building. Sounds draconian but it's also one of the reasons Paris is the biggest tourist attraction in the world.

Central aircon for our building was the next possibility. No go since there is no central shaft in our building. It was built before elevators existed mostly out of stone. Wiring is external as is gas. The basement is sand! The only option for us was to buy a mobile unit which we've done. We haven't used it once in the 9 months we've had it.

I gave you two examples - the aircon and the car. There are countless others. There are more cellphones per capita in Europe than there are in the States (12.4 cellphones per 100 people in the US and 229.9 per 100 people in Sweden!). Cellphones being a luxury rather than a necessity, does the fact that the average Swede has 2 and only 1 in 8 Americans has one suggest Swede's are 16 times richer? There are more wireless internet access points per square kilometre in Paris than in any other city in the world (this despite the fact that French people apparently have no money to buy computers). More Europeans go on skiing holidays than Americans. Per capita, more Europeans travel to foreign countries than Americans.

Come on, this is just ridiculous. Everyone knows that per capita GDP means nothing. Denmark may have a lower per capita GDP than Delaware but to suggest that a Delaware resident is on average better off than a Dane?? You only have to go to those two places to know it's crud!

¡Exactamente!

Off the top of my head I'd compare GDP if countries to IQ of persons. It gives you some idea of your possiblities but by no means gurantees any success in life economically or socially.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Troll:
There are more cellphones per capita in Europe than there are in the States (12.4 cellphones per 100 people in the US and 229.9 per 100 people in Sweden!).

According to the International Telecommunications Union, the U.S. had at least 45.08 cell phones per 100 people in 2001,

Cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants in 2001:

USA: 45.08
Sweden: 80.55

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statist...cellular01.pdf

Originally posted by Troll:
Cellphones being a luxury rather than a necessity, does the fact that the average Swede has 2 and only 1 in 8 Americans has one suggest Swedes are 16 times richer?

It’s absurd to compare cell phone ownership to automobile ownership: the two differ in cost by several orders of magnitude.

In any case, GDP is a broad measure of productivity that encompasses both cell phones and automobiles.

Originally posted by Troll:
Per capita, more Europeans travel to foreign countries than Americans.

European countries are small and close together. The average Swiss could drive to one of eight countries within a day.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by f1000:

European countries are small and close together. The average Swiss could drive to one of eight countries within a day. [/B]

And the average american probably only makes it to mexico or canada, whats your point?


IMO comparing GDP of developed countries is kind of pointless, why not compare developed countries to developing one's? Then it might be a more useful tool.

If comparing the US to germany, one might find it more useful to use quality of beer as an indicator of prosperity.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Troll:
Per capita, more Europeans travel to foreign countries than Americans. What does that suggest?

For all intents and purposes, there are 50, count them, 50 individual countries within the US border that just so happen to be united in a common goal, so get off your high horse.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by slow moe:
For all intents and purposes, there are 50, count them, 50 individual countries

"states"...it's "STATES"

different country = different culture, different language etc.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
"states"...it's "STATES"

different country = different culture, different language etc.

Do they speak english in Britian?

Does Toledo have Mardi Gras?

[Troll]

Originally posted by f1000:
According to the International Telecommunications Union, the U.S. had at least 45.08 cell phones per 100 people in 2001,

The figures I quoted come directly from the report that the discussion in this thread is about. If your facts are correct, that would even further discredit this report even further. Your facts are a little old though.

Originally posted by f1000:
It’s absurd to compare cell phone ownership to automobile ownership: the two differ in cost by several orders of magnitude.

I didn't compare them. I merely presented cellphone ownership as ANOTHER measure of wealth. It's as relevenat a measure as car ownership or aircon ownership. The author of Moki's article had taken car ownership and aircon ownership out of the list provided in the report and put those forward as evidence of European poverty. My point was that if you take another measure off that list, you get a different result. A person in Stockholm needs a car less than a person in Los Angeles which may explain why Swedes buy fewer cars. Obviously the number of cellphones per 100 isn't a great measure. After all, it's ridiculous to suggest that South Africa is richer than the USA, but it's equally ridiculous to suggest that car ownership implies anything. In LA a car is a necessity. In Copenhagen or Paris or London it's an option ... in fact, it's something you're better off without. That might explain why there are fewer phones.

Originally posted by f1000:
In any case, GDP is a broad measure of productivity that encompasses both cell phones and automobiles.

What? I don't understand what Gross Domestic Product has to do with cellphones ... except that cellphone sales boost the GDP's of Finland and Sweden!

[slow moe]

Ever heard of South Carolina and 12 other states succeeding from the Union?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Do they speak english in Britian?

Does Toledo have Mardi Gras?

pfff, - does louisianna have a differnt ntl. govt. than ohio? hardly!

the different states in the us don't qualify as different countries, not by a longshot.

hell, they speak 4 different (official) languages in switzerland...they don't consider themselves as seperate countries.

[f1000]

Three Delaware companies and ten Danish companies made the Forbes 2000 list of the World’s Leading Companies in 2004 (all figures are in $billions).

Total market capitalization:

3 Delaware companies = $82.45
10 Danish companies = $98.22

Note that Delaware is 8.5 times smaller than Denmark and has 6.7 times fewer people.


#125. MBNA (Delaware)
Diversified financials
$35.7

#132. EI du Pont de Nemours (Delaware)
Chemicals
$44.3

#133. Den Danske Bank (Denmark)
Banking
$16.39

#153. Moller-Maersk (Denmark)
Transportation
$37.67

#422. TDC Group (Denmark)
Telecommunications services
$8.92

#558. Novo-Nordisk (Denmark)
Drugs & biotechnology
$15.75

#1,087. Carlsberg (Denmark)
Food, drink & tobacco
$2.74

#1,496. H Lundbeck (Denmark)
Drugs & biotechnology
$5.02

#1,514. Wilmington Trust (Delaware)
Banking
$2.45

#1,609. Danisco (Denmark)
Food, drink & tobacco
$2.46

#1,734. Group 4 Falck (Denmark)
Business services & supplies
$2.39

#1,751. Jyske Bank (Denmark)
Banking
$2.02

#1,844. ISS (Denmark)
Business services & supplies
$2.41

[f1000]

Originally posted by Nicko:
And the average american probably only makes it to mexico or canada, whats your point?

The point is that the average European doesn't have to spend nearly as much money traveling to half a dozen "foreign" countries than the average American has to.

[Troll]

Originally posted by slow moe:
For all intents and purposes, there are 50, count them, 50 individual countries within the US border that just so happen to be united in a common goal, so get off your high horse.

I'm not on a high horse. I'm saying that using aircons or cars as a measure of wealth is stupid. You could take travel and say that the fact that Europeans appear to spend more on travel to foreign countries than Americans suggest that they're wealthier.

My point is that cars, aircon, plane tickets and cellphones are all equally stupid measures of wealth. Different people have different priorities and different needs and spend money on different things.

[Troll]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Ever heard of South Carolina and 12 other states succeeding from the Union?

No, because it never happened.

[Troll]

Originally posted by f1000:
Three Delaware companies and ten Danish companies made the Forbes 2000 list of the World’s Leading Companies in 2004 (all figures are in $billions).

Total market capitalization:

3 Delaware companies = $82.45
10 Danish companies = $98.22

Note that Delaware is 8.5 times smaller than Denmark and has 6.7 times fewer people.

And by that logic, the Cayman Islands, Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands are some of the richest countries in the world! Don't insult our intelligence. We all know why US corporations incorporate in Delaware.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Troll:
And by that logic, the Cayman Islands, Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands are some of the richest countries in the world! Don't insult our intelligence. We all know why US corporations incorporate in Delaware.

The man makes a point...

Although I am pretty sure that there was a secession back in the 18-oh-somethings by some uppity states. They just got spanked in the resulting war (a civil one, so claim the old-timers) and put back into the fold.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
pfff, - does louisianna have a differnt ntl. govt. than ohio? hardly!

the different states in the us don't qualify as different countries, not by a longshot.

hell, they speak 4 different (official) languages in switzerland...they don't consider themselves as seperate countries.

To suggest that Louisiana and Ohio have anything more in common than being members of the United States would be to suggest that Mexico and Canada are really no different since they are parts of North America.

You'd be surprised just how different two states in this country can be. Damn, even in LA and OH you have different cultures, languages, and forms of government (LA being the only state with parishes versus counties in terms of geopolitical division, for example).

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
You'd be surprised just how different two states in this country can be. Damn, even in LA and OH you have different cultures, languages, and forms of government (LA being the only state with parishes versus counties in terms of geopolitical division, for example).

True. But LA is kind of an unique example, it's one of the few states that truly has a subculture of its own.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I am pretty sure that there was a secession back in the 18-oh-somethings by some uppity states.

Oh, I agree with your statement regarding secession; it's slow moe's statement about success that I disagree with. You might say that the states did not succeed to secede

[f1000]

Originally posted by Troll:
The figures I quoted come directly from the report that the discussion in this thread is about. If your facts are correct, that would even further discredit this report even further. Your facts are a little old though.

If my facts were old, then that would mean that there are FEWER cell phone users today than there were in the past.

A more rational explanation is that you didn’t read the report carefully. The data you cited is from 1999 (Source: Cox & Alm (1999, table 5.2, p. 97)). And it’s cell phones per THOUSAND.

Originally posted by Troll:
I didn't compare them. I merely presented cellphone ownership as ANOTHER measure of wealth. It's as relevenat a measure as car ownership or aircon ownership. The author of Moki's article had taken car ownership and aircon ownership out of the list provided in the report and put those forward as evidence of European poverty. My point was that if you take another measure off that list, you get a different result. A person in Stockholm needs a car less than a person in Los Angeles which may explain why Swedes buy fewer cars.
Obviously the number of cellphones per 100 isn't a great measure. After all, it's ridiculous to suggest that South Africa is richer than the USA, but it's equally ridiculous to suggest that car ownership implies anything. In LA a car is a necessity. In Copenhagen or Paris or London it's an option ... in fact, it's something you're better off without. That might explain why there are fewer phones.

The author uses consumer commodities (“gizmos”) to illustrate how differences in GDP(PPP)/capita are manifested in the real world. The gizmos are a manifestation of wealth, not a measure of it.

Originally posted by Troll:
What? I don't understand what Gross Domestic Product has to do with cellphones ... except that cellphone sales boost the GDP's of Finland and Sweden!

Then let me disabuse you of your ignorance:

GDP = consumption + investment + government expenditures + exports – imports

Cell phones and automobiles, as used in this case, fall under consumption.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by itai195:
True. But LA is kind of an unique example, it's one of the few states that truly has a subculture of its own.

I think the same could be said about CA, NY, TX, FL, and others as well.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Troll:
And by that logic, the Cayman Islands, Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands are some of the richest countries in the world! Don't insult our intelligence. We all know why US corporations incorporate in Delaware.

Again, I must point out the obvious. The companies must be HEADQUARTERED in Delaware, and not simply incorporated in it.

[f1000]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
The man makes a point...

Although I am pretty sure that there was a secession back in the 18-oh-somethings by some uppity states. They just got spanked in the resulting war (a civil one, so claim the old-timers) and put back into the fold.

Like Maryland, Delaware never seceded from the Union. Besides, Delaware was EAST of the Mason-Dixon line.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the same could be said about CA, NY, TX, FL, and others as well.

if you think california is as different from new york as sweden is from italy, you are beyond help.

la might be an odd ball state. but as far as the others go, they are very similar (if not almost indistinguishable from each other. like in the case of iowa and nebraska )

[itai195]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I think the same could be said about CA, NY, TX, FL, and others as well.

This is all kind of OT anyway. Europeans do seem to travel more, but it's no more a measure of wealth than car ownership is.

[Timo]

How is it possible Germany is near Arkansas in per capita GDP? Bah, this stuff is silly.

First, Germany's economy is of a different scale than Arkansas, just as its population is. It's really best to compare like to like, not the District of Columbia or Iceland to the rest of the world. Otherwise you just get odd results.

Second, and apologies if this has been already mentioned (because it's so obvious): Arkansas did not absorb a state called East Arkansas and make a lot of concessions to that populace while absorbing it. It's well known that the integration of the two Germanies has been difficult and expensive, with unemployment still very high in the eastern regions. And when you divide the domestic product by all those non-working new Bundes-citizens, you get a lower result.

[Spliffdaddy]

Arkansas?

Hell, my own personal GDP edges out Arkansas.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by f1000:
Like Maryland, Delaware never seceded from the Union. Besides, Delaware was EAST of the Mason-Dixon line.

Actually, Maryland considered seceding, but was occupied by Union troops before that could occur. The Maryland state song begins with the line "The despot's heel is on the shore"; this actually refers to that occupation. This has become quite controversial at times, because it refers to Abraham Lincoln as a despot.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Timo:
How is it possible Germany is near Arkansas in per capita GDP? Bah, this stuff is silly.

First, Germany's economy is of a different scale than Arkansas, just as its population is. It's really best to compare like to like, not the District of Columbia or Iceland to the rest of the world. Otherwise you just get odd results.

It's a comparison of how wealthy individuals are, and not a comparison of the relative economic power of political entities. Arkansas as a whole is economically weaker than Germany, but that doesn't mean the state's individual citizens can't be richer (per capita).

Originally posted by Timo:
Second, and apologies if this has been already mentioned (because it's so obvious): Arkansas did not absorb a state called East Arkansas and make a lot of concessions to that populace while absorbing it. It's well known that the integration of the two Germanies has been difficult and expensive, with unemployment still very high in the eastern regions. And when you divide the domestic product by all those non-working new Bundes-citizens, you get a lower result.

That's undoubtedly true, but re-unification only explains Germany's problems, not the rest of Western Europe's.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, Maryland considered seceding, but was occupied by Union troops before that could occur. The Maryland state song begins with the line "The despot's heel is on the shore"; this actually refers to that occupation. This has become quite controversial at times, because it refers to Abraham Lincoln as a despot.

Lincoln had to prevent Maryland from seceding, or else D.C. would've been surrounded.

Delaware, as a slave state, also considered seceding. I believe it was offered some concessions not to secede, one of which was that it could keep its slave economy for the duration of the war.

[badidea]

Americans please, you can be happy that you are so wealthy!
We Germans are also very happy that we are so wealthy!

Stop this stupid discussion!

It's also pretty stupid to use cars as a measurement for wealth!
The USA is such a huge country that it is almost impossible to live without a car - here in Hamburg I sold my car last year because it was most of the time parked and not used (didn't move it once for 3 weeks!!) and I don't really miss it since then! I don't need it for work, I don't drink and drive but I drink when I go out (always Taxi), if I go to my parents to Bavaria (in the South of Germany, the Land of far far away ) I use the train because it is faster and a lot more convenient!
By the way, there is a different culture and almost a different language in Bavaria than in Hamburg - same country!!!
Cell phones are also no good comparison! The Italians have a lot more than Germany but not because they are wealthier but because they are posers!

Stop it now!

[effgee]

Originally posted by moki:
Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.

Yeah - they're wealthy, alright ... like so:

GDP expenditures (per capita)
US: $7067.51
GE: $10012.33

GDP revenues (per capita)
US: $6702.42
GE: $9733.20

Economic aid - donor (per capita)
US: $23.76
GE: $67.96

Population below poverty line
US: 12.7%
GE: 7%

Child poverty
US: 22.4%
GE: 10.7%

Doctors
US: 2.8 per 1000 people
GE: 3,5 per 1000 people

Infant mortality rate
US: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births
GE: 4.2 deaths/1,000 live births

Life Expectancy
US: 77.43 years (male: 74.63 years, female: 80.36 years)
GE: 78.54 years (male: 75.56 years, female: 81.68 years)

Homicide
US: 0.04 (per 1000 people, 12,658 total, year: 1999)
GE: 0.01 (per 1000 people, 960 total, year 2000)

Rape
US: 0.30 (per 1000 people, 89,110 total, year: 1999)
GE: 0.09 (per 1000 people, 7,499 total, year: 2000)

just as long as there's enough cars to go around ...

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
if you think california is as different from new york as sweden is from italy, you are beyond help.

la might be an odd ball state. but as far as the others go, they are very similar (if not almost indistinguishable from each other. like in the case of iowa and nebraska )

Take someone from The Bronx or Brooklyn and dump them in the middle of Malibu. Take someone from Malibu and drop them off in The Bronx or Brooklyn. I bet that if they speak normally for their locale that they would like, you know, be totally unintelligible to one another, and stuff, like, you know?

IA and NE? Sure, a bunch of farmers. The only difference is state lines as far as they go. But for the larger more populous states they can be as different as European states in terms of culture, language, etc.

[Timo]

Originally posted by f1000:
It's a comparison of how wealthy individuals are, and not a comparison of the relative economic power of political entities. Arkansas as a whole is economically weaker than Germany, but that doesn't mean the state's individual citizens can't be richer (per capita).

No, it's a comparison of how wealthy a fictious average individual is. More interesting would be a grpah showing the distribution of wealth in $10,000 units, for example. Then you'd have interpretation where the Tyson family and the Walton family don't skew the results.

Even a simple comparison of the median income of Germany and Arkansas (that is, the middle number) would be more interesting than an average, which flattens information too much to be of interest.