Comments on: Americans in Europe http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:55:34 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ahem http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-2/#comment-16686 ahem Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:47:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16686 <i>Premature births in Europe which end almost immediately in death are counted under miscarriages. In the US they count as infant death.</i> I've heard this recounted several times as doctrine by Americans of the conservative tendency, but have never actually found any links to supporting data. In fact, Sebastian, I think you're offering a simplistic summary of a more complex set of criteria: in the US, 20 weeks gestation is taken to be the dividing line between early foetal death and stillbirth; in the UK, it's 24 weeks, while in continental Europe, either 24 weeks or the WHO's definition of 28 weeks are used. But the synoptic studies I've seen which use the 24-week model still show the US lagging far behind. In summary, you're quite wrong to say that <i>any</i> premature birth in Europe which ends in death (or even a third trimester miscarriage) is considered an early foetal death: that definition applies only to those more than 12 or 16 weeks premature. In fact, the US definition is right on the limit of viability -- and doesn't take into account foetal weight, the main determination of viability during the 20-24 week period. Premature births in Europe which end almost immediately in death are counted under miscarriages. In the US they count as infant death. I’ve heard this recounted several times as doctrine by Americans of the conservative tendency, but have never actually found any links to supporting data. In fact, Sebastian, I think you’re offering a simplistic summary of a more complex set of criteria: in the US, 20 weeks gestation is taken to be the dividing line between early foetal death and stillbirth; in the UK, it’s 24 weeks, while in continental Europe, either 24 weeks or the WHO’s definition of 28 weeks are used. But the synoptic studies I’ve seen which use the 24-week model still show the US lagging far behind. In summary, you’re quite wrong to say that any premature birth in Europe which ends in death (or even a third trimester miscarriage) is considered an early foetal death: that definition applies only to those more than 12 or 16 weeks premature. In fact, the US definition is right on the limit of viability—and doesn’t take into account foetal weight, the main determination of viability during the 20-24 week period.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-2/#comment-16685 Thorley Winston Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:04:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16685 Ilkka Kokkarinen, You might note that I specified “unfunded liabilities” of which the national debt of a nation is a portion but hardly the greatest portion since they include obligations such as a employee benefits, public pensions (Social Security), and various other benefits such as for public health care systems (e.g. Medicare). This is particularly important in the case of Canada: <blockquote>“The bad news is that the $54 billion drop in debt was more than offset by increases in other liabilities such as program obligations, which grew significantly from 1996 and 2001. The net increase in total liabilities over this period was $279 billion. The growth in obligations under programs such as the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the Old Age Security, and the Medicare system has been a focus of this debt study for many years. Specifically, the concern lies in the size of these obligations and what this implies for the future health of these programs. Largely due to increases in program obligations, in 2000/01 federal, provincial, and local liabilities added up to $172,416 for each Canadian taxpayer or $83,927 for each Canadian citizen.” <p> Canadian Government Debt 2003: A Guide to the Indebtedness of Canada and the Provinces http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=513</p></blockquote> Also even your own claims about just the national debt of Canada and the United States as a percentage of their GDP are not supported by your own source (but on a different page), which agrees that “the Canadian federal market debt-to-GDP ratio remains above that of the U.S” http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget01/bp/bpan5e.htm But if your point is that we have too much of an unfunded liability in the United States, I whole-heartedly agree and as such support both restructuring our entitlement programs and a reduction in non-defense discretionary spending (although the latter shows no chance of happening). I do not however agree that our situation is much worse than most other comperable nations. Ilkka Kokkarinen, You might note that I specified “unfunded liabilities” of which the national debt of a nation is a portion but hardly the greatest portion since they include obligations such as a employee benefits, public pensions (Social Security), and various other benefits such as for public health care systems (e.g. Medicare). This is particularly important in the case of Canada:
“The bad news is that the $54 billion drop in debt was more than offset by increases in other liabilities such as program obligations, which grew significantly from 1996 and 2001. The net increase in total liabilities over this period was $279 billion. The growth in obligations under programs such as the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the Old Age Security, and the Medicare system has been a focus of this debt study for many years. Specifically, the concern lies in the size of these obligations and what this implies for the future health of these programs. Largely due to increases in program obligations, in 2000/01 federal, provincial, and local liabilities added up to $172,416 for each Canadian taxpayer or $83,927 for each Canadian citizen.”

Canadian Government Debt 2003: A Guide to the Indebtedness of Canada and the Provinces http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=513

Also even your own claims about just the national debt of Canada and the United States as a percentage of their GDP are not supported by your own source (but on a different page), which agrees that “the Canadian federal market debt-to-GDP ratio remains above that of the U.S” http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget01/bp/bpan5e.htm But if your point is that we have too much of an unfunded liability in the United States, I whole-heartedly agree and as such support both restructuring our entitlement programs and a reduction in non-defense discretionary spending (although the latter shows no chance of happening). I do not however agree that our situation is much worse than most other comperable nations.

]]> By: Ilkka Kokkarinen http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16684 Ilkka Kokkarinen Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:14:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16684 Thorley Winston: "I think if you look at the unfunded liabilities of the United States and compared them to those in the UK, Canada, Germany, et al., it would probably turn out that unfunded liabilities of the United States are smaller as a percentage of GDP" At least for Canada, this is not true, according to this web page: http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/bp/bpc2e.htm (see the table "Net Foreign Debt per cent of GDP", where the Canadian and U.S. curves recently passed each other) Since Canada currently has a budget surplus, the debt and debt/GDP ratio are not going to increase, unlike in the United States. (Nicely enough, Canada also has a trade surplus.) Of course, Canadian citizens pay more taxes for the government services that they get, whereas Americans simply borrow the money that pay for the government services for them, so the American households have more money in hand for a higher standard of living. This makes my two households analogy apt, if the households are USA and Canada. I don't know about the debts and deficits of the major European countries. However, I recall reading that France and Germany have some problems with their deficits. But I doubt that they are even close to the U.S. budget deficit in 2004, not per capita nor per GDP. Thorley Winston: “I think if you look at the unfunded liabilities of the United States and compared them to those in the UK, Canada, Germany, et al., it would probably turn out that unfunded liabilities of the United States are smaller as a percentage of GDP” At least for Canada, this is not true, according to this web page: http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/bp/bpc2e.htm (see the table “Net Foreign Debt per cent of GDP”, where the Canadian and U.S. curves recently passed each other) Since Canada currently has a budget surplus, the debt and debt/GDP ratio are not going to increase, unlike in the United States. (Nicely enough, Canada also has a trade surplus.) Of course, Canadian citizens pay more taxes for the government services that they get, whereas Americans simply borrow the money that pay for the government services for them, so the American households have more money in hand for a higher standard of living. This makes my two households analogy apt, if the households are USA and Canada. I don’t know about the debts and deficits of the major European countries. However, I recall reading that France and Germany have some problems with their deficits. But I doubt that they are even close to the U.S. budget deficit in 2004, not per capita nor per GDP.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16683 Thorley Winston Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:11:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16683 Ilkka Kokkarinen, The problem with your analogy is that you are not simply comparing one rich nation with a high debt load to a less wealthy nation without one but you are comparing two nations in which the wealthier one has a high debt load but so does the less wealthy one. In fact, I think if you look at the unfunded liabilities of the United States and compared them to those in the UK, Canada, Germany, et al., it would probably turn out that unfunded liabilities of the United States are smaller as a percentage of GDP– which means that we are better able to handle their liabilities than the less wealthy nations. Ilkka Kokkarinen, The problem with your analogy is that you are not simply comparing one rich nation with a high debt load to a less wealthy nation without one but you are comparing two nations in which the wealthier one has a high debt load but so does the less wealthy one. In fact, I think if you look at the unfunded liabilities of the United States and compared them to those in the UK, Canada, Germany, et al., it would probably turn out that unfunded liabilities of the United States are smaller as a percentage of GDP– which means that we are better able to handle their liabilities than the less wealthy nations.

]]> By: Ilkka Kokkarinen http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16682 Ilkka Kokkarinen Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:40:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16682 Myself, of course, I am interested to see where my above reasoning went wrong. If I see two households so that the first one spends $20K more a year than the second one for all kinds of better stuff (they have a plasma HDTV instead of an ordinary TV, a bigger house altogether, steak for dinner instead of meat loaf etc.), I can't help but conclude that the first household is wealthier than the second one, and that its members enjoy a higher standard of living. However, if I later learn that the first household does not fully pay its expenses from the father's paycheck but racks up an additional $10K of debt every year, whereas the second household does not accumulate any new debt, I would adjust my opinion on the comparative wealth of these two households. The annual standard of living first household would still be $10K higher than the second one, but not $20K higher. I don't see how this would be any different with nations. Myself, of course, I am interested to see where my above reasoning went wrong. If I see two households so that the first one spends $20K more a year than the second one for all kinds of better stuff (they have a plasma HDTV instead of an ordinary TV, a bigger house altogether, steak for dinner instead of meat loaf etc.), I can’t help but conclude that the first household is wealthier than the second one, and that its members enjoy a higher standard of living. However, if I later learn that the first household does not fully pay its expenses from the father’s paycheck but racks up an additional $10K of debt every year, whereas the second household does not accumulate any new debt, I would adjust my opinion on the comparative wealth of these two households. The annual standard of living first household would still be $10K higher than the second one, but not $20K higher. I don’t see how this would be any different with nations.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16681 Thorley Winston Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:25:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16681 Anyone else see the flaw in Ilkka Kokkarinen’s line of reasoning? (<b>Hint</b>: compare like to like). Anyone else see the flaw in Ilkka Kokkarinen’s line of reasoning? (Hint: compare like to like).

]]> By: Ilkka Kokkarinen http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16680 Ilkka Kokkarinen Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:58:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16680 Even though the average standard of living is higher in the USA than in Europe, there is still one more little thing to consider: the USA currently lives with borrowed money. It is easy to fake prosperity with a credit card... until the payment day arrives. The federal deficit and the trade deficit together add up to about a trillion dollars a year. I'm pretty sure that if the Americans together had to cough up this extra $1T each year (that is, an extra $4000 per every single American), it would have a pretty noticable effect on their average standard of living. Probably wouldn't buy that new SUV and so many lattes that year. In this light, imagine the following scenario take place in the USA. There will simply be no more living with borrowed money as a nation, so taxes are increased to make up the government spending, and at the same time, spending is simply cut and cut and cut until there is no more deficit. As a result of these cuts, quite a few people no longer get the money they previously got from the gummint in some form, perhaps as a subsidy or as a salary. At the same time, the trade deficit is eliminated with import restrictions and duties. (I know. This is just a hypothetical scenario, so bear with me.) But pray tell: how would the average American standard of living compare to, say, to that of Canada, Britain or Germany in this scenario? It would probably still be higher, but definitely not as much higher as it is now. Even though the average standard of living is higher in the USA than in Europe, there is still one more little thing to consider: the USA currently lives with borrowed money. It is easy to fake prosperity with a credit card… until the payment day arrives. The federal deficit and the trade deficit together add up to about a trillion dollars a year. I’m pretty sure that if the Americans together had to cough up this extra $1T each year (that is, an extra $4000 per every single American), it would have a pretty noticable effect on their average standard of living. Probably wouldn’t buy that new SUV and so many lattes that year. In this light, imagine the following scenario take place in the USA. There will simply be no more living with borrowed money as a nation, so taxes are increased to make up the government spending, and at the same time, spending is simply cut and cut and cut until there is no more deficit. As a result of these cuts, quite a few people no longer get the money they previously got from the gummint in some form, perhaps as a subsidy or as a salary. At the same time, the trade deficit is eliminated with import restrictions and duties. (I know. This is just a hypothetical scenario, so bear with me.) But pray tell: how would the average American standard of living compare to, say, to that of Canada, Britain or Germany in this scenario? It would probably still be higher, but definitely not as much higher as it is now.

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16679 mc Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:02:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16679 In other words, what bp said above. In other words, what bp said above.

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16678 mc Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:01:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16678 <i>Maybe an individual black person, but if 12% of the population was black, there would be major problems.</i> Or maybe not. You cannot argue with an "if". Seems there are common problems with integration of Muslim immigration everywhere. Because there are significant cultural and religious differences that are often upheld very rigidly by those immigrants themselves. Integration is a two-way process. If the effort is lacking or scarce on one end, it all becomes more difficult on the other too. I can't make you integrate if you don't even want to, you know? Just what does that have to do with black people, I don't understand. The real question behind all this of course is: why compare nations in such absolute terms at all. I personally find it totally pointless. Maybe an individual black person, but if 12% of the population was black, there would be major problems. Or maybe not. You cannot argue with an “if”. Seems there are common problems with integration of Muslim immigration everywhere. Because there are significant cultural and religious differences that are often upheld very rigidly by those immigrants themselves. Integration is a two-way process. If the effort is lacking or scarce on one end, it all becomes more difficult on the other too. I can’t make you integrate if you don’t even want to, you know? Just what does that have to do with black people, I don’t understand. The real question behind all this of course is: why compare nations in such absolute terms at all. I personally find it totally pointless.

]]> By: BP http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16677 BP Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:57:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16677 "[...] we were in effect comparing apples to oranges." Exactly right. Lefties should bear this in mind before drawing deep transatlantic conclusions; equally, righties should bear this in mind before lavishing ideologically-based advice on other parts of the world. “[...] we were in effect comparing apples to oranges.” Exactly right. Lefties should bear this in mind before drawing deep transatlantic conclusions; equally, righties should bear this in mind before lavishing ideologically-based advice on other parts of the world.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16676 Thorley Winston Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:06:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16676 Leo wrote: <blockquote>As for the idea, expressed by someone, that blacks would be better off in a Sweden that has no idea how to integrate even its Muslim population, you gotta be kidding. Maybe an individual black person, but if 12% of the population was black, there would be major problems.</blockquote> That raises an interesting point that I do not believe has been made yet. I seem to recall in an early discussion on CT (I think Bert may have been the instigator of that as well) of a Nobel laureate’s book in which he tried to argue that because blacks in America had a lower life expectancy than persons living in China or India therefore it was evidence that income inequality was the case. Many of us (rightfully) pointed out that this was not a valid conclusion because of the differences in genetics and lifestyles, which already gave the latter groups a longer life expectancy we were in effect comparing apples to oranges. It seems that those who are chomping at the this bit of “proof” of how the Nanny States of Canada and Western Europe are supposedly better are making a similar error in that they are comparing more culturally homogenous society (Canada and certain European nations) to one which is more ethnically diverse, has a very different immigration situation (particularly with our southern neighbor), and may have other relevant differences as well without making the appropriate adjustments to make an accurate and valid comparison. Leo wrote:
As for the idea, expressed by someone, that blacks would be better off in a Sweden that has no idea how to integrate even its Muslim population, you gotta be kidding. Maybe an individual black person, but if 12% of the population was black, there would be major problems.
That raises an interesting point that I do not believe has been made yet. I seem to recall in an early discussion on CT (I think Bert may have been the instigator of that as well) of a Nobel laureate’s book in which he tried to argue that because blacks in America had a lower life expectancy than persons living in China or India therefore it was evidence that income inequality was the case. Many of us (rightfully) pointed out that this was not a valid conclusion because of the differences in genetics and lifestyles, which already gave the latter groups a longer life expectancy we were in effect comparing apples to oranges. It seems that those who are chomping at the this bit of “proof” of how the Nanny States of Canada and Western Europe are supposedly better are making a similar error in that they are comparing more culturally homogenous society (Canada and certain European nations) to one which is more ethnically diverse, has a very different immigration situation (particularly with our southern neighbor), and may have other relevant differences as well without making the appropriate adjustments to make an accurate and valid comparison.

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16675 mc Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:35:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16675 <i>if life in European social democracies is so much better than in the States, why do people in those countries kill themselves more frequently?</i> Ah, that's got to be because they get less frequently shot by other people ;) (Only joking...) I don't know about that really. Suicide higher in Europe? Overall? or in specific countries? Where did you get that from? Just curious. if life in European social democracies is so much better than in the States, why do people in those countries kill themselves more frequently? Ah, that’s got to be because they get less frequently shot by other people ;) (Only joking…) I don’t know about that really. Suicide higher in Europe? Overall? or in specific countries? Where did you get that from? Just curious.

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16674 Sebastian Holsclaw Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:19:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16674 "My question is: since they were poor and came looking for work, well then, weren’t they by definition the losers??? Work that thru your little deterministic conservative heads, won’t you? The people who stayed in Europe did so because they succeeded there. The odd ones out (my forefathers & mothers among them), had to hit the road so to speak since nobody really had any use for them." LOL, a little history can be a dangerous thing. Much of Europe, especially at the time in question, had a quite rigid class structure which would stymie advancement in the lower classes no matter what their innate ability or drive. So those who left were indeed lower class, but not lower abilityand obviously did not have a lower drive to change. The US at the time did not have such a rigid class structure, which is one of the reasons why the Communist Party per se never gained as much traction in the US as it did in Europe. Some argue that this dynamic has changed dramatically and that the US is much more class-bound, but that is an argument for another day. “My question is: since they were poor and came looking for work, well then, weren’t they by definition the losers??? Work that thru your little deterministic conservative heads, won’t you? The people who stayed in Europe did so because they succeeded there. The odd ones out (my forefathers & mothers among them), had to hit the road so to speak since nobody really had any use for them.” LOL, a little history can be a dangerous thing. Much of Europe, especially at the time in question, had a quite rigid class structure which would stymie advancement in the lower classes no matter what their innate ability or drive. So those who left were indeed lower class, but not lower abilityand obviously did not have a lower drive to change. The US at the time did not have such a rigid class structure, which is one of the reasons why the Communist Party per se never gained as much traction in the US as it did in Europe. Some argue that this dynamic has changed dramatically and that the US is much more class-bound, but that is an argument for another day.

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16673 mc Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:16:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16673 The differences in type of democracy or state structure are indeed exaggerated, for the reason mondo dentro said. The differences are in other areas - mentalities, ways of living, customs, traditions, work and business practices, culture, entertainment, socialising - and these are all subject to very individual perceptions. I don't think it can be said that an overall "standard of living" is better in one place than the other. It depends who you are and what you're looking for, and how deeply you're attached to the place you grew up with. I've known Americans who came to live in Europe for a horde of personal reasons - love, marriage, friendships, business, just falling in love with a place, whatever. It's a highly personal decision. I know also many Europeans who went to live in the US. some came back, some stayed. The difference is there is probably more weight to work-related motivations for people going to the US, especially if they get work in some fields that are not well-developed at home. For instance, computer or movie industry (esp. animation movies). Or academic careers. Those who came back, did so not because they didn't like it in the US, or because they might have gotten fewer health care benefits or anything like that - but because <i>they missed home</i>. Sometimes, it's all about something as stupid as missing your favourite bar where you met all your friends every evening for drinks. Sometimes, the attachment to one's roots prevail even against the most tangible advantages. There are so many emotional factors involved in moving from one country to another, or returning home. I get the impression they're too often overlooked. They're not revealed by statistics. The US and European countries are very similar in levels of wealth and democracy and everything else. So even when the decision to move from one place to the other is work-related, there is always some personal factor. Both in deciding to go from one place to the other, and in being permanently satisfied or not with the choice. It's not something measurable in figures. And then, there's the most trivial of measurable truths: if you're poor, you're going to have a hard time everywhere. If you're struggling, you're going to be struggling to make a living anywhere you choose to live. If you're well off, you're going to be fine everywhere on the planet. That's always been the main dividing line in terms of satisfaction with one's "standards of living", and it will always remain so. The differences in type of democracy or state structure are indeed exaggerated, for the reason mondo dentro said. The differences are in other areas – mentalities, ways of living, customs, traditions, work and business practices, culture, entertainment, socialising – and these are all subject to very individual perceptions. I don’t think it can be said that an overall “standard of living” is better in one place than the other. It depends who you are and what you’re looking for, and how deeply you’re attached to the place you grew up with. I’ve known Americans who came to live in Europe for a horde of personal reasons – love, marriage, friendships, business, just falling in love with a place, whatever. It’s a highly personal decision. I know also many Europeans who went to live in the US. some came back, some stayed. The difference is there is probably more weight to work-related motivations for people going to the US, especially if they get work in some fields that are not well-developed at home. For instance, computer or movie industry (esp. animation movies). Or academic careers. Those who came back, did so not because they didn’t like it in the US, or because they might have gotten fewer health care benefits or anything like that – but because they missed home. Sometimes, it’s all about something as stupid as missing your favourite bar where you met all your friends every evening for drinks. Sometimes, the attachment to one’s roots prevail even against the most tangible advantages. There are so many emotional factors involved in moving from one country to another, or returning home. I get the impression they’re too often overlooked. They’re not revealed by statistics. The US and European countries are very similar in levels of wealth and democracy and everything else. So even when the decision to move from one place to the other is work-related, there is always some personal factor. Both in deciding to go from one place to the other, and in being permanently satisfied or not with the choice. It’s not something measurable in figures. And then, there’s the most trivial of measurable truths: if you’re poor, you’re going to have a hard time everywhere. If you’re struggling, you’re going to be struggling to make a living anywhere you choose to live. If you’re well off, you’re going to be fine everywhere on the planet. That’s always been the main dividing line in terms of satisfaction with one’s “standards of living”, and it will always remain so.

]]> By: Steve Carr http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/10/americans-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-16672 Steve Carr Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:22:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1040#comment-16672 One thing that's always struck me as curious: if life in European social democracies is so much better than in the States, why do people in those countries kill themselves more frequently? I also think that any health/life expectancy comparisons that don't factor out the impact of gun deaths in America are limited in their ability to reveal anything important about the impact of social-democratic policies, since the much higher rate of gun deaths in the U.S. is not the result of the lack of a social safety net. Even if you grant the statistical claims, they can't prove what Leiter thinks they do. Leiter's argument assumes that rational people would gladly trade the benefits of the American system --greater economic freedom, greater cultural dynamism, more openness to immigration, less intrusive government, greater technological innovation, etc. -- for improved life expectancy and reduced child-mortality rates. But Leiter has no evidence for this. It's just an a priori assumption about what a "random human" would be like. Not coincidentally, this random human would want a society very much like the one Leiter wants. Somehow this doesn't seem like a slam-dunk argument. One thing that’s always struck me as curious: if life in European social democracies is so much better than in the States, why do people in those countries kill themselves more frequently? I also think that any health/life expectancy comparisons that don’t factor out the impact of gun deaths in America are limited in their ability to reveal anything important about the impact of social-democratic policies, since the much higher rate of gun deaths in the U.S. is not the result of the lack of a social safety net. Even if you grant the statistical claims, they can’t prove what Leiter thinks they do. Leiter’s argument assumes that rational people would gladly trade the benefits of the American system—greater economic freedom, greater cultural dynamism, more openness to immigration, less intrusive government, greater technological innovation, etc.—for improved life expectancy and reduced child-mortality rates. But Leiter has no evidence for this. It’s just an a priori assumption about what a “random human” would be like. Not coincidentally, this random human would want a society very much like the one Leiter wants. Somehow this doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk argument.

]]>