The question is: do contacts with other Europeans count as international, or as the equivalent of large distance contacts within the US. The truth will lie somewhere between those, but I find that American tend to see the EU as a sort of badly functioning US, and count intra-EU contacts relatively more as “national”, while Europeans themselves consider the other parts of it very much as other countries.

I’d bet on the opposite. For example, I rarely encounter people who don’t speak English in my daily life. I do walk by people whose first language is not English, but I’m in a university town. I no longer work with anybody whose first language is not English.

I expect that this is different for most people in Europe (substituting the local language for ‘English’).

I imagine that Holland has a higher proportion of its GNP associated with foreign trade.

According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp_pergdp-economy-exports-per-gdp, Holland is #31 (59%), vs the USA at #179 (8%).

Henry,

I don’t understand this:

so much as a general openness to opportunities, diverse and interesting culture etc, which I think is present in the US but not so much in the continental European states that I have lived in (Germany, Belgium, Italy).

I never actually lived in the US but was there for a good third of my time during 4 or 5 years. As far as I can see you rather compare urban vs. rural cultures (where do/did you live?). Maybe on the score of opportunities there’s something in what you say – continental Europe does not have the ambition the US has (which is a good and a bad thing because ambition has good and has bad aspects). But on the other 2 scores: no, I don’t think that’s true but am interested in you going in a bit more detail – maybe you’re right, maybe there is a sense in which Europeans are financially more egalitarian but less diverse in their everyday encounters.

” Hi Barry – how exactly did I “ignore” the importance of Holland’s system being better for the lower half of the income distribution? I raised it precisely because I did think that it is important, and self-evidently so. ”

You raised it (for which I should give you much credit, because it’s even more ‘invisible’ in such discussions than being female is), but didn’t continue it, even though it’s a very important thing. There was a comment I head once which echoed David’s: it’s better to be in the USA if you’re rich, and better to be in Europe if you’re poor. It’s really important where the tip-over point is. If it’s at the 25th percentile of the USA income distribution, that’s one thing; if it’s at the 75th, that’s quite another thing.

Considering that we Scandinavians tend to see the Dutch as being pretty traditional familywise, that’s a bit interesting.

David I. Levine, economist UC Berkeley

The vibrancy stuff for me isn’t really to do with economic growth, so much as a general openness to opportunities, diverse and interesting culture etc, which I think is present in the US but not so much in the continental European states that I have lived in (Germany, Belgium, Italy). Obviously, this may depend in rather important ways on my tastes and social preferences. But in any event, it doesn’t detract from the fact that I would much prefer the US to be like the Netherlands, than the Netherlands like the US (while I think there would be some costs involved if we were somehow magically able to transform the US, I think that the costs would be well worth paying).

Henry – assumes a causal relationship from a higher welfare state prop. of GDP and a ‘less vibrant’ economy. Ignores several factors, including that Holland is doing rather well, considering that their only resource is people (the USA lives on a vast continental-scale resource and power base).

Daniel – ‘shudders at the idea of somebody coming in and telling them how to heat their formula’. Doesn’t understand the idea of ‘optional’.

Henry – points out that Holland’s system is much better for people in the bottom 50%; ignores the idea that that might be rather important. Later, does pick up on the idea that, since most travel from the USA involves people from the upper half (third?) of the USA income distribution, that USA travelers might have a distorted view.

Daniel – again, assumes ‘vibrancy’ is being causally traded off.

P.S. The day I watch a bloggingheads.tv episode is the day I experiment with a closed garage, length of hose, and running automobile.

I’m intimately familiar with the terror of harming your newborn (fades after the first few kids, fwiw), the challenges of getting breast feeding going, mom and dad figuring out how to split sleep schedules, the practicalities of bathing, changing. Also sometimes there are postnatal issues that need monitoring—my kids all had transient post-natal jaundice, other babies need careful weight monitoring, colic, etc.

Honestly, it’s great when grandma helps out, but not all families actually want grandma living in the house. Not all grandmas want to be quite that immersed in baby care either. A home health aide who comes in for a fixed period on a schedule and then leaves, or can even be fired or sent away if there’s a personality conflict, sounds pretty freaking ideal.

I’m pretty sure I pay pretty close to 52% in initial income tax rate already, too. IRS rate + payroll (don’t forget the employer contribution, that’s coming out of your pay too) + state/city/county + property taxes. And I have full “health care coverage” as a university professor that actually sucks. We’re being forced once again to randomly change doctors even while in the midst of treatment because the HMO is pushing doctors off their rolls again.

You should also have seen those bills for both the hospital and emergency room care for the jaundice versus the home health care we knew to insist on for the later babies. But there’s nobody who’s thought carefully about health care for more than 30m who doesn’t understand that particular piece of idiocy about our current health care system.

Dear God, don’t let Jonah Goldberg find out about that…