Don't know why Norway is considered the worst performing Scand. country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
Numero Uno on this, with Sweden all the way at 10.
Im calling BS. Norway has a gdp of 100k per capita, while US is under 50k, theres no way US has higher standard of living now matter how you twist the nmbers or cost of living.
Per capita GDP means nothing if you don't at the very least factor in the cost of living. For example, I've seen people on this forum say that Australia has a high minimum wage at $15 per hour, but $15 will buy you shit all in Australia. You can buy Australian beer in the US for half the price in its country of origin. Most of the USA has a ridiculously low cost of living compared to the parts of the West that have been more socialistic and for longer (the high standard of living in the USA isn't because it isn't relatively socialistic now, but because it had a relatively long period of being relatively free).
I agree completely. Looking at GDP per capita isn't telling at all in the real world. It's the stuff of text books and theory. That is why it drives me nuts when people site things like that trying to argue things like standards of living.
It's better than the libertarian model of Somalia
[view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0]
Haha, that is fantastic! Best laugh I had in a while.
Anyway, PPP is meant to equilbriate purchasing powers. And Norway is still richer than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Thanks impala for backing us up. There is only a very small difference between the PPP between Norway and USA, and Norway has a much larger amount of income that is due to natural resources (oil). Sweden and Denmark are signficantly lower on the list (so is, as I thought, Australia).
*Per capita income. I've noticed the stupid buggy forum won't let you edit posts on threads with many pages.
Proving you wrong is backing you up? Whatever.
Low PPP implies an undervalued currency, which allows a country's exports to outcompete and siphon off growth from other countries for no reason other than currency evaluation. You have to take PPP and real GDP both into account.
Besides, there are reasons besides current economic policy why the US might be ahead, like its historical lead, language dominance and iron/coal resources.
*relative currency devaluation
Proving you wrong is backing you up?
My point was that the GDP figures being quoted gave a false picture of the situation, which your figures corroborated.
I actually agree with you. Pointing at current policies only is ridiculous since it ignores the historical context and the time required for capital accumulation/consumption. If Singapore became completely communistic tomorrow, they would still have a relatively high standard of living by world standards on day 1 - thus illustrating the benefits of Communism!
Okay, PPP does narrow the difference. You're right about that.
I just think that, looking across all developed, non-microstate/taxhaven countries (rather than merely the old "Europe versus America") there doesn't seem to be much relation between government spending and per capita GDP. Inequality and happiness (subjective wellbeing) are different stories.
I know this was posted 3 years back but...thanks, it helps a lot.