Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Human Development: Mississippi Ranks Above Italy

The chart above is from The Economist, and shows that in terms of "human development" (heath, education and wealth), many U.S. states (Connecticut, NY, Wyoming, California, Illinois and Florida) rank ahead of Australia, Switzerland, Canada and Japan, and even more amazing is that Kentucky ranks ahead of France, Arkansas ranks ahead of the U.K., and Mississippi ranks ahead of Italy. 

54 Comments:

At 11/17/2010 1:09 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Interesting that the New England states are ahead. That, and Ohio is ahead of Texas. Oops?

 
At 11/17/2010 1:42 AM, Blogger dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

 
At 11/17/2010 7:28 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

The EU loving lefties have to hate results like this. When Florida ranks ahead of Switzerland and Kentucky ranks ahead of France they have to really be pissed off.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:20 AM, Blogger BP said...

Interesting point about some states ranking ahead of Canada, Australia et al. But some states rank ahead of the USA ranking. Would that not entail some Canadian Provinces ranking ahead of the USA?

 
At 11/17/2010 8:23 AM, Blogger BP said...

It appears that every state in Germany ranks above the USA. Most Cantons in Switzerland would rank above the USA. When the data is broken down into states for other nations than the USA and the USA is re-combined as a single entity, as the EU states are presented, the data appears reversed.

 
At 11/17/2010 9:34 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

The EU loving lefties have to hate results like this.

================================

I understand and appreciate the sentiment, but I still think thi is a mischaracterization. Certainly, some liberals like to point to EU states and point out things that they think are done better: better mass transit, more dense cities to protect the countryside, healthcare, blah blah blah.

But they make the same kind of mistakes conservatives (or anyone promoting an ideology instead of a solution to the problem at hand) make. they hold up one tiny example, independent of all the variables it depends on, as if it was proof for the system.

That said, Norway is arguably the most socialistic country in Europe and has the highest taxes. That ought to be a recipe for financial and therfore social failure, according to some ideologies, and yet here it is on the top of the list. And according to some polls Norwegians are among the happiest with their government. I'd claim the whole situation there is an anomaly based on oil revenues, but that does not belie their achievemnts in "human development" whatever that is.

Norway is followed by Germany, which has the oldest public health care system in the EU. It also has relatively high endemic unemployment at 7.5%, and low home ownership rates.

Then you have Connecticut, New York, and Sweden, all high tax, and socialist leaning.

So, another way to look at this chart no wonder the EU leaning lefties love it: it proves their point rather well.

If you don't consider what these achievements cost.

For all we know, Texas may be doing much better than Norway, considering what they spend.

 
At 11/17/2010 9:38 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

BP makes a good point.

Data can say what it says, what you want it to say, or what you want to hear.

Two out of three of those conditions will lead to suboptimal decisions and results.

 
At 11/17/2010 10:28 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

while i have serious doubts about surveys like this as the methodology and weighting are terribly subjective, i do find in interesting that the US is the only large country (by population) on the list.

japan and germany are also impressive showings, but for some 10 million population country with vast natural resources or a long history as a banking haven, this is not really an apt comparison.

norway, sweden, australia, and canada would all be jokes without their huge (relative to population) natural resource windfalls.

switzerland is a very special case as they have been neutral through huge wars and accumulated all the private banking as a result.

the only decent sized countries on this list (apart fromt he US) are japan and germany, both massively export driven anti consumer societies.

 
At 11/17/2010 11:03 AM, Blogger BP said...

You do realize the US is the worldest third largest producer of oil and gas and one of the largest commodity producers in the world.

You say Canada and Norway would be jokes with out their commodity production, I think its fair to argue that so would the US. Imagine importing an extra 8 million bbls per day?

 
At 11/17/2010 11:21 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

BP-

divide barrels of oil by population size and you will see exactly what i mean.

norway:

2.6mm bbl/day

pop: 4.7mm

per capita oil: .55 bbl/day/person

canada:

3.4mm bbl/day

pop: 33mm

per capita oil: .103 bbl/day/person

us:

8.5mm bbl/day

pop: 307mm

per capita oil: .027 bbl/day/person

so canada has 4 times as much oil per head (and oil is not their big money mineral export)

norway has 20 times as much and a comfy nanny state based on this oil wealth that kicks out $17k/year/person at current prices.

this is why i say that those two are only on this list due to fortuitous geology.

take out that $17k from norway's $52k per capita GDP (PPP per IMF data) and they fall off the top of the league tables. take out the rest of their resource wealth and they look poorer than greece.

 
At 11/17/2010 11:39 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Considering that the Economist is a 'Keynesian/socialist' rag this makes the list even more interesting...

Still one has to consider the possibility that this 'human development index' could be more than a bit fraudulent depending on who uses it and what their agenda might be...

 
At 11/17/2010 1:06 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

juandos-

i'm with you. the economist fails to publish its methodology, and the US drops from 4th to 8th in comparison to the UN study, which is already biases against the US through the use of "infant mortality" rates that are not comparable. (the US counts any baby, preemie or no, that ever draws a breath, everyone else excludes preemies altogether and only starts counting a baby as live 24 hours after birth) adjusting for this gives the US the longest life expectancy in the world as well.

i suspect that done on a real apples to apples basis and taking into account how much better our universities are that those of these other nations when discussion educational achievement, the US probably tops the table.

note that on a basis of per capita GDP (PPP) there is not an EU country that would be in the top 25 US states and that germany has less than alamaba (our 45th richest)

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/paul-krugman-extols-europes-economic.html

 
At 11/17/2010 1:10 PM, Blogger BP said...

How much wheat does Norway produce? Or Uranium? Or Canola.

You said commodity producer. The US produces per capita as much commodities when taken into the full spectrum as Norway does.

You are only discussing energy production.

 
At 11/17/2010 1:14 PM, Blogger BP said...

Pardon me, you said natural resources, which means more to me than just oil and gas.

 
At 11/17/2010 1:23 PM, Blogger BP said...

The US would not be on this list with out their fortutious geology. Worlds 3rd largest copper producer. 3rd largest oil producer. Second largest natural gas producer. Largest producer of wheat, 3rd largest beef producer....

I could go on. With out the fantastic geology and geography that the US has, wouldnt you suspect it would fall further down the list?

I think your argument is not well reasoned.

 
At 11/17/2010 1:54 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Worlds 3rd largest copper producer. 3rd largest oil producer. Second largest natural gas producer. Largest producer of wheat, 3rd largest beef producer...."

I guess the question I would ask is how much of our production is due to an industrious workforce, and how much is the equivalent of picking low hanging fruit off a tree.

 
At 11/17/2010 2:02 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

"....norway has 20 times as much and a comfy nanny state based on this oil wealth that kicks out $17k/year/person at current prices.

this is why i say that those two are only on this list due to fortuitous geology."

=================================

So you agree with the conservation cult that we are enjoying tremendous world wealth based on depleteion of resources that cannot continue?

 
At 11/17/2010 2:04 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Never mind the evidence, we'll just call it fraudulent and invent a conspiracy theory so it does not have to upset our apple cart (vendetta).

 
At 11/17/2010 2:38 PM, Blogger Anonymous Bosh said...

Norway--and countries like it--works largely due to its over-arching homogeneity. Indeed, now that it is "suffering" some immigration, dissent is on the rise.

Iceland, Japan, Sweden--all homogenous. Where and why do we see trouble? In previously stable systems introducing "outsiders." France? Germany? Canada? Denmark? Indeed, the US should be applauded in that it does so well DESPITE its heterogeneity.

 
At 11/17/2010 3:19 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Anonymous:

Change is disruptive.

Let's homogenize everybody so we won't have any trouble.

 
At 11/17/2010 4:00 PM, Blogger pkd said...

I find the list suspect, but I still like the idea of the French breaking out the champagne because they nosed out Arkansas.

 
At 11/17/2010 4:54 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

bp-

you are totally wrong about that.

agriculture is 1.2% of us GDP.

natural resources as a whole are sub 3%. mining as a whole is well under 1%.

the economy is 77% services.

compare this to some place like norway where oil alone is 20% of GDP or canada where resources are a similar number.

you keep forgetting how big the US is. i'm sure we are the world's largest consumer of potato chips too, but taking them out would not harm the economy.

you are either not grasping how big our economy and population are or you are just making stuff up.

how about some facts to back up your outlandish statements?

all in, agriculture and natural resources are less than 5% of US output.

 
At 11/17/2010 4:55 PM, Blogger rjs said...

i dont see what this is supposed to show or prove...

the obvious point is that the US is still 8th in the world; thus its no surprise that some states rank above other countries and the US as a whole, and some dont...

 
At 11/17/2010 4:56 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

hydra-

"So you agree with the conservation cult that we are enjoying tremendous world wealth based on depleteion of resources that cannot continue?"

this comment does not follow at all from what i said. i don;t see your logic at all.

why does saying that a country is only rich because of natural resources have anything to do with world wealth?

i think you need to check your logic here.

 
At 11/17/2010 6:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Interesting point about some states ranking ahead of Canada, Australia et al. But some states rank ahead of the USA ranking. Would that not entail some Canadian Provinces ranking ahead of the USA?

Yes. But which ones tends to change depending on which sectors of the economy are doing well and which idiot and which party are running a province. If it were not for idiot local politicians Canada would rank ahead of the US.

 
At 11/17/2010 7:19 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

...Certainly, some liberals like to point to EU states and point out things that they think are done better: better mass transit, more dense cities to protect the countryside, healthcare, blah blah blah.

But you can have 'better' mass transit if you have much denser cities and middle class people living in tiny apartments that would seem small to an American lower class worker. To do a proper comparison it helps to do an apple to apple view of things. I doubt that Paris or Berlin have a better mass transit system than New York.

I also doubt that EU healthcare is better. If you are diagnosed with a serious disease in France or Italy you will not live as long as a person who has been diagnosed with the same disease in the US. British politicians come to the US for their healthcare but American politicians do not go to England for theirs.

There is a myth about how the EU healthcare makes Europeans live longer. But that myth dissolves if we adjust for violent deaths (nothing to do with the healthcare system) and premature babies. In the US a baby under 500 grams is considered viable and its death is counted even though more than seven out of ten die. In the EU such babies are not a part of the official statistics so the data sets are not measuring the same things.

Then there is the myth about how Europeans prefer the easy life of long vacations rather than money. But that is not true. They take long vacations and ask for other benefits because the tax rates do not permit Europeans to make a great deal of after tax income.

Keep in mind that the EU is also in huge trouble. Many of its member nations are bankrupt and need massive bailouts. Governments are finding that they cannot keep promises made to citizens who never saved enough because they were expecting fat pensions to keep them living decent lives. Now we have seen massive responses to the required claw-backs and broken promises and people are finally figuring out that Socialism has failed to deliver once again.

 
At 11/17/2010 7:22 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Morganovich:

You said these countries make a good living based on extracting favorable geology.

The conservation cult calls this short term profit based on exploiting natural capital. Leaving out the emotional adjectives, I don't see much difference.

You really don't see the similarity in these arguments?

 
At 11/17/2010 7:29 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Vanges : that's what I said, blah blah blah.

There are real differences and we are really lousy about measuring and capturing them.

They have better mass transit because they spend more on it and they are willing to accept a far lower fare box ratio (more socialism).

 
At 11/17/2010 7:33 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

For all the trouble they are in, the top five places on the list are high tax, socialist leaning places.


To hear some on this blog, this is first impossible, and second inaccurate.

 
At 11/17/2010 7:34 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

But they make the same kind of mistakes conservatives (or anyone promoting an ideology instead of a solution to the problem at hand) make. they hold up one tiny example, independent of all the variables it depends on, as if it was proof for the system.

I agree. But if you look at the variables you will find that the US is even in much better shape than the EU nations that it is being compared to.

That said, Norway is arguably the most socialistic country in Europe and has the highest taxes. That ought to be a recipe for financial and therfore social failure, according to some ideologies, and yet here it is on the top of the list.

No kidding. Norway has a huge amount of oil and low corporate taxes. Both are great for the economy. In Norway it is the personal taxes that are high. In the US you have much less oil per capita, high corporate taxes and low personal taxes.

And according to some polls Norwegians are among the happiest with their government.

That is because the oil royalties are providing lots of revenue to spread on all kinds of schemes. If the US government had a similar source of revenue to spend on projects Americans would be happier too.

I'd claim the whole situation there is an anomaly based on oil revenues, but that does not belie their achievemnts in "human development" whatever that is.

Nonsense. Norway gets a massive amount of money from oil revenues and has a small, relatively homogeneous population. Take away the revenue, add more Jamaicans, Mexicans, Indians, Haitians, Cubans, Guatemalans, Irish, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Egyptians, etc., etc., etc., to the population and Norway would be in a totally different situation.

I am not suggesting that it is all about oil. In fact, I am suggesting that if the US wants to do better it should learn from Norway and lower its corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the OECD. But I doubt that the left wants to hear that.

 
At 11/17/2010 7:48 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Nonsense, Norway gets massive are venue from oil.

------;-/-///

Isn't that what I said, too?

How much oil revenue does Connecticut have?

The stated evidence says one thing.

You claim the nonstated variables prove something else. ( the evidence is fraudulent).

The situation is temporary and those places are bound to fail. (The data is temporal and soon to be changed).

And you claim those places had good luck in geology( policy has nothing to do with it, but my policy is better and will be proven more successful if we ever get the right data.)

 
At 11/17/2010 8:21 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Norway is followed by Germany, which has the oldest public health care system in the EU. It also has relatively high endemic unemployment at 7.5%, and low home ownership rates.

Yes it does. The average middle class German lives a much more modest life than a poor American because he lacks the money for a better life.

Then you have Connecticut, New York, and Sweden, all high tax, and socialist leaning.

The Swedish economy is very open to trade and global investment and its regulatory system encourages entrepreneurial activity. Its judicial system protects property rights far more strongly than what we see in the US. Sweden has a lower corporate tax rate than the US, and has eliminated its wealth tax. Where Swedes get killed is the personal tax rate, which is why there are so many capable young Swedes working abroad and why tax evasion is so prevalent. The employment regulations do not help because they discourage companies from hiring new people and encourage them to set up operations abroad.

As for Connecticut and New York, they are the beneficiaries of the corrupt financial system that dominates the US economy. The extremely high compensation in the sector certainly makes the numbers look very good.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:24 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You say Canada and Norway would be jokes with out their commodity production, I think its fair to argue that so would the US. Imagine importing an extra 8 million bbls per day?

The US has a small per capita production rate and uses up all of what it can produce. Canada and Norway are exporting nations. There is a huge difference.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:32 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Still one has to consider the possibility that this 'human development index' could be more than a bit fraudulent

depending on who uses it and what their agenda might be...


You might be right. After all the right wingers that run the UN are clearly not as credible as the government of Zambia and unable to see all of the good things that the government has done for its people. Longevity, wealth, education, health are way overrated.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:40 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

i suspect that done on a real apples to apples basis and taking into account how much better our universities are that those of these other nations when discussion educational achievement, the US probably tops the table.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I am not as accepting of the educational achievement argument. First of all, we know that your public system sucks because it is in the clutches of socialist bureaucracies that would not be tolerated in the EU where many countries attach the money to the student and parents have a choice of schools. This is why American students do so poorly in comparison to many other nations.

While the US university system has some great schools it also sucks. Many students take worthless degrees that do not teach them much of anything and are not useful if you want a meaningful job. If you look at the postgraduate schools you are shocked to find that they are dominated by foreign students, particularly in mathematics and the hard sciences.

You may be interested in a great critique of the system by looking at Gonzalo Lira's post, Selecting for Cynicism in the Ivy League. It is a great read.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:46 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Look here is one set of data that seems to suggest on the face of it that high taxes and socialist policies are not the end of civilization, right now. File it for what it is.

Do this a hundred or a thousand times using different ranking criteria, as honestly as you can.

Then do a multivariate analysis to see where corporation tax falls among the variables most responsible for change.

It might turn out that availability of oil is the biggest variable. Or birth rate.

My guess is that the answer is indeterminate. Policy makes less difference than we think. The president makes less difference than we think. Otherwise we would be busy emulating China.

Why don't we?

Because we don't believe that China's gross national happiness is equal to ours.

I believe there is a ratio of grins/$and a ratio of $/resource.

Multiply those together and you find out $ don't matter.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:55 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

hydra-

no. i don't see the similarity. the conservationist peak oil hysterics are vastly overstating their case.

clearly, the resources are finite, but places like saudi and norway have been powering their economies with them for 50 years already. is that short term? they have oil for another 50. is that short term? that's fairly long term. and given how prices will rise as resource scarcity bites, there is likely more $ value still to be extracted than has been thus far.

then, it will matter to what use they put that wealth. if they have squandered all the money, they'll suffer, if they have invested it wisely they can adapt and evolve.

the death of the candle industry did not destroy the lighting business.

it's not so simple as "they will run out of oil and go splat any day now".

you are taking a long term trend and linking it to short term alarmism. that's why i'm saying you need to check your thinking.

 
At 11/17/2010 8:57 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

vangel-

if you think US universities suck, you should see the european ones apart from the very top tier.

 
At 11/17/2010 9:37 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

How much wheat does Norway produce? Or Uranium? Or Canola.

You said commodity producer. The US produces per capita as much commodities when taken into the full spectrum as Norway does.

You are only discussing energy production.


You are wrong on this point. Norway also has fish, minerals, forest and hydropower. When you add up all of the natural resource based revenues on a per capita basis it comes out way ahead of the US. Its problem is that oil production is in decline and the economy is too dependent on revenues that cannot be sustained.

The way you compare is not by looking at volume but the market value of what is being produced.

 
At 11/17/2010 9:59 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You claim the nonstated variables prove something else.

Your confusion is astounding. Without oil Norway is a mainly country that sells fish. It could not afford a massive welfare state and would not be the 'happy' place you think that it is. It is not a great place because of its socialist leanings. It is 'great' because of oil.

You can try to read into the data what you want but the debate has already been lost by the left. No matter what you might want to say, freer economies produce a better standard of living than ones that are less free. That is why Kentucky is ahead of France.

 
At 11/17/2010 10:05 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Look here is one set of data that seems to suggest on the face of it that high taxes and socialist policies are not the end of civilization, right now.

I believe that we already discussed this point in the Don Boudreaux posting. As Don pointed out, freedom is resilient and high taxes and stupid rules will not stop individuals who find ways around the idiotic barriers put up by the state.

While I agree I part ways with Don on the issue of sustainability. Don is an optimist who believes that the game can keep going for much longer than I believe is possible. In the end reality will always force an adjustment and when it does we will see Socialism take another dive over the cliff. I am just not quite sure yet who goes over first, the EU or the US.

 
At 11/17/2010 10:08 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

high taxes and stupid rules will not stop individuals who find ways around the idiotic barriers put up by the state.

================================

Isn't that what I said, policies are not allthat important?

 
At 11/17/2010 10:10 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I am just not quite sure yet who goes over first, the EU or the US.

===============================

OK, so if EU and US are both socialist, and China is communist, where does that leave Capitalism, Korea?

 
At 11/17/2010 10:14 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You can try to read into the data what you want but the debate has already been lost by the left. No matter what you might want to say, freer economies produce a better standard of living than ones that are less free.

==============================

Right.

And both Kentuky and France rate half as well as the top five, all high tax, relatively controlled economies.

Read into the data what you want.

 
At 11/17/2010 10:18 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Let me ask you, if we come back and revisit this next year, and the year after, and the top five continue to outpace the US, would you still say the left has lost the debate?

What evidence or what graph would EVER sway your opinion?

 
At 11/18/2010 1:17 AM, Blogger mike250 said...

I think they're trying to compare too many things at once, using too many methods of measurement. Arkansas is smarter, healthier, and richer than Britain? Go ahead, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

 
At 11/18/2010 7:53 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Isn't that what I said, policies are not allthat important?

But they are important. While the desire for freedom is very strong the servile state will keep grinding at the edges and will make it harder and harder for the average person to escape dependence. When the system is no longer viable those people will experience huge hardships and suffering. Look at the EU today. What happens to all those people who were reliant on the ability of the state to rob the productive class so that they could keep getting fat pensions that allow them to maintain their standard of living? Or what about all those Americans who never saved much because they were under the illusion that SS payments will continue to have the same purchasing power?

 
At 11/18/2010 8:02 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

OK, so if EU and US are both socialist, and China is communist, where does that leave Capitalism, Korea?

First, China's government spends less as a percentage of GDP than Norway, Sweden, and the US. In some ways it is less socialist than we are and is certainly moving in the right direction by rejecting socialist doctrine.

Second, it is clear that most countries have gone some ways towards socialism. The freest countries are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland and Chile but they all embrace certain elements of socialism. The United States, Canada, and Australia are in the next tier but they certainly have way too much government and need to reduce their bureaucracies by 50-90% or so.

 
At 11/18/2010 8:03 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Read into the data what you want.

That is your problem. You read into it what you want rather than what it implies.

 
At 11/18/2010 8:10 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Let me ask you, if we come back and revisit this next year, and the year after, and the top five continue to outpace the US, would you still say the left has lost the debate?

I expect the US to crash and burn sometimes in the next few years because it has embraced the warfare/welfare state so no. It would be support for the position that the left's embrace of big government has been a massive failure. For the record, in the US the right is also into big government so it offers no solution either. Replacing one corrupt system with another is not the answer. Liberty is the answer.

What evidence or what graph would EVER sway your opinion?

I think that the problem is that you are only looking at a bit of data. What you need to do is to look at all of it. Rank the countries by economic liberty and see what that tells you. Here is a hint:

Top eight:

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Switzerland
Chile
United States
Canada
Australia

Bottom eight:

Burundi
Guinea-Bissau
Central African Republic
Congo
Venezuela
Angola
Myanmar
Zimbabwe

 
At 11/18/2010 8:14 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

I think they're trying to compare too many things at once, using too many methods of measurement. Arkansas is smarter, healthier, and richer than Britain? Go ahead, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Why would that be a big surprise? The UK healthchare system is horrible. Kids in Arkansas have better teeth than British Lords. While the US education system sucks, so does the UK's.

 
At 11/18/2010 1:32 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I think that the problem is that you are only looking at a bit of data.

=================================

We agree. I conceded that much up front. take this study andmany others and do a multivariate analysis is my suggestion.


Your suggestion is to take a different set of data pre-selected (which you call ALL the data) to give an engineered result. I see no difference between that and the date presented here. And I would have the same arguments concerning cooking the data as you made.


Vange is right, there are many variables. Put them all in a big matrix and turn the crank until the most accurately descriptive variables pop out.

Besides I did not ask you what you think the true answer is. That's easy. What I asked was what it would take to change your mind.

That is a lot harder to answer, because it forces you to focus on the chinks in the armor of your argument.

Now suppose you come up with such a thing and you say, "Yes, if the moon flies off into space, I will agree that the Fructimose party was right and the Levantithan party was wrong. I don;t have to worry about it because it will NEVER happen."

Finally, imagine this thing actually happens. Do you change your mind and agree with the Levantithans or do you just invent another defensive line of kerfluffle and retreat?

 
At 11/18/2010 1:33 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11/18/2010 3:24 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Your suggestion is to take a different set of data pre-selected (which you call ALL the data) to give an engineered result. I see no difference between that and the date presented here. And I would have the same arguments concerning cooking the data as you made.

I think that you are over-complicating things. Take one variable like economic freedom and rank the countries in order. Look at the list and tell me that if I could draw at random a name from the top and bottom ten countries where you would rather live in and you have your answer.

There is no doubt that almost all readers of this blog would choose the group of economically freest countries over the least free group. You would not be able to say that as confidently if we chose countries by factors such as natural resource abundance, government spending as a percentage of GDP, per student spending on education or healthcare spending per person.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home