Happy Thanksgiving

[Balloon guy 158]

The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community."After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example."And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats."Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well."Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work!""It never has worked! "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote."'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point? Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property."Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite" I wrote then "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves."Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you're laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'" But this story stops when the Indians taught the newly arrived suffering in socialism Pilgrims how to plant corn and fish for cod. That's where the story stops, and the story basically doesn't even begin there. The real story of Thanksgiving is William Bradford giving thanks to God for the guidance and the inspiration to set up a thriving colony. The bounty was shared with the Indians. They did sit down and they had dinner, and I think they had a turkey, but it was not the Indians who saved the day. It was capitalism and Scripture which saved the day."

[nutzbuster 7]

I heard this yesterday eating at Arby's and wondered if it was anywhere to be shared. Thanks Rob.

[akoff 0]

I heard this as well. Great story...sad we are trying to do it all over again.

[CaneBrain 97]

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Yeah, after that Thanksgiving, the American colonies had no problems ever again. Capitalism saved the colonies! (And the cheap labor that slavery provided but whatever, irrelevant clearly. Scripture is cool with slavery though so technically scripture came through again.)First of all, they had plenty of incentive. It was 1620, the incentive was to NOT DIE. Secondly, what is described in this "story" was communism. I know Rush and every other conservative talking head believe communism and socialism are the same thing but they are not. They are not even very close. Socialism respects personal property rights. They still have those in Europe. This is Rush though....no facts in the way of a good story/trying to make a parallel to today.Third, we have had a large percentage of socialism in this country since the early 20th century. Somehow, the country has managed not to implode. Some would say we are even doing better now than we were in 1920. And fourth, it is fantastic to hear that Rush (even on a wonderful holiday like Thanksgiving) found a way to marginalize the contributions of a minority (in this case the Native Americans).

[85suited 0]

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Yeah, after that Thanksgiving, the American colonies had no problems ever again. Capitalism saved the colonies! (And the cheap labor that slavery provided but whatever, irrelevant clearly. Scripture is cool with slavery though so technically scripture came through again.)First of all, they had plenty of incentive. It was 1620, the incentive was to NOT DIE. Secondly, what is described in this "story" was communism. I know Rush and every other conservative talking head believe communism and socialism are the same thing but they are not. They are not even very close. Socialism respects personal property rights. They still have those in Europe. This is Rush though....no facts in the way of a good story/trying to make a parallel to today.Third, we have had a large percentage of socialism in this country since the early 20th century. Somehow, the country has managed not to implode. Some would say we are even doing better now than we were in 1920. And fourth, it is fantastic to hear that Rush (even on a wonderful holiday like Thanksgiving) found a way to marginalize the contributions of a minority (in this case the Native Americans).

it was Bush's fault

[akoff 0]

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Yeah, after that Thanksgiving, the American colonies had no problems ever again. Capitalism saved the colonies! (And the cheap labor that slavery provided but whatever, irrelevant clearly. Scripture is cool with slavery though so technically scripture came through again.)First of all, they had plenty of incentive. It was 1620, the incentive was to NOT DIE. Secondly, what is described in this "story" was communism. I know Rush and every other conservative talking head believe communism and socialism are the same thing but they are not. They are not even very close. Socialism respects personal property rights. They still have those in Europe. This is Rush though....no facts in the way of a good story/trying to make a parallel to today.Third, we have had a large percentage of socialism in this country since the early 20th century. Somehow, the country has managed not to implode. Some would say we are even doing better now than we were in 1920. And fourth, it is fantastic to hear that Rush (even on a wonderful holiday like Thanksgiving) found a way to marginalize the contributions of a minority (in this case the Native Americans).

LOL at least you are keepi9ng it all in perspective...jump right into slavery...LOL

[CaneBrain 97]

it was Bush's fault

now you're getting it!

[Balloon guy 158]

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Yeah, after that Thanksgiving, the American colonies had no problems ever again. Capitalism saved the colonies! (And the cheap labor that slavery provided but whatever, irrelevant clearly. Scripture is cool with slavery though so technically scripture came through again.)First of all, they had plenty of incentive. It was 1620, the incentive was to NOT DIE. Secondly, what is described in this "story" was communism. I know Rush and every other conservative talking head believe communism and socialism are the same thing but they are not. They are not even very close. Socialism respects personal property rights. They still have those in Europe. This is Rush though....no facts in the way of a good story/trying to make a parallel to today.Third, we have had a large percentage of socialism in this country since the early 20th century. Somehow, the country has managed not to implode. Some would say we are even doing better now than we were in 1920. And fourth, it is fantastic to hear that Rush (even on a wonderful holiday like Thanksgiving) found a way to marginalize the contributions of a minority (in this case the Native Americans).

You're just mad because kosher Turkey is dry

[hblask 1]

First, I didn't read the OP, because I started it it got stupid immediately. I tried to skim it, but it seemed to be a "history as a Rorschach test" interpretation. And who cares, really, whether pilgrims were communist or capitalist?But while I can't read that much of Rush, I can read CaneBrain, and had to answer a couple things:

I know Rush and every other conservative talking head believe communism and socialism are the same thing but they are not. They are not even very close. Socialism respects personal property rights. They still have those in Europe.

Socialism

refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the

means of production

and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to

resources

for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

And this is why socialism always fails. It's definition is inherently self-contradictory. Basically, it says you have direct ownership, but the government has the right to decide on "equal access" and the method of compensation. That's like basing a theory of virginity on having sex as much as possible. Just not gonna work.As for it being different than communism:

Communism

is a

socioeconomic

structure and

political ideology

that promotes the establishment of an

egalitarian

,

classless

,

stateless society

based on

common ownership

and control of the

means of production

and property in general.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing: everyone is equal, and good-hearted bureaucrats will take care of you to make sure that everyone gets their share. Changing the order of a few words doesn't change the ideology in any meaningful or practical way.

Third, we have had a large percentage of socialism in this country since the early 20th century. Somehow, the country has managed not to implode. Some would say we are even doing better now than we were in 1920.

Socialism takes a long time to do it's damage, and if you do it in relatively small doses, it takes longer. But look at the programs FDR started -- we are paying the price now. SS is bankrupting the country. LBJ's great society programs took much shorter to show how terrible they were. When you have a robust economy spurred by free markets, it can take a hit or two. But you can only bite the hand that feeds you so many times. SS and Medicare are time bombs, waiting to sink us into 3rd world status. So yeah, we're better off than in the 20's, but it is despite the socialism we've adopted, not because of it. We're starting to pay the price now, as we move further and further down in economic and freedom rankings, and countries that we just banana republics are passing us in economic growth. The dollar is diving, with no end in sight thanks the mountains of debt all this good socialism is heaping on us.

[strategy 4]

.

[CaneBrain 97]

First, I didn't read the OP, because I started it it got stupid immediately. I tried to skim it, but it seemed to be a "history as a Rorschach test" interpretation. And who cares, really, whether pilgrims were communist or capitalist?But while I can't read that much of Rush, I can read CaneBrain, and had to answer a couple things:

Socialism

refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the

means of production

and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to

resources

for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

And this is why socialism always fails. It's definition is inherently self-contradictory. Basically, it says you have direct ownership, but the government has the right to decide on "equal access" and the method of compensation. That's like basing a theory of virginity on having sex as much as possible. Just not gonna work.As for it being different than communism:

Communism

is a

socioeconomic

structure and

political ideology

that promotes the establishment of an

egalitarian

,

classless

,

stateless society

based on

common ownership

and control of the

means of production

and property in general.

Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing: everyone is equal, and good-hearted bureaucrats will take care of you to make sure that everyone gets their share. Changing the order of a few words doesn't change the ideology in any meaningful or practical way.Socialism takes a long time to do it's damage, and if you do it in relatively small doses, it takes longer. But look at the programs FDR started -- we are paying the price now. SS is bankrupting the country. LBJ's great society programs took much shorter to show how terrible they were. When you have a robust economy spurred by free markets, it can take a hit or two. But you can only bite the hand that feeds you so many times. SS and Medicare are time bombs, waiting to sink us into 3rd world status. So yeah, we're better off than in the 20's, but it is despite the socialism we've adopted, not because of it. We're starting to pay the price now, as we move further and further down in economic and freedom rankings, and countries that we just banana republics are passing us in economic growth. The dollar is diving, with no end in sight thanks the mountains of debt all this good socialism is heaping on us.

socialism (at least as it is practiced in say Sweden) respects personal property rights. Communism does not. That is a major difference (at least in practice---the strict definitions may be similar but I don't think anyone thinks Sweden is a lot like old Russia). Putting "everything" into a massive collective is not what Obama is proposing (though I know Sarah Palin accused him of wanting to do so).As for the last paragraph, that is all well and good (and perhaps correct) however neither Rush nor ANY republican is talking about doing away with SS or Medicare. In fact, they are claiming they will protect seniors medicare from Obama. It's really just you and Ron Paul who want to blow up the whole damn thing. I was more commenting on the ridiculousness of Rush's argument. I know you are a true Libertarian believer. However, what you want to do is never going to happen (and I think you know that).

[CaneBrain 97]

You're just mad because kosher Turkey is dry

I don't keep Kosher. We brined our turkey this year and it was moist and delicious!

[hblask 1]

socialism (at least as it is practiced in say Sweden) respects personal property rights. Communism does not. That is a major difference (at least in practice---the strict definitions may be similar but I don't think anyone thinks Sweden is a lot like old Russia). Putting "everything" into a massive collective is not what Obama is proposing (though I know Sarah Palin accused him of wanting to do so).As for the last paragraph, that is all well and good (and perhaps correct) however neither Rush nor ANY republican is talking about doing away with SS or Medicare. In fact, they are claiming they will protect seniors medicare from Obama. It's really just you and Ron Paul who want to blow up the whole damn thing. I was more commenting on the ridiculousness of Rush's argument. I know you are a true Libertarian believer. However, what you want to do is never going to happen (and I think you know that).

Socialism comes in degrees, you can have a little of it or a lot. If you have a little, the harm is smaller and takes longer to accrue; if you have a lot, your country falls apart much more rapidly. As for Sweden, I think they just passed the US in the world freedom rankings. But historically, European-style welfare-state socialism has cost them about 1-2% growth each year. That's thousands and thousands of nameless, faceless victims. It's not as dramatic as the death camps of Hitler and Stalin, but it's still a lot of misery to be inflicting in the name of benevolence. Poverty is a greater predictor of death than smoking or car accidents or drug use. A tiny increase in poverty causes more harm than all the smoking in the world. So make no mistake, these programs are costing lives. It's just that the victims are anonymous and faceless, while the beneficiaries can be trotted out for TV cameras.As for whether change will happen, there's no question it will. Ponzi schemes are mathematically impossible and will eventually fail. So far, our government's theory is to kill it as slowly as politically possible by raising costs and cutting benefits slowly. Currently, people just starting their careers can expect anywhere from -2% to +2% growth (adjusted for inflation) -- significantly lower than almost any other use of that money. So far, politicians won't kill it because AARP has lobbyists, and drunk college students don't. But in 20 years, after SS taxes have gone up a few more times and benefits have been cut a few more times, then there will be an outcry. Of course, by then, killing the program will have driven the nation deeper into debt and the transition will be traumatic for the country. But hey, the "what-matters-is-intentions-not-results" crowd gets to feel good about themselves in the meantime, so I guess that's what really matters.Sleep well.

[FCP Bob 1,323]

Poverty is a greater predictor of death than smoking or car accidents or drug use.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.Ranking by Human Development Index released in 2009 based on 2007 data.1 Norway 2 Australia3 Iceland 4 Canada 5 Ireland 6 Netherlands7 Sweden 8 France 9 Switzerland 10 Japan 11 Luxembourg 12 Finland13 United States 14 Austria 15 SpainImagine how well off those darn Swedes would be if their government wasn't killing them with Socialism.

[85suited 0]

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare.Ranking by Human Development Index released in 2009 based on 2007 data.1 Norway 2 Australia3 Iceland 4 Canada 5 Ireland 6 Netherlands7 Sweden 8 France 9 Switzerland 10 Japan 11 Luxembourg 12 Finland13 United States 14 Austria 15 SpainImagine how well off those darn Swedes would be if their government wasn't killing them with Socialism.

Please correct me if I am wrong here.. Doesn't the HDI not measure these factors? housing quality, pollution, tax rates, adult life expectancy, crime rates, unemployment, inflation, quality and variety of goods and services?

[FCP Bob 1,323]

Please correct me if I am wrong here.. Doesn't the HDI not measure these factors? housing quality, pollution, tax rates, adult life expectancy, crime rates, unemployment, inflation, quality and variety of goods and services?

Here's a link to the UN website for it.http://hdr.undp.org/en/There are a few hundred different stats that they use to come up with a number for each country and the reality is that the difference between the top 20 really isn't that much. I just like tweaking Henry on occasion.

[hblask 1]

Here's a link to the UN website for it.http://hdr.undp.org/en/There are a few hundred different stats that they use to come up with a number for each country and the reality is that the difference between the top 20 really isn't that much. I just like tweaking Henry on occasion.

And I deserve it, dammit. But yeah, people who say European socialism is so much better than what the US has to offer or vice versa, it's a bit of a silly argument, especially since the EU has passed the US in many way in freedom rankings. But in the end, Europe and the US belong to one group, and North Korea and Cuba belong in another group, and.... etc. And if you look by these big groups, the correct direction is obvious.LLY had a great point in a thread six or eight months ago when I pointed to graphs of this trend that in the Europe-Canada-US socialism welfare state capitalist model, the data is all over the place, so to say that US capitalism is better than EU capitalism has to be based on other info than pure data. Yes, on the large scale, the result is obvious. But are there local maximums? My feeling on this is that, based on the large scale trend of Cuba/Soviet Union/USSR vs US/Hong Kong/New Zealand, the results are clear, so the burden of proof is on those who claim there are local maximums. I see no theoretical reason why there should be any, why the trend would break down.Now, if you want to talk about problems of scaling up local solutions, then I think we're getting somewhere -- including explanations of why Sweden or Minnesota socialism works, while California or Cuban socialism doesn't.

[CaneBrain 97]

And I deserve it, dammit. But yeah, people who say European socialism is so much better than what the US has to offer or vice versa, it's a bit of a silly argument,

I hope you understand the main point of my post was that it is maddening to have one group (the GOP) who prefers things about 75/25 capitalism to socialism is so outraged about Obama's attempts to make it 60/40. And that Rush is an ass.

[hblask 1]

I hope you understand the main point of my post was that it is maddening to have one group (the GOP) who prefers things about 75/25 capitalism to socialism is so outraged about Obama's attempts to make it 60/40. And that Rush is an ass.

Yeah, I have to agree with both of those points. If I had to vote right now I'd say I agree with you more than anyone else here, yet we still have some of the most heated and interesting discussions.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

But historically, European-style welfare-state socialism has cost them about 1-2% growth each year. That's thousands and thousands of nameless, faceless victims. It's not as dramatic as the death camps of Hitler and Stalin, but it's still a lot of misery to be inflicting in the name of benevolence. Poverty is a greater predictor of death than smoking or car accidents or drug use. A tiny increase in poverty causes more harm than all the smoking in the world. So make no mistake, these programs are costing lives. It's just that the victims are anonymous and faceless, while the beneficiaries can be trotted out for TV cameras.

But this is an absurd claim. Let's say that Sweden's "socialism" costs it 1-2% growth each year (though it's really impossible to prove this, but I'll give it to you for argument's sake). The question that I ask is, "where does the 1-2% in growth come from?" It comes from the top moneymakers in the country. If your claim is correct, the high taxes of Sweden lessen the incentive of the highest moneymakers to become even higher moneymakers, and this total amounts to less total growth. This is the premise. In exchange for that growth, all Swedes get on of the world's best safety nets. This means thinks like universal healthcare and other social programs that prevent the poor from dying in the streets (and, as a result, there really aren't too many poor. If you're on of the lower money makers, most costs are taken care of by the state, so you can still live reasonably well). This is why Sweden's poverty rate hovers around 6%, while the US's poverty rate is more than twice that, usually around 13-15%. I mean, your claim that a smaller GDP (or by whatever means you measure the 1-2% productivity) leads to more poverty and therefore more suffering is actually exactly wrong.Incidentally, the GDP per capita in sweden is $37,000 to $38,000 and the US GDP is about $46,000-$47,000. The US produces more per person (if that's how you want to interpret GDP), but has more poor people per capita.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

But in the end, Europe and the US belong to one group, and North Korea and Cuba belong in another group, and.... etc.

Indeed. It's certainly ridiculous to compare North Korea to any European Country. It's so far off the deepend that it's scary. It's not because of "socialism," it's because of totalitarianism and the complete suppression of freedom, free speech, free thoughts, free ideas, etc.Cuba's pretty bad too, but that's mostly because our embargo hasn't allowed them to develop for the past 50 years. When Castro dies and when the US lifts the embargo, expect Cuba to catch up pretty quickly.

[hblask 1]

But this is an absurd claim. Let's say that Sweden's "socialism" costs it 1-2% growth each year (though it's really impossible to prove this, but I'll give it to you for argument's sake). The question that I ask is, "where does the 1-2% in growth come from?" It comes from the top moneymakers in the country. If your claim is correct, the high taxes of Sweden lessen the incentive of the highest moneymakers to become even higher moneymakers, and this total amounts to less total growth. This is the premise. In exchange for that growth, all Swedes get on of the world's best safety nets. This means thinks like universal healthcare and other social programs that prevent the poor from dying in the streets (and, as a result, there really aren't too many poor. If you're on of the lower money makers, most costs are taken care of by the state, so you can still live reasonably well). This is why Sweden's poverty rate hovers around 6%, while the US's poverty rate is more than twice that, usually around 13-15%. I mean, your claim that a smaller GDP (or by whatever means you measure the 1-2% productivity) leads to more poverty and therefore more suffering is actually exactly wrong.Incidentally, the GDP per capita in sweden is $37,000 to $38,000 and the US GDP is about $46,000-$47,000. The US produces more per person (if that's how you want to interpret GDP), but has more poor people per capita.

The poverty rate is not measured the same across countries, so it's silly to compare them. The official worldwide definition is living off a dollar per day. We have nowhere near 13%. The poverty rate in the US is nowhere near double digits by any meaningful measure. It is arbitrarily set, though, to suit the needs of the poverty infrastructure in this country. At one point, it was set at about 30% more than I was making, and I had a nice apartment, a new car, and all the food I could eat. The number the US uses is meaningless.And no, lost production does not take from the richest -- economies just don't work that way. One way or another, it comes from those with the least options. The rich have lots of options. The uneducated high school dropout, not so many.I think it's interesting that Sweden is always used as the comparison. They have some of the strongest property rights and rule of law in all of Europe. They just happen to have a large welfare state -- offset by a higher commitment to free market principles. So they never quite lag like the rest of Europe. And even with that, by your numbers they lag the US by over 20% -- a pretty significant hit. The other reason Sweden is always used is they have a small, homogenous population. And this is always one of my points when discussing federal power -- the solutions that work for thousands of people who are all the same are not the same as the solutions for millions of people who are all different.Basically, your argument in the end proves that if they do everything else right and all the conditions are perfect, the amount of damage can be in the 20-30% range. Sorry, that's not a bargain I'd take, even if it could be reproduced here.

[hblask 1]

Indeed. It's certainly ridiculous to compare North Korea to any European Country. It's so far off the deepend that it's scary. It's not because of "socialism," it's because of totalitarianism and the complete suppression of freedom, free speech, free thoughts, free ideas, etc.Cuba's pretty bad too, but that's mostly because our embargo hasn't allowed them to develop for the past 50 years. When Castro dies and when the US lifts the embargo, expect Cuba to catch up pretty quickly.

The embargo has almost nothing to do with it; it is the lack of property rights or rule of law.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yea I still hold that the socialist eurotrash have been free to play their little hippy game because the US military has protected them from the bad guys for 50 years. Take away our massive military umbrella and force them to spend money on their own defense and Sweden et al would have dumped these pricey experiments long ago.I was golfing with a general of a marine base out here and he told me that Sweden had to pull out of a Nato exercise because Israel was involved and the Swedes are worried about it offending their growing muslim population. Some socialist utopia they've created...if you hate jews then the government will try to respect your hatred and base policy on it.No...don't try to impress me with the current state of the euro socialist cadre'. they will come atumbling down soon all from their overspending ways.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Here's a link to the UN website for it.http://hdr.undp.org/en/There are a few hundred different stats that they use to come up with a number for each country and the reality is that the difference between the top 20 really isn't that much. I just like tweaking Henry on occasion.

If its a study by the UN then it means absolutely nothing. Any semblance of the truth left that place decades ago.