Ah, but then the Altermen of the world will point out, there is so much more to life than worldly goods. Indeed, didn't Monbiot argue that destitute Ethiopians are happier than us Westerners?

So, you see, by denying Swedes the chance to buy things, the government is helping them be happier!

(Which would seem to suggest that, if Mississippians' standards of living were lower, they'd be happier? But that would apply logic to this little funhouse ride.....)

Swedish and American consumers don't buy the same basket of goods. You could just as easily use the fact that the Swedish poor buy more healthcare per capita (paid for indirectly through taxes) than the poor in american to "show" that the Swedish poor are richer than the American poor.

Neither is especially illuminating. I'm sticking to purchasing-power adjusted hourly wage as the best determinant to compare well-being between countries.

A parable (made up specifics, but the point is right):

Countries A & B each can eat apples and oranges. Each orange costs twice as much as an apple. However, each orange gives twice as much nutrition as an apple.

Now, imagine country A eats twice as many oranges as apples, while country B eats equal numbers of them.

Country A, looking at its neighbor B, declares them laughable poor; "why," they say, "our poorest citizens can afford more oranges than B's middle class!"

Exactly how poor do you need to be before you can't afford a VCR or a microwave? I thought Quaker were giving them away in boxes of Toasted Oatmeal Squares these days. But Jason is right - you do have to use PPP to get the true picture. I think the social care element would be hard to calibrate, as raw expenditure is not a good metric for healthcare delivery etc.. PPP of disposable income is the important thing, especially since provision of schooling, healthcare etc is broadly similar between Sweden and the US (as opposed to, say, Sweden and Azerbaijan). I would contend that PPP dispoable income is higher in Mississippi than Sweden, but I'd need to see some up-to-date figures. It's well known that, psychologically speaking, absolute income is useless as a measurement of personal well being. If you make a million a year, and the Government takes 98% of it, you're going to be a lot less happy than someone on 40 grand where the Govt. takes half.

And George Moonbat can kiss my arse. My income is easily 95th percentile here in Costa Rica, and I'm happy as all get-out. The only reason I don't own a dryer is my maid does all the laundry. My income would put me around the 40th percentile in the US. Generally domestic staff is unaffordable at this income level.

>>You could just as easily use the fact that the Swedish poor buy more healthcare per capita (paid for indirectly through taxes) .

What is this "paid for indirectly" crap, Jason? The only ones who pay for things "indirectly" through taxes are the ones who pay at least as much in taxes as they get back in total gov't services. I very much doubt the Swedish poor pay as much or more in taxes than they receive in health care, even without first backing out all the other things their money is spent in.

Nice try, but paying for things "indirectly" with taxes is like "investing" in the sugar industry through gov't subsidies.

Very few people in the U.S. pay directly out of their own pocket for their own health care. They either get it paid for by the gov't, by their employer, or if they are poor and uninsured, they just don't pay at all. Sweden has little if any comparative advantage over the U.S. here, and I am quite confident that our health care is of better quality than theirs.

hey, seka is american. a cubs fan, i think.

swedish erortica, i don't even think that company was swedish. probably another san fernando valley porn company.

seka was the best; not a natural blonde, but a natural body that just oozed desire

America is the only country where the poor people are all fat.

Nuff said.

'What is this "paid for indirectly" crap, Jason?'

It was just a turn of phrase to point out the different structure of their health care system, sheesh. That their poor place a higher value on health care spending than our poor doesn't mean a thing in a vacuum; they could have other types of redistributionist programs just as easily as health care.

'I am quite confident that our health care is of better quality than theirs.'

I'd say our average is higher, but our median is lower. Kind of like income, actually.