Is the US still the best country to be in?
(Baboon, 139
Points)
on 1/1/13 at 9:32pm
the economist released this new study today that listed the best countries to be born in in regards to living qualities
the economist released this new study today that listed the best countries to be born in in regards to living qualities
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/...
the US topped the list in 1998 but fell all the way down to 16 in 2013., having countries like australia, singapore, hong kong, taiwan, austria ahead of it. I immigrated to the US in 2001 and I'm now a college student at a top 20 university. it's hard for me to imagine those countries are ahead when so many people are still trying to come here due to our higher education and job opportunities.
thoughts?
Let me put it to you this
Let me put it to you this way:
I am from a country in SE Asia, and went to HS there. The best students in the country apply to come to the United States, leaving Europe, Australia et all for the less talented students, and the better students who can't get into US colleges.
These rankings are all bullshit. Ask a poor valedictorian kid anywhere from Vietnam to Nigeria where do they want to go, and the single answer is the United States.
Maybe if you are not ambitious, and want to have a safe and comfortable life, then you can go to all these higher ranked countries. But for those with a raw desire to move ahead in life, the US is only game in town. Just ask me. (Although I have not achieved anything yet!)
The US is the most
The US is the most politically (and militarily) stable of the capitalist countries in the top twenty on that list.
The four countries more capitalist than the US on that list are tax-haven city states.
I mean, you could go and work in the UAE if you really wanted to, but autocracies have their issues...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/jailed-in...
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/news/articles/legis...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/dubai-ha...
Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are a little better, but they are tiny island nations with no resources, which is what the 21st century could very well be about.
If that really is the case, Canada and Brazil could be two of the best countries to live in of the 21st century. Same with Argentina, South Africa, and Russia if they can figure out how to run moderately regulated capitalist democracies.
But the US will always be in the top five, maybe top ten, at least given current population and current resources.
Work hard, play hard.
JamesHetfield: Let me put it
Let me put it to you this way:
I am from a country in SE Asia, and went to HS there. The best students in the country apply to come to the United States, leaving Europe, Australia et all for the less talented students, and the better students who can't get into US colleges.
These rankings are all bullshit. Ask a poor valedictorian kid anywhere from Vietnam to Nigeria where do they want to go, and the single answer is the United States.
Maybe if you are not ambitious, and want to have a safe and comfortable life, then you can go to all these higher ranked countries. But for those with a raw desire to move ahead in life, the US is only game in town. Just ask me. (Although I have not achieved anything yet!)
singapore?
also if anyone can answer this question for me that'd be greatly appreciated. how do the best schools in those countries such as university of HK, national university of singapore, HKUST, peking U, etc. stack up against non-ivy top 20s such as vanderbilt, notre dame, georgetown, rice, etc?
ltohang: singapore? Singapo
singapore?
Singapore's problem is that it's a tiny city state with few resources. And that is what the 21st century will probably be about. We will have eight billion very educated people on this planet, mostly in capitalist or state-monopoly capitalist regimes, and only so much grain, natural gas, oil, and water to go around.
The Malaysia merger experiment was very interesting for Singapore. I have never lived in Singapore or Malaysia, but it would be interesting to ask if it would be worth trying again.
In the Malthusian worldview, the US will always be near the top in terms of affluence due to its resource/food production vs. population. More resources and better technology with fewer people, especially in a world flush with capital, means greater affluence and a higher cost of labor.
Work hard, play hard.
U.S. will be the #1 forever,
U.S. will be the #1 forever, sorry commies
What impress me the most is
What impress me the most is The Economist has balls to list TaiWan as a country.
Seems like an apples to
Seems like an apples to oranges comparison. The US population is almost DOUBLE the size of the top 15 of that list COMBINED. NYC is bigger than most of those countries and no where near as homogenous. That's why I see it hard to put Singapore as a better place to be then the entire United States of America. US citizens have the freedom to live in any of the major metropolitan areas and they stack up perfectly well with Hong Kong/Singapore/etc.
The US has the best educational institutions, the largest companies, and the strongest political system out there. The opportunities for personal growth and achievement are virtually endless.
ltohang: the economist
the economist released this new study today that listed the best countries to be born in in regards to living qualities
the economist released this new study today that listed the best countries to be born in in regards to living qualities
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/...
the US topped the list in 1998 but fell all the way down to 16 in 2013., having countries like australia, singapore, hong kong, taiwan, austria ahead of it. I immigrated to the US in 2001 and I'm now a college student at a top 20 university. it's hard for me to imagine those countries are ahead when so many people are still trying to come here due to our higher education and job opportunities.
thoughts?
I doubt anyone who has answered so far has actually been to these countries ranked higher than the U.S. Of these ones ranked above the U.S., I've traveled or worked in 4: Australia, Singapore, Netherlands, and Hong Kong.
In terms of economic and political stability, as well as general quality of life, they all blow the U.S. out of the water. I will be returning to Singapore or Australia as soon as I can. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is still the best country in the world needs to go traveling and wake up the fuck up.
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein
[quote=Quaneaser]and the
[quote=Quaneaser]and the strongest political system out there. /quote]
That was a joke right?
Take a look at Singapore's government.
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein
aicccia: In terms of
In terms of economic and political stability, as well as general quality of life, they all blow the U.S. out of the water. I will be returning to Singapore or Australia as soon as I can. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is still the best country in the world needs to go traveling and wake up the fuck up.
Singapore has no natural resources; produces no food of its own; has little in the way of energy reserves or any metals.
In some ways, the island looks like a tax haven. That's great, but if 8 billion people who all want to be middle class continue putting pressure on global resources, Singapore *could* find itself in trouble as the export walls start going up. From an economic (not cultural) standpoint, you guys really need to take another look at a merger with Malaysia. Both countries have modernized a lot over the past 45 years; I wonder if it could work this time, and it would leave Singapore in a less precarious resource situation.
I think Singapore will do well over the next half decade; maybe full decade. I think the 30-40 year outlook is a little more dubious. If Singapore were in Canada, I would probably agree with you.
Work hard, play hard.
[quote=aicccia] Quaneaser:
[quote=aicccia]
and the strongest political system out there. /quote]
That was a joke right?
Take a look at Singapore's government.
How are you measuring strength of government? Again as I already stated it would be hard to compare a tiny country to the US in terms of long term performance of its financial centers as well as government stability.
IlliniProgrammer: aicccia:
In terms of economic and political stability, as well as general quality of life, they all blow the U.S. out of the water. I will be returning to Singapore or Australia as soon as I can. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is still the best country in the world needs to go traveling and wake up the fuck up.
Singapore has no natural resources; produces no food of its own; has little in the way of energy reserves or any metals.
In some ways, the island looks like a tax haven. That's great, but if 8 billion people who all want to be middle class continue putting pressure on global resources, Singapore *could* find itself in trouble as the export walls start going up.
I think it will do well over the next half decade; maybe full decade. I have my doubts about the 30-40 year outlook.
Their natural resource is having the most private government in Asia and one of the most uncorrupt governments in the world. The stated long-term objective of the country is to become the "Switzerland" of Asia, providing a safe and private haven for the growing wealth of Asia.This economic model has served Switzerland well for hundreds of years.
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." - Albert Einstein
aicccia: Their natural
Their natural resource is having the most private government in Asia and one of the most uncorrupt governments in the world. The stated long-term objective of the country is to become the "Switzerland" of Asia, providing a safe and private haven for the growing wealth of Asia.This economic model has served Switzerland well for hundreds of years.
Which is fine, but Switzerland has been self-sufficient on food and natural resources since John Calvin was dictator of Geneva.
You forget that Switzerland was surrounded by Nazis in WWII and Hitler sort of wanted Switzerland. Part of the reason they remained neutral during WWII was geography (mountains) and the fact that they didn't need to trade with anyone.
I hate to suggest ideas to other countries when I have no idea about the politics going on in them, but from a purely economic standpoint, Singapore could enjoy much better resource stability if it merged with Malaysia.
Good government is not an important natural resource when the real resources that the other 80% of the economy runs on (EG: oil, natural gas, grain, metals) become scarce enough that they are difficult to export from other countries.
So over the long run, I would place my bets on Canada, Australia, Brazil, and maybe Argentina/Russia if they can get their acts together.
The US will be a decent place to live and invest too, but probably not quite as good as Canada. Singapore will do as well as the US if it can merge with a country that can give it some self-sufficiency on resources, but I don't see how an island nation of 5 million people that's 15 miles by 30 miles can really do that well if the 21st century is about resources and the world tracks to the potential Nash equilibrium of resource mercantilism.
Finally, of course, there is the problem that Singapore's government isn't exactly the CCCP, but the country might not be a western democracy either. This is of course a bit of a touchy subject for many native Singaporeans; I am just going to do is offer a link to Wikipedia that offers some discussion on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_politics#Po...
Western liberal/libertarian democracy is a noisy, dirty process- especially in a country like the US where we have many loudmouthed idiots, low-information voters, and a number of crooks who call themselves politicians. But it also promotes some of the best innovation.
Singapore is a very interesting country. If it were a two-party democracy with the same liberties as the US or Europe with the US's resources, but had the Singaporean government's efficiency, it would probably do much better than the US over the next 50 years.
Work hard, play hard.
IP -- What has gotten you on
IP -- What has gotten you on this Malthusian rampage lately? I mean, it's always a good thing to have resources, but seemingly, most of this guy's theories have been proven overly pessimistic many times. What makes you so confident it will be different going forward?
I'm a lover, not a fighter, but I'm also a fighter, so don't get any ideas.
My WSO Blog
SirTradesaLot: IP -- What has
IP -- What has gotten you on this Malthusian rampage lately? I mean, it's always a good thing to have resources, but seemingly, most of this guy's theories have been proven overly pessimistic many times. What makes you so confident it will be different going forward?
This time we have 10 billion people, global warming, and most of the world's arable land under grain production. At the same time, labor is getting a lot cheaper in the west. That labor also happens to vote in some of the most resource-rich capitalist countries in the world- and Russia has already restricted a lot of resource exports.
Look, the market does have 15-20 year cycles of resources vs. equities. Malthusians- as well as long-term equity bears have always said "But it's different this time!" My argument isn't based on equity returns but rather on the cost of resources vs the cost of labor, which most people seem to think won't go up in the west anytime soon.
If we approach a global price for labor, and if that labor begins to come within an order of the global price of food, it's in workers' (read: voters) best interests to lower the cost of grain at home and raise it abroad, which resource exporting countries have the ability to do via trade policy.
Most of these countries have fairly strong militaries, rendering war an unlikely choice for importers. Net resource importers won't have many alternatives besides conservation; I'm dubious about how effective that will actually be given how much resource prices have gone up. Thus the resource exporters keep the same strategy of making it more difficult to export and the resource importers cannot improve their strategy.
That's the Nash equilibrium I'm picking up on. I'm not saying we'll certainly get there; I'm saying it's possible and something people should probably just be aware of.
Work hard, play hard.
JamesHetfield: Let me put it
so from what i could
The USA is the best place is
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
I agree that USA is always at