Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I somehow suspect this data is skewed simply because most poor countries can't afford higher levels of social spending. You know, chicken and egg kind of thing.
Iraq (along with a long list of countries) has a higher level of social spending as a percentage of their GDP than the US.
Wouldn't a straight per capita thing be more appropriate? I mean there's obviously some things such as housing subsidies or what not that would be closer tied to GDP, but your society is still buying lots of things like food and medicine on the open market. A poor country could spend an enormous percentage of their GDP on social services and not raise their standard of living anywhere close to even US levels.
Food is a terrible example, as is medicine. Both of those products are priced differently based on regional economics, otherwise a loaf of bread in Africa would be the cost of a month's pay.
How about fuel subsidies?
Edit: Really not food? After the whole "corn for biofuel is raising food prices for the poor" thing?
Edit 2: Really my point was simply that the 40% GDP someplace like Iraq is spending on social services isn't getting them the same stuff as the 40% Norway spends, so it doesn't really make sense to lump them together.
Edited, Apr 1st 2014 3:08pm by someproteinguy ____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
