4 ms·

Americans are also the fattest and least active 1st world country.

nine_zeros 5y ago
This argument is invalid because America is not a real 1st world country. It's only rich due to historical legacy of the dollar after WW2.
- User23 5y ago
  America is rich for many more reasons than Bretton Woods. For most of the 20th century it had by far the greatest real productive and manufacturing base of any country in the world. The USA has been visibly declining for about 45 years sure, and is no longer the world leader in manufacturing, but it still has a huge and well-diversified economy. Since dollars represent, among other things, claims on a share of that economic output, demand for them is quite real and not just an historical artifact. And since no other country with a huge diversified economy is willing to run external deficits large enough to meet foreign demand for reserves, the dollar is pretty much the only good choice. There just isn’t enough gold to clear trade in a $80+ trillion global economy.
  - akimball 5y ago
    Price fixes that
  - nine_zeros 5y ago
    > For most of the 20th century it had by far the greatest real productive and manufacturing base of any country in the world. The USA has been visibly declining for about 45 years sure, and is no longer the world leader in manufacturing, but it still has a huge and well-diversified economy. Since dollars represent, among other things, claims on a share of that economic output, demand for them is quite real and not just an historical artifact. This is merely viewing the same thing from a US-centric perspective. From a rest of the world perspective, the largest competitors in EU were destroyed in WW2 (deservedly so imo), China was nowhere and India was impeded first by British colonization and then by Bretton Woods which only focused on EU nations. America is ahead but make no mistake that the gap is large only because WW2 destroyed other nations and Bretton Woods system was the first step in prevention of other nations from building up rapidly.
- rocknor 5y ago
  Do you even know what 1/2/3 world means?
zamalek 5y ago
The obese and sedentary problem is one argument against public health care that made me really take pause on my beliefs. In places where public healthcare exists, there is also a huge amount of voluntary personal health responsibility. People look after their health, and expect the same of their neighbors. The current state of Americans would be an unreasonable burden on public healthcare. That being said, taxes pay so much for healthcare, that we'd probably still be able to pull it off.
- sul_tasto 5y ago
  In addition, my understanding is that most healthcare expenses are incurred trying to prolong life in its last few weeks/months. It’s difficult to not “try everything possible “ for a loved one, when the end is near. However, I feel that often such sentiments are taken advantage of in the name of profit.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    There's no social framework to do anything other than treat an elderly person that breaks their hip, never mind a legal one. That's a cost that is incurred towards the end of life without any 'trying to prolong life' involved, a surgery to do the repair is frequently going to immediately make the person more comfortable. And there's all sorts of similar things that just happen more often to older folks.
    - sul_tasto 5y ago
      My neighbor, who lived a very unhealthy lifestyle, underwent 4 heart surgeries and multiple other procedures before they literally couldn’t keep his body alive anymore. I’m not convinced he was treated humanely.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Most people in the UK certainly don’t ‘look after their health, and expect the same of their neighbo[u]rs’. I think we have the most extensive public healthcare system in Europe but also are some of the least healthy. Don’t look to us for any ideas how to do your healthcare!
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
The rest of the anglo world is catching up fast. I think the US is just a leading indicator.

This argument is invalid because America is not a real 1st world country. It's only rich due to historical legacy of the dollar after WW2.

User23 5y ago
America is rich for many more reasons than Bretton Woods. For most of the 20th century it had by far the greatest real productive and manufacturing base of any country in the world. The USA has been visibly declining for about 45 years sure, and is no longer the world leader in manufacturing, but it still has a huge and well-diversified economy. Since dollars represent, among other things, claims on a share of that economic output, demand for them is quite real and not just an historical artifact. And since no other country with a huge diversified economy is willing to run external deficits large enough to meet foreign demand for reserves, the dollar is pretty much the only good choice. There just isn’t enough gold to clear trade in a $80+ trillion global economy.
- akimball 5y ago
  Price fixes that
- nine_zeros 5y ago
  > For most of the 20th century it had by far the greatest real productive and manufacturing base of any country in the world. The USA has been visibly declining for about 45 years sure, and is no longer the world leader in manufacturing, but it still has a huge and well-diversified economy. Since dollars represent, among other things, claims on a share of that economic output, demand for them is quite real and not just an historical artifact. This is merely viewing the same thing from a US-centric perspective. From a rest of the world perspective, the largest competitors in EU were destroyed in WW2 (deservedly so imo), China was nowhere and India was impeded first by British colonization and then by Bretton Woods which only focused on EU nations. America is ahead but make no mistake that the gap is large only because WW2 destroyed other nations and Bretton Woods system was the first step in prevention of other nations from building up rapidly.
rocknor 5y ago
Do you even know what 1/2/3 world means?

zamalek 5y ago

The obese and sedentary problem is one argument against public health care that made me really take pause on my beliefs. In places where public healthcare exists, there is also a huge amount of voluntary personal health responsibility. People look after their health, and expect the same of their neighbors. The current state of Americans would be an unreasonable burden on public healthcare. That being said, taxes pay so much for healthcare, that we'd probably still be able to pull it off.

sul_tasto 5y ago
In addition, my understanding is that most healthcare expenses are incurred trying to prolong life in its last few weeks/months. It’s difficult to not “try everything possible “ for a loved one, when the end is near. However, I feel that often such sentiments are taken advantage of in the name of profit.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  There's no social framework to do anything other than treat an elderly person that breaks their hip, never mind a legal one. That's a cost that is incurred towards the end of life without any 'trying to prolong life' involved, a surgery to do the repair is frequently going to immediately make the person more comfortable. And there's all sorts of similar things that just happen more often to older folks.
  - sul_tasto 5y ago
    My neighbor, who lived a very unhealthy lifestyle, underwent 4 heart surgeries and multiple other procedures before they literally couldn’t keep his body alive anymore. I’m not convinced he was treated humanely.
chrisseaton 5y ago
Most people in the UK certainly don’t ‘look after their health, and expect the same of their neighbo[u]rs’. I think we have the most extensive public healthcare system in Europe but also are some of the least healthy. Don’t look to us for any ideas how to do your healthcare!

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

The rest of the anglo world is catching up fast. I think the US is just a leading indicator.