If the not the US then where?

[iain]

[Distel32]

while all of you speculate....I'm doing it,

 

suck it!

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Astronomical taxes.

Yawn. Highest standard of living in the world. Those taxes end up paying for things that I pay up the yingyang here for - like college, student loans, etc. The Norwegians I've met have reasonable equivalent salaries, and equivalent disposable income - which in the end is all that matters to me. Seperate argument entirely

 

high taxes = less disposable income = government bureaucratic waste = less freedom = lower incentive to work = less productivity = lower quality of life

 

my quality of life would be shit in Europe - if it's a break even for you - go for it. Make sure you speak the language, and tell everyone you are Canadian, though.

[Camilo]

A good criteria for moving somewhere - suicide rates. I would not live in one of those Norse

countries despite quality of life. I couldn't handle the few hours of daylight all winter.

Edited November 17, 2004 by Camilo

[Dru]

Equivalent disposable income evaporates quickly when beer costs $10 a glass.

 

Not to mention the Swedes are so uptight they censored Donald Duck for not wearing pants.

[tomtom]

What Kyrgyzstan (or 'Kyrgizstan') lacks in gracious buildings and fancy cakes, it makes up for with nomadic traditions such as laid-back hospitality, a healthy distrust of authority and a fondness for drinking fermented mare's milk. It is perhaps the most accessible and welcoming of the Central Asian republics.

 

It contains the central Tian Shan and Pamir Alay ranges, Central Asia's finest mountains, and it's doing more than any of its neighbours to encourage tourism and streamline bureaucratic procedures for visitors - partly because tourism is one of the few things it has to sell to the outside world.

 

In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union left this tiny, under-equipped republic out on a limb, seemingly without the resources to survive on its own. So far it's getting by on pluck, a liberal agenda and goodwill from Western donor countries.

 

Away from Bishkek, Issyk-Kul and parts of the Tian Shan, tourist infrastructure is either minimal or wretched, transport is limited, fuel overpriced, roads unpoliced and there is a growing crime rate, fuelled by alcohol and desperate poverty. You should resist the temptation to just hop off the bus in the middle of nowhere and hike into the hills. This said, there are early signs of a developing tourist awareness in some parts of the countryside.

 

[iain]

is that a giant white cat in the bottom right?

[Camilo]

Hmmmmmm. . . Still vote Chile.

 

[Stefan]

For generally the same type of living standards try Tyrol or the Dolomite regions.

 

Great food. Italian women. Rock Climbing. Ice climbing. Alpine Climbing. Just in general hiking. And not as populated as Switzerland. Access to Switzerland and Austria. Wine is usually cheaper than water too.

[Distel32]

tomtom

 

have you been to Mongolia???

 

they also have very very few limitations for visitors, and also very very welcoming.

 

I'd love to hit up the central asian area, maybe this summer when I'm not doing research......

 

love the nomads.....

[iain]

love the nomads...

 

I would take italian women over mongolian nomads but maybe that's just me.

[Distel32]

Zulaa, she is a fuckin' knockout man....this picture doesn't even come close to doing her justice....

 

[scott_harpell]

A good criteria for moving somewhere - suicide rates. I would not live in one of those Norse

countries despite quality of life. I couldn't handle the few hours of daylight all winter.

 

I've spent a good portion of my life in the #1 nation on that list. The women are all beautiful and 6' tall, teh beer is the best in the world, the beaches are white, the sunsets beautiful and the people wonderful (except for that neo-nazi that gave me the scar above my eyebrow) . I don't think you can just look at suicide rates to find out a country's quality of living.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Those suicide statistics are out-of-date, and may be more reflective of post-Soviet-era malaise than inherent societal (or seasonal/geographical) factors.

[fear_and_greed]

C limbing is great

A nd we speak english

N o patriot act

A nd we signed the kyoto accord

D rive on the same side of the road

A nd we don't have that idiot bush as president

[cj001f]

high taxes = less disposable income = government bureaucratic waste = less freedom = lower incentive to work = less productivity = lower quality of life

Keep on believing that dogma if you want; it doesn't fit the Nordic societies. They have some of the highest standards of livings, highest incomes, and highest rates of startups/entrepeneurship. And lots of vacation. And very hot women.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I've talked with people from Scandinavia, and known Americans who lived there as well. I have a basis for my conclusion other than "dogma". If it's so great, move there yourself.

[cj001f]

I've talked with people from Scandinavia, and known Americans who lived there as well. I have a basis for my conclusion other than "dogma".

As have I; given your conclusion included "less productivity" and "lower incentive to work" I think some of your datapoints may be faulty.

 

And I'm currently working on emigration plans. F the taxes this country's going to have to raise to pay for our leaderships dumb ass war plans, the f'ing boomers social security & medicare.

[willstrickland]

Before age 55: Switzerland, Canada, Australia, or Chile

After 55: French Polynesia, Spain, or on a sailboat cruising the Mediterranean.

[snoboy]

If it's so great, move there yourself.

 

I'd consider it if they'd have me.

 

Hmmmmmm. . . Still vote Chile.

 

 

What, you prefer looking at stormbound granite to actually climbing???

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As have I; given your conclusion included "less productivity" and "lower incentive to work" I think some of your datapoints may be faulty.

 

It's human nature, which is the main reason communism doesn't work. What can I say, we have different experiences and come to different conclusions.

 

And I'm currently working on emigration plans. F the taxes this country's going to have to raise to pay for our leaderships dumb ass war plans, the f'ing boomers social security & medicare.

 

About 49% of the time I say the same thing about our war(s) and foreign policy in general - fuck'em, fuck the world - let them solve their own problems. We could better spend the money on ourselves. Close the bases in S. Korea, Japan, and Europe, pull out of every armpit where we have troops stationed (I don't even know half of them anymore - are we still in Haiti and Kosovo?). Cut all foreign aid - people can give through charities if they want.

 

Good luck with your emigration. Peace.

[cj001f]

It's human nature, which is the main reason communism doesn't work.

If it's so universal shouldn't this be born out in data? It's not well shown in the Nordic countries; hence my comment about dogma. There are many solid arguments to make about whether or not their system is sustainable(also for ours). That their system isn't working now, and hasn't worked for the past 40 years, is not an argument to make in my mind. And no I don't think that style welfare style would work well in other countries - but I don't think any one form of government would work everywhere. Pax et Cervisia

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

What I have read in the past is that the total tax rate in Sweden and Norway is something like 80 or 90%, and taxes in the US are 40-50%. This includes income, property, and sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and utilities, as well as taxes on corporations that are transferred to the consumer through price increases.

 

Every dollar that is taken from me and spent on my behalf is a reduction of my freedom. Somebody else is deciding how my money will be spent. It is non-negotiable. You said you pay for services anyway that are provided through taxes in countries like Sweden and Norway, but I would argue that it is better to have choice. With choice you might spend less on your retirement for one year, and more the next, or choose higher deductables on insurance, or whatever. With government programs, you have no choices, it is a fixed cost that you shell out and never see again. I also consider that government is wasteful because there is little accountability and auditing. Once government services are funded, it is difficult to cut costs. On the contrary costs rise, and overhead is built in - overhead and waste, that would never cut it long term in the private sector.

 

On the "productivity" side of the equation, if I have to work my ass off to get an extra $10,000 a year salary, and that is taxed at 80% instead of 40%, I will not do it - it's just not worth it. In addition, people who tend to hold government jobs, are pretty secure and do not have to worry about being fired for not being "productive". Agencies are funded, the politicians and bureaucracies fight for funding annually citing some "urgent need" for the funding, but, once obtained it is inevitably wasted. Again, the private sector does not have this luxury - companies need to watch their budgets, evaluate employee performance, and hire/fire as needed.

[catbirdseat]

These statements that are made over and over again are seldom supported by facts:

 

That government agencies are not subject to auditing.

That federal employees are immune from firing for poor performance.

That government workers are less efficient than private sector workers.

[scott_harpell]

Hey CBS, maybe you should try checking out these countries before you makes this statement. Think about it; Dru has a job doesn't he?