[qw]

You can't compare the output of a country with over 300 million people with Northern Europe. The money spent on technology alone is probably larger than the combined national budgets of those countries. Of course this will produce more noticeable results, but that doesn't mean that they don't contribute to innovation.

[anamax]

> You can't compare the output of a country with over 300 million people with Northern Europe.

Why not? The comparison is considered fair whenever it favors Northern Europe, so why is it unfair when NE doesn't do as well?

Northern Europe has roughly the same population as the US. The people look basically the same. They're considered first world. etc.

> The money spent on technology alone is probably larger than the combined national budgets of those countries.

Not even close. Total govt spending, per capita, is roughly the same. (Canada spends a bit less per person than the US.) So, there's no way that US govt tech spending, which is a small fraction of govt spending, can be greater than the total govt spending in those countries.

The US probably does have more private spending on tech than those countries, but that's because the US' greater gdp/person lets it spend more money privately on everything.

So, why is their GDP so much lower? We keep hearing how much better they are, so why doesn't it show up in output?

Yes, it's plausible to choose lower output, but is that really what's going on? Let's see the numbers showing that having less makes them better off.

[h-sebell]

> Northern Europe has roughly the same population as the US.

Where do you get this number from? Looking at the definition of NE on Wikipedia, even if we include GB and Ireland we get roughly 100 million people. If we don't the number is closer to 30 million. The second number should be closer to your definition of NE considering your comment

> the (relatively) content societies of contemporary northern Europe

So NE has roughly 1/10th the population of USA, so if you are going to compare USA to NE you have to compare it per capita. I don't know about innovation per capita but with the exception of California I doubt there is a big difference, and the only reason California has a greater amount of innovation is cause of the anomaly called Silicon Valley.

Feel free to prove me wrong by getting the innovation numbers per capita during the Cold War. I wouldn't be surprised if Northern Europe would beat USA when population is considered, especially if you do not include former nations of the Soviet Union.

[vorg]

Northern Europe= UK+France+Germany+others

[qw]

> Why not? The comparison is considered fair whenever it favors Northern Europe, so why is it unfair when NE doesn't do as well?

US is a single country with a common language and culture. It's much easier to share academical results and knowledge in that environment. I hate to use a buzzword, but "synergy" is probably a good description of that effect.

> So, why is their GDP so much lower? We keep hearing how much better they are, so why doesn't it show up in output?

In my opinion it's not a good comparison. If we look at the GDP per capita, you will find lots of states with lower rates than many European countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_...

When you hear "how much better the countries are", it is based on other factors than GDP. If there was something special about the US political system that generates wealth, you would expect the results to be more evenly distributed. Northern Europe consists of countries that are far more diverse than US states with larger differences in political systems, language, culture and history.

It seems that some US states are better at generating wealth than others. But it is my guess that they still have huge advantages of a single market with a common language and relatively similar culture. You also see more mobility in the workforce than in European countries.

[anamax]

> > Why not? The comparison is considered fair whenever it favors Northern Europe, so why is it unfair when NE doesn't do as well?

> US is a single country with a common language and culture.

True, but that doesn't explain why the comparison is fair in some cases and not others.

>> So, why is their GDP so much lower? We keep hearing how much better they are, so why doesn't it show up in output?

> In my opinion it's not a good comparison.

How about some support for that opinion? (And, as I noted, no one complains about such comparisions when they're trying to make the US look bad.)

> If we look at the GDP per capita, you will find lots of states with lower rates than many European countries.

Actually, you find a few states that would be in the middle/low europe and a fair number of states that are over the top.

But, so what? There's variation between and within European countries. There's variation between and within US states.

That doesn't change the fact that US per-capita GDP is significantly higher.

> If there was something special about the US political system that generates wealth, you would expect the results to be more evenly distributed.

Why would you expect that?

The US poor fare rather well on an absolute scale.

You seem to think that what your neighbor has matters more than what you have. I disagree.

As to "relatively similar culture", the US TV culture is fairly uniform and the areas that techsters see are fairly similar, but go to south San Jose and tell me that it's just like Palo Alto. Heck, go to East Palo Alto and Redwood City. (They're not the same.)

If you're willing to travel a bit more (the US is big), there is lots of cultural diversity. Do you really think that Madison Wisconsin is much like Dry Creek Missouri?

[00010]

My point was really just that the level of public investment in technology (as a proportion of any measure like GDP) in those countries is nowhere near what the US spent on the Space Race. And the US isn't spending money on technology like that anymore either.