[OtherShrezzing]

> I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that

Do you mean that the EU spends 1/10th that, rather than Europe? Because France, Germany and the UK all spend €100-150bn each in grants depending on how you set your definition, and that’s atop the EU’s grant money.

Just eyeballing the figures across different countries, it looks like the USG distributes approximately the same amount in grants per capita as the EU & UK. Certainly not a 90% diff.

[consp]

On a gdp basis, which heavily favours the US, the US is not even the top dog. It's just above Belgium and below South Korea.

[IncreasePosts]

Absolute values would favor the US, not a percent of gdp.

[ruszki]

Concentration does definitely matter. Cities vs countryside for example. In the case, per capita definitely matters.

[parineum]

You're comparing the sum of those European countries to the US.

Scientists have two easy avenues if they are currently in the US, the US or their home country. Immigration to work in a foreign nation is not always easy and takes time.

[IAmBroom]

Likewise, immigration to work in the US is "is not always easy and takes time." There's no difference; if you disallow immigration to other countries at all "because it's not easy", then there's no point in discussing where scientists won't go - you believe they won't ever move, no matter what.

[rsynnott]

People tend to be terribly confused about what the EU actually does and is for.