So The Economist came out with this chart.
And if you noticed the same thing I did, it's missing the United States.
So I did two things;
1. I pulled the RGDP growth figures for the US from the OECD to get a comparison.
2. I went back 3 years for the above chart only does the annualized growth from the 2nd quarter of 2005 to the 2nd quarter of 2006 and therefore really isn't a fair comparison of these countries' abilities to produce wealth over the long run.
So I ask the question, why is it the left wishes to emulate Europe so badly? I mean, sure, they have free health care (technically so do we) and free education, but fast forward 40 years into the future applying the same 3 year average growth rates to current GDPs/capita and this is the standards of living we'll have (I am aware of some of the mathemtical short-comings of this calcualtion, but it's just a ball park figure. Please don't be anal retentive and point them out as to some vast, gapping oversight on my part. Additionally, upon further thought, I will do a more comprehensive calculation and put up a super spiffy chart addressing this).
Don't you think by this time we'd be able to afford decent health care coverage for all people and it would take a mere fraction of our GDP unlike the current 15% it does now? I mean, you think about it, if you allow an economy to grow, that growth will wipe out more poverty, provide for more schools, health care, etc. etc., that it will effectively dwarf those social ailments. Allowing the economy to grow does more to wipe out poverty than any government social program ever could.
Meanwhile all the left can do is froth at the mouth about redistributing wealth NOW with little regard as to the consequences it will have on the country's ability to produce wealth in the future.
If only the left actually gave a damn about the poor enough to the point they'd take an economics class.