A statistician shows how good we have it in the US of A and the west and how quickly the rest of the world is catching up in our brave new globalized world:
It is pretty crazy to think that two hundred years ago, a guy like me would probably have been a common illiterate laborer with an expected lifespan of about 40 years. Indeed, that was what my great great grandfather was when he landed at Ellis Island in 1897. In 2010 though, I enjoy a thoroughly middle class life, I own my own property, have my own personal transportation, can post whatever I want on my blog, and can expect to live 70+ years as long as I don’t hit the Scotch too hard.
What explains the change in the last two hundred years? Obviously the Industrial Revolution created new wealth; you can see incomes rise spectacularly in the 19th Century. But life expectancy didn’t really increase until the 20th Century. So we have two causes: capitalism (a rising tide raises all ships) and (in my opinion) the rise of progressive social policy in education and healthcare that’s allowed a guy like me to make something of a success of himself.
What the presenter doesn’t say, however, is that if everyone in the world consumed like Americans do, we’d need the resources of five more Earths according to research.
Loading ...
“So we have two causes: capitalism (a rising tide raises all ships) and (in my opinion) the rise of progressive social policy in education and healthcare that’s allowed a guy like me to make something of a success of himself.”
Well, at least you got the first half correct. Social policies have watered down acheivement and provided entitlements so now the common attitude is “what have you done for me lately?”
“and can expect to live 70+ years as long as I don’t hit the Scotch too hard”
I guess I’m not making it to 70+
;-B
Back in a public health class long ago, I saw data that demonstrated nicely that it’s public infrastructure – particularly clean water and proper sewage disposal – that moved longevity forward. Innovations in preventing disease by inoculation also played a strong, though lesser, role. Both contributed to lower rates of death at younger ages – and with more people surviving to adulthood, you get more older people.
Although I agree to some extent with Mr. Reynolds, the above is an argument for support for public infrastructure – we have evidence that it improves life for all.
Right O, Jethro… I do not disagree. I visited a 3rd world country 3 years ago and I ventured into the boonies, so to speak, and saw living conditions out there that were unbelievably horrid. So Master Blogger is absolutely correct when he wrote, “… how good we have it in the US of A…”
Jeff
Those statistics are amazing. Remember what the gentleman said at the end. He was optimistic that the trend would continue with “Aid, trade and Green Technology”. It seems that I share his conclusion, that it is Technological Advances and not necessarily Political Systems that have made the world a better place. Political systems can certainly foster or hinder Technological Advances, but in and of themselves they do not create health or wealth. Don’t take this the wrong way, I believe that we live in the best country with the most freedom on the planet today. But even so just think about it, do you believe that our current population could exist in the Los Angeles area using the technology in place in the 1700 or 1800? Therefore, just like the inability of the planet to support today’s population with 1800’s technology, the planet of 200 years from now will not be able to support it’s population with today’s technology. To succeed we need to insure that our Political Process continues to foster innovation. That does not mean that it needs to ignore all the other things that are important to us, but just that we need to keep our eye on the goal of constantly improving our surroundings, life support systems and way of life.
Thanks for bringing this video to our attention.
One of the best explanations of why the free market works is Milton Friedmans ‘The power of the pencil’. I was compelled to look it up from a brief spot on Brit Humes ‘Rise of Conservatism’ series. Here is a longer version, there are shorter ones on YouTube as well. A great great explanation of freemarkets and capitalism. Bottom line is nobody in the world makes a trade they do not benefit from. Socialism is the complete antithesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU
Excellent, Jim Farley… thanks for the vid.
Jeff:
Give youself more credit. You are not a success because of “the rise of progressive social policy in education and healthcare”.
You are a success because you are an ambitous person, not because of any government policy. While I don’t know the details of your life I know enough to believe you would be succeeding in life with no government intervention at all.
The video you posted here is awesome. I believe Milton Friedman explains a lot of the reason for the advancement of human kind in the link I posted earlier.
Looking forward to the day when you will eventually call yourself a true Conservative
.
The chart makes a compelling point. Naked capitalism as practiced in the early 20th century created a better quality of life for the countries that practiced it. Since WWII the countries that have moved to the top of the chart are characterized by a capitalist economy in a democratic state with strong social welfare programs such as universal health care and a strong pension system. We moved from the leading country to somewhere in the middle of the top group. We are still much better than third world countries like the Congo, but are now rank towards the middle of the first world countries. Follow the bubbles.