Europeans much better looking than Americans

[Psychopath]

this question couldn't be easier

english are the ugliest, and they made up the largest proportion of our ancestors, case closed

x2, so obvious.

Anglo-Saxons are my least favorite, i actually hate their guts.

[Parker]

Have you ever looked at the paintings of the European Royal families and said to yourself "damn, they were some ugly people!"? Well, of course we know that they married for political reasons, but where did all the "beautiful/handsome" genetics come from? My guess would be from the local populace. Many of the genetics for symmetrical faces have been passed down from generation to generation, so they had to come from somewhere. So, to me the peasants of Europe had better genes for attractiveness than the Royal families...

[syntaxmachine]

The European Union has 500 million people; the U.S 300 million. So, your argument doesn't really mean much.

Let's precisify things a bit. Your original comment presupposes that the U.S. is "better" than Europe and asserts that Europe is "rotted to the core" economically.

1. The issue of which is "better" is rather subjective, so I won't pursue it any further. Considerations like life expectancy, however, indicate that the issue isn't so clear cut as you make it out to be (probably, the U.S. is better in some senses, Europe in others).

2. Meanwhile, we can construct a simple reductio* of your "rotten" claim as follows: Assume that Europe is rotten economically and the U.S. isn't. Presumably, if this is true then the relevant European indicators shouldn't be comparable with U.S. indicators, lest we be forced to conclude that the U.S. is rotten as well.

Yet when we look at the data, we see that Europe is comparable economically ([1]) and in fact outright superior in certain respects (absolute size of economy, upward mobility). So Europe is and isn't comparable, a contradiction flowing from our assumption that it is, from which it follows we need to reject that assumption.

*Assuming something is true in order to show that it leads to contradiction, thus refuting it

Per capita stats are what you want to look at. The U.S GDP per Capita is 48k a year; the EU 32k, not even close. U.S unemployment 7.4%; the EU 10.9. Again, not even close.

Per capita values don't tell the whole story by a long shot (they don't tell us about income inequality, what most people get payed, their standards of living, nor their total compensation).

As for unemployment, 7.4% doesn't seem drastically different from 10.9%, given that Europe is currently undergoing a crisis. Further, the US value is U-3 unemployment -- U-6 unemployment includes those who are no longer looking for work and is at 14%.

Also, picking  some 5 million pop. homogeneous country, with no military,and comparing it to the U.S is just grasping at straws. It's like comparing a Mom and Pop  to Walmart, and concluding that the former is a better business than the latter because it has a higher profit margin.

I didn't do this, so this comment isn't relevant.

from an ecomonic standpoint, the U.S owns Europe, and it's not likely to change anytime, soon.

I still haven't seen any evidence for this.

In fact, anyone in Europe with money is looking to get it out of there.

Nope.

[1] Relative share of gdp per hour worked, 2011 -- Even in the midst of a crisis, European productivity levels are pretty close to the U.S.'s (keeping in mind as well that they generally work less hours and have more benefits)

[Griffith]

The U.S has problems. Europe is a train wreck that's gonna get worse. When you have this many unemployed, the next step is social unrest


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10213851/Eurozone-unemployment-still-horrendous-despite-first-fall-in-two-years.html


The crisis has affected the 16-25 age segment worst of all, with jobless rates running at catastrophic levels of 58.7 percent in Greece and 56.1 percent in Spain.

The data showed the eurozone youth unemployment rate rose to 23.9 percent in June from 23.8 percent in May, with the EU up to 23.2 percent after 23.1 percent.

Despite everything, the vast majority of people live good living standards throughout Europe and enjoy good levels of services and social policies.

Things can't always be smooth, especially for a relatively newly formed state but one has to look long-term and not just the next few years.

It makes sense for Europe to be united in order to take on China, Russia and the US.

[Thin Lizzy]

Syntax,

I read a study which shows that while Europeans do work less than American at proper jobs, they're more likely to do things that Americans will pay to have done, things like house painting, and when that is factored in, the amount worked is close to equal. So, the Gdp per hour worked is misleading. In addition, that stat also assumes that if they did work more hours, their productivity would remain the same.

[calfzilla]

Seems to me like Americans are paid to show up and be held captive for 8 hrs and productivity is not a big factor.

[Parker]

Seems to me like Americans are paid to show up and be held captive for 8 hrs and productivity is not a big factor.

No, that's called High School, minus the being paid part.

[avxo]

Americans are riddled with GMO's and Fluoride and prescription drugs and a ton of other bad shit.  Europeans are relatively free of all that crap atm TOUCH WOOD.  

Seriously?!? Fluoride!?! Your problem is with water fluoridation which typically introduces less than a milligram of a fluoride compound per liter of water? That's one part of fluoride per million parts of water... many places I'm the world have higher naturally occurring levels of fluoride!

You also realize just about every toothpaste you can buy has fluoride in it, right? That fluoride is widely studied and it's positive effects on dental health are well-documented as is its low toxicity at the levels we are talking about. Right?

Gah... why are we riddled with so many idiots!

[Bad Boy Dazza]

Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children

In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

[avxo]

From the link you provide:

The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China.

Please read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned the low toxicity at the levels at which fluoride is added to water in the United States for water fluoridation purposes. The water in this case is naturally fluoridated - at levels much higher than the levels we are talking about.

Additionally, as the link points out, many of the studies were incomplete, lacked sufficient controls and the results of this meta-analysis were only a “first step”.

And just so you don't think I'm spouting nonsense, the authors of this study released this clarification - also linked via the page you reference. The emphasis is mine:

-- When considering the risks and benefits of fluoride exposure, the level of intake needs to be considered.
--Possible risks to brain development in children have been studied in China, but this possible hazard has not received much, if any, consideration in the U.S.
--Our study summarized the findings of 27 studies on intelligence tests in fluoride-exposed children; 25 of the studies were carried out in China. On average, children with higher fluoride exposure showed poorer performance on IQ tests. Fluoride released into the ground water in China in some cases greatly exceeded levels that are typical in the U.S.
--In general, complete information was not available on these 27 studies, and some limitations were identified.
--All but one of the 27 studies documented an IQ deficit associated with increased fluoride exposure.
--These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.

The next time you head over to Google, slam your keyboard furiously with your stubby little fingers and copy-paste something from the first link that pops up, you may want to be a good boy read it carefully first. You know... in case it doesn't actually support the point you're trying to make.

[Thin Lizzy]

As for unemployment, 7.4% doesn't seem drastically different from 10.9%, given that Europe is currently undergoing a crisis. Further, the US value is U-3 unemployment -- U-6 unemployment includes those who are no longer looking for work and is at 14%.

When I see someone use this stat, I know they're just trying to make a political point.

Even in a great economy, someone is highly unlikely to get a job IF THEY AREN'T LOOKING FOR ONE.

And what are these so-called discouraged workers doing for money? I don't know about you, but I don't have the option of being discouraged, if I don't want to end up homeless. These are people who don't need to work in the first place, like wives whose husbands work.

If the European economy was really superior, you wouldn't have to massage every stat that doesn't say what you want to hear.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no flag waver. The median American is a fat, disgusting slob, but he's richer and has more stuff than the average European.

[Thin Lizzy]

Despite everything, the vast majority of people live good living standards throughout Europe and enjoy good levels of services and social policies.

Things can't always be smooth, especially for a relatively newly formed state but one has to look long-term and not just the next few years.

It makes sense for Europe to be united in order to take on China, Russia and the US.

The problem is that it's not.  A German thinks of himself as German first, and European second. An American thinks of himself as American first, and whatever state he lives in, second. Plus, you have the language differences that makes for less labor mobility. An American can drive 500 hundred miles and the people still be speaking English.

[missile]

I think maybe Europeans are smarter than Americans too.  All the dumb ones caught the Mayflower to America.

[syntaxmachine]

If the European economy was really superior, you wouldn't have to massage every stat that doesn't say what you want to hear.

1. I don't think anybody has explicitly asserted that the European economy is superior. Speaking for myself, all I've done is contest your claim that Europe is "rotted to the core" economically due to "socialism". I didn't need to address the socialism issue, because the argument terminated in the conclusion that Europe isn't rotted at all (a larger economy, similar productivity levels, more innovation, more economic mobility, more benefits for workers, more corporations on the top 500 list, and a similar unemployment rate despite a crisis seems to me sufficient evidence).

2. If my bringing up U-6 is massaging, then your contesting it by asserting that all of those "discouraged workers" are really lazy bastards is counter-massaging. Let's call it even.

3. I don't want to hear (or not hear) anything. I have no lifelong allegiance to either region, having lived in both.

The median American is a fat, disgusting slob, but he's richer and has more stuff than the average European.

Well, when you want to present the evidence for this, we'll be able to evaluate it and judge the claim accordingly.

[Kwon_2]

[Psychopath]

A: YES

What's her exact location?

[Kwon_2]

America and not Europe i believe

[Thin Lizzy]

1. I don't think anybody has explicitly asserted that the European economy is superior. Speaking for myself, all I've done is contest your claim that Europe is "rotted to the core" economically due to "socialism". I didn't need to address the socialism issue, because the argument terminated in the conclusion that Europe isn't rotted at all (a larger economy, similar productivity levels, more innovation, more economic mobility, more benefits for workers, more corporations on the top 500 list, and a similar unemployment rate despite a crisis seems to me sufficient evidence).

If there's more innovation, why isn't a single European company on this list. You're telling me this isn't a bit odd considering the EU is the largest economy in the world? My contention is that Europe is so Centrally Planned that that you're not gonna get this type of relatively new company, there. If you look at the biggest Euro companies, you'll find that they are very old and originated during a less regulated time. To be fair, you have the same situation in more Centrally planned parts of the U.S economy: Healthcare, Education and Finance.

Well, when you want to present the evidence for this, we'll be able to evaluate it and judge the claim accordingly.

This is somewhat old, but I doubt anything has changed.




It comes down to this, Europe, collectively is like 5 people living in a house, each making 50k a year. The U.S is three people living a house, each making 75k a year.

[Bad Boy Dazza]

From the link you provide:

Please read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned the low toxicity at the levels at which fluoride is added to water in the United States for water fluoridation purposes. The water in this case is naturally fluoridated - at levels much higher than the levels we are talking about.

Additionally, as the link points out, many of the studies were incomplete, lacked sufficient controls and the results of this meta-analysis were only a “first step”.

And just so you don't think I'm spouting nonsense, the authors of this study released this clarification - also linked via the page you reference. The emphasis is mine:

The next time you head over to Google, slam your keyboard furiously with your stubby little fingers and copy-paste something from the first link that pops up, you may want to be a good boy read it carefully first. You know... in case it doesn't actually support the point you're trying to make.

I read all that already.  And my point still stands.  

Your points -

"higher in SOME areas"

- yeah, not ALL.

And

"These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. "

 - still cause for concern.  I did not misrepresent the study in any way.

[syntaxmachine]

If there's more innovation, why isn't a single European company on this list. You're telling me this isn't a bit odd considering the EU is the largest economy in the world? My contention is that Europe is so Centrally Planned that that you're not gonna get this type of relatively new company, there. If you look at the biggest Euro companies, you'll find that they are very old and originated during a less regulated time. To be fair, you have the same situation in more Centrally planned parts of the U.S economy: Healthcare, Education and Finance.

I'm not competent to judge whether the number of IT companies from an economy is a proper metric of its innovation, but if it is, that chart is indeed telling.

However, Europe being less innovative is entirely consistent with my rebuttal, since it is perfectly reasonable to expect the U.S. to perform better on some economic metrics, Europe on others. That Europe performs better or just as well as the U.S. on a significant class of metrics remains firm evidence against the "rotted" claim, to say nothing of non-economic variables like quality of life (and of women!).

That may change in the future, of course.

Alright, I admit that the U.S. is superior in vacuum cleaner dispensation.

It comes down to this, Europe, collectively is like 5 people living in a house, each making 50k a year. The U.S is three people living a house, each making 75k a year.

Thanks for telling me everything about where I live, absent any evidence. 

[Thin Lizzy]

I'm not competent to judge whether the number of IT companies from an economy is a proper metric of its innovation, but if it is, that chart is indeed telling.

However, Europe being less innovative is entirely consistent with my rebuttal, since it is perfectly reasonable to expect the U.S. to perform better on some economic metrics, Europe on others. That Europe performs better or just as well as the U.S. on a significant class of metrics remains firm evidence against the "rotted" claim, to say nothing of non-economic variables like quality of life (and of women!).

That may change in the future, of course.

Alright, I admit that the U.S. is superior in vacuum cleaner dispensation.

Thanks for telling me everything about where I live, absent any evidence. 

No, I've given you lots of evidence: GDP per capita, which is the most widely used metric, as well as unemployment stats. You're obviously married to your opinion and will not change it regardless of the evidence I introduce. To be fair, neither will I.

[syntaxmachine]

No, I've given you lots of evidence: GDP per capita, which is the most widely used metric, as well as unemployment stats. You're obviously married to your opinion and will not change it regardless of the evidence I introduce. To be fair, neither will I.

The problem is that that data can be construed as evidence for a wide variety of claims, many of which are more reasonable than the sweeping and absolutist one you asserted.

Most of our knowledge as individuals is gained by deferring to the relevant experts. If you think a survey of economists would reveal that they too think that the European Union's unemployment rate being a couple of percentage points higher than the U.S.'s is firm evidence of the former being a socialist wasteland, then that says all that needs to be said about you, and no fruitful conversation is possible.

That said, I do think that the U.S. is best situated to dominate economically for the duration of this century, but more because of its being the "least worst" economic unit over Europe and China. Perhaps we can at least agree on this.