Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

Fraser Nelson of The Spectator did some number crunching recently and found a shocking fact: Britain is poorer than every State in the USA but one.

As Nelson wrote on August 22, “if Britain were to somehow leave the EU and join the US … we’d be the 2nd-poorest state in the union, poorer than Missouri. Poorer than the much-maligned Kansas and Alabama. Poorer than any state other than Mississippi, and if you take out the south east we’d be poorer than that too.”

This is both shocking and disheartening, especially to American liberals. The liberals all assume that Great Britain is still the jewel of Europe pointing to its nearly 100 percent socialist-styled government as a model of perfection. But it turns out that decades of socialism has laid Britain low making it worse off than every state in the USA but Mississippi…. and with Britain’s jihadi problem, one would think it would be better to be a bit poorer in Mississippi than be forced to live in Britain!

Nelson calculated his statistic by the following method: “You take the US figures for GDP per state, divide it by population to come up with a GDP per capita figure. Then get the equivalent figure for Britain: I used the latest Treasury figures which also chime with the OECD’s.”

It’s not surprising that America’s best-paid 10 per cent are wealthier than top 10 per cent. That fits our general idea of America: a country where the richest do best while the poorest are left to hang. The figures just don’t support this. As the below chart shows, middle-earning Americans are better-off than Brits. Even lower-income Americans, those at the bottom 20 per cent, are better-off than their British counterparts. The only group actually worse-off are the bottom 5 per cent.

So, for all of Britain’s communist-styled government polices, its free homes for people, its supposedly wonderful free healthcare, its old age pensions that kick in earlier than ours (though the retirement age is going up soon), for all these social welfare programs and “nets,” well, the truth is they are all poorer than any of us.

So, they’ve exchanged freedom and liberty for a lower quality of life than even our poorest areas.

What morons.

Finally a Lib 'Journalist' With Guts to Say He Wants Conservatives Banned from TV
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • yetanotherjohn

    Obviously he must be a racist … probably hates women too.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    What socialism redistributes most efffectively is misery.

    • LiberalNightmare

      As long as everyone is equally miserable, socialists are happy.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Except, of course, for the ruling elites.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        It’s not even terribly effective at that…

  • TomS

    Ebola: Is it coincidence that the first two Americans suffering from the deadly disease are now inside the US border? Is it coincidence that the most deadly outbreak of the disease in history has admittedly now killed nearly 900 West Africans already this year? Over 200 more than just a few days ago? Is it coincidence that President Obama has just signed an executive order to have the power to begin rounding up American citizens with respiratory diseases against their will? Is it coincidence that FEMA roundups are about to begin in Los Angeles, deceiving homeless people with the carrot stick of a meal to corral them into those FEMA concentration camps and Halliburton refurbished, soon to no longer be empty prisons we’ve been hearing about?

    Will Obama release from Ft. Detrick the new strain of Siberian Butt Fungus?

    Throughout this last century the US government and military have a notorious track record for delving into the darkest, most sinister realms in its pathological, “cutting edge” pursuit of amassing the most powerful destructive forces on earth… from torturous mind control methods that cause genital warts to unlawful, deceptive drug experimentation on unsuspecting soldiers acting as involuntary guinea pigs, to manipulating extreme weather events used as offensive weapons to create killer storms and droughts, to the use of potently lethal electromagnetic radio waves to alter and disturb the human mind and behavior that conceivably can even cause heart attacks and gas.

  • jim_m

    It’s like Alabama but it rains all the time. But we don’t have muslims decapitating our soldiers in the streets so at least they have that.

  • GarandFan

    As “The Iron Lady” said; “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Amen.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Looks like they’re getting close to it.

      Not there yet – but getting close.

  • http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/ Rich Vail

    ‘Progressives’ want us all beggers because begger are easier to please…”…pleas sir, may I have some more…”

  • Commander_Chico

    Interesting statistic. I am surprised. The ostensible standard of living for the average Brit and the quality of the public infrastructure seems much higher than in Mississippi.

    Britain is not full of land whales like Mississippi women either, maybe they’re starving.

    Of course the US federal government is transferring billions into Mississippi, more than they pay in taxes.

    • Retired military

      Chico
      You know that the infant mortatlity rate isnt an apples to apples comparision. Yet you continue to spout crap. Which isnt a surprise.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        It’s what damn liars do…

    • Jackson’s Revenge

      US Per capita GDP (CIA factbook): $52,800
      Germany per capita GDP: $39,500
      UK per capita GDP: $37,300

      Pretty much every European country save for Norway (tons of natural resources), Switzerland (banking capital), and places like Monaco (billionaire playgrounds) tend to lag far behind the US in per capita GDP. When you adjust for the price index, the US looks even better off.

      The US counts infant mortality different than other countries. In most other countries, if the child dies before a few weeks after birth its counted as a miscarriage. Once its born in the US, however, the child is considered living, hence the apparent greater disparity.

      Have you ever lived/been in MS (or the UK), I wonder? Something tells me you haven’t.

      I saw plenty of landwhales in Britain and even quite a few in Germany. Remove the US’ black and Hispanic population from the equation and it isn’t much fatter than most European countries.

      Also, MS is full of Democrats who tend to be welfare recipients (explains a lot about things, don’t it?). Note that the poorest counties in the South with the highest number of welfare recipients vote strongly for left wing parties/policies.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, that’s my point. Why does Germany and to a lesser extent the UK have great roads, urban transit and railways, plus healthcare, and the USA does not? Living in Germany in particular looks pretty good, except for the winter weather.

        You don’t provide any link to support your assertion that infants dying a few weeks after birth are counted as miscarriages, so I discount that as bullshit.

        Yes, I have been to the UK and Mississippi. Both have their strong points, but I’d rather live in London than Jackson.

        • Jackson’s Revenge

          But the US has great roads and railways too; name anything with the same scale as the US interstate and railroad system that’s as effective. Urban transit is next to worthless in the US (with a few exceptions) due to fuel costs being so cheap and the US being a less urbanized country than many others. Healthcare is more expensive than it needs to be in the US (mainly due to protectionist laws preventing the sale of health insurance over state lines, thus favoring the creation of monopolies, as well as a lack of tort reform), but its much more effective; compare cancer survival rates, for example.
          http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
          http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

          Here’s your links on infant mortality:
          http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-infant-mortality-numbers-for-most-countries-are-unreliable/
          http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-is-the-u-s-infant-mortality-rate-so-high/
          http://www.aei.org/outlook/health/global-health/us-health-care-a-reality-check-on-cross-country-comparisons/

          “For example, babies who are not viable and who die quickly after birth are more likely to be classified as stillbirths in countries outside the United States, especially in Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. This is especially likely for babies who die before their birth is legally registered.[9] In the United States, however, nonviable births are often recorded as live births, making the US infant mortality rate appear misleadingly high. In a detailed study of medical records and birth and death certificates in Philadelphia, Gibson and colleagues found that infant mortality had been overstated by 40 percent, merely as a result of these nonviable births that were recorded as live births.[10]

          There is another problem with using infant mortality to represent health care efficacy. US physicians often go to great efforts—at the prenatal and postnatal stages—to save a baby with poor survival chances. The additional prenatal care an American doctor provides may improve the odds of the live birth of a baby with poor survival chances, who is then likely to require extensive neonatal care. Accordingly, the US uses substantially more neonatal intensive care units (NICU) than other industrialized countries. In this case, the additional health care may actually worsen reported infant mortality rates and misleadingly suggest poor care in the United States. Similarly, US physicians are more likely to resuscitate very small premature babies, many of whom nevertheless die and many others of whom live with serious and expensive medical problems. This practice also raises measured infant mortality rates for the United States.”

          • Commander_Chico

            OK, I will accept your premise on infant mortality, that it is overstated in the USA to some extent.

            But urban transit in the US is not bad because of cheap fuel: road capacity and parking space is more of a limit than fuel costs anyways. It’s bad because of lack of public investment in it. China is building metro systems in about ten cities now. Huge projects. The USA does almost nothing. There are places in the USA where high speed rail makes a lot of sense: the northeast corridor, Florida, SF-LA, maybe Dallas-Houston. There is no willingness to spend money on things that benefit the American people: instead we piss away money in wars and trying to control the world.

          • Jackson’s Revenge

            Who cares about trains when you have a car? Automobiles exemplify freedom, trains are an obsession of fascists (Mussolini made the trains run on time!). Most of those Chinese cities are empty Potemkin villages used to keep their real estate market afloat. Besides, trains lose money (without government subsidies) even in densely packed nations such as Japan. They’d be an even worse boondoggle in the United States.
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259509/high-speed-rail-boondoggle-lou-dolinar
            http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/13/californias-public-transportation-sinkho

            Funny that you mention “trying to control the world” (someone here hasn’t read Thucydides or Clausewitz), the Constitution mentions national defense as a job of the federal government, it doesn’t mention anything about subsidizing inefficient and outdated transport.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Public transit systems don’t get built much here largely because people don’t want to use them.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Not ‘to some extent’ . ‘To a quite large extent’.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE