
How France is surviving the economic crisis - dimm
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610197
======
laut
France economic policy doesn't look so bad if you compare it to other failed
policies and look at them in a myopic way.

So they throw in a graph with life expectancy and total public spending as a %
of GDP. France ranks high on both (compared to the few other selected
countries). Oh great. But correlation does not mean causation. Let's look at
the country with the highest life expectancy in the world: Andorra. So do they
have high taxes like in France? Anyone care to guess how much income tax they
have in Andorra? ;)

The Economists seems to me like a magazine like any other. Just like a tabloid
they write whatever sells.

~~~
timr
_"correlation does not mean causation"_

Stop saying that.

First, you're saying it wrong: correlation does not _imply_ cause. Second,
you're misinterpreting the implication: a correlation certainly _could_
indicate a causal relationship, but it doesn't _have_ to indicate a causal
relationship. In other words, you're not making an argument, unless you _show_
that there's a reason that a causal relationship should be discounted.

In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social
benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than
coincidental.

~~~
laut
Yes, that should have been "imply". Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker.

So with that out of the way do you think there is anything wrong with
"correlation does not imply causation"?

Denmark has high government spending too. But the average life expectancy is
rather low compared to other similar countries.

"In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social
benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than
coincidental."

Why?

~~~
mattchew
_"In this case, the French spend enough money on public health and social
benefits that there's reason to believe that the relationship is more than
coincidental."

Why?_

Because it is common sense! If you spend money on public health you are making
people _healthier_. Why do you think they call it _public health_? More money,
more health. It's really very simple, don't you understand basic arithmetic?

Here's an interesting link (from 2000, sorry about that):

[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_ca...](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-
care-funding-public-per-capita)

~~~
anigbrowl
Well, here in the US I believe we spend more (as a function of GDP) than the
French do, but the results are less good overall. India spends relatively
little but they have a different philosophy about medicine (I don't mean
'alternative' medicine, but health administration, scheduling etc).

I think our heavily private system is failing in the US for two reasons: 1\.
health consumers can never be fully informed without getting a medical degree,
and indeed they can't get access to facilities or tools without one; and 2.
healthcare isn't an asset that you can choose to buy at a given time. You
can't decide to have your heart attack at 30 when your recovery prospects are
very high, or to postpone developing a chronic condition while you make more
money to buy better health insurance. Ill health is, to a large extent,
something that happens to you rather than something you can plan for,
notwithstanding the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

With limited knowledge, limited ability to make decisions, and limited ability
to schedule your healthcare spending, it's very hard for normal market
conditions to prevail. Though one can buy insurance, there is a massive gulf
between the information available to the supplier and the consumer, and
suppliers leverage this to give consumers a poor deal.

------
tybris
Doesn't seem like they're doing that well.

The Netherlands is a more interesting case. Booming in prosperious times, yet
a stable unemployment rate of around 3% during this crisis (lowest in the EU).

~~~
Luc
3%? Perhaps by the EU's definition, according to which someone who works at
least one hour/week is not considered unemployed. The latest Dutch figure was
4.4%.

Of course, that's still only for people actively looking for a job, with less
than 12h/week of employment, and within a certain age bracket.

------
known
Investment (French) versus Consumerism (Bush Regime)

------
ulvund
My impression is that the French did not buy derivatives.

~~~
TriinT
That's a retarded statement. There are tons of derivatives. Would you care to
be more specific?

A counter-example:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2008_Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2008_Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale_trading_loss_incident)

