How France is surviving the economic crisis
economist.com
economist.com
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Economics is a social science, not a natural science such as physics, nor is it pure math.
Part of the argument was that the government taxing the population and doling it out as "social benefits" leads to better health. But if government pays people not to work more people will not work. Common sense if you want. In general people who are on welfare are less healthy.
Denmark is probably the place that pays the most for not working. Off the top of my head it's something like 80-90% of your previous income for 4 years. And as previously stated life expectancy - on average - is relatively low.
Maybe the French spend it on different, more effective things than the Danes. Maybe the French have better health care. Maybe the French have better food. Maybe you're totally wrong about the statistics. I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment.
All I know for sure, is that "correlation does not imply cause" is not an argument. We study correlations because when we find them, they usually point the way to interesting phenomena. If we discounted the meaning of every correlation as mere coincidence, there would be no point in searching for them at all.
I'll quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation : "establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship".
Do you think this is wrong?
You cannot infer causations simply from correlating numbers. Numbers can give you ideas and you can then build a hypothesis that you can test.
I am not saying every correlation is a coincidence, I am saying that there are limits to what you can conclude based on correlations. Have you read about falsification and Karl Popper?
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).
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.
A counter-example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2008_Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_...