American economic dominance

[tooblue]

Americans are wealthier than citizens in most other countries. That is an objective fact.

BTW, the earlier number was way too low. There are 175k heat-related deaths each year in Europe. The number for America is about 2k per year. This of course, happens in spite of Europe being at a higher latitude.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766

Objectively speaking, wealth is relative.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

Poverty Is Killing Nearly 200,000 Americans a Year

https://www.newsweek.com/poverty-killing-nearly-200000-americans-year-1806002

[Jeff Lebowski]

We don't have AC in most elementary and high schools here, because cool weather persist for 9 months out of the year (this year while everyone is baking in extreme heat, we are having an unseasonably cool and wet summer due to the jet stream).

The point of this thread is American GDP supposedly supports the idea that Americans are wealthier than other citizens in other countries. Then there are links posted from an American complaining on X about the lack of AC in his AirBnB in France, while stating: "have empathy for your French friend [who is supposedly] surprisingly poor." He then prattles on with an anecdote about leaving a light on.

The French keep lights off and don't turn on the lights until they have to, not because they are poor, but because they are French—that's what the French do. Ideologically, they don't believe in AC (that's likely gonna change quickly). But if an American wants AC in their hotel etc., they can certainly can get it by paying for it with their supposed American GDP backed wealth ... unless of course, Americans aren't as wealthy as purported.

Americans are wealthier than citizens in most other countries. That is an objective fact.

BTW, the earlier number was way too low. There are 175k heat-related deaths each year in Europe. The number for America is about 2k per year. This of course, happens in spite of Europe being at a higher latitude.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766

[Pelado]

We don't have AC in most elementary and high schools here, because cool weather persist for 9 months out of the year (this year while everyone is baking in extreme heat, we are having an unseasonably cool and wet summer due to the jet stream).

The point of this thread is American GDP supposedly supports the idea that Americans are wealthier than other citizens in other countries. Then there are links posted from an American complaining on X about the lack of AC in his AirBnB in France, while stating: "have empathy for your French friend [who is supposedly] surprisingly poor." He then prattles on with an anecdote about leaving a light on.

The French keep lights off and don't turn on the lights until they have to, not because they are poor, but because they are French—that's what the French do. Ideologically, they don't believe in AC (that's likely gonna change quickly). But if an American wants AC in their hotel etc., they can certainly can get it by paying for it with their supposed American GDP backed wealth ... unless of course, Americans aren't as wealthy as purported.

I don't know about that guy's situation, so I'm not speaking for him.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the average American booking an AirBnB in France wouldn't even consider that it wouldn't have air conditioning since it is so commonplace here. It may not be a question of being able to afford a hotel room with A/C and more not even realizing that there wouldn't be A/C in the selected lodging.

[tooblue]

Yeah, that's not the point. I love to travel to Paris. It is a wonderful city. I always travel in the spring or fall when the weather is nice.

We are talking about homes, schools, hospitals, etc. And we are talking about Europe in general.

We don't have AC in most elementary and high schools here, because cool weather persist for 9 months out of the year (this year while everyone is baking in extreme heat, we are having an unseasonably cool and wet summer due to the jet stream).

The point of this thread is American GDP supposedly supports the idea that Americans are wealthier than other citizens in other countries. Then there are links posted from an American complaining on X about the lack of AC in his AirBnB in France, while stating: "have empathy for your French friend [who is supposedly] surprisingly poor." He then prattles on with an anecdote about leaving a light on.

The French keep lights off and don't turn on the lights until they have to, not because they are poor, but because they are French—that's what the French do. Ideologically, they don't believe in AC (that's likely gonna change quickly). But if an American wants AC in their hotel etc., they can certainly can get it by paying for it with their supposed American GDP backed wealth ... unless of course, Americans aren't as wealthy as purported.

[Jeff Lebowski]

More than 5 million Americans travel to France each year.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/despite-trump-attacks-against-europe-americans-flocked-france-2025-2026-02-19/

France welcomed record visitor numbers in 2025, retaining its title as world’s most visited country

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2026/02/20/france-welcomed-record-visitor-numbers-in-2025-retaining-its-title-as-worlds-most-visited-

If it is such an awful, impoverished destination why are so many Americans visiting in such numbers? The French are French (go figure). They have their way of doing things and the world seems to like visiting and partaking of their way of doing things, so ...?

And as far as the author in the linked tweets is concerned, if you want AC spend your supposed American wealth on a nice hotel room, in a upscale hotel and don't go cheap renting an Airbnb. Unless of course Americans aren't as wealthy as purported.

Yeah, that's not the point. I love to travel to Paris. It is a wonderful city. I always travel in the spring or fall when the weather is nice.

We are talking about homes, schools, hospitals, etc. And we are talking about Europe in general.

[Clark Addison]

I am still convinced that when we were in Italy a few years back one of the neighbors of our Airbnb sabotaged the A/C. One evening we were sitting at home at maybe 10:00 and this old guy knocks on our door, tells us we should turn the A/C off in a kind of passive aggressive way. In an attempt to be a good neighbor I did so. But the weather was very hot and this place was kind of a half-basement so it had almost no ventilation, so about 30 minutes later I said "Screw this" and turned it back on. The unit was on the outside of the place right on the walkway (this was a town that was mostly walkways, not streets). The next night, the A/C was mysteriously not working.

The other "funny" part was that when I called the management company they had a couple of people come over who obviously had no knowledge of air conditioners. They turned it on and said "It's working, it's blowing air", and I said "The FAN is working, it is blowing air, but the compressor isn't working; the air isn't cool, it is hot" and they just looked at me like I was an idiot.

[tooblue]

More than 5 million Americans travel to France each year.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/despite-trump-attacks-against-europe-americans-flocked-france-2025-2026-02-19/

France welcomed record visitor numbers in 2025, retaining its title as world’s most visited country

https://www.euronews.com/travel/2026/02/20/france-welcomed-record-visitor-numbers-in-2025-retaining-its-title-as-worlds-most-visited-

If it is such an awful, impoverished destination why are so many Americans visiting in such numbers? The French are French (go figure). They have their way of doing things and the world seems to like visiting and partaking of their way of doing things, so ...?

And as far as the author in the linked tweets is concerned, if you want AC spend your supposed American wealth on a nice hotel room, in a upscale hotel and don't go cheap renting an Airbnb. Unless of course Americans aren't as wealthy as purported.

[Moliere]

I just read the first page, Jeff rightly celebrates GDP. Frank rightly wonders if rising tides truly make all boats rise. This is the debate as old as the Chicago School.

My personal opinion is that although GDP doesn't paint a perfect picture of wealth and prosperity, all those social safety nets have to be paid for--with tax dollars. Tax revenues increase when more wealth is created; ergo, you want social safety nets and prosperity, you need to a growing economy.

The only real debate--in my simple mind--is tax policy. It doesn't seem equitable that billionaires (we'll soon be saying trillionaires) can structure taxes in a manner that they have an ETR near zero, while I really can't do much to get it below 30%. But, I live a good life. I'm sure those who make a lot less than I do are really feeling the pinch.

How does a billionaire structure income so they pay near 0%? If you are including their unrealized gains in the calculation, then you should include your unrealized gains as well.

[Goatnapper'96]

You’re right. You don’t have to be a billionaire to game the system.

The system advantages capitalists-specifically wealthy capitalists and the point in which a capitalist clears the threshold of "wealthy" is significantly earlier than "billionaire" status. However, "unfair" many of those advantages are they are necessary for a capitalistic system to function and the system does in fact benefit everyone even if it benefits the "capitalists" disproportionately.

In any case back to the reality of the specific US issue of the delta between government revenues and expenditures I think the point still stands that wasting energy whining about unseemly fortunes or necessary systemic advantages fails to deal with the fundamental reality of if the government wants more they are going to have to take it from where it exists.

[Green Monstah]

I think this is such a misleading point. There just are not enough billionaires to make a difference in our lagging tax revenues-at least when compared to our spending. The left has long beat this argument and the reality of it is that even if it is factual that billionaires get tax advantages-taxing them significantly more will not appreciably close the gap between revenues and what is spent. When it comes to tax policy we need to be adults and realize that if and when the time comes to close the gap between revenues and spending the lions share of that will have to come from the upper middle class as that is where the lions share of taxable revenue resides because numerically there are so many more of them than there are the oft spoken of billionaires. It is just that class warfare sells well politically and has for so long and we have so few adults that we are both unaware of where the money exists and unwilling to discuss that reality.

To be sure I am not opposed to increasing taxes on billionaires, I just want to be clear that it won't close the gap I would like to see closed and IMO the tax the billionaires is a mechanism of the left to avoid dealing with the real issue-which is our spending will only be matched by revenues if we increase taxes on the upper middle class. The upper middle class is significantly populated with non-capitalist technocrats who the capitalists pay lots of money to in order to have the technocrats protect and grow the capitalists wealth. My guess is many of this board's participants are said technocrats and when the day comes we grow up the non-elite capitalists and you well paid technocrats are gonna be the ones carrying the burden of a new and improved adult fiscal social agreement.

You’re right. You don’t have to be a billionaire to game the system.

[Goatnapper'96]

I just read the first page, Jeff rightly celebrates GDP. Frank rightly wonders if rising tides truly make all boats rise. This is the debate as old as the Chicago School.

My personal opinion is that although GDP doesn't paint a perfect picture of wealth and prosperity, all those social safety nets have to be paid for--with tax dollars. Tax revenues increase when more wealth is created; ergo, you want social safety nets and prosperity, you need to a growing economy.

The only real debate--in my simple mind--is tax policy. It doesn't seem equitable that billionaires (we'll soon be saying trillionaires) can structure taxes in a manner that they have an ETR near zero, while I really can't do much to get it below 30%. But, I live a good life. I'm sure those who make a lot less than I do are really feeling the pinch.

I think this is such a misleading point. There just are not enough billionaires to make a difference in our lagging tax revenues-at least when compared to our spending. The left has long beat this argument and the reality of it is that even if it is factual that billionaires get tax advantages-taxing them significantly more will not appreciably close the gap between revenues and what is spent. When it comes to tax policy we need to be adults and realize that if and when the time comes to close the gap between revenues and spending the lions share of that will have to come from the upper middle class as that is where the lions share of taxable revenue resides because numerically there are so many more of them than there are the oft spoken of billionaires. It is just that class warfare sells well politically and has for so long and we have so few adults that we are both unaware of where the money exists and unwilling to discuss that reality.

To be sure I am not opposed to increasing taxes on billionaires, I just want to be clear that it won't close the gap I would like to see closed and IMO the tax the billionaires is a mechanism of the left to avoid dealing with the real issue-which is our spending will only be matched by revenues if we increase taxes on the upper middle class. The upper middle class is significantly populated with non-capitalist technocrats who the capitalists pay lots of money to in order to have the technocrats protect and grow the capitalists wealth. My guess is many of this board's participants are said technocrats and when the day comes we grow up the non-elite capitalists and you well paid technocrats are gonna be the ones carrying the burden of a new and improved adult fiscal social agreement.

[Moliere]

With 50-70k heat-related deaths per year, somebody needs it.

It helps keep the social safety net costs down

[Omaha 680]

With 50-70k heat-related deaths per year, somebody needs it.

If the deaths are mostly old people, that is why the French haven't demanded change before now. Old people are expendable and culling of their ranks could be viewed as a public service to the upside down pension system. Now that the Europeans generally are recognizing how poor they are compared to America and the lack of A/C is a symbol of that poverty, the demand for it may grow. What does that say about a society whose priorities won't allow them to pursue modern conveniences to save elderly lives, but may demand change when it becomes about general comfort and a symbol of falling behind in prosperity?

[Jeff Lebowski]

To be fair, you rarely need AC in Paris and you also very rarely need it in rural parts of northern France. The temps this week are very abnormal and I doubt they’ll see temps like this anytime in the next 20 years. Mini splits have become more used around Europe, which is I think the best way to handle the extreme heat.

With 50-70k heat-related deaths per year, somebody needs it.

[Moliere]

To be fair, you rarely need AC in Paris and you also very rarely need it in rural parts of northern France. The temps this week are very abnormal and I doubt they’ll see temps like this anytime in the next 20 years. Mini splits have become more used around Europe, which is I think the best way to handle the extreme heat.