Capitalism is making life better!

[Stephen Colbert]

Where else than youtube would I find such a gem?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlUhjXILXqs&feature=pyv&ad=7135549900&kw=capitalism

[IcarusAngel]

hahah. The funny thing is that I've been making comments about how the rise of life expectancy was due to science in a lot of right-wing videos such as Reason Magazine etc., and that the life expectancy was about 20 to 30 years in hunger-gather times, and was about same (30 years) in Western Europe and in Late Roman and in Medieval times. It didn't rise to 40 years until around the year 1870. It reached 50 in 1915, 60 in 1930, 70 in 1955, and was approaching 80 in 1996.

I was making these arguments because dumb-asses like Murray Rothbard (and his disciples, like Hoppe and Rockwell) say that we should turn to religion in order to combat statism and that life was better under monarchy than under democracy. I got the statistics from Sagan. Looks like someone took my argument for enlightenment thinking and the rise of science and applied it to capitalism lol.

[DragonQuestWes]

Even Capitalists hate Capitalism (which is good because it makes the job for us anti-capitalists even easier):

"I'm a Capitalist but this video is bull shit..."

Now excuse me while stand over there to let out all my non-stop laughing.

[Havet]

Hey Stephen, didn't know you had joined. How's the show goin'...?

[Rafiq]

That was complete bullshit...

Life expectancy was 7 years higher during Soviet Times than it is in The Russian Federation, and the Soviets were barely Socialist!

In all cases
Capitalism lowers life expectancy, compared to that under Socialism.

I mean think, can you imagine a un successful Maoist India? I can't even imagine seeing a Red India that isn't completely successful with things like Literacy, life expectancy, Living Standards, et.

[IcarusAngel]

The point is that life expectancy would have increased under any system, and yes, the population and the life expectancy increased in the soviet union (even though they lost millions fighting the Nazis). I'm not sure it's true that the life expectancy was greater in Maoist China than the US, but the US never built itself up from pure capitalism anyway.

India became democratic-capitalist in 1949. Their first five year plan was complete privatization. The result of this was that in the early 1950s they experienced a massive famine that killed millions. Truman refused to send help or grain because they felt Nehru was too independent and was involved in the creation of the non-alliance movement. They then implemented policies along the lines of trying to establish businesses, taking away from some businesses for the expense of others. It didn't work, and Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen estimates that they lost more people every 8 years from the lack of basic health care/anti-poverty programs than the total that was lost in the Great Chinese famine.

For some reason I almost never see leftists mention this - it's not even in that exaggerated list that capitalism has killed "one billion people" - but the numbers are accurate.

India still has a problem with its massive land owners, but they're implementing more keynesian like economics to provide themselves with infrastructure, education etc., things the market doesn't do well.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I just threw up a little.

[RGacky3]

What a beautiful piece of bullshit propeganda, Stalin would be jizzing in his pants right now.

[Che a chara]

WTF !!? What total bullshit. How can anyone be brainwashed by such cretinous nonsense !?

Facts, truth, evidence and history tells us the exact opposite.

[MarxistRevolution]

Anyone who thinks Capitalism is good should ask themselves if Slave labor being used in the Ivory Coast or labor from sweat shops in China is ok. The greed of these company's is so great they would rather use slaves then pay a living wage to the American worker.

[Nicholas Popov]

But not for all.

[Bud Struggle]

But not for all.

Very true! But for those that can get it it's one hell of a great ride.

[Revolution starts with U]

So was feudal europe

[Bud Struggle]

So was feudal europe

Actually it's still a pretty good ride for a lot of "feudal nobility" of Europe. They don't have the raw power they once had but a lot of them still have plenty of money and a lot of good connections which gives them a lot of behind the scenes power.

Also a "title" gives a person instant rock star status among the masses. Just look at British tabloids--they are full of aristocracy stories. And another thing--a British friend of mone mentioned this to me a little while ago--the aristocrats since maybe the 50s have been marryng models and movie stars so that the nobility of the future (and of today) well not only be richer and more powerful than everyone else--but they will be better looking, too.

That's the kind of stuff that keeps them in the public interest.

[Revolution starts with U]

And you hope to be one of those rock stars they marry? That's the only way one could support such a system.

[Noinu]

Also a "title" gives a person instant rock star status among the masses. Just look at British tabloids--they are full of aristocracy stories. And another thing--a British friend of mone mentioned this to me a little while ago--the aristocrats since maybe the 50s have been marryng models and movie stars so that the nobility of the future (and of today) well not only be richer and more powerful than everyone else--but they will be better looking, too.



Well actually, two beautiful people can easily have an 'ugly' child. It's really no proof of some better looking future...
Kinda like two brilliant minds can easily get a child with average skills and vice versa.

[Bud Struggle]

Well actually, two beautiful people can easily have an 'ugly' child. It's really no proof of some better looking future...
Kinda like two brilliant minds can easily get a child with average skills and vice versa.

You know I don't quite know if that is true. (Here I actually have no statistical proof) But I think bone structure and hir color have a different criteria than intellectuaql ability.

Alswo I know a lot of pretty second rate looking guys with a lot of money that married really good looking women that now have some pretty georgious kids.

(I'm one of them. :D)

[Noinu]

You know I don't quite know if that is true. (Here I actually have no statistical proof) But I think bone structure and hir color have a different criteria than intellectuaql ability.

Alswo I know a lot of pretty second rate looking guys with a lot of money that married really good looking women that now have some pretty georgious kids.

(I'm one of them. :D)

Well you see, there are a lot of genes that don't always get visible traits on a person, like for example freckles (not that I have anything against freckles, just one of those traits that are uh hidden? I don't know these words in English). Anyway, there are enough of traits like that, kinda like if you get a child with a really hot guy, the kid might just end up looking more like the guy's grandma, than anyone else. So it's not always as clear as 'good looking + good looking = good looking children'.

And I didn't say it wasn't possible, of course it is, it's just not a 100%.

Good for you.

[red cat]

Well actually, two beautiful people can easily have an 'ugly' child.

With low probability. Generally good looking people have good looking children.


It's really no proof of some better looking future...
Kinda like two brilliant minds can easily get a child with average skills and vice versa. Again, with low probability. Skills of a person are mostly shaped by his surroundings. Skilled people are able to provide their children with proper training from an early age.

[Noinu]

With low probability. Generally good looking people have good looking children.

Well actually, scary noses tend to come with high probability. Then again, might well be related to area, different people are considered good looking in different places.

I know enough gorgeous people that have come out of the ugliest of parents. So probability really goes out the window sometimes.



Again, with low probability. Skills of a person are mostly shaped by his surroundings. Skilled people are able to provide their children with proper training from an early age.I agree, but then again, it was quite a bad example on my part.

[Amphictyonis]

Where else than youtube would I find such a gem?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlUhjXILXqs&feature=pyv&ad=7135549900&kw=capitalism

It did make life better (in the west) at one point but it's time to sweep it aside as the means to facilitate further progress (socialism) now exist. Marx himself viewd capitalism as a progressive force in history. He would sometimes praise it for it's ability to industrialize and then condemn it to the dustbin of history in the next sentence. Capitalism has been a step in human progress it's simply not "the end of history" as most capitalists wishfully think.

[∞]

I commented on how the Soviet Union had a higher life expectancy than the US.

[Sir Comradical]

The point is that life expectancy would have increased under any system, and yes, the population and the life expectancy increased in the soviet union (even though they lost millions fighting the Nazis). I'm not sure it's true that the life expectancy was greater in Maoist China than the US, but the US never built itself up from pure capitalism anyway.

India became democratic-capitalist in 1949. Their first five year plan was complete privatization. The result of this was that in the early 1950s they experienced a massive famine that killed millions. Truman refused to send help or grain because they felt Nehru was too independent and was involved in the creation of the non-alliance movement. They then implemented policies along the lines of trying to establish businesses, taking away from some businesses for the expense of others. It didn't work, and Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen estimates that they lost more people every 8 years from the lack of basic health care/anti-poverty programs than the total that was lost in the Great Chinese famine.

For some reason I almost never see leftists mention this - it's not even in that exaggerated list that capitalism has killed "one billion people" - but the numbers are accurate.

India still has a problem with its massive land owners, but they're implementing more keynesian like economics to provide themselves with infrastructure, education etc., things the market doesn't do well.

I read that in Rogue States by Noam Chomsky. He does well when comparing India and China.

[∞]

Yes well Nehru was doing his best to establish socialism however.

[Magón]

Actually it's still a pretty good ride for a lot of "feudal nobility" of Europe. They don't have the raw power they once had but a lot of them still have plenty of money and a lot of good connections which gives them a lot of behind the scenes power.

Also a "title" gives a person instant rock star status among the masses. Just look at British tabloids--they are full of aristocracy stories. And another thing--a British friend of mone mentioned this to me a little while ago--the aristocrats since maybe the 50s have been marryng models and movie stars so that the nobility of the future (and of today) well not only be richer and more powerful than everyone else--but they will be better looking, too.

That's the kind of stuff that keeps them in the public interest.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap_prince_charles_camilla_car_protest_ss_101209_ss h.jpg

Totally dude.

[RGacky3]

And another thing--a British friend of mone mentioned this to me a little while ago--the aristocrats since maybe the 50s have been marryng models and movie stars so that the nobility of the future (and of today) well not only be richer and more powerful than everyone else--but they will be better looking, too.


Or maybe, people like to be married to good looking people.

[Bud Struggle]

Or maybe, people like to be married to good looking people.

Yup, and good looking women like to be Princesses.

http://guestofaguest.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/john_travolta_and_princess_diana-12.jpg

[Hit The North]

Of course, the reason life expectancy is higher today in the first world than it was two hundred years ago, is partly because of the way in which the emergence of capitalism completely traduced average life expectancy. So, for instance, average male life expectancy in Manchester, England, in 1840, was a mere 27 years! Everywhere that capitalism settled, it created vile, disgusting and poisonous conditions. It took social reform and struggles to collectivise the technological advances of capitalism for the wider benefit of the society - and often against the direct resistance of the capitalists themselves - in order to reach the impressive life expectancies we now see.

At the same time, figures from the Office for National Statistics indicate that in the UK, a person of social classes 1 and 2 (upper middle class) can expect to live an average of five years more than someone from social classes 6, 7 and 8 (and, obviously, in far greater luxury). Also, infant deaths are still 50% more common among those from manual backgrounds than among those from non-manual backgrounds in the UK. http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/uk.htm

Meanwhile, those nations that have greater socio-economic equality tend towards higher life expectancies than those which are less equal (Japan versus USA = 82 years and 78 years respectively). In fact, the USA, arguably the centre of world capitalism, ranks a poor 49th in the world table of life expectancy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Furthermore, capitalist governments, under pressure from the agents of global finance, are, even now, launching austerity packages which will both widen inequality and impact upon life expectancy rates amongst the poorest. So, at the moment, any attempt to increase the life chances of our people will inevitably lead us into conflict with capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^ Although I agree with you in principle, what was the average life expectancy before capitalism? I don't think it's just capitalism here, although capitalism exacerbates the situation.

It's easy- if you are well-off and living in good conditions with minimum stress, good medical care, a healthy diet and a clean environment you are probably more likely to live longer than someone who doesn't.

[Apoi_Viitor]

HFxYyXGMfZM

[Hit The North]

^^^^ Although I agree with you in principle, what was the average life expectancy before capitalism?

Before industrial capitalism - in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, the average life expectancy in Britain was 40+. Industrialisation and urbanisation certainly depressed life expectancy rates alarmingly in the early phase of their development.

[Robert]

Of course, the reason life expectancy is higher today in the first world than it was two hundred years ago, is partly because of the way in which the emergence of capitalism completely traduced average life expectancy. So, for instance, average male life expectancy in Manchester, England, in 1840, was a mere 27 years! Everywhere that capitalism settled, it created vile, disgusting and poisonous conditions. It took social reform and struggles to collectivise the technological advances of capitalism for the wider benefit of the society - and often against the direct resistance of the capitalists themselves - in order to reach the impressive life expectancies we now see.This reads more like an indictment of industrialisation and a celebration of reform than an indictment of capitalism and a celebration of (call for continuing?) revolution.

We can accept everything you mention there as true and still be leery of communism. The necessary social reforms you mention were able to occur, were "suffered" to occur, by the "ruling class," without collectivizing the "means of production."

And we can only speculate as to how an industrial revolution occurring in a communist society would have produced a net increase in the overall quality of our lives. There were plenty of "vile, disgusting and poisonous conditions" prior to ... whatever date you are using for the "settlement" of capitalism.

[Robert]

Capitalism has been a step in human progress it's simply not "the end of history" as most capitalists wishfully think.

Eh?

The "end of history" suggests that liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man) (not "capitalism")
is the final form of human government.

Perhaps you see the two as intertwined, but I don't see them as inextricably intertwined.

[Bardo]

Ah, yes. We should praise the holy market for blessing us with the cure for AIDS...oh wait...

Imagine if Pfizer had invented and patented the polio vaccine. They'd probably still be dishing out harmful, expensive band-aid procedures and treatments to this day in order to achieve maxiumum profit. Instead, it was invented by a good man with a real purpose in medicine who refused to capitalize on the desperation of others. Now polio is pretty much a thing of the past.

[cloneof]

Hello guys. Now some of you might not like a libertarian sharing his comments on this topic, but if you would be so kind as to keep up a good conversation, I'm sure I can as well respond with the same amount. As a former communist I have a great appreciation for the things that the left has done for the world, including for me as a guy from Finland :). I hope that I will have enlightning conversations with all of you in fine friendship.

Now I would argue from looking from the responses in this thread that USA really isin't that hearth of the capitalisim. At this current stage I would call USA a "corporatist" nation. As a matter of fact I would rather call Hong Kong the leading capitalist nation and it ranks quite well in live expectancy (you can go to wikipedia's first link in it's life expectancy article and make the comparison). The current problems in the USA like the health care problem are in my opinion best fixed by lessening the regulations and allowing the free market to work.

Also taking some responses in the first page, isin't Ivory Coast ruled by Ivorian People's Front, a socialist (well, center-left) party? A lot of the examples given in this topic of the failures of the capitalism are in my mind just nations with half of our system. A true capitalist society would of course need to follow the libertarian mind set. I wouldn't suppose that I could just point out half-socialist nations and laugh at how socialisim has completely failed (for one far away example, pointing out that the only reason India is as it is, is becouse the work of Norman Borlaug who is a jewel of the corpotarist nation of USA).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

FYI: Life expectancy has actually fallen in the U.S.


A baby born in 2008 will live to be about 77.8 years old, which has dipped since its all-time peak of 77.9 years in 2007, according to a preliminary report released Thursday.

"For the first time in history, it is possible that total life expectancy will be higher for the parents than the children," longevity expert Dr. Walter M. Bortz, the author of "Living Longer for Dummies" and "Road Map to 100," told AOL Health.http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/12/10/after-inching-up-for-years-life-expectancy-drops-slightly/

[∞]

Hello guys. Now some of you might not like a libertarian sharing his comments on this topic, but if you would be so kind as to keep up a good conversation, I'm sure I can as well respond with the same amount. As a former communist I have a great appreciation for the things that the left has done for the world, including for me as a guy from Finland :). I hope that I will have enlightning conversations with all of you in fine friendship.

Off to OI with you!


Now I would argue from looking from the responses in this thread that USA really isin't that hearth of the capitalisim. At this current stage I would call USA a "corporatist" nation.Okay, so you are referring to governmental bail-outs as corporatism and it very well is. The only problem is that it is a form of capitalism, many leftists (including myself) believe that private institutions try to use the government to their advantage. Thus, you're vision of this free-market unfeathered by the hand of government is inherently out of touch with reality. I believe even Reagan used protectionist economics to ensure these businesses remain safe.




As a matter of fact I would rather call Hong Kong the leading capitalist nation and it ranks quite well in live expectancy (you can go to wikipedia's first link in it's life expectancy article and make the comparison). The current problems in the USA like the health care problem are in my opinion best fixed by lessening the regulations and allowing the free market to work.The governmental involvement in HK has increased, good chap. In fact Singapore was the only eastern metropolis not heavily effected by the recession of the free market. Singapore actually issued a tax where governmental finances are under control and they in turn live in better conditions than some of the people in Hong Kong, many of which, are homeless. The gap between rich and poor in HK is tremendous.

We (the US) are ranked #36 in health care. The best healthcare comes from nationalized ones like the ones you have. 78% of people in the US want single-payer healthcare as well. Although NHS is considered the most effective health care system. My mother, a doctor says she has to go out of her way to provide patients with proper medication here in America. The companies really want to make a quick buck. Coincidentally, all of the best medical books shes gotten are from England as well. Capitalism can never be responsible for people's well-being.


A true capitalist society would of course need to follow the libertarian mind set. I wouldn't suppose that I could just point out half-socialist nations and laugh at how socialisim has completely failed (for one far away example, pointing out that the only reason India is as it is, is becouse the work of Norman Borlaug who is a jewel of the corpotarist nation of USA).A true capitalist society has had several chances to exist, they've been implemented in the third-world with disastorous effects.

Keynesianism is not "half-socialism", it is capitalism with some common sense. India has poverty level of over 20%, India is in a disgusting state of oppression. Nehru launched socialist reform in India that increased their growth 2.5%. Land reform, education, democracy, have all played a part in socialism, an ideology that has functioned outside of our imagination.

[William Howe]

Success at the cost of 55% of the population of the West living in poverty.

Capitalism works in the short-term, but gluttony and environmental destruction slowly poison it into a bloody death.

[ComradeMan]

Success at the cost of 55% of the population of the West living in poverty.

Capitalism works in the short-term, but gluttony and environmental destruction slowly poison it into a bloody death.

On a global scale it's even worse.
:cool:

[cloneof]

Off to OI with you!

Okay, so you are referring to governmental bail-outs as corporatism and it very well is. The only problem is that it is a form of capitalism, many leftists (including myself) believe that private institutions try to use the government to their advantage. Thus, you're vision of this free-market unfeathered by the hand of government is inherently out of touch with reality. I believe even Reagan used protectionist economics to ensure these businesses remain safe.



The governmental involvement in HK has increased, good chap. In fact Singapore was the only eastern metropolis not heavily effected by the recession of the free market. Singapore actually issued a tax where governmental finances are under control and they in turn live in better conditions than some of the people in Hong Kong, many of which, are homeless. The gap between rich and poor in HK is tremendous.

We (the US) are ranked #36 in health care. The best healthcare comes from nationalized ones like the ones you have. 78% of people in the US want single-payer healthcare as well. Although NHS is considered the most effective health care system. My mother, a doctor says she has to go out of her way to provide patients with proper medication here in America. The companies really want to make a quick buck. Coincidentally, all of the best medical books shes gotten are from England as well. Capitalism can never be responsible for people's well-being.

A true capitalist society has had several chances to exist, they've been implemented in the third-world with disastorous effects.

Keynesianism is not "half-socialism", it is capitalism with some common sense. India has poverty level of over 20%, India is in a disgusting state of oppression. Nehru launched socialist reform in India that increased their growth 2.5%. Land reform, education, democracy, have all played a part in socialism, an ideology that has functioned outside of our imagination.


Thanks for this rebuttal of my arguments, I appreciate that you have taken the time and effort on my key points.

Well doesn't the argument work both ways? I can as well say that as Socialisim includet Soviet Russia and I can guess you can work my argument from there. Couldn't I also point out the same thing for your later argument about the "out of reality" of free capitalisim by pointing to anarchists. There is hardly any way of keeping goverments from forming from anarchy, so the whole idea of anarchist socialisim is out of the reach of reality and as such shouldn't be even worth considering.

I didn't deny the fact that goverment intervention is increasing in HK. I only made the point that HK would be the most ideal to be called "the hearth of capitalisim" in modern world, at least from my perspective as a libertarian.

Singapore is a good example how mixed economy works. There is however a problem with that. I could have as well pointed out before the year 2008 that Estonia was a fantastic example of free economy in action. With a debt more then 100% of GDP and increasing, I could always point to that and say it will eventually blow in Songapore's face until they would get it down to someting more reasonable.

What of course also comes into play when we are talking about small nations and their economic policies is how small they really are. When you have a small nation the fact that it trades with the rest of the world tends to weight quite much as well other then their fiscal or monatery policies. I'm guessing that you more or less know this fact of economics pretty well, so if you think that I'm some how trying to insult, just take it for a fact that I have a very poor memory and this is propably a reminder to myself.

Now, as it is getting quite late and I'm getting tired, I can't think of a response to your healthcare point at the top of my head, so I will get back on to that tomorrow o.k :)? For now I could still argue that a good reason for your mother's problems from where I can see is do to goverment intervention. The fact that insurances can't be sold between the state borders, American Medical Assosication (mainly the fact that they set the licenses, as a man from Finland I really don't have a problem with the idea of a union), FDA and so forth.

Could you please provide me with few of what you would call the ideal examples of free economy gone horrible wrong in Third World countries? When it comes to the economic policy it is quite important to know the background of the nations in question. For example one of the many reasons why centralized goverment works well in Finland is becouse we are a very homogenous population and that fact alone well contributes to our well ranked PISA scores.

[∞]

Thanks for this rebuttal of my arguments, I appreciate that you have taken the time and effort on my key points.

You're welcome.


Well doesn't the argument work both ways? I can as well say that as Socialisim includet Soviet Russia and I can guess you can work my argument from there.

It could but you presented in a very unilateral fashion. Now here is the thing about the Soviet Union, the more authority you put into a socialist economy, the more you change the very nature of socialism. Whereas capitalism remains quite the same. I am a libertarian socialist and am a harsh critic of the USSR, even though I'm willing to recognize it's successes. The fall of the USSR wasn't a failure of socialism, but one of central planning. Central Planning /= socialism.


Couldn't I also point out the same thing for your later argument about the "out of reality" of free capitalisim by pointing to anarchists.

No, please read up on the Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.



There is hardly any way ofeping goverments from forming from anarchy, so the whole idea of anarchist socialisim is out of the reach of reality and as such shouldn't be even worth considering.

Anarchism is usually fueled by the spontaneousness of insurrection and the economic importance of union. These movements have achieved great economic success.



I didn't deny the fact that goverment intervention is increasing in HK. I only made the point that HK would be the most ideal to be called "the hearth of capitalisim" in modern world, at least from my perspective as a libertarian.

Yet look at their amount of productivity vs. the lives of their working class. Shouldn't a country of such immense wealth be able to provide a better life to their people in which they see the direct success of their labor?



Singapore is a good example how mixed economy works. There is however a problem with that. I could have as well pointed out before the year 2008 that Estonia was a fantastic example of free economy in action. With a debt more then 100% of GDP and increasing, I could always point to that and say it will eventually blow in Songapore's face until they would get it down to someting more reasonable.


Estonia is a small country with a prominent central bank and tremendous economic resource. I believe mixed economies are result of free market failures, as with was the East Asian Tigers all of which were in heavy debt except Singapore.


What of course also comes into play when we are talking about small nations and their economic policies is how small they really are. When you have a small nation the fact that it trades with the rest of the world tends to weight quite much as well other then their fiscal or monatery policies. I'm guessing that you more or less know this fact of economics pretty well, so if you think that I'm some how trying to insult, just take it for a fact that I have a very poor memory and this is propably a reminder to myself.

Yes and that is partially the reason why Estonia is doing well economically.


Now, as it is getting quite late and I'm getting tired, I can't think of a response to your healthcare point at the top of my head, so I will get back on to that tomorrow o.k :)?

I made my response very late at night, but whatever.


For now I could still argue that a good reason for your mother's problems from where I can see is do to goverment intervention. The fact that insurances can't be sold between the state borders, American Medical Assosication (mainly the fact that they set the licenses, as a man from Finland I really don't have a problem with the idea of a union), FDA and so forth.

That is not the problem, the problem is that health insurance companies do not profit from providing their clients with healthcare, the only way to get better healthcare is is you make more money. Since when has money, not sickness determined the kind of health you should be getting?




Could you please provide me with few of what you would call the ideal examples of free economy gone horrible wrong in Third World countries?

Chile
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Poland
Romania
Russia
India
Pakistan

To name a few.


When it comes to the economic policy it is quite important to know the background of the nations in question. For example one of the many reasons why centralized goverment works well in Finland is becouse we are a very homogenous population and that fact alone well contributes to our well ranked PISA scores.

That is true, but I think the main reason why it works for places like Finland is due to the balance between democracy, equality, and efficiency.

[DuracellBunny97]

mainly the result of capitalism? that's awesome, of course it has nothing to do with medical advances, it's economic competition that creates longer life expectancy, even though the united states has lower life expectancy than most European nations, and Cuba