I am saying that all the advantages go to the country with the biggest size. Economics of size. Bigger market. One language. One set of regulations. There is far better economic opportunity in the larger country, whn you just look at the size.
That is fact. Not an opinion.
Also, macroeconomics, public health, health care economics, etc compare countries all the time. Fact. The argument "It doesn't compare due to size" is something that crops up on the internet with people trotting it out as a reason for why their policies/countries/footballteams cannot possibly be expected to perform.
There is never any reasoning for why size has this effect of excusing select objects from comparing to others of the same class.
Nor any musings on whether the scaling can be compensated for. It is an internet thing, this cry of "SIZE! Can't be compared."
Menawhile, if yoy check out some serious research papers of a nmber of disciplines, you'll see they don't hesitiate to compare countries of widly differing sizes.
The fact that Norway, followed by Denmark, has the highest rate of strtups in the world, according to the article, would seem to argue against the "one swallow" theory, and indicate full summer.
And it is not reasonable to assume that his countrymen can't be bothered when they are the most prolific in the world.
I read the size argument a lot. But I never hear it. It crops up on the internet a lot, but never in the serious debate.
You always compare countries. Iceland to Austria to Italy to Britain to Germany to Japan. That is a lot of what people do in these areas.
No-ones ever pointed out a mechanism which would make it impossible to compare countries of varying sizes to each other. And normally, the advantage accrues to the larger one, with the bigger internal market.
In short, everything else being equal, you would expect the US to hasve more startups per cpaita, just based on the size advantage alone.
Germany and Switzerland have insurance-based UHC systems. More market-oriented, and somewhat more expensive than the other European systems. In fact Switzerlands system is very expensive indeed, running at almost 66% of the USAs costs per head. But the results are on par with the other European systems. Social securities are fairly good.
Didn't the article mention that Denmark was number 2 in startups after Norway? So not very different at all. And I suspect Finland is quite up there too.
Along with the fact that Norway saves all its oil in a fund for a rainy day, I don't think oil figures that much.
And "it is more expensive o fail"? With no risk of medical bankrupcy, guaranteed health care, free university for the kids, a generous safety net, pensions etc...how can it possibly be more disastrous?
Doctors are an extremly well-educated, mobile workforce. Few chose to leave the country, there are more coming in.
There is more happiness in being well-off in a rich country, than being rich in a poor or troubled one.
Especially if you have a family.
People don't measure themselves against the superrich of other countries anyway. A doctor in Norway has a high-status job and among the best wages in the country. Changing from being in the top in a rich country to being somewhat further from the top in a more trobled one is not a winning proposition. Even if it does mean more number in the bank.
Also, it is undeniable that there are more freedom under the Norwegian system than the US one. Health care, vacation time, education, personal development....I cannot imagine what freedoms the US could measure up in.
If you're in it for the money, you won't succeed. That is for certain.
If money motivates you, become a day trader, hedge fund manager, bank executive. Work with money. At the kind of shear stress you get at these levels, you need the edge that comes from doing something you want. Just trudging in day after day for the money just won't cut it.
Did you miss the bit of the article where it wsas pointed out that those countries have the highest number of startups in the world?
Not "less on average" but "the most".
That is fact. Not an opinion.
Also, macroeconomics, public health, health care economics, etc compare countries all the time. Fact. The argument "It doesn't compare due to size" is something that crops up on the internet with people trotting it out as a reason for why their policies/countries/footballteams cannot possibly be expected to perform. There is never any reasoning for why size has this effect of excusing select objects from comparing to others of the same class. Nor any musings on whether the scaling can be compensated for. It is an internet thing, this cry of "SIZE! Can't be compared."
Menawhile, if yoy check out some serious research papers of a nmber of disciplines, you'll see they don't hesitiate to compare countries of widly differing sizes.