Re: equation to describe the economy

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 29 May 2005 12:27:27 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Then I would suspect they where underfunding their public health
> >research and the dissemination of the results.

> Maybe it's just too subtle and complex a relationship.

Right, which is why an outcomes based statistic like Infant Mortality
Rate, is the most compelling to me.

> >However, from my experience, the women in Germany are not much
> >different than US women in that regards, if anything, they smoke and
> >drink more, yet the numbers are still much better than the US.

> Yeah, but they're not nearly as obese as American women. And although
> I haven't lived in Germany, my impression is that the drug problem
> there is barely visible compared to the US drug problem.

It seems that you consider the above causes, whereas I consider them
economic outcomes, and as such that they correlate well to Infant
Mortality Rate, IMO, serves to support its value as a general,
comparative, indicator.

> >To me Infant Mortality Rate tells a lot about the situation in a
> >country, I agree however that it is not the whole picture, but IMHO, no
> >_single_ statistic tells you more, and when you try to use _composite_
> >statistics (i.e. HDI) your numbers get lost at sea in the weighting.

> IMO HDI is better.

HDI is interesting to be sure, and the raw data the UNDP publishes as a
part of its HDI report is probably the best single source of social
data there is, however the HDI as a single indicator to me is
compromised by weighting problems and political problems, both of which
can be seen in the US ranking.

Regards.

.