How is the economy and government in England as compared to North America?
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
Everything I have read is that though England's Economy is not great, the US (which I am assuming you referring to) is in far worse shape. The only thing that is keeping the US economy afloat is massive loans from big lenders, IMF, WorldBank, China, et cetera.... If it weren't for these incoming loans/debts our (the US) economy would undoubtedly collapse and we would be in a vulnerable state of ruin. England's economy is just affected by the economic crisis in a "regular" way, but the US has a system that is fundamentally flawed in almost every way. While England has participated in the "Wars" (I call them conflicts, if it were a true war there would be a draft, and the situation would have been over in a matter of a few years) they have NOT spent anywhere near as much money on it. The basis behind the "war" is controversial and the public will probably never know the true reason. But I guess it was about oil/energy, and it looks like we just dumped a few trillion into a 10 year parade in the middle east.
For the past 20 years (maybe more) the US has been enjoying a state of decadence unheard of in history. Just watch US Cable television programming. We are all sucking our thumbs wearing diapers having things handed to us (colleges, degrees, high salaried jobs with benefits, etc)
the fact of the matter is that this time of decadence may be at an end, and while I don't think that the US will become a third world country, it will definitely be taken a few notches back, or down. Because if these GIANT international World Money Lenders ever want to collect their debt they will literally OWN the US, at least for a decade.
All empires must come to an end, but because many other countries depend on the US for many things (mostly technology i believe, it is our biggest export I'm am almost certain) we won't go into complete ruin and chaos.
England on the other hand, wasn't playing RISK or whatever type of stupid game you want to call it, their economy is more stable because they didn't have lawmakers, congressmen, et al compiling massive debts for their country.
Also England's Government (Parliament) I don't think is anywhere near corrupt as the US. Many of our people in power are merely playing a game...look at Sarah Palin, just because she has money and a little, but significant amount of power, she can campaign to be THE PRESIDENT. Of course, she won't be, because she is not only an awful excuse for a human being, she is also very, very stupid. Stupid enough that even stupid people notice that she is stupid. And that is pretty stupid.
anyways, hopefully you get my point.
So, in short, the US government is riddled with massive debt, corruption, and a whole list of problems that can only be solved by hard work, sacrifice, and honesty (something the US has been conditioned to avoid) and by lowering the whole countries standard of living, while England's problems are similar, but not on such a grand scale. Their problems will seem to fix themselves as a few years go by and the global economic equilibrium settles.Source(s): This is coming from a 26 year old, unemployed college graduate (I studied art) who didn't give a damn about ANY of this until I couldn't find a job, and after 2 years, a completed University (not online) degree, and about 500-600 job applications is still unemployed... I'm no economist, Just a pissed off guy looking for a job, wondering why and how his country has failed him
- JohnLv 79 years ago
You've got got three separate countries in North America with three separate economies independent of each other. Take your pick.
We're not the European Union over here.
- Elwood BluesLv 79 years ago
Similar. Unemployment is lower in England, and they didn't waste as much on the war in Iraq as the US did.
But life expectancy in England is a year longer, and per-capita medical costs are less than half US costs.
The fact is that in the USA we pay nearly *twice* what Europeans pay for health care, and we have both higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy than most European countries. In the table below, im = infant mortality and L = life expectancy.
2010 life expectancies: http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/infant-...
2010 health care per capita: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALT...
United States -- im= 6.1, L= 78.2, cost $7538, 16.0% of GDP
Canada ---------- im= 5.0, L= 81.3, cost $4406, 10.4% of GDP
United Kingdom -- im= 4.7, L= 79.9, cost $3129, 8.7% of GDP
Austria --------- im= 4.4, L= 79.6, cost $3970, 10.5% of GDP
Denmark ------- im= 4.3, L= 78.5, cost $3540, 9.7% of GDP
Finland -------- im= 3.4, L= 79.1, cost $3008, 8.4% of GDP
France -------- im= 3.3, L= 81.0, cost $3696, 11.5% of GDP
Germany ------ im= 4.0, L= 79.4, cost $3737, 10.5% of GDP
Greece -------- im= 5.1, L= 79.8, cost $2687, 9.7% of GDP
Italy ------------ im= 5.4, L= 80.3, cost $2886, 9.5% of GDP
Norway --------- im= 3.5, L= 80.0, cost $5003, 8.5% of GDP
Spain ----------- im= 3.4, L= 81.0, cost $2902, 9.0% of GDP
Sweden -------- im= 2.7, L= 80.9, cost $3470, 9.4% of GDP
Switzerland --- im= 4.1, L= 80.9, cost $4810, 10.7% of GDP
Ireland --------- im= 3.9, L= 80.0, cost $3793, 8.7% of GDP
Portugal ------- im= 4.7, L= 78.4, cost $2151, 9.9% of GDP
If you're still with me, all this data begs the question "how is it possible that universal care can lead to lower overall costs?" The short answer is preventative care. Going in for regular doctor visits catches many diseases in their early stages before treatment gets expensive. Our system cause many people to forgo preventative care and wind up in the emergency room, where care is most expensive but costs can be shifted to the society at large.