Quality of Life

[JohnFKennedy]

Ireland tops the tables in Economist quality-of-life index for 2005

[Platypus]

Only 6th? Ah well, we'll top it again soon enough. Plus Melbourne will be the worlds' most livable city in the next survey, I think.

And we'll be top 3 in the UNHDR...

and...we need more gratification, dammit!

[ilikeverin]

Glad to see the motherland is doing well

Using 'motherland' for 'land of mother', of course... she's 100% Irish

[Richard]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country.  Such a surprise.

[JohnFKennedy]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country.  Such a surprise.

The Economist isn't really left wing, it leans libertarian if anything. I'd say The Economist was pretty right wing economically, rather hawkish (it fully supported both Iraq and Afghanistan) but socially quite liberal.

[Richard]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country. Such a surprise.

The Economist isn't really left wing, it leans libertarian if anything. I'd say The Economist was pretty right wing economically, rather hawkish (it fully supported both Iraq and Afghanistan) but socially quite liberal.

I've got a subscription and I read it every week.  Good magazine, but very left.  They endorsed Kerry, for crying out loud!

[JohnFKennedy]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country. Such a surprise.

The Economist isn't really left wing, it leans libertarian if anything. I'd say The Economist was pretty right wing economically, rather hawkish (it fully supported both Iraq and Afghanistan) but socially quite liberal.

I've got a subscription and I read it every week.  Good magazine, but very left.  They endorsed Kerry, for crying out loud!

Hmmm, I disagree, in terms of social issues it is definitely left wing, economically I disagree and think it leans rightwards. It favours deregulation, privatization and liberalization.

[Gabu]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country.  Such a surprise.

Their report fully lays out the criteria they used to order the countries.  They didn't just randomly order the countries based on what felt good to them.  If you disagree with their list of "things that make a country good", then obviously you will also disagree with the consequent ordering of the countries.

I get the sense that your personal sole criteria for how good a country is is how much money you can make in that country.  While they do take into account the GDP per capita of the country, they also have a bunch of other criteria that you probably could not care less about.  Hence, it's not surprising that you disagree with their ordering of the countries.

[ag]

Oh gee, a left-wing magazine picks a left-wing country.  Such a surprise.

The Economist is proudly liberal - but in a European sense, which is "right-wing", not "left-wing" there. In US you could call this "libertarian" (though not in the sense the eponimous party has popularised the term) and "anti-populist".  That means strong pro-market (professionally mainstream) orientation in economics, strong pro-democracy orientation in international politics, sceptical attitude to all sorts of nationalisms, crowns and religions (they want UK to ditch the Queen), and fairly libertarian approach to social and civil rights issues. It is neither right-wing, nor left-wing in US terms - it is almost orthogonal to them.  Both American right-wingers and left-wingers are bound to find something to hate there. If you wish, it is elitist - it is widely acknowledged as the highest "quality" general-audience publication out there (not that they are without flaws - on occasion their local correspondents do go haywire).

The reason they endorsed Kerry was the general "wealthy educated class" dissatisfaction with GWB: this President is not particularly liked by either the "left-wing" or "right-wing" intelligentsia, and for a reason.  Most of this class tends to be liberal in precisely the sense of the Economist (the "right-wingers" being more into economics and the "left-wingers" more into social issues), and Bush is viewed as either bad or impotent or outright incompetent on markets, good-intentioned but rarely successful on democracy abroad, and outright distasteful on social issues and religion. 

Another intersting point is that the undeniable genius of GWB as a politician is lost on this class (what works with the masses does not work with the elite).  Clinton could talk to anyone - pastors and atheists, iuniversity professors and workers, farmers and
small businessmen.  In a different way, but so could Reagan.  Bush falls flat among the intellectuals. Peoplewho read and write in the Economist understand with their brain that Bush must be charismatic - but there is a genuine preplexity at why (the same people could feel charisma of Reagan or Clinton, but Bush is not more charismatic for them than either Kerry or his father).

The only reasons it was anywhere close, as far as the endorsement was concerned, were Kerry's ridiculous outbursts (which he himself, probably, didn't believe) on things like trade and outsourcing, and an apprehension that he could be induced to withdraw from Iraq too early, amidst the mess it is.  But then Bush very rudely cut off his own then economic advisor Mankiw - the only really respected economist to work for him - when Mankiw made (a plain-vanilla, as far as most economists are concerned) statement that there is no ousourcing problem. Combined with many unforced errors in economic policy over the first four years, and the consistently weak team of advisors in this area, it reinforced the impression that Bush doesn't care about markets. Furthermore, Iraq turned out a lot messier than it should have. This, and a bunch of other things of the same kind, have made even the generally right-inclined readers of the Economist doubt the strength of GWB's convictions or abilities on what matters for them. 

To sum up, where the Economist agrees with Republicans more than with Democrats, Bush is a "bad Republican":  either viewed as incompetent or unconvinced of what he is doing. In these areas the Economist is much more "right-wing" then Bush.  Where Bush is firm (his religion or social matters) - Economist is, at best, indifferent, or even hostile, whereas Kerry is, indeed, fairly unobjectionable. Hence the endorsement.

[Blue Rectangle]

Their report fully lays out the criteria they used to order the countries.  They didn't just randomly order the countries based on what felt good to them.  If you disagree with their list of "things that make a country good", then obviously you will also disagree with the consequent ordering of the countries.

Hmmm...the divorce rate is a big factor.  This probably explains why Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy rank so high.  Church attendence is another factor.

[Gustaf]

Calling the Economist right-winged is ridiculous. They actually endorsed Bush in 2000 and their Kerry endorsement was only half-hearted.