Denmark VS. KY/WV - Why is one poor and one rich? (drugs, healthcare)

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by craigiri

In the spirit of the many threads "South Dakota vs. LA" that many post here....

I use these places because the total population is similar - that is, in the 6-7 Million range.
Both are, of course, 90% or so "European" in population.

The GDP per Capita in Denmark is 58K - 38K in these two states. Put another way, Denmark has a GDP 50% higher.

19.7 percent of the Danish population are obese
35% in KY/WV

80 year life expectancy in Denmark (universal health care)
73 year life expectancy in KY/WV (let em die health care)

Denmark is stark, small and have relatively little in resources
KY/WV was blessed with massive amounts of resources and land area

Murder rate in Denmark - 0.8 per 100,000 population
In KY/WV - 5.3 per 100K

Property Crime - KY - 2500 per 100,000
Denmark - about 1/3rd of that or less

Other economic might:

Pages could be filled with companies from Denmark that are world famous and thriving - they build ships, make heating equipment, are the largest producer of wind machines in the world (Ventas), Novo Nordisk, etc.

Kentucky is famous for Bourbon. Papa Johns and Texas Roadhouse have HQ there.
The largest "make stuff" employer in KY is......Toyota!

And so, my question to the many here who seem to be experts in comparison is...why these vast differences?

If "European Supremacy" with almost unlimited resources and the framework of our Constitution....and our "low tax" ways...can't create amazing results, what is wrong with our system - if anything?

I won't even get into the innovation....the number of patents and inventions and discoveries in modern Denmark is nothing short of astounding.....

Why?

You are a great Spokesman for Nordic White Supremacists.

[StrawberrySoup]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

I don't see how asking why Denmark is better than KY/WV is hateful.

I think the answer lies in the cultures. Unlike Denmark, KY/WV believes the individual has a chance for a better life when the government isn't interfering with its kind of help. While outsiders may not be happy with the results, KY/WV people probably are, so quit fretting about them and leave them alone.

I think it's a great question.

It's like asking why Japan and China are so different. The idea is that if you can find a difference that makes a difference, it can be applied elsewhere.

An argument you can make against WV is that a lot of the economy is based on resource extraction.

One lesson is that Anglos don't always produce high functioning societies.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by dman72

But Kentucky and WV are landlocked. Maybe make the comparison to Switzerland or something.

A good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the comparison wouldn't be much different.

[citylove101]

Historically, in almost every region in the world with a major seaport or riverport, the area around the seaport is wealthier than areas without one. Denmark is almost nothing BUT seaports. Kentucky and West Virginia have no major ones. Trade is a big key to wealth, which is why port cities are generally economically more developed -- even in the U.S. this is true. Places that just make stuff (or mine it) and send it out are eventually going to end up on the short end of the stick. Of course there are exceptions borne out of idiosyncratic historical happenings. But as far as economies go, this is mostly true.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Your comparison is absurd, as WV and KY are under an entirely different set of trade laws, partnerships, and treaties than Denmark. Cultularly, Denmark is far different than US states with regard to racial composition, education, and access to the European Union trade advantages.

How do differences force people in WV/KY to murder people at a hellishly higher rate than Denmark? WV is 93% white. KY is 87% white. Nearly 90% of Denmark is Danish.

[StrawberrySoup]

Originally Posted by citylove101

Historically, in almost every region in the world with a major seaport or riverport, the area around the seaport is wealthier than areas without one. Denmark is almost nothing BUT seaports. Kentucky and West Virginia have no major ones. Trade is a big key to wealth, which is why port cities are generally economically more developed -- even in the U.S. this is true. Places that just make stuff (or mine it) and send it out are eventually going to end up on the short end of the stick. Of course there are exceptions borne out of idiosyncratic historical happenings. But as far as economies go, this is mostly true.

That's a good point.

I'd also say that there are high trust levels in Denmark. It makes it easier to start banks, businesses, and walk down the street at night (plus earlier adoption of national health care).

I'd say that being homogeneous is likely a requirement for that, but it would be interesting to hear a counterexample. Of course, being homogenous is not sufficient, there's too many examples of places with low trust.

[StrawberrySoup]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

How do differences force people in WV/KY to murder people at a hellishly higher rate than Denmark? WV is 93% white. KY is 87% white. Nearly 90% of Denmark is Danish.

For that matter, why is WV 2.5x Idaho?

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

So good government provides better results?

Yes.

I will give my own answer to my OP...since I have often visited both places and even lived in WV and TN (rural, but close enough).......

The short and sweet answers are

Bad Governance
and
Bad Traditions

In a sense they are related, as good government (education, planning, sharing of resources, for the people) would create and extend good traditions (community, happiness, health, etc.).

One cannot use the "on the water" excuse as much in modern times....as the success of Silicon Valley or even Austin have nothing to do with the water (Apple, Oracle, Google, etc. don't have port facilities nor are they on the water).

Salt Lake City seems fruitful - and that's not on the water either.

Also, none of those places have had the 100's of billions or trillions of dollars worth of resources - timber, coal and other minerals. Many of them don't have the hydroelectric and other resources...nor the rainfall for more possibilities.

Certainly water locations created much of the modern world...but, then again, there is Germany and Russia which have vast industrial enterprises that are on rivers or rail lines. So I'd say to scratch the "water" reasoning.

So many of the posts don't have answers and instead repeat "well, Dems make bad cities"...it's as if they enter a giant factory, the best and most productive in the world, and then go into a toilet stall and cry "This place is a toilet"...ignoring the facts.

We could get more specific and Big Picture/Small Picture but if Americans want to truly even improve, they must see things for what they are and, at minimum, identify some of the excesses that cause these shortfalls.

Lack of Planning....the US method of "take it by the gun, the deed or the grant and suck the resources out of it" worked for a short time and only for a very few. Both states mentioned were not developed "for the people" - quite the opposite. They were developed for Wall Street and Pittsburgh and Detroit and London. The people there were not told "you have vast resources, what say we work with you to develop your birthright?"....no, they were told "sign this" and given pennies per acre for the mineral rights or fooled/forced our of their take.

"Bad Traditions" can cover a lot of things...not the least of them being PUTTING UP WITH THE SITUATION.....and then voting against their own interest. After seeing what "libertarianism and corporatism" did to you, who would elect a Guy who is named after a Russian Fiction Writer that pretty much tells the common man he's an idiot (for having faith, for accepting his lot in life, etc. etc.)????

There was always an anti-government tradition in these places - and I contend that has worked against their better interests. Developing the Bourbon industry legally into a worldwide product beats...IMHO, thinking you got one over on the IRS with those stills you set up over the hill.

Books have been written on it, but I see that as the big difference. Some of it is the fault of the population for allowing it to continue even today (voting against their own interest). Much of it is the fault of our system and government (which..unfortunately...also responds to voters who cast a ballot against their own interest).....

If they had universal health care they would be living longer and happier. If they had "stakes" in the resources that were extracted (and continue to be), they'd be able to start more businesses and plan for the future instead of worrying about the next paycheck.

It's quite telling that Toyota is the major Manufacturer in KY. Also, China is now investing billions in WV....let's be frank....to steal their resources. I'm sure they are partnered with many American and other foreign corporations also.

This is poor planning and governance.....

Righties can scream all about Chicago or Detroit or how great OK. or SD. are, but sooner or later the rubber hits the road. It's a massive failure to have states where the life span is WAY below Mexico, Cuba, China and Europe.

I cannot see any possible excuse for that statistic alone.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by citylove101

Historically, in almost every region in the world with a major seaport or riverport, the area around the seaport is wealthier than areas without one..

Florida is relatively poor per capita (and even worse when you consider inequality) , especially when you consider most money come in from outside....and yet is completely surrounded by water. SC and MS and AL have traditionally scored extremely low in many of the same types of metrics...all have ports and low per capita GDP and shorter life spans, etc.

It may be that small areas around the ports are wealthy...but in the case of a place like FL, that is not due to the port. Some of these places have big bucks from the Military and such, which really does not count as much being as that is money that has to be extracted from others...

Again, historically....the point is somewhat taken....although the first real Civilizations flourished in the deserts of Iraq and Syria and were not based as much on water trade (other than short distance rafting).

[elvis44102]

European Capitalism demands more local investment because of decades of pressure from the evil socialist..this investment in education and healthcare works in the long run..unlike our quarterly profits system