UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
Nov 12th 2006 | 3:20 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
"F&C" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[email protected]. com.au...
>> And when it comes to the 113% of enrolment ratio in schools, I do not
>> really understand its real meaning. I suspect that non homogenous
>> statistics could somewhat introduce a bias in the comparison.
> The high enrolment is probably because so many people have access to
> university in Australia. People from all walks of life can go to
> university, young and old.
> Whereas in a poorer country like Finland, you have to brutally compete to
> get into a university. And after that you face sky-high unemployment
> rates.
ceylonese folks in Australia are amazingly bad at reading comprehension. The
UN survey the turd is referring to is NOT based on standard of living. As a
layman of psychiatry I would say you are barmy.
viestissä:[email protected]. com.au...
>> And when it comes to the 113% of enrolment ratio in schools, I do not
>> really understand its real meaning. I suspect that non homogenous
>> statistics could somewhat introduce a bias in the comparison.
> The high enrolment is probably because so many people have access to
> university in Australia. People from all walks of life can go to
> university, young and old.
> Whereas in a poorer country like Finland, you have to brutally compete to
> get into a university. And after that you face sky-high unemployment
> rates.
ceylonese folks in Australia are amazingly bad at reading comprehension. The
UN survey the turd is referring to is NOT based on standard of living. As a
layman of psychiatry I would say you are barmy.
Nov 12th 2006 | 3:40 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
"JuanElorza" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[email protected] le.fr...
> The GDP of poor Finland (29951$GDP/capita) compares very well (within
> 1.2%) with Australia (30331$GDP/capita), within the currency fluctuation
> margins.
Keep in mind that this survey is not for "standard of living" nor GDP (even
less so). For instance the PPP adjusted GDP as the CIA factbook compiles
them for the year 2005 places Australia at position seventeen. But as said
the survey has little to do with GDP.
viestissä:[email protected] le.fr...
> The GDP of poor Finland (29951$GDP/capita) compares very well (within
> 1.2%) with Australia (30331$GDP/capita), within the currency fluctuation
> margins.
Keep in mind that this survey is not for "standard of living" nor GDP (even
less so). For instance the PPP adjusted GDP as the CIA factbook compiles
them for the year 2005 places Australia at position seventeen. But as said
the survey has little to do with GDP.
Nov 12th 2006 | 4:04 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
>The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
>extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
>living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
>http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
>Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
>is a miserable number 18.
>High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
>become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
>1 Norway
>2 Iceland
>3 Australia
>4 Ireland
>5 Sweden
>6 Canada
>7 Japan
>8 United States
>9 Switzerland
>10 Netherlands
>11 Finland
>12 Luxembourg
>13 Belgium
>14 Austria
>15 Denmark
>16 France
>17 Italy
>18 United Kingdom
>19 Spain
>20 New Zealand
>21 Germany
You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
between the best and the worst of those places.
Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
>extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
>living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
>http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
>Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
>is a miserable number 18.
>High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
>become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
>1 Norway
>2 Iceland
>3 Australia
>4 Ireland
>5 Sweden
>6 Canada
>7 Japan
>8 United States
>9 Switzerland
>10 Netherlands
>11 Finland
>12 Luxembourg
>13 Belgium
>14 Austria
>15 Denmark
>16 France
>17 Italy
>18 United Kingdom
>19 Spain
>20 New Zealand
>21 Germany
You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
between the best and the worst of those places.
Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Nov 12th 2006 | 4:49 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> >extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> >living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> >
> >http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> >
> >Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> >is a miserable number 18.
> >
> >High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> >become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> >
> >1 Norway
> >2 Iceland
> >3 Australia
> >4 Ireland
> >5 Sweden
> >6 Canada
> >7 Japan
> >8 United States
> >9 Switzerland
> >10 Netherlands
> >11 Finland
> >12 Luxembourg
> >13 Belgium
> >14 Austria
> >15 Denmark
> >16 France
> >17 Italy
> >18 United Kingdom
> >19 Spain
> >20 New Zealand
> >21 Germany
> You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
> between the best and the worst of those places.
> Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
I dunno - if you don't like the heat, and you want to be surrounded by
cracking blonde totty, Iceland definitely has the edge on Spain!
B;
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> >extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> >living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> >
> >http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> >
> >Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> >is a miserable number 18.
> >
> >High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> >become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> >
> >1 Norway
> >2 Iceland
> >3 Australia
> >4 Ireland
> >5 Sweden
> >6 Canada
> >7 Japan
> >8 United States
> >9 Switzerland
> >10 Netherlands
> >11 Finland
> >12 Luxembourg
> >13 Belgium
> >14 Austria
> >15 Denmark
> >16 France
> >17 Italy
> >18 United Kingdom
> >19 Spain
> >20 New Zealand
> >21 Germany
> You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
> between the best and the worst of those places.
> Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
I dunno - if you don't like the heat, and you want to be surrounded by
cracking blonde totty, Iceland definitely has the edge on Spain!
B;
Nov 12th 2006 | 4:55 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
[email protected] wrote:
> Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> > >extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> > >living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> > >
> > >http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> > >
> > >Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> > >is a miserable number 18.
> > >
> > >High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> > >become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> > >
> > >1 Norway
> > >2 Iceland
> > >3 Australia
> > >4 Ireland
> > >5 Sweden
> > >6 Canada
> > >7 Japan
> > >8 United States
> > >9 Switzerland
> > >10 Netherlands
> > >11 Finland
> > >12 Luxembourg
> > >13 Belgium
> > >14 Austria
> > >15 Denmark
> > >16 France
> > >17 Italy
> > >18 United Kingdom
> > >19 Spain
> > >20 New Zealand
> > >21 Germany
> >
> > You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
> > between the best and the worst of those places.
> >
> > Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
> I dunno - if you don't like the heat, and you want to be surrounded by
> cracking blonde totty, Iceland definitely has the edge on Spain!
>
> B;
love that rotting shark.....
> Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> > >extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> > >living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> > >
> > >http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> > >
> > >Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> > >is a miserable number 18.
> > >
> > >High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> > >become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> > >
> > >1 Norway
> > >2 Iceland
> > >3 Australia
> > >4 Ireland
> > >5 Sweden
> > >6 Canada
> > >7 Japan
> > >8 United States
> > >9 Switzerland
> > >10 Netherlands
> > >11 Finland
> > >12 Luxembourg
> > >13 Belgium
> > >14 Austria
> > >15 Denmark
> > >16 France
> > >17 Italy
> > >18 United Kingdom
> > >19 Spain
> > >20 New Zealand
> > >21 Germany
> >
> > You're fooling yourself if you think there's a really great difference
> > between the best and the worst of those places.
> >
> > Few would prefer the lifestyle in Iceland over Spain anyway.
> I dunno - if you don't like the heat, and you want to be surrounded by
> cracking blonde totty, Iceland definitely has the edge on Spain!
>
> B;
love that rotting shark.....
Nov 12th 2006 | 5:17 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
JuanElorza wrote:
> F&C wrote:
> >> And when it comes to the 113% of enrolment ratio in schools, I do not
> >> really understand its real meaning. I suspect that non homogenous
> >> statistics could somewhat introduce a bias in the comparison.
> >
> > The high enrolment is probably because so many people have access to
> > university in Australia. People from all walks of life can go to
> > university, young and old.
> >
> > Whereas in a poorer country like Finland, you have to brutally compete
> > to get into a university. And after that you face sky-high unemployment
> > rates.
> But the soviet like 113% is a good indication that this statistic has
> not the same meaning in every surveyed country. In the country I live,
> very few could possibly attend two complete school cursus the same year,
> and even if they did it, they would be counted one time. 100% is
> completely unreachable. But it could be easily the case by including the
> children who attend a music school.
Lets say it's calculated by "number of people enrolled in any type of
school" divided by "number of children ages 5-17". If the first number
included colleges and graduate schools (medicine, law, etc.), then it
is quite likely that many developed countries would be over 100%.
> F&C wrote:
> >> And when it comes to the 113% of enrolment ratio in schools, I do not
> >> really understand its real meaning. I suspect that non homogenous
> >> statistics could somewhat introduce a bias in the comparison.
> >
> > The high enrolment is probably because so many people have access to
> > university in Australia. People from all walks of life can go to
> > university, young and old.
> >
> > Whereas in a poorer country like Finland, you have to brutally compete
> > to get into a university. And after that you face sky-high unemployment
> > rates.
> But the soviet like 113% is a good indication that this statistic has
> not the same meaning in every surveyed country. In the country I live,
> very few could possibly attend two complete school cursus the same year,
> and even if they did it, they would be counted one time. 100% is
> completely unreachable. But it could be easily the case by including the
> children who attend a music school.
Lets say it's calculated by "number of people enrolled in any type of
school" divided by "number of children ages 5-17". If the first number
included colleges and graduate schools (medicine, law, etc.), then it
is quite likely that many developed countries would be over 100%.
Nov 12th 2006 | 10:52 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
>The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
>extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
>living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
>http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
>Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
>is a miserable number 18.
Weak troll.
The Top 2 are European.
6 of the Top 10 are European.
15 of the Top 20 are European.
The only conclusion you can draw is that, as a region, Europe has the
highest standards this survey can offer.
Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
poisonous animals and indecipherable English. When it comes to the
"likelihood to be killed by poisonous animals" index, Europe leaps
ahead.
It's telling that the US places 8th. Behind Canada and Japan. Go USA!
- TR
"We're Number Eight! We're Number Eight! We're Number Eight!"
>The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
>extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
>living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
>http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
>Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
>is a miserable number 18.
Weak troll.
The Top 2 are European.
6 of the Top 10 are European.
15 of the Top 20 are European.
The only conclusion you can draw is that, as a region, Europe has the
highest standards this survey can offer.
Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
poisonous animals and indecipherable English. When it comes to the
"likelihood to be killed by poisonous animals" index, Europe leaps
ahead.
It's telling that the US places 8th. Behind Canada and Japan. Go USA!
- TR
"We're Number Eight! We're Number Eight! We're Number Eight!"
Nov 12th 2006 | 11:14 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
"VainGlorious" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
> poisonous animals and indecipherable English. When it comes to the
> "likelihood to be killed by poisonous animals" index, Europe leaps
> ahead.
Gotta watch those poisonous cattle and sheep.
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:29:02 +1000, F&C <[email protected]> wrote:
> Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
> poisonous animals and indecipherable English. When it comes to the
> "likelihood to be killed by poisonous animals" index, Europe leaps
> ahead.
Gotta watch those poisonous cattle and sheep.
Nov 12th 2006 | 11:35 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:52:44 -0800, VainGlorious
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
I probably meet both criteria.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
I probably meet both criteria.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
Nov 12th 2006 | 12:17 pm
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:35:16 +1100, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:52:44 -0800, VainGlorious
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
>I probably meet both criteria.
>Cheers, Alan, Australia
What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
What criteria do these UN researchers use?
Daisy
Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:52:44 -0800, VainGlorious
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
>I probably meet both criteria.
>Cheers, Alan, Australia
What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
What criteria do these UN researchers use?
Daisy
Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
Nov 12th 2006 | 12:23 pm
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
Daisy <[email protected]> wrote:
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
Lots of them. See: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/
Didn't notice anything about sheep.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
Lots of them. See: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/
Didn't notice anything about sheep.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Nov 12th 2006 | 1:40 pm
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:17:09 +1300, Daisy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
>Daisy
Cricket and Rugby League for 3 and below. Nordic skiing for
1 and 2.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
>Daisy
Cricket and Rugby League for 3 and below. Nordic skiing for
1 and 2.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: The Vatican
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
Nov 12th 2006 | 3:10 pm
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
"F&C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> is a miserable number 18.
> High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> 1 Norway
> 2 Iceland
> 3 Australia
> 4 Ireland
> 5 Sweden
> 6 Canada
> 7 Japan
> 8 United States
> 9 Switzerland
> 10 Netherlands
> 11 Finland
> 12 Luxembourg
> 13 Belgium
> 14 Austria
> 15 Denmark
> 16 France
> 17 Italy
> 18 United Kingdom
> 19 Spain
> 20 New Zealand
> 21 Germany
It is not a Standard of Living Report, it is a Human Development Report by
UN standards. It is an absurd ranking by an absurd set of standards.
Genocidial Sudan manages to rank 141 out of 177 and Zimbabwe is 151 out of
177. GIGO.
news:[email protected] ...
> The 2006 UN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX has just come out. Australia does
> extremely well as always. The ONLY 2 countries with a better standard of
> living than Australia are Norway and Iceland.
> http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
> Old Europe sucks shit as always. Losers. Germany... TWENTY-ONE. The UK
> is a miserable number 18.
> High unemployment, MASSIVE muslim immigration... Old Europe is going to
> become a third world Islamic state within a few years.
> 1 Norway
> 2 Iceland
> 3 Australia
> 4 Ireland
> 5 Sweden
> 6 Canada
> 7 Japan
> 8 United States
> 9 Switzerland
> 10 Netherlands
> 11 Finland
> 12 Luxembourg
> 13 Belgium
> 14 Austria
> 15 Denmark
> 16 France
> 17 Italy
> 18 United Kingdom
> 19 Spain
> 20 New Zealand
> 21 Germany
It is not a Standard of Living Report, it is a Human Development Report by
UN standards. It is an absurd ranking by an absurd set of standards.
Genocidial Sudan manages to rank 141 out of 177 and Zimbabwe is 151 out of
177. GIGO.
Nov 12th 2006 | 5:33 pm
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
Markku Grönroos wrote:
> "JuanElorza" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
> viestissä:[email protected] le.fr...
>
>>The GDP of poor Finland (29951$GDP/capita) compares very well (within
>>1.2%) with Australia (30331$GDP/capita), within the currency fluctuation
>>margins.
>
> Keep in mind that this survey is not for "standard of living" nor GDP (even
> less so). For instance the PPP adjusted GDP as the CIA factbook compiles
> them for the year 2005 places Australia at position seventeen. But as said
> the survey has little to do with GDP.
The cost of living is low here, so of course that should boost our GDP.
Food prices here are probably one quarter that of scandinavia/nordia.
> "JuanElorza" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
> viestissä:[email protected] le.fr...
>
>>The GDP of poor Finland (29951$GDP/capita) compares very well (within
>>1.2%) with Australia (30331$GDP/capita), within the currency fluctuation
>>margins.
>
> Keep in mind that this survey is not for "standard of living" nor GDP (even
> less so). For instance the PPP adjusted GDP as the CIA factbook compiles
> them for the year 2005 places Australia at position seventeen. But as said
> the survey has little to do with GDP.
The cost of living is low here, so of course that should boost our GDP.
Food prices here are probably one quarter that of scandinavia/nordia.
Nov 12th 2006 | 9:38 pm
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UN standard of living report, OLD EUROPE LOSES AS ALWAYS
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:17:09 +1300, Daisy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:35:16 +1100, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:52:44 -0800, VainGlorious
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>>>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
>>I probably meet both criteria.
>>Cheers, Alan, Australia
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
The number of people that want to live in another country perhaps?
Kiwis do exceedingly well in that area.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:35:16 +1100, Alan S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:52:44 -0800, VainGlorious
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Australia likely deserves third place, but the country is full of
>>>poisonous animals and indecipherable English.
>>I probably meet both criteria.
>>Cheers, Alan, Australia
>What gets me in New Zealand that this country is ranked 20! We have
>very low unemployment and a high standard of living.
>What criteria do these UN researchers use?
The number of people that want to live in another country perhaps?
Kiwis do exceedingly well in that area.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
