 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GT: Cuba ranked 50th in the overall ranking. It ranked higher in educa-tion, medical care and life quality, but in political environment it ranked much lower. How can a country with a poor political environment provide its citizens with good public services such as education, medical care? Foroohar: Well, it is interesting. I think that you could argue about political environment. That question is the most difficult question because it is very subjective, you know. What is a good or bad political system? I think that the answer to Cuba is, like in many former socialist states, it could split a high premium on wide basic medical coverage. Wherein the US, obviously, there are many people without medical insurance. The same with education. Just to add on that point: You may notice that many of the ex-Soviet states do quite well in the education ranking. This is a legacy of a lot of money poured into education, particularly in science and technology, because it was considered an important way to move ahead and kind of forward the political ideology. GT: The US ranked 11th in the overall ranking. Without the economic crisis and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the US ranking be better? Foroohar: I can't say that 100 percent, because I have to look at the numbers. But my strong suspicion would be yes. I think it would have ranked in the top 10, at least. GT: If you had a chance to move to and live in the top 10 countries ahead of the US, would you like to do so? And why? Foroohar: I think some of the western European countries, particularly Germany, are doing quite a good job. They struck a good balance between growth, social justice and lifestyle. In the US and China, we actually have the same problem, which is sometimes an extreme focus on work and economic growth. That can compromise quality of life sometimes. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
