Not an aviation-related note, but given that many of my readers are also plugged into the travel industry, here’s an interesting diablogue between Bryan Caplan and Tyler Cowen.
When Americans visit Europe, they see a lot to like: Charming boulevards, delicious food, and historic cities that feel safe. When Europeans visit the U.S., it’s not so pretty: While major American cities are impressive, their inhabitants can be more than a little scary even after the sharp decline in crime rates. From an American or European tourist’s point of view, Europe seems not just more aesthetic than the U.S., but more hospitable.
He argues that American tourists see the quaintest and nicest parts of Europe, while most Europeans live in less appealing suburbs, and those who live in the attractive urban centers cannot afford to enjoy it much. Meanwhile, European tourists see some of America’s grungiest places (“NYC and SF are basically uglier, scarier versions of the premiere European cities”) but avoid the attractive suburbs where most Americans (happily) live.
“Europe is a better place for most people to visit,” he concludes. “But America is a better place for most people to live.”
Tyler, with a dig at modernist architecture:
Bryan gives some good reasons why America is better for 37-year-olds with young children, namely lots of living space and easy shopping. But I view much of Western Europe as better for the elderly, if only because it requires less driving and they are more likely to live close to their children and perhaps also they receive more respect. Western Europe is probably better for children too, for reasons related to safety and health care”
My alternative view is that Americans rate European life so highly (in part) because the buildings from previous eras are so striking and attractive. If all of the U.S. looked like U.S. postwar construction, the country would still impress more or less as it does. If all of Europe looked like its postwar construction, Americans would be less likely to admire European policies and political institutions. Yes I know about Lille, and contemporary Spanish architecture, but in reality most Americans would think of Europe as some kind of dump.
What do you think?
Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog 
“America vs. Europe” compares one country to many countries. Among the countries of western and northern Europe alone — where most of the tourists go — the quality of the local management varies from excellent to mediocre.
There are three popular rankings that come out every year that tend to get attention: the UN’s Human Development Index, the Institute for Management Development’s World Competitiveness Yearbook, and Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Comparing the three lists, there are six countries that stand out as being particularly well-run: Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland — namely the less populous, egalitarian societies.
The more populous countries tend to have bigger headaches.
Germany is, in my opinion, the better run of the big countries, though it needs labour reform to boost job creation.
France struggles with corruption and, in spite of “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, a society that can be oppressively hierarchical.
Britain, after 30 years of public policy experimentation, is now concerned with the “brain drain” of homegrown professionals voting with their one-way plane tickets for better lives in the U.S., Canada and Australia.
Spain has an economic mess on its hands. Italy copes with a national airline so dysfunctional that shareholders once called for an exorcism, and a 72-year-old prime minister whose wife objected to his cavorting with an 18-year-old — among other problems.
So, anyone looking for good ideas might be better off looking to Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and forget about the big countires.
both continents have outstanding tourist spots and attractions. These continents are consists of first-world countries that makes me undecided which of the two overrates each other.
I agree with Tyler’s point: “the buildings from previous eras are so striking and attractive.”
I disagree about American suburbs necessarily being nicer overall than European suburbs. I have friends and family living in Ireland, Germany, France, and Norway. I’ve visited them all. Their suburbs are just as nice as the American suburbs I grew up in. Not as much floor space in the houses on average, and the closets aren’t as full of clothes, and there are other differences, but as overall quality of life goes–I’d say we’re roughly the same in the end.
I think this is more reflective of European and U.S. transportation priorities and how those priorities have impacted land-use. The U.S. suburbs may be cleaner and have less crime than the cities they surround but generally discourage the types of interactions that make urban life interesting.
Europe has spawned culture you feel like staying away from. It’s horrible. In Brussels, Manchester, Berlin or Paris it’s all the same. Rude uncouth savages on every street corner and above all it’s impossible to drive or park anywhere.
Overgeneralize much?
I have problems with the groupings here – America, Americans, Europe, Europeans? The places and people encompassed are far too diverse to draw any conclusions about differences and general opinion. I’m also not too convinced about how strong the connection is between architecture and political opinion.
Personally, I’ve always thought of there being a difference between “old” and “new” cities, rather than “American” and “European”. Cities that were built (and thriving) before mass transportation have a different kind of structure than newer cities. There seems to be a tighter integration of homes, business, culture, and shopping within “older” cities. Newer cities, on the other hand, seem to be more spread out. There are more distinct and separate areas for homes, business, culture, and shopping, and they are further apart.
I think that Europe has more “old” cities than America, not just because it is actually older, but because of differing cultural and economic opinions.
As an aside, I’ve never heard the suburbs spoken of in such a positive way before. 🙂