Well, I actually know, it's because the writers are trying to convince stupid people that there is a problem that needs to be solved. And it works, for the same reasons that TV was called "the boob tube" decades before is was legal to show mammaries on it. But if you think for half a second, you would realize that it is the most irrelevant criterion imaginable for success in a program or policy. It MIGHT be viable as a measurement of military resources, because those directly compete with one another, but Sweden's rate of homelessness can't affect ours. Actually, that's a tide that could float lots of boats. For instance, if Sweden manages to take care of all their homeless people, homeless Norwegians might start going to Sweden to live, because, let's face it, they're the same thing. But then homeless people from around the world might start heading for the homeless shelters of Sweden, and our homeless numbers start dropping. So ranking behind Sweden in homelessness doesn't mean there is actually a problem, unless there is some tangible reward for taking care of more homeless people than anyone in the world.

But what does it even mean to be ranked lower in homelessness? Homelessness is a little bit more serious in Sweden, because they don't have anything like Florida or San Diego, where not having a house is not necessarily the life-threatening condition it would be in Sweden. Then there is the question of what methods are being taken to maintain those rankings. A country that gasses the homeless people it catches out after curfew is not going to have very many homeless people appearing when the International Committee of Bullshit comes around to count for the rankings.

One of the more egregious examples of this nonsense was in the beginning of the TV show "The Newsroom", which someone showed me in the assumption that I would be hooked by the monologue of the main character in the opening scene. He is on some sort of panel with a liberal woman and a conservative man fielding questions from students, and efforts to pin down this character's political affiliation keep being deflected, at one point, with the answer "I like the NY Jets." He is eventually provoked by the question "Why is America the greatest country in the world?" or something of the kind, and when he judges his fellow speakers' answers too pat or devoid of substance, he rips into the girl who asked, and the other answers and starts complaining about all the problems with America, mostly citing those rankings whereby we are lower than people imagine we should be in all sorts of things that are important to him, but close to half the electorate would honestly say are not to them. He mocks the other answers given which were "Diversity and opportunity" from one person, and "Freedom and freedom" by the other person...but those are the answers to why we don't rank as high as other countries. Will, the sanctimonious douchebag character doing the rant is way too full of himself to even engage in any reflection, but he might want to think about the ramifications of his affection of the NY Jets, to a degree that he cites them when asked about his political party affiliation. See, the NY Jets don't do jack shit except compete against other organizations according to a very limited and strictly regulated set of standards. It actually means something when the NY Jets are 23rd in the league in run defense, or pass protection or completion percentage, because those numbers speak to their ability to perform the function for which they are created. America was not created to outdo the rest of the world in education or standard of living or health care, the way the Jets were created to win football games. Rather, America was created to provide the freedom and opportunity Will's colleagues rightfully offer as their answers, which at least make sense outside of Will's solipsistic worldview. Within the NY Jets, there is very little diversity, opportunity or freedom to do anything BUT play football. Everyone on the Jets is a football player, selected for certain physical standards, and if they wish to remain with the Jets, have no freedom to do anything other than maintain those physical standards, and play football exactly as they are told. That is also WHY statistical rankings are a reasonable measurement of the organization's success or likelihood of the same, because every other team is doing the same thing. Will's rankings are like comparing the speeds of people who don't even know they are in a race. Diversity means everyone is different, and that's okay. Opportunity requires choice, as does freedom. Those qualities in a country means that people can flip the bird at Will, or Josiah Bartlett or Andrew Shepherd when they start exhorting everyone to do better to make America the Greatest Country in the World (I like to imagine Aaron Sorkin's guardian angel showing him Donald Trump watching that scene and saying "I've just found my future campaign slogan!" {and speaking of Trump and Sorkin, maybe Trump's right that we aren't getting the best people: the best people should be smart enough to go to the countries that outdo us in education, and health care, and standards of living and gun violence} ).

Not to mention, the whole thing is akin to saying "We're not the best family, because the Johnsons down the street make more money, attend a better school, have a larger house and patronize a more accomplished family physician". Or worse, using criteria like "have more sons than daughters," or "have fewer autistic kids" or "their grandma uses a walker, but ours has Alzheimers." Will's answer is to patriotism as stage-parenting is to the ideal of motherhood.