Slashdot Mirror

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

I call bull.

The United States has an average population density of 31 people per square km.
Japan averages 337.
England 243.
Italy 193.
Switzerland 181.

Ireland has 57, Brazil has 22. Their experiences with mass transit (including rail) would provide a much more reasonable basis for discussion than the way this thread is heading.

USA population 293 027 571/land area 9 161 923 sq km=31.98.

Sweden 8 986 400/410 934=21.87.

Finland 5 214 512/304 473=17.13.

Russia 143 782 338/16 995 800=8.46.

Even more important of course is how concentrated parts are, not the country averages.

Brainwashed? Do you have any frickin idea how big this country is?

Have you ever lived out in the boonies?

What you call brainwashed I call common sense. Yeesh, this from the site that always talks about the USA's difficulty in getting broadband to rural areas.

It took me a while to grasp how much money Microsoft is making. 9.6 Billion dollars. $9,620,000,000.00. I wonder how many nations have a GNP less than what microsoft does in sales??

94.

A simple search will get you a map. I personally use the CIA's website (really). They have a great feature called the World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/inde x.html). You just go and locate the country you are interested in and you'll get a map showing neighbours, historical background, grographical and demographical breakdown, politicial, economic, military and communications information and so on.

If someone mentions a country and I want to know more about it, or want to check their facts, that's where I go. It's generally pretty accurate too, which you'd expect since it IS the CIA's job to know about other countries. As far as I know, it's accessable to anyone in the world, not just US citizens.

"...surged 19% in 2004 to 1,710."

1710 taps , how many phone lines in the US?
Telephones - main lines in use: 181,599,900

Telephones - mobile cellular: 158.722 million
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html#Comm

340 million lines in the US.

Should have been from the uncle-sam-isn't-listening to many dept.

Here come the slide to Nazi Germany and whatnot posts.

"Apparently judges have found that law enforcement is unbelievably perfect as they rubber-stamped approvals on every single request they received."
Or maybe Judges demanded a crapload of extra evidence for the tiny number of wire taps approved.

You'll find few if any "workers" who are willing to do the same for less in a market with rules or law. In a market with rule and law this argument clearly makes no sense. The 12 yr old in a country with no law, stitching up a tshirt for export to an entirely different country.

You have to ask yourself this...What is the alternative for the 12 yr old in a poor country? In many cases they are working because it is the best alternative for them. If you slap tarriffs on imports from countries that allow this, suddenly, instead of making some money, the child makes no money and has to continue to live in abject poverty. Who are you to take away that income from them to protect American workers who already enjoy a vastly superior standard of living? This is not a zero sum game - the standard of living is raised for the poorer workers and the standard of living is raised for the average american through either lower prices or higher profits. There is a loser in the equation (the non-competitive worker), but that's how the world works. Business models change, things that worked yesterday don't necissarily work today (The buggy whip industry has been in decline for over a century)

Also the markup price for the tshirt is clear in its final price. Have you seen some of the retail prices for clothing in the US? 40-50-60 US dollars for a shirt

No one is forcing you to pay $50 for a shirt. If you don't like the price, don't buy - that will affect the supply/demand equation and the price will come down. But the fact that they CAN charge that much means that there are enough people willing to pay that price. The profit goes to the corp. which is most likely a large public corporation whose shares are mostly owned by financial institutions that act as intermediaries that manage money for most of middle class America. So in effect, that extra profit is returned to society through stock price appreciation and/or dividends.

Prices of goods and services in the US are up across every single industry every single year running. Even a pack of gum is up!

Yup, it's called inflation. There are many causes of inflation, but I'm not going to spew out what you can read about in any basic economics book. It's a bad thing - the Federal reserve is on top of things to make sure it doesn't become rampant.

If we are a services oriented industry then why are service oriented jobs being outsourced? If we are not manufacturing anything and not providing a service to anyone or anything. What industry is exactly left in the US? You're argument confuses me here, if we don't have enough qualified people in the US, we don't have enough people willing to work below minimum wage. Americans are obviously lazy people even though on average Americans work more than any other country in the world.

We are a service oriented economy. Check out the GDP section of the CIA factbook on America, which shows that services make up almost 80% of our GDP. The US is still dominant in many industries (aerospace, defense, biotech, medical etc...) because we have the most innovative people on earth that continue to come up with new and valuable ideas consistently and relentlessly. Industries come and go, but for the past 150 years or so, it's been the US determining what comes and what goes.

I love America - I moved here from Canada years ago and for good reason. I'm a former H1B. You would think that Canada has a similar standard of living to America, but you'd be mistaken. It's much better here.

The world bends over backwards to provide goods and services to appease the demands of the all mighty American consumer. I didn't say anything about Americans being lazy. I just made a point that in some industries, there are people willing to do the same work for less money and corporations will be motivated to seek out those workers.

Actually, what killed the agricultural market

How many has he liberated from oppression? How many are now free to walk the streets? How many are women are getting educated? Its not that I don't disagree with you, but I just look at things from a different perspective. That, and my numbers are larger than yours. I'll put your 25,000 vs my 25 million who have freedom and the rights to make their own decisions using their own elected government officials. where did I get my facts? CIA world factbook 25,374,691 (July 2004 est.)

This is from Israel. Israel is not in Africa, it is in Asia. Please see a map for further details.

I believe that the people of Iran are called Iranians (at least in Western English speaking countries), but there is not language called Iranian. In fact the most predominant language is Farsi, a Persian language. According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ ir.html#People
the languages spoken in Iran are:

Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

Granted the CIA might not be the least biased source of information, but they are nosey enough to probably have at least some of the facts right.

Population is the most important issue in politics for me, so I read the section on this topic (but skipped the rest). I'm so tired of the descriptions of "doom and gloom" that will happen with low fertility rates and a shrinking population - these authors are a mirror image of the mistakes they claim that past environmental authors have made in predicting the future.

There are some scientific facts on population that are rarely disputed:

1] The earth has a finite carrying capacity

Actual numbers will vary anywhere from 1 to 10 billion people, but it's obvious that constraints on food, water, energy, pollution sinks do constrain the number of us. My opinion is that the number is less than we are now, but we are getting by (some of us anyway) because of unsustainable oil and water use. Perhaps we could get by on renewable energy with around 2 billion people.

2] Large numbers of humans cannot leave the earth

There is no way we could move even 1/1000th the world population off the earth even if there was someplace to go. The resources/pollution needed to do this make it a non-starter for addressing population growth.

3] Adjustments need to be made to run an economy with a declining population growth

Not impossible, but obviously it is harder to operate a system that is shrinking instead of growing. Tricks like using lots of workers to support fewer retirees won't work. Any pyramid scheme seems great when you are on the growth side, but I'd prefer not to have the human race crash like a big pyramid scheme.

4] Fertility rates can be adjusted by government action

Coercive measures while espoused by some as necessary have been avoided in very successful transitions to lower fertility (e.g. Iran). We have less experience with going the other way, but some countries (e.g. Singapore) are trying incentives to raise the fertility rate. I see no reason that these rates can't be successfully adjusted if for some reason, 50 years from now, the world wide fertility rate dips down well below 2 and stays there so long that our population goes below 2 billion.

Now, back to the article:

In each country listed: Japan, Germany, Spain, Russia (I think) and Italy, they could stand to lose 30% of their population anyway. I think the U.S. is too crowded and Europe has much higher densities (and Japan is worse) in terms of population per arable land unit.

"It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason."

What does this mean? If you measure the increase or decrease of an exponential function (what he's talking abut here) as a percentage, then of course they have the same fierceness, but there is no concept of acceleration (percentage growth is constant). If you measure the amount in absolute numbers, then exponential increase is accelerating, but exponential decrease is always decelerating.

As far as fertility going down everywhere, we in the U.S. are now at 2.08 and this is going up (albeit slowly). We were closer to 2 about 5 years ago I think. If you look at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2127rank.html, you will see there are still quite a few countries that have fertility rates above 2.1. (By the way, saying 2.1 is steady state assumes an average infant mortality rate that is pretty high. If you want the human race to all move into a the modern industrialized world, something under 2.05 is required). Granted, I don't have the plots of all countries fertility rates over time and some of these countries near the top may be declining, but I see absolutely no way we can declare success now. I expected better out of Technology Review, the magazine where I first learned about fuel cells for automotive use.

Dara

• In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, inefficient, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, China in 2003 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still poor. Agriculture and industry have posted major gains especially in coastal areas near Hong Kong, opposite Taiwan, and in Shanghai, where foreign investment has helped spur output of both domestic and export goods. The leadership, however, often has experienced - as a result of its hybrid system - the worst results of socialism (bureaucracy and lassitude) and of capitalism (growing income disparities and rising unemployment). China thus has periodically backtracked, retightening central controls at intervals. The government has struggled to (a) sustain adequate jobs growth for tens of millions of workers laid off from state-owned enterprises, migrants, and new entrants to the work force; (b) reduce corruption and other economic crimes; and (c) keep afloat the large state-owned enterprises, many of which had been shielded from competition by subsidies and had been losing the ability to pay full wages and pensions. From 80 to 120 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs. Popular resistance, changes in central policy, and loss of authority by rural cadres have weakened China's population control program, which is essential to maintaining long-term growth in living standards. Another long-term threat to growth is the deterioration in the environment, notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table especially in the north. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and economic development. Beijing says it will intensify efforts to stimulate growth through spending on infrastructure - such as water supply and power grids - and poverty relief and through rural tax reform. Accession to the World Trade Organization helps strengthen its ability to maintain strong growth rates but at the same time puts additional pressure on the hybrid system of strong political controls and growing market influences. China has benefited from a huge expansion in computer internet use. Foreign investment remains a strong element in China's remarkable economic growth. Growing shortages of electric power and raw materials will hold back the expansion of industrial output in 2004.

CIA Factbook entry on Greenland

"The world's largest island, Greenland is about 81% ice-capped. Vikings reached the island in the 10th century from Iceland; Danish colonization began in the 18th century and Greenland was made an integral part of Denmark in 1953. It joined the European Community (now the European Union) with Denmark in 1973 but withdrew in 1985 over a dispute over stringent fishing quotas. Greenland was granted self-government in 1979 by the Danish parliament. The law went into effect the following year. Denmark continues to exercise control of Greenland's foreign affairs."

The box said "Made in China".

Didn't say "Made in Taiwan", so I assume it was made in Communist China.

In the link you may read all about it. Not that any of that is right or wrong, but it would appear that Microsoft has provided software to a company manufacturing computers in China for sale in Wal*Marts in the USA.

How about some eMachines boxes with Linux preinstalled?

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has claimed 12 nautical miles of territorial waters, which is roughly 13.8 miles.

Have fun being only a quarter of the way out.

CIA Factbook

Maritime claims:
territorial sea: 12 nm
contiguous zone: 24 nm
exclusive economic zone: 200 nm
continental shelf: not specified

The reason the article included Canada was to refute the claims of people like you.

"all these countries with a lower standard of living"

As others here have pointed out, that's just wrong.

"with far higher population density"

Have you been to Canada? Can you even find it on a map?
U.S.: 32.0 people/sq km
Canada: 3.6 people/sq km

And before you complain about it being in "sq km", I used population and areas stats from the CIA factbook which quoted area in "km".

"and enormous federal pork to build their broadband connections"

The federal government didn't kick in money to build our broadband services. It was done through regulation, existing infrastructure tax breaks and forced competition.

I'm glad most Americans aren't like you.

Every time the topic of poor broadband availability in the US comes up, this fallacy is repeated. Yes, the majority of the Canadian population is near the US border, but broadband penetration goes much further.

Let's seriously compare the two countries here. Canadia has a population of about 32,805,041 (July 2005 estimations). The US has a population of about 295,734,134. The US population is over nine times larger than that of Canadia. So even 100% of Canadia's population had broadband access, it's still only be 11% of the US's population.

You're just dealing with much, much smaller populations here. Granted it is harder to wire Canadia than it is Japan even though Japan has a larger population.

Instead, larger and larger parts of it are run by a tiny minority of brutal thugs that kill men, women and children in their own homes and then expect to be thanked because they've brought about a change of government that coincides with their own interests, while they continue to prop up equally "medieval" misogynist dictatorships in neighbouring countries.

Instead, larger and larger parts of it are run by a tiny minority of brutal thugs that kill men, women and children in their own homes and then expect to be thanked because they've brought about a change of government that coincides with their own interests, while they continue to prop up equally "medieval" misogynist dictatorships in neighbouring countries.

Sweden is quite socialist and is richer per capita than the US ($38 760 in Sweden to $36 620 in the US according to The Economist's World in 2005).

Do we have the same World in 2005 publication? Mine shows Sweden's GDP per head is $43,480 (page 89), the U.S.'s $41,530 (page 92). (Switzerland, a less-socialist nation than Sweden, but moreso than the U.S., beats both, with a per-capita GDP of $51,490).

Of course, looking at the CIA World Factbook, we find that the U.S. has a per-capita GDP of $37,800 (2003 estimate), vs. Sweden's $26,800, and Switzerland's $32,700. So the question is which source do we rely upon: the CIA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit (which compiles such data for The Economist)? IMO, that's a tough call. The Economist's figures are newer though, and I've never had any beefs with their figures, so I'm inclined to go by theirs...

(I am curious now how this discrepancy occurred... I greatly doubt GDP figures for each nation shot up so much that per-capita GDP in Switzerland rose by 60% in only 1 year! :-) My guess is that different methods of determining GDP were used, and the simple division of getting a per-capita figure produced such greatly-different values.)

I also think you may be confusing the modern day definition of socialism with Marxism.

I doubt it. I define socialism by strict economic definition, absent political/social influences. I define socialism as follows: "an economic system in which the factors (inputs) and results (outputs) of the economy are produced, owned, and distributed by a government over which there may be any possible level of democratic control."

Marxism is really the step of Marx's theory that deals with the workers of the world overthrowing the capitalist class and creating a classless, communist (i.e. wealth is owned and shared equally) economy.

America did awfully well under "socialist" Roosevelt in the 1930s. FDR's New Deal dragged America out of the Depression.

That's hardly a universal view.

There is debate among economists about the truth of that belief. I don't subscribe to most Austrian economic theory, but here's another critique of the claim. (The author is an Austrian, but he cites 3 neoclassical economists on the subject as well, lending somewhat more credibility...)

Also, it's worth noting that more-respectable economists (like Nobel prize-winning Milton Friedman) have made it mainstream thought -- mainstream enough to be taught in undergrad. Monetary Policy classes, at least -- that government mismanagement, primarily by the Federal Reserve, exacerbated the bank failures of 1929-1933, turning what would have been a severe recession into the Great Depression that we now know it as. See also Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960, or any of his popular books (Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose).

It's a well-respected enough assessment that even Paul Krugman (whom you cite (below) and whom I'm not especially a fan of) is cited in the above AEI article (I admit they're a biased source, but any source in the social sciences is biased. In any case, the article is still worth reading) as noting "Nowadays, practically the whole spectrum of economists, from Milton Friedman leftward, agrees that the Great Depression was brought on by a collapse of effective demand, and that the Federal Reserve should have fought the slump with large injections of money."

Whether FDR's policies got us *out* of the govn'ts

Sweden is quite socialist and is richer per capita than the US ($38 760 in Sweden to $36 620 in the US according to The Economist's World in 2005).

Do we have the same World in 2005 publication? Mine shows Sweden's GDP per head is $43,480 (page 89), the U.S.'s $41,530 (page 92). (Switzerland, a less-socialist nation than Sweden, but moreso than the U.S., beats both, with a per-capita GDP of $51,490).

Of course, looking at the CIA World Factbook, we find that the U.S. has a per-capita GDP of $37,800 (2003 estimate), vs. Sweden's $26,800, and Switzerland's $32,700. So the question is which source do we rely upon: the CIA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit (which compiles such data for The Economist)? IMO, that's a tough call. The Economist's figures are newer though, and I've never had any beefs with their figures, so I'm inclined to go by theirs...

(I am curious now how this discrepancy occurred... I greatly doubt GDP figures for each nation shot up so much that per-capita GDP in Switzerland rose by 60% in only 1 year! :-) My guess is that different methods of determining GDP were used, and the simple division of getting a per-capita figure produced such greatly-different values.)

I also think you may be confusing the modern day definition of socialism with Marxism.

I doubt it. I define socialism by strict economic definition, absent political/social influences. I define socialism as follows: "an economic system in which the factors (inputs) and results (outputs) of the economy are produced, owned, and distributed by a government over which there may be any possible level of democratic control."

Marxism is really the step of Marx's theory that deals with the workers of the world overthrowing the capitalist class and creating a classless, communist (i.e. wealth is owned and shared equally) economy.

America did awfully well under "socialist" Roosevelt in the 1930s. FDR's New Deal dragged America out of the Depression.

That's hardly a universal view.

There is debate among economists about the truth of that belief. I don't subscribe to most Austrian economic theory, but here's another critique of the claim. (The author is an Austrian, but he cites 3 neoclassical economists on the subject as well, lending somewhat more credibility...)

Also, it's worth noting that more-respectable economists (like Nobel prize-winning Milton Friedman) have made it mainstream thought -- mainstream enough to be taught in undergrad. Monetary Policy classes, at least -- that government mismanagement, primarily by the Federal Reserve, exacerbated the bank failures of 1929-1933, turning what would have been a severe recession into the Great Depression that we now know it as. See also Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960, or any of his popular books (Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose).

It's a well-respected enough assessment that even Paul Krugman (whom you cite (below) and whom I'm not especially a fan of) is cited in the above AEI article (I admit they're a biased source, but any source in the social sciences is biased. In any case, the article is still worth reading) as noting "Nowadays, practically the whole spectrum of economists, from Milton Friedman leftward, agrees that the Great Depression was brought on by a collapse of effective demand, and that the Federal Reserve should have fought the slump with large injections of money."

Whether FDR's policies got us *out* of the govn'ts

Sweden is quite socialist and is richer per capita than the US ($38 760 in Sweden to $36 620 in the US according to The Economist's World in 2005).

Do we have the same World in 2005 publication? Mine shows Sweden's GDP per head is $43,480 (page 89), the U.S.'s $41,530 (page 92). (Switzerland, a less-socialist nation than Sweden, but moreso than the U.S., beats both, with a per-capita GDP of $51,490).

Of course, looking at the CIA World Factbook, we find that the U.S. has a per-capita GDP of $37,800 (2003 estimate), vs. Sweden's $26,800, and Switzerland's $32,700. So the question is which source do we rely upon: the CIA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit (which compiles such data for The Economist)? IMO, that's a tough call. The Economist's figures are newer though, and I've never had any beefs with their figures, so I'm inclined to go by theirs...

(I am curious now how this discrepancy occurred... I greatly doubt GDP figures for each nation shot up so much that per-capita GDP in Switzerland rose by 60% in only 1 year! :-) My guess is that different methods of determining GDP were used, and the simple division of getting a per-capita figure produced such greatly-different values.)

I also think you may be confusing the modern day definition of socialism with Marxism.

I doubt it. I define socialism by strict economic definition, absent political/social influences. I define socialism as follows: "an economic system in which the factors (inputs) and results (outputs) of the economy are produced, owned, and distributed by a government over which there may be any possible level of democratic control."

Marxism is really the step of Marx's theory that deals with the workers of the world overthrowing the capitalist class and creating a classless, communist (i.e. wealth is owned and shared equally) economy.

America did awfully well under "socialist" Roosevelt in the 1930s. FDR's New Deal dragged America out of the Depression.

That's hardly a universal view.

There is debate among economists about the truth of that belief. I don't subscribe to most Austrian economic theory, but here's another critique of the claim. (The author is an Austrian, but he cites 3 neoclassical economists on the subject as well, lending somewhat more credibility...)

Also, it's worth noting that more-respectable economists (like Nobel prize-winning Milton Friedman) have made it mainstream thought -- mainstream enough to be taught in undergrad. Monetary Policy classes, at least -- that government mismanagement, primarily by the Federal Reserve, exacerbated the bank failures of 1929-1933, turning what would have been a severe recession into the Great Depression that we now know it as. See also Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960, or any of his popular books (Capitalism and Freedom or Free to Choose).

It's a well-respected enough assessment that even Paul Krugman (whom you cite (below) and whom I'm not especially a fan of) is cited in the above AEI article (I admit they're a biased source, but any source in the social sciences is biased. In any case, the article is still worth reading) as noting "Nowadays, practically the whole spectrum of economists, from Milton Friedman leftward, agrees that the Great Depression was brought on by a collapse of effective demand, and that the Federal Reserve should have fought the slump with large injections of money."

Whether FDR's policies got us *out* of the govn'ts

The gov of China knows that India is supposed to surpass them in population relatively soon. According to the CIA, by 2020 (15 years, folks...) a China/India duo would account for 36% of the global population. Western Europe plus the United States will only be 9% of the global population. With emerging economies, it is forecasted that we westerners are supposed to become quite obsolete.

China, knowing that by 2030 india is predicted to pass them in population, knows they have to act. Most of China's land mass is worthless, after all (why do you think Tiawan is so important to them?) so they have to position themselves as a solid consumer front.

The problem India/China will face: they'll be *consumers*. Being the biggest consumers has been a major harm to the US economy (trade deficits, etc). For our substantially smaller work force (1/5th-ish), we still produce twice as much as China does (see above CIA link). They need to seriously work on their production per-capita. That, and feeding those folks is already a serious problem. Production, on their end, is not just an industrial issue - its a natural resource issue.

The Western Hemisphere controls the food, and with it...we'll still control the wealth. If the US made some strong ties with South America, we'd retain power with even just 2% of the global population...put 3 billion people in an area that can only make food for 1 billion, and what does supply/demand dictate? It dictates that food prices will skyrocket, and non-food goods will plummet. Watches and games will become trivial, throw-away items (already are), but an apple...an apple will be valuable.

I wonder why there's different results for every other time i click search..

I wonder why there's different results for every other time i click search..

Indeed; it's a very important lesson to learn.

MIT is currently developing $100 computers for children growing up in third world countries. Nicholas Negroponte, of the MIT Media Lab, enthused, "When the kids bring them home and open them up, it's the brightest light source in the home". Mr. Negroponte was uneasily silent when questioned about things which are more essential to living like food, clean water, freely available and affordable medicine he could only weakly respond "It comes with linux pre-installed!"

MIT is currently developing $100 computers for children growing up in third world countries. Nicholas Negroponte, of the MIT Media Lab, enthused, "When the kids bring them home and open them up, it's the brightest light source in the home". Mr. Negroponte was uneasily silent when questioned about things which are more essential to living like food, clean water, freely available and affordable medicine he could only weakly respond "It comes with linux pre-installed!"

As the CIA factbook used to point out up until very recently, Quebec nationalism was a significant risk factor.

Consider that the alternative to the Liberals is the Block Quebecois Smuf Blue separatist in collusion with the Western Redneck from the Conservatives party many of whom are eager to kick Quebec out to get back their english only CornFlakes boxes. Coupled with the fact that the Liberals, only federalist party in Quebec have already lost their upcoming elections, you will have, for the first time in Canadian history, a seperatist gouverment in Quebec with a federal gouverment incapable and not particularly interested in keeping Quebec.

Things will be a lot more volatile in Canada in the next 5 years.

I couldn't have said it better. Wolfowitz and his fellow cowards should rot in hell. W/R/T to the Post, I don't know how 'liberal' they are anymore. For instance, the other day we have this hatchet job http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A575 5-2005Mar27.html/ Which is basically a propaganda piece direct off the presses from Wolfowitz and his old buddies at the Whitehouse. Most notably, Diehl accuses Chavez of 'destroying' the economy of Venezuela. According to Economist, the Venezuelean economy grew at about 18% this year. Diehl also reports the terrifying news that Venezuela is buying 100,000 AK47;s and 25 or so fo the dreaded Brazilian made Super Tocanos http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazi l/emb312.htm/ According to the CIA world fact bookhttp://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g eos/ve.html/ Venezuela spends about $1B/year on defense, or about 1/3 the amoun that neighborign Columbia gets in military aid from the US, or about 1/450th of the annual US defense budget. The US, unlike Venezuela, also has along history of invading and supporting terrorist movements in Latin America, So exactly which country is the destabilizing force?

Finally, to Diehl's main point, he is afraid that reporters will go to jail for deliberatly spreading false information. Having read Diehl's column, I'm not sure that is such a bad idea anymore.

It may just be an urban myth, but didn't they fund an entire public health system from domain name sales?

They probably funded a whole lot. CAI world factbook say the population is about 11,500, and very poor.

So that money should probably make quite an impact on their public finances.

Area wise, Canada is the second-largest country. Population-wise, Canada is a distant 37th.

Area wise, Canada is the second-largest country. Population-wise, Canada is a distant 37th.

As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?

at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.13 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.91 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2004 es

at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 0.94 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.46 male(s)/female
total population: 0.87 male(s)/female (2004 est.)

He also said that according to the latest poll, there are 15 percent more women in Russia than men. For every thousand men we have 1147 women, and because of lower levels of males being born as well as high mortality rates among men we should not expect the gender ratio to level out, the researcher said.

at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.13 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.91 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2004 es

at birth: 1.06 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 0.94 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.46 male(s)/female
total population: 0.87 male(s)/female (2004 est.)

He also said that according to the latest poll, there are 15 percent more women in Russia than men. For every thousand men we have 1147 women, and because of lower levels of males being born as well as high mortality rates among men we should not expect the gender ratio to level out, the researcher said.

• GDP Per Cap. Look at those Sammarinese!
• GDP Per Region Wow! the parent was right EU is bigger than US. (Smaller than the NAFTA zone.)
• GDP Growth Wow! Those Iraqis are not doing too good are they?

• GDP Per Cap. Look at those Sammarinese!
• GDP Per Region Wow! the parent was right EU is bigger than US. (Smaller than the NAFTA zone.)
• GDP Growth Wow! Those Iraqis are not doing too good are they?

• GDP Per Cap. Look at those Sammarinese!
• GDP Per Region Wow! the parent was right EU is bigger than US. (Smaller than the NAFTA zone.)
• GDP Growth Wow! Those Iraqis are not doing too good are they?

You got somethng against Micronesians?

Actually, I think using third-world countries' TLDs and pretending they stand for something quite different (eg TV [Tuvalu] "television", etc) is prety neo-colonial. Not to mention the country can arbitrarily increase their fees or revoke your domain.

Check out this and this.

The UK has lower unemployment, proportionately higher exports, proportionally *far* lower imports, is an energy exporter and has *no* external debt. I have to say looking at those figures I feel we're in a far better financial position as a whole.

Those income figures are not right. All other reports say that the average for the uk is £22,000. For example here

Check out this and this.

The UK has lower unemployment, proportionately higher exports, proportionally *far* lower imports, is an energy exporter and has *no* external debt. I have to say looking at those figures I feel we're in a far better financial position as a whole.

Those income figures are not right. All other reports say that the average for the uk is £22,000. For example here

Interesting statistics considering many of the to ten GDP countries are also EU members. The average has fallen quite significantly since some of the old eastern block countries jumped on board.

I suggest you don't try and compare the whole of the US and the whole of the EU. For one thing we're way bigger than you now and many of the states are top ten GDP countries. You're not comparing like with like. Comparing the EU to a US state. Okay what happens if I compare a US state to an EU one. How does Arkanasas compare with say Germany?

I dispute the figures quote re GDP. Compare the US economy with say UK. We have a far smaller land mass but more than a tenth of the GDP and lower unemployment (around 2%). Whilst the GDP per capita is higher for the US what's the median value? I know for example, the average salary in the UK is about $40,000 but the actual median is more like $30,000.

Bigger is not necessarily better. LA has the same population as greater London but about a quarter the size. But London has far more green spaces. Of course we have smaller residences. The UK isn't much bigger than a New England state. If we sprawled like you did we'd have no green space at all. Having said that proportionately more of us live in houses (well at least here in the UK), we have our gardens, and our cars etc.

Take my house for example. The income is about $120,000 a year. The house has a footprint of say 25 x 30 ie. 750 feet but there are three floors. The plot is about 50 x 100 feet. Our house is not exceptional. In fact it's quite ordinary in this area. I drive a $5000 Volvo from the late nineties (which would have probably cost more in the US). I have a washerdryer, dishwasher, bread maker, toaster, microwave, yoghurt maker, digital satelite box, digital terestrial box, several computers (Macs, SGI and PC), ADSL, DVD players, Stereos, 2 Playstation2s (one for the main room and one for the bedroom)...

Anyway how does the saying go, the are lies, damn lies and statistics.