Slashdot Mirror

What your kid would miss out is the contact with other kids, not just their friends but actually finding a way to work together with people they didn't choose but that were "forced" onto them.

Much like they'll later encounter in business life.

Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to past IPCC reports. Most readers instead focus on the short Summary for Policymakers, which starts from a draft prepared by scientists, but then is heavily rewritten by government appointees in a multilateral negotiating process. Past summaries have been criticized for not reflecting the complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty in the underlying reports. They may also distort the underlying report by placing major emphasis on topics that are relatively minor, or by highlighting new and untested research.

This has led to concerns that, whatever the merits of the IPCC report, its summary is not an accurate representation of its contents, and that it reflects a bias towards alarmism and understatement of uncertainty.

The IPCC summary downplays uncertainty in subtle ways. For instance, the full IPCC report discusses at length the limitations of climate modelling prior to presenting tentative projections, and the IPCC discusses the uncertainty of many key climate data sets as part of its discussion of trends and changes. But the IPCC summary highlights the model projections and data trends as if those underlying uncertainties did not exist. The ISPM, by contrast, provides a full treatment of the uncertainties, along with a discussion of model forecasts and data trends. Consequently it is much longer than the IPCC summary. The extra detail is essential for accuracy.

Really, that's odd. I'm not aware of specifics in Australia but almost every Western government has tons of tax breaks for homeowners (it was widely attributed to be the basis of the middle class in the US) post-World War II). Perhaps I'm incorrect but this looks like there is a difference in the capital gains tax due on owner occupied houses and taxes due on say gains from equity shares, which is a pretty substantial tax break (and the one I was referring to. Is that out of date?

Drug development is generally not publically funded. It is an expensive, long-term, high risk investment. In 2001, the average cost of developing a new prescription drug was $802 million, and took from 10 to 15 years. That does not include any marketing costs. Yes drug companies spend a ton of money on marketing, eclipsing their spending on R&D. Yes drug companies are highly profitable, high-risk investments generally produce higher return than low risk investments. Investment and advertising seem like things generally associated with free markets.

If you want to argue whether drug companies are sleezy and annoying and shouldn't be allowed to advertise on TV and are filthy rich and should do more to offer life-saving drugs to people who can't afford them, you'll have to find someone else, because I agree with you.

Your assertion that the US has "relatively low levels of access to basic health care" is also true, but unrelated. I have relatively low levels of access to a Ferrari. That doesn't mean the automotive industry is not a free market.

You are correct that even a capitalist like me can not cure viral disease. But neither can any other economic system. But what about productivity lost for conditions for which there are known treatments? In Canada, the median wait time to get treatment from a specialist is more than 17 weeks (see page 25 in this study, warning, it's a PDF). That's 17 weeks of reduced productivity for patients with conditions that have known treatments.

The economics of the US healthcare industry are complex. The Hippocratic Oath is often at odds with the economic desires of those who provide care. Crafting public policy that works for patients as well as providers is where all the action and debate is at, not whether the US healthcare industry is a free market or not.

Canadians pay between nine and 36 cents more for a litre of whole milk than Americans. For all dairy products, Canadians may pay nearly $1 billion more per year than Americans. In addition, Canadian milk producers have used high domestic prices to subsidize exports. This will likely result in World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings against milk supply management in December, and could lead to punitive tariffs against other Canadian agricultural exports. The Perfect Food in a Perfect Mess: The Cost of Milk in Canada

>> If those people had family, then why didn't they get help from their families instead of social services?
Like I said, these cases are few and far between.

>> Since you've assumed all families have the extra resources
No I haven't. Giving, like it is today, would be optional. The US gives generously , with an average donation of 3,658 per family per year.

>> I never said that Social Security was a for-profit insurance system.
It's not an insurance system. It is a pay as you go system. Read this for a definition of insurance. The military is not insurance, they have no obligation to protect your person or property. In fact, the US military (unlike other countries) is prohibited from performing police operations inside of the US.

>> The Homesteading of the West
Let's go one at a time:

1- At the time the US colonized, the formal grants were from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific (I'm guessing throwing out the Indians, French, Spanish and Dutch occupying the middle of the country, was their problem ;-). Those tracts of land were held by the states, and not the federal government. Since the newly formed states each contributed separately to the war efforts, in conjunction with the weakly funded federal government, some states compensated war suppliers and vets with land grants. In fact, CT still laid claims to most of North-east Ohio in the late 1700's, selling off a large chunk to settle debts.

2- The Merchants/taxes thing: When you tax a company, the company passes the increased cost along to customers to "pay" the tax. At the time, the US was a classic third-world country, exporting raw materials, importing finished goods; since a large amount of economic activity occurred at ports, collecting taxes there was cheap and easy. Plus, most of the federal debts were owed to countries with a large merchant marine fleets, so I'm sure they understood this business model and that helped reassure them that the country would be able to repay.

3- At the time the constitution was written, "The West" was anything past the Allegheny in the North or the Blue mountains in the South. I doubt the founders of country had considered the mechanics of the dispersing lands they didn't have. It was not until the Louisiana purchase (Jefferson's administration, bailing out French to return the favor from the war) that the federal government held title to substantial tracts of land, and we still needed to chase away those pesky Indians.

At that time, when the federal government held title to land, it owned on behalf of the citizens, so the idea behind Homesteading wasn't that the government was giving something to the people; the land was the people's to begin with, homesteading was a good way to put it back into private hands. In the past 75 years or so, the concept of public land being private property of the federal government (which I think is your point of view) has appeared.

And (sorry for the long post) you haven't answered the question: Which of the founders of the country would have advocated an income transfer system like Social Security?

When our technological dreams began becoming reality, some pundits predicted we would be swamped by leisure time. That didn't happen. We're working longer and harder, and seem more stressed over downsizing and outsourcing and expectations than ever.

But why should that be so? The answer is not "globalization", which is just the latest leftist term for "capitalism." (I guess "neo-liberal" is an even newer term, since this is the first time I've seen it used.) The answer is much simpler: taxes. All productivity gains, and then some, are eaten up by excessive taxation.

In Canada, almost 50% of every dollar we make goes to the government. (The U.S. is in a similar, although slightly better, situation.)

It's simple math that explains why families changed from single-parent earners to double-parent earners. If you take away half of a family's income, then twice as many people in that family have to work. (Theoretically, one person could work twice as many hours, or get paid twice as much, but those alternate solutions are very unlikely.)

Stop blaming Wal-Mart, Boeing, McDonalds, etc. for the problems that are actually caused by the government, and we can start finding actual solutions to our problems.

Try a 'Tax Freedom Day' calculator here:
TFD Calc
also look here for some good Cdn. tax info:
Cdn. Taxpayers Federation

In short - lots.

Interesting read - the full text is online here.

Two things to note:
1) The Frasier Institute (which released the study) is well-known in Canada for being a right-wing think tank. That by no means invalidates the findings of the study, but is important context to consider while reading it.

2) The main theme of the report is simply "violent crime in the US is falling faster than in Canada, so Canada's gun control laws are a failure". As the report completely fails to take into account the massive increases in incarceration and other justice-system oversight that have occurred in the US in recent years, it's worth asking whether the report is correct in its findings. It is entirely possible, as some appear to argue that America's drop in crime has been in large part due to this massive surge in its prison population.

Mauser's study is interesting, but fails to examine its assumptions nearly enough to establish the kind of causal relationship between gun laws and crime that it's claiming.

tax freedom day

Contrast this the states: (April 11) taxfoundation

Enter your particulars, does the date come out after June 30? Then you are paying more than 50% tax.

Granted, this is an average, and assumes that you don't live like a hermit. Personally, I spend pretty much everything I make, and most of what I buy is subject to tons of tax. I don't sit at home munching on bulk crackers.

Yes and no.

You're 100% correct that while the marginal tax rate might be as high as 50% or so, the effective tax rate is closer to the 30% mark. That's your income tax, and you'll only pay about 30% of your income on that.

But, as has been pointed out, the amount of taxes we pay on other things add up. According to this
'tax freedom day' calculator which factors in all of the other stuff, you actually do start hitting the 50% threshold with everything accounted for.

This measures how far into the year you would have to go to pay your tax bill assuming that the government collected their cut before you got anything. The average Canadian is end of June/early July before that happens.

So, according to the Fraser Institute (who are the ones that get cited in these things), cumulatively, most Canadians do actually pay about 50% of their total income in various direct and indirect taxes.

Sorry dude.

When you hear 50% tax rates, they are including all the ways the government taxes us, not just income tax.

"[This calculator includes] all taxes from all levels of government that Canadians pay. This includes: income & sales taxes; liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes; automobile, fuel, & motor vehicle licence taxes; CPP/QPP and EI contributions, medical & hospital taxes; property taxes; import duties; profit taxes; and natural resource levies"

You can find the Fraser Institute (right-wing thinktank) tax freedom calculator here. Just did mine (for Ontario) and it turned out to be almost exactly 50%.

Geez, If I had a penny for every time I heard someone say that I could pay the fines for every music downloader out there. I mean seriously where are your substantiating facts for that statement? I was homeschooled. Many of my friends were homeschooled. Statistically speaking Homeschooled childern come our better socially adjusted than public school kids. Anyway that's just my two cents. here's some of those statistics by the way just so you can see I'm not speaking out of my tush. #1 #2

Sure, the report conveniently ignores the US because they do not provide universal service, but sharing a border with 'em doesn't mean them spending more for (debatably) less excuses Canada spending more for (not-so-debatably) less than practically every other developed nation.

Canada lags even further behind in access to high-tech equipment, including machines used for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scans. This shortage affects wait time for diagnostic assessments, which in provinces such as Saskatchewan can run well over three months.

Canada again - average wait time up to 16.2 weeks:

Total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 13.11 weeks in 1999 to 16.2 weeks in 2000-01.

United Kingdom

Under European Community law E112 rule, any EU citizen suffering so-called "undue delays" in receiving treatment in their home country can apply to have the operation in another member state.

Mrs Watts required a hip replacement operation, and was initially told that the wait would be 12 months.

She shortened that time by paying for a private consultation and putting pressure on the hospital to move her up the list, but was still offered an eight month wait.

When she applied for authorisation to go abroad for treatment under the European Community rule, Bedford Primary Care Trust told her it was not necessary because it was meeting the Government's then target waiting time of 15 months for in-patient treatment.

It was at this point that she decided to book the operation abroad in a hospital in Abbeville, northern France.

Following this decision, the trust reviewed her case, decided it was more urgent and offered to carry out Mrs Watts' hip replacement within three to four months, despite a general in-patient waiting list of 12 months.

The UK again...

Health authorities have been ordered to cut waiting lists

Some patients in England are having to wait up to four years for an outpatient appointment in hospital, according to new research.

A study has shown that waiting times after referral by a GP are up to four years - or 208 weeks - for one orthopaedic surgeon.

The research by the charity, the College of Health, also shows patients are waiting 147 weeks and 145 weeks to see foot specialists in two separate hospitals.

The worst waiting time for an out-patient appointment in neurology was 126 weeks, with one example of a 95-week wait to see an eye specialist, the study showed.

The UK has some long wait times, alrighty...

Friday, 28 June 2002 15:28
Edinburgh Evening News www.edinburghnews.com
'FOUR-YEAR WAIT' FOR MS DIAGNOSIS

A single mother crippled by multiple sclerosis claims it took Edinburgh doctors four years to tell her she had the illness because of an "unacceptable" breakdown in communications.

Rebecca Jones, 32, underwent an MRI scan at the Western General Hospital in 1997 after suffering a series of inexplicable collapses and blinding headaches.

But although the scan revealed signs that she could have MS she was not informed of the results.

Doctors conducted further tests over the next few years as her condition fluctuated and eventually diagnosed MS in 2001.

But Ms Jones was still not told immediately because a letter she should have received was not sent out at the time, further delaying much-needed treatment for the now unemployed mother, who has a nine-year-old daughter, Natasha.

To add insult to injury, when Ms Jones complained about her treatment to hospit

Here's how it works.

1. When the government provides it for free, the marginal cost to the consumer becomes zero. Therefore, people consume more than they otherwise would. If your gas were free, you'd drive more.

2. As people consume more, demand exceeds supply, and prices increase.

3. Government responds to this problem in one of two ways:

a. Paying the higher and higher prices. Everyone pays more, but since the amount they pay is only affected negligibly by how much they consume, this is no incentive for them to consume less. The costs to taxpayers overwhelmingly exceed what taxpayers were told it would cost.

b. Imposing price controls, and rationing the remaining supply. Get ready to wait in line.

4. Rich people go to other countries for medical treatments the government won't approve.

The really sad thing is that I'm still probably going to vote for Dean.

No joke. Check this out Fraser Institute.

"The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.4 weeks. Patients in New Brunswick experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (5.0 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20.0 weeks)."

Down here in good old redneck Alabama, when my doctor decided I needed an MRI on my hip, I got it the very next day. If I were Canadian, I'd still be waiting (read: suffering). If you love your healthcare system, by all means stay there with it.

Economic freedom equals more prosperity

Oh yes, we need nationalized health care. Maybe we can wait 80 weeks for a tonsillectomy then. Please.

Have a look here and see how much tax you're paying. 45K is the low end for a single 35 year old making 100K per year. In Quebec, expect to pay 60K. It comes out to be about 25K if that same guy was making 50K per year. That's on *top* of the high consumption taxes: often a 7% sales tax + 7% GST! (I'm not sure where the VAT comes into this, I'm no expert.)

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

If anyone wants to learn about globalization, Fred McMahon (Director of the Center for Globalization Studies) Would probalbly be happy to teach you a bit. I would say globalization when talked about in mass media and by polititions, is about Free trade among the world, not sharing governments or culture, those are just posible outcomes of co-operation.

There are other, more effective, forms of "sharing" than massive government programs funded by forcible confiscation of wealth. You might want to examine this report, which states that Americans donate to charity much more generously than do Canadians. Note particularly the conclusion that "those who have more, give more".

The 'good of all' does always outweigh the 'good of the few'. That is the definition of community and democracy.

No, that is the definition of tyranny. When 51% of the voters can deprive the other 49% of their life, liberty, or property, you do not have a free country.

Although four of the five Alberta justices agreed that the law did intrude upon provincial powers, two of these four thought that Ottawa's claims were justified... The dissenting justices argued that the dangers of firearms paled in comparison with the danger of the federal government intruding into provincial jurisdiction. Alberta and three other provinces have already appealed this decision directly to the Canadian Supreme Court.

There are several studies available that try to reduce this question to science; the best I've found are:

Freedom House (political rights and civil liberties): http://freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm.

Fraser Institute (economic focus): http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/e con_free_2000/.

Also, the U.S. State Department does on on religious freedom: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/i rf_rpt/index.html.

There are several studies available that try to reduce this question to science; the best I've found are:

Freedom House (political rights and civil liberties): http://freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm.

Fraser Institute (economic focus): http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/e con_free_2000/.

Also, the U.S. State Department does on on religious freedom: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/i rf_rpt/index.html.

There are several studies available that try to reduce this question to science; the best I've found are:

Freedom House (political rights and civil liberties): http://freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm.

Fraser Institute (economic focus): http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/e con_free_2000/.

Also, the U.S. State Department does on on religious freedom: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/irf/i rf_rpt/index.html.

The estimated long-run effects of high marginal tax rates are sufficient to explain up to 75 percent of the recent decline in the measured growth of the Swedish GNP.

I'm sure you have a point there. Basically all thats needed to solve this "problem" is that the employers start to do some serious surveillance on the job performance of their employees, get the unions tied down and start ditching the losers (if they aren't already doing it).

Doesn't "the land of the free" start to have a shrill ring to it? And on a more practical note: At some point (soon) you'll have disqualified so big a percentage of the potential workforce that there's not enough solvent buyers for your high-tech mass market products and the economic growth will stall and then plunge...

In this context it is evident that the rising of stress problems among the white collar workforce and we cannot satisfy the demand for qualified employees is a telltale sign that we are stretching the productivity to the limit.

Marx was basically right and the fact that we have used the collapse of the Soviet Union to justify thinking otherwise will be coming round to bite our asses, if we don't start to do some radically different economic thinking real soon.

Brace for impact!


***

The idea that libertarians care any less about people than leftists is complete and utter bullshit.

Leftists believe that you can lift people out of poverty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, a.k.a. redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, that just ends up making *everyone* poorer, and always creates a corrupt 'ruling class'.

Indeed, the present problem with corporate welfare and official corruption is a *direct result* of the big government policies introduced by the left, the very people who are shouting the loudest about this today.

Countries with free market economies are more prosperous for everyone, rich and poor. Contrary to popular belief, capitalist economies do not have a large income gap between rich and poor. Rather, they reduce the income gap - pro of here.

There will always be people who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand. We absolutely need to be there for those people. Neighbors, churches, community service clubs, volunteer organizations, private charities, the United Way, we *all* need to pull together to provide a safety net for these people. This is absolutely something that has to happen at the local level - in our own communities, not in Washington DC.

Government welfare programs have failed miserably. Where do you see the most poverty and despair? In government projects, of course. The fact is that people and organizations in our local communities are the most effective at helping people. These are the groups that know the people, that know the community, and that have *earned our trust and financial support*, unlike the wasteful bureaucrats in Washington, who squander our money and help noone.

Here are links to some economic data which you and others may find very interesting:

1) The Economic Freedom of the World 2000 annual report, which rates the world's economies according to how free they are. (spoiler: the U.S. is 4th, and a laundry list of African nations make up the bottom of the list)

http://www.fraseri nstitute.ca/publications/books/econ_free_2000/

2) Within this report is a section which correlates different measures of social welfare against different levels of economic freedom:

htt p://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/econ _free_2000/section_09.html

Here are links to some economic data which you and others may find very interesting:

1) The Economic Freedom of the World 2000 annual report, which rates the world's economies according to how free they are. (spoiler: the U.S. is 4th, and a laundry list of African nations make up the bottom of the list)

http://www.fraseri nstitute.ca/publications/books/econ_free_2000/

2) Within this report is a section which correlates different measures of social welfare against different levels of economic freedom:

htt p://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/econ _free_2000/section_09.html

I'd be very interested in knowing where you've gotten your stats. There are certainly a number of studies that would say just the opposite, i.e. there has been an enormous increase in wealth and a corresponding increase in leisure time. Simply looking at the CPI changes (check out any Federal Reserve site) would seem to indicate that living standards have changed dramatically, particularly when adjusted for inflation.
I would also recommend taking a look at the Index of Economic Freedom for a more global perspective on economic prosperity. Also, I suggest Robert Higgs' _Crisis in Leviathan_ and other economic historical studies for information about the economic problems occurring prior to and during the Great Depression. It was by no means the free-market ideal and many of the crises' that occurred were due to poor fiscal and monetary policies (the Austrian theory of the trade cycle provides a very good analysis of these problems).