Slashdot Mirror

land of the prisoners, home of the cowards

Ethanol, or any biofuel, will be hard pressed to replace oil. Petroleum is essentially very old and dirty, but efficient biofuel, stockpiled underground. A year's worth of [insert favorite biofuel source plant(s) here] will be hard pressed to replace an eon's worth of petroleum.

Here is some back-of-the-napkin stuff - mostly unit conversions. Nothing fancy. If you trust my math skills, feel free to skip to the surprise ending.

My sources are just whatever came up first on Google.

So here goes:

According to this link, there were 598 million metric tons of corn produced globally in 2002. (That was the first year I came across. Let's assume it's typical.)

598 million metric tons * (2204.6 lbs/metric ton)
...converts to 1.3 billion lbs of corn.

A bushel of corn is currently defined as 56 lbs.

1.3 billion lbs * (1 bushel/56 lbs)
...converts to about 23.5 million bushels of corn.

According to this article, a bushel of corn can produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol.

23.5 million bushels * (2.7 gallons/bushel)
...tells us that 63.5 million gallons of ethanol could theoretically be made from all the corn grown globally in one year.

According to this, a barrel of petroleum has 42 gallons. After refining, it could be made into about 19.5 gallons of gasoline.

So if we say that 1 gallon of ethanol can replace one gallon of gasoline, then

63.5 million gallons * (1 barrel / 19.5 gallons)
...comes to 3.2 million barrels.

(The 1-to-1 ethanol-to-gasoline ratio is a falacy, as ethanol will only take your car 0.8 miles for every 1 mile gas will, but this is getting too complicated. Let's just say 1-to-1.)

According to this source, the United States currently uses 20 million barrels of oil per day.

3.2 million barrels * (1 day / 20 million barrels)
...amounts to 0.16 days.

So if we can stop using corn for livestock feed, corn starch, corn syrup, corn oil, corn chips, corn stoves, corn bread, popcorn, candy corn*, corn on the cob, corn dogs, creamed corn... er... sorry, I was channeling Forrest Gump for a second...

If we use all of the corn grown in one year for making ethanol, and production is still propped up by using current (petroleum-heavy) farming practices, it would keep the U.S. running for just about four hours. Or, if you prefer, Argentina could last almost a week. Or we could supply Togo with their fuel needs for the entire year.

"Your math is wrong!" you exclaim. Not unlikely. But show me where. Am I off by an order of magnitude? Let's take it from 4 hours to 40 hours. That's almost two days! Woohoo!

"Corn is the wrong source!" you shout. Let switch to sugar. Or switchgrass. Or anything you want. Let's imagine the Fubar tree, which is 100 times more efficient for making ethanol. So now we've gone from 3 hours to almost 17 days. Woohoo!

Let's dare to dream, and combine the last two! I'm off by an order of magnitude, and there's a massive switch to Fubar tree farming. The U.S. now has over 5 months of petroleum replacement. Sorry Argentina and Togo...

Feel free to check my math. I'm sure this must be due to rounding error.

--
* - I checked. Corn syrup is an ingredient in Candy Corn

Since birthrates are already too low to sustain growth in the countries with the most wealth it seems that if we spread the wealth we kill two birds with one stone.

Do you have better data than these?

  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat- people-population-growth-rate

Its basically the former Soviet Union people that are decreasing in population because they drink too much, and the women are wise enough to not want to fuck them anymore. Aside from that, we are growing!

Supposedly, human population is going to stabilize in 50 or so years with something like 10-14 billion people.

I don't feel like looking for the nationmaster stats now, but the "greying" of the world bothers me more than people not sustaining a population.

What are we going to do when most of the population is over 80 years old?

Give me a reference or shut up.

"In areas where right-to-carry is present, violent crimes go down. In areas (or whole countries) where guns are banned, violent crimes go way up."

Um. . . no.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_perc ap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

I live in Russia and I don't really want my country to join the WTO, and it's a very widespread attitude here.
No doubt; after all, your management of your economy has thus far led to Russia having a GDP equivalent to the Netherlands (and I'm not talking per capita), and a GNP equivalent to Belgium. With such great economic results, I can see why you are so wary of listening to what the WTO has to say...

I live in Russia and I don't really want my country to join the WTO, and it's a very widespread attitude here.
No doubt; after all, your management of your economy has thus far led to Russia having a GDP equivalent to the Netherlands (and I'm not talking per capita), and a GNP equivalent to Belgium. With such great economic results, I can see why you are so wary of listening to what the WTO has to say...

Russia is setting up to be a pretty big economic power.
Yeah, right above that "big economic power" the Netherlands, and quite a bit behind that other "big economic power" Mexico. Link. If we go by GNP, things are (as expected) even worse. By GNP, Russia is quite a bit below the Netherlands, and only a bit better than that "big economic power" Belgium. Link.

Russia is setting up to be a pretty big economic power.
Yeah, right above that "big economic power" the Netherlands, and quite a bit behind that other "big economic power" Mexico. Link. If we go by GNP, things are (as expected) even worse. By GNP, Russia is quite a bit below the Netherlands, and only a bit better than that "big economic power" Belgium. Link.

It might be an interesting statistic for you to know that in the USA three times more people per capita get murdered a year by firearms, as the total number of people murdered in my country per capita (Netherlands).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fi r_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

If substract all firearms murders (0.027) from the total (0.042), you get almost the same number as for the Netherlands (0.011), where owning a firearm is mostly illegal. I know you can easily lie with statistics, but to me it suggests that a country with few people owning firearms, is a lot saver as one where almost everyone owns one.

It might be an interesting statistic for you to know that in the USA three times more people per capita get murdered a year by firearms, as the total number of people murdered in my country per capita (Netherlands).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fi r_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

If substract all firearms murders (0.027) from the total (0.042), you get almost the same number as for the Netherlands (0.011), where owning a firearm is mostly illegal. I know you can easily lie with statistics, but to me it suggests that a country with few people owning firearms, is a lot saver as one where almost everyone owns one.

Guess which country is a solid #1 for prisoners per capita?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_ca p

Yes, because they wanted to compare apples-with-apples. As you may have noticed on monday, the USA has a different ethnic make-up to the UK. There's also a side-effect of the methodology in that it effectively removes a huge chunk of poor people from the american data. This may or may not be defensible, but the fact that the US scored so badly even without the poorest section of society is extremely depressing. Comparing an African American from Detroit with an African from Nigeria wouldn't be a fair comparison. The Detroiter lives in the richest nation in the world, which has the highest per capita expenditure on health services per person. 13.2% of the US GDP goes on health. And still the non-white stats are appalling: Infant mortality is always a useful measure of how broken your health system is. http://www.cdc.gov/omh/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_inf_mor_ra t - US figures aren't in the Nation Master data set, for some reason. Embarrassment, possibly. 6.9 deaths per thousand is at the bottom of the industrialised nations: (Between Cuba and Croatia). African-American infant mortality runs at 14.1 per thousand however: below Jamaica ffs!

The United States uses 23.6% of the world's energy to to produce 28.4% of the world's gross domestic product---it seems that the U.S. is actually rather efficient. (My source for these is the CIA's World Fact Book and a rather large PDF from BP).

It ranks 17th in per capita oil consumption. And it uses less energy per capita than Luxembourg, Iceland, and Candada. Why don't you pick on them for a little while?

Gee, my previous post has received 2 Overrated mods, 2 Underrated mods, and a Troll for a net loss of 1. The leftist thought police must be napping today.

The Kyoto treaty puts an heavy burden on the US, because the US is the country consumming the most oil per capita and rejecting the most pollutant in the atmosphere. So, as the biggest pollutant, you get the most drastic changes. It's not so much that the others dont pollute or wont get crippled, it is more that they have already started policies to curb pollution and as such dont have such a big step to take.

Again, you're assuming that global warming is man-made, to the extent that it exists at all. I don't think it is man-made, so taking drastic measures that are almost certain to cause heavy economic damage seems like a bad idea. And since the global warming cheerleaders tend to fall into the hate-America crowd, well, I get real skeptical about their objectivity and motivation. Leaving rapidly growing economies like China, India, etc. out of the Kyoto treaty makes me REALLY skeptical about the motives of the doomsday crowd. Cough up with enough hard evidence of man-made climate change or I'll continue to dismiss global warming as a pseudo-religion.

Take a look at this chart of oil consumption per capita. The US uses AT LEAST 33% more per capita than other western nations (outside of Canada). This is what the rest of the world complains about...

That chart is oil-equivalent energy consumption. The oil consumption chart looks much worse for America... until you consider that we have 300 million people and considerably lower population density than the other high-population countries. We need that oil for transportation. Today's high gasoline prices should knock that back a bit. China's already #2 though and they're growing faster than we are. China is already #1 in coal by a wide margin. Expect that to keep rising since they have no shortage of the stuff. We're also assuming that those figures are accurate, which means we're trusting the CIA and Energy Department that published them.

We have far better pollution controls than China, so energy used here does less damage than over there. That will change as China brings new nuclear power plants online, something we really ought to be doing but the same people who cry "global warming!" tend to freak out at the word "nuclear". (Which, again, makes me skeptical of their motivations...) Not that any of this matters for global warming since, as I said, I don't think man effects it, but clean air is rather nice.

If you're going to ask us to do things like follow the Kyoto treaty that just happens to be rigged to do disproportionate harm to America then you're going to have to come up with better proof that adding industrialization to the mix is artificially increasing those natural climate swings. The fact that the people most loudly advocating man-made global warming theories are our political adversaries and/or have a financial incentive to hype it (it would still be useful to know how the natural temperature changes work though, even if that's less alarming) doesn't instill confidence in we right-wingers. Yes, that most definitely includes government researchers.

The Kyoto treaty puts an heavy burden on the US, because the US is the country consumming the most oil per capita and rejecting the most pollutant in the atmosphere. So, as the biggest pollutant, you get the most drastic changes. It's not so much that the others dont pollute or wont get crippled, it is more that they have already started policies to curb pollution and as such dont have such a big step to take.
Take a look at this chart of oil consumption per capita. The US uses AT LEAST 33% more per capita than other western nations (outside of Canada). This is what the rest of the world complains about...

Sorry if I came off as a bit hostile, but I've been in a hundred arguments where people mistakenly identify various interpretations of military spending to justify the amount of expenditure in the States, particulary with outdated information. As I pointed out in the last post, the site you referenced claimed that the US currently spends around $277 billion, but the figure is, in fact, closer to $453 billion, strictly for the military alone as of 2004. Even in 2002, the total amount spent on defense funding and homeland security agencies (I don't believe this takes into account undisclosed funding for CIA/NSA/FBI, but I could be wrong) was $596 billion. So, one problem is that the GDP figures only take into account military expenditures and don't count funding given to the NSA and CIA for their covert ops, shill operations, and so on. The GDP is just a poor measure of defense funding in the United States, where we have a huge number multinational corporations that make the GDP skyrocket; other countries do not; there is just no other first world country that has the amount of profiteers and corporate giants that we do; not even close. Even if you go to per capita with updated figures, we spend per capita on the military branches alone more than any other nation, with Israel coming somewhat close (Update the figures from here to the $453 billion of 2004 and you have a per capita military expenditure of around $1,850).

What a useless, bullshit comparison of military spending. Unfortunately, statistics can be manipulated in many a stupifyingly irrelevent way, as you just illustrated, and ironically, accused me of. That graph you linked has us beneath the following for military spending (just to highlight some of the more glaringly stupid points of the chart if you use them for comparing military expenditure): Oman, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, Burundi, Kuwait, Maldives, Guinea, Djibouti, Macedonia, Armenia, Congo, Yemen, Qatar, Mauritania, Cyprus, Lesotho, Botswana, and Ecuador. Right, that's a relevent display of military spending/power.

And I wonder why you didn't quote this, from the same site, or at least, compare it to the relevance of the GDP figures. Gee, could it be that GDP shows absolutely nothing, and the majority of the countries are listed highly have corrupt governments that use their armies to subjugate a small, poverty-stricken populace? Not only that, but the site's statistics are far from updated; the site has about half the current US military expenditure listed, and is quoting a figure from the Clinton-era.

The US is actually only slightly above average in military spending. The only reason its spending in $ is so high is because its GDP is so huge. Once you normalize it to GDP, you can see that many other countries actually spend more than the US. China and most of the middle eastern countries actually spend significantly more, and "peace-loving" France spends just slightly less than the US.

It's the same argument used against the US when funding the UN. Countries are supposed to fund the UN in proportion to the GDP. "You have more money so you can pay more." Yet for some reason the same reasoning seems to escape people when it comes to military spending. You can't have it both ways. (Note: The US has been successful in trying to reduce its share of UN funding; partially understandable since GDP doesn't take into account taxation rate, so while US GDP is much bigger, the US govt gets to use less of it in its discretionary budget than socialist nations.)

There is no national security problem. Look here http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/d rugfact/american_users_spend/table2.html Just with those drugs, cocaine and heroin, there are an estimated 300+ tons of the stuff coming into this country annually, and it would be easier to teach my mom to do a sed substitution than a WMD substitution for the cargo.

But there is no profit in that!

Well, unless your on this list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fi g

OK. Now about people just walking into this country. There are 5 million people illegally living in the US, source: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistic s/illegalalien/#Table1 They are even talking about making illegal immigrants being illegal! Gasp.

Average cost(USD) of healthcare costs / year
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_spe_per_pe r

% of health spending on 'public' healthcare
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_pub_spe_as _of_tot

As you can see, the US spends an ass load of money on public health anyways (44%), so you can't really say thats its a totally private system anyways. That said, those that can afford -huge- healthcare costs can get adequate if not better service than plain public health can in most countries.

Average cost(USD) of healthcare costs / year
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_spe_per_pe r

% of health spending on 'public' healthcare
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_pub_spe_as _of_tot

As you can see, the US spends an ass load of money on public health anyways (44%), so you can't really say thats its a totally private system anyways. That said, those that can afford -huge- healthcare costs can get adequate if not better service than plain public health can in most countries.

perhaps it is more like 110,000 yen is comperable to an american enthusiast spending $800 usd on a video player? afterall there are median incomes, etc other factors BEYOND exchange rate to consider here. although difficult to pinpoint if that's the case, according to statistics on 'nationmaster.com' http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja/eco
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/eco
The average income is $1,400 USD greater in japan than in america. and consider that based on the statistics gathered by nations master that japan is the 110thh MOST ienquitabbly distributed wealth nation in the world the chart only ranks 116 countries btw) there are only 6 countries with a more equitable distribution of income. so yeah, i'd have to say that in a country where Median income comes the closest to Meaning typical income... instead of a country where 'median income' is just a statistic, and the 'normal income' is actually considerably below that (america is the 31th most inequitable distributor of weath in the world, we've got the uber rich like bill gates the wal-mart family etc, and then we've got 13% of our population BELOW the poverty line etc.) that paying $986US in japan is a lot more like paying $500US in the US.

so um it's not a matter of math, it's a matter of wealth distribution. in japan the average working joe is far better off than they would be in america.

perhaps it is more like 110,000 yen is comperable to an american enthusiast spending $800 usd on a video player? afterall there are median incomes, etc other factors BEYOND exchange rate to consider here. although difficult to pinpoint if that's the case, according to statistics on 'nationmaster.com' http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja/eco
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/eco
The average income is $1,400 USD greater in japan than in america. and consider that based on the statistics gathered by nations master that japan is the 110thh MOST ienquitabbly distributed wealth nation in the world the chart only ranks 116 countries btw) there are only 6 countries with a more equitable distribution of income. so yeah, i'd have to say that in a country where Median income comes the closest to Meaning typical income... instead of a country where 'median income' is just a statistic, and the 'normal income' is actually considerably below that (america is the 31th most inequitable distributor of weath in the world, we've got the uber rich like bill gates the wal-mart family etc, and then we've got 13% of our population BELOW the poverty line etc.) that paying $986US in japan is a lot more like paying $500US in the US.

so um it's not a matter of math, it's a matter of wealth distribution. in japan the average working joe is far better off than they would be in america.

Not according to nationmaster. Which, 'compiles statistics from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Bank, World Resources Institute, UNESCO, UNICEF and OECD.'

Murders (per capita).
US #24 with 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK #46 with 0.0140633 per 1,000 people.

Murders with firearms (per capita).
US #8 with 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
UK #32 with 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

I'm not drawing any conclusions. Those are the statistics though.

It is usually those who are safe on the shore who pity those drowning in the sea, but I suppose a starved of oxygen, delusional brain would hallucinate that it is the sea that is rising and subsequently try to send condolences to those on dry land. Making the spectacle of desperate thrashing about, whizzing lasts gasps and grasping at straws all the more pitiful.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament.

That is of course a thing quintessentially American, and even more so Republican: to see yourself as the navel of the universe, as the only actors in the grand scheme of things and the rest of us as mere props for your stage theatrics. Coincidentally, an attitude indistinguishable from that of a 6-year old child. And equally as wise and realistic.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament. If Polk had been a little more serious about "54'40 or fight" then ...

Then probably the White House would have burned down, again. Such is the nature of wars of conquest. They tend to turn on you. For more information see: Vietnam or Iraq.

you might not be stuck in a country where you spend 6 months of the year working to support the government and all its wonderful social programs

I am very happy here, but thank you for your deep concern for my money. That is so unbelievably kind of "conservatives" or "libertarians" to be always so graciously concerned about other people's, and in particular my, money. Such an altruistic, selfless attitude brings a tear to my eye.

Also, for your information, the taxation burden in Canada is below the average of all of the industrialised world, all of which, naturally, being not American, does not measure up to your standard of perfection: that of your own rear end. More curiously, the US, which you seem to imply being far superior in this regard for an average individual, is nearly indistinguishable from Canada. Funny things happen when you do not include billionaires and corporations in your statistics, don't they?

Add to this the fact that such a worker receives but a fraction of the services the Canadian government provides. But boy, has he got a shiny, gizmo-laden, whiz-bang army for his buck! Too bad that some bearded goofuses in towels with AK-47s and Victorian-era rifles have got it all bogged down in some place far away. It would seem that infinite, self-righteous, sanctimonious hubris has its downsides.

where the per capita GDP is only 3/4th that of your neighbor to the south

And curiously, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and Iceland, all dens of socialist ways of thinking beat USA in this department handsomely. Perhaps our problem is that we are too much like the USA and not enough like Sweden or Iceland in our social and economic policies.

with a corresponding standard of living

Err...

and where you have to put up with snooty people who think they're still in France.

As opposed to snooty Americans in Alberta who think they're still in Texas?

Well...Polk might not have been able to do much about the quebecois,

That's quite unsurprising as he was not able to do much other then talk big. Which is quite typical of all those big-mouthed chickenhawks who you are so fond of over there.

but I'm reasonably sure that you'd be spared the embarrassment of calling your currency a "Loony."

That's a "loonie" as in "loon".

But don't f

It is usually those who are safe on the shore who pity those drowning in the sea, but I suppose a starved of oxygen, delusional brain would hallucinate that it is the sea that is rising and subsequently try to send condolences to those on dry land. Making the spectacle of desperate thrashing about, whizzing lasts gasps and grasping at straws all the more pitiful.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament.

That is of course a thing quintessentially American, and even more so Republican: to see yourself as the navel of the universe, as the only actors in the grand scheme of things and the rest of us as mere props for your stage theatrics. Coincidentally, an attitude indistinguishable from that of a 6-year old child. And equally as wise and realistic.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament. If Polk had been a little more serious about "54'40 or fight" then ...

Then probably the White House would have burned down, again. Such is the nature of wars of conquest. They tend to turn on you. For more information see: Vietnam or Iraq.

you might not be stuck in a country where you spend 6 months of the year working to support the government and all its wonderful social programs

I am very happy here, but thank you for your deep concern for my money. That is so unbelievably kind of "conservatives" or "libertarians" to be always so graciously concerned about other people's, and in particular my, money. Such an altruistic, selfless attitude brings a tear to my eye.

Also, for your information, the taxation burden in Canada is below the average of all of the industrialised world, all of which, naturally, being not American, does not measure up to your standard of perfection: that of your own rear end. More curiously, the US, which you seem to imply being far superior in this regard for an average individual, is nearly indistinguishable from Canada. Funny things happen when you do not include billionaires and corporations in your statistics, don't they?

Add to this the fact that such a worker receives but a fraction of the services the Canadian government provides. But boy, has he got a shiny, gizmo-laden, whiz-bang army for his buck! Too bad that some bearded goofuses in towels with AK-47s and Victorian-era rifles have got it all bogged down in some place far away. It would seem that infinite, self-righteous, sanctimonious hubris has its downsides.

where the per capita GDP is only 3/4th that of your neighbor to the south

And curiously, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and Iceland, all dens of socialist ways of thinking beat USA in this department handsomely. Perhaps our problem is that we are too much like the USA and not enough like Sweden or Iceland in our social and economic policies.

with a corresponding standard of living

Err...

and where you have to put up with snooty people who think they're still in France.

As opposed to snooty Americans in Alberta who think they're still in Texas?

Well...Polk might not have been able to do much about the quebecois,

That's quite unsurprising as he was not able to do much other then talk big. Which is quite typical of all those big-mouthed chickenhawks who you are so fond of over there.

but I'm reasonably sure that you'd be spared the embarrassment of calling your currency a "Loony."

That's a "loonie" as in "loon".

But don't f

It is usually those who are safe on the shore who pity those drowning in the sea, but I suppose a starved of oxygen, delusional brain would hallucinate that it is the sea that is rising and subsequently try to send condolences to those on dry land. Making the spectacle of desperate thrashing about, whizzing lasts gasps and grasping at straws all the more pitiful.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament.

That is of course a thing quintessentially American, and even more so Republican: to see yourself as the navel of the universe, as the only actors in the grand scheme of things and the rest of us as mere props for your stage theatrics. Coincidentally, an attitude indistinguishable from that of a 6-year old child. And equally as wise and realistic.

I'd really like to apologize for the actions of the presidential administration that put you in this predicament. If Polk had been a little more serious about "54'40 or fight" then ...

Then probably the White House would have burned down, again. Such is the nature of wars of conquest. They tend to turn on you. For more information see: Vietnam or Iraq.

you might not be stuck in a country where you spend 6 months of the year working to support the government and all its wonderful social programs

I am very happy here, but thank you for your deep concern for my money. That is so unbelievably kind of "conservatives" or "libertarians" to be always so graciously concerned about other people's, and in particular my, money. Such an altruistic, selfless attitude brings a tear to my eye.

Also, for your information, the taxation burden in Canada is below the average of all of the industrialised world, all of which, naturally, being not American, does not measure up to your standard of perfection: that of your own rear end. More curiously, the US, which you seem to imply being far superior in this regard for an average individual, is nearly indistinguishable from Canada. Funny things happen when you do not include billionaires and corporations in your statistics, don't they?

Add to this the fact that such a worker receives but a fraction of the services the Canadian government provides. But boy, has he got a shiny, gizmo-laden, whiz-bang army for his buck! Too bad that some bearded goofuses in towels with AK-47s and Victorian-era rifles have got it all bogged down in some place far away. It would seem that infinite, self-righteous, sanctimonious hubris has its downsides.

where the per capita GDP is only 3/4th that of your neighbor to the south

And curiously, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and Iceland, all dens of socialist ways of thinking beat USA in this department handsomely. Perhaps our problem is that we are too much like the USA and not enough like Sweden or Iceland in our social and economic policies.

with a corresponding standard of living

Err...

and where you have to put up with snooty people who think they're still in France.

As opposed to snooty Americans in Alberta who think they're still in Texas?

Well...Polk might not have been able to do much about the quebecois,

That's quite unsurprising as he was not able to do much other then talk big. Which is quite typical of all those big-mouthed chickenhawks who you are so fond of over there.

but I'm reasonably sure that you'd be spared the embarrassment of calling your currency a "Loony."

That's a "loonie" as in "loon".

But don't f

Actually, France has the best healthcare system in the world. The World Health Organization rates France as the best nation for health care. Despite spending half of what the US does on health care, France has a higher average lifespan and much lower infant mortality rates. In fact, France beats the US on just about every health statistic. See http://www.nationmaster.com/ for an online reference.

The US ranks #37 in the world in terms of health care, though it ranks #1 in both total and per-capita spending on health care. The second fact is the reason that Americans fly to India to have heart surgery. See http://www.voanews.com/burmese/archive/2005-04/200 5-04-09-voa10.cfm?CFID=35543148&CFTOKEN=24153006 and many other references.

If I had an acute health problem, I'd take the US over Mexico, but I'd take France over the US too.

According to the facts NationMaster America has some of the best overall statistics in health of any nation especially in the region of infant mortality and life expectancy. The only exceptions being countries like Sweden where the tax rate is around 25-35% or Contries whose poplutions are so small as to skew the statistics disproportionately. In countries with Universal Healthcare the cost is spiralling heavily upward despite the way it is hidden from it's citizens. In most all countries this upward spiral is resulting in them having to slash benefits in order to keep up. This happened a number of times in recent years in Europe and Japan. If a system is unsustainable and cost prohibitive to a nation then it can not possibly be considered more efficient.

Where do you get this crap? India has a pretty low HIV rate, and per capita is actually very close the HIV rate in the US.

perhaps they should concentrate on solving that before pointing fingers

89110 rapes Per year in USA #1 in the world overall! (p/c USA is 9th)

Overall Murders per capita. Source, same as GP. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap )

You will notice that the US has 3 times the murder rate than that of Canada or the UK, or any Western European country, or any Scandinavian country.

Rank Country Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

I know fools like you typically fail at math and logic and also rarely have a firm grasp on reality. Analyzing the actual dollars spent is worthless. What's important is $ per capita and as a percentage of a countries total GDP.

Measured as $ per capita the US is #3 (behind Israel and Singapore):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fi g_percap

Measured as a percentage of GDP the US is #36:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2034rank.html

Random countries that spend more (as a % of the GDP): Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Singapore, China, Greece, Chile, Egypt

US Defense spending as percent of GDP from 1940-2000.

But I'm sure whatever you've learned in school (in whatever country you're from) doesn't cover these sort of things. Your ignorant leftist teachers just point out the the US is evil because it spends more money than other countries, as if that has a thread of logic to it.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fi r_percap

Murders with firearms (per capita)

#1 South Africa 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania 0.0230748 per 1,000 people

What a delicious troll you are.

Regardless, I am inclined to bite, but only responding to a minor point. And I will cite sources, instead of conjecture.

P.S. That's the explanation why USA has such high crime rate.

Im fairly certain you are not from G.B., but I will use crime statistics from there just as a point of fact.

Please consult this article, from a few years back (outdated, I suppose, could be your argument, but I think it is still valid.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/post s
Quote: "The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales."

Lets continue, shall we?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_percap You should check this site out. Certainly, the US is pretty high in Murders, but is that the only metric of crime? Try Burglaries/Robberies, and other statistics.

I'm not saying that the US has a low crime rate, but I am saying that your claim that we have the "worst" crime rate is a little simplistic and a lot incorrect. Good day.

stats
ecological footprint

According to NationMaster, Japan has completely average suicide rates: 25 males/100,000 people per year and 12 gemales/100,000 per year. For the US the figures are 19.8 and 4.4, for Russia 74.1 and 13.3.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_ma l

Someone should check their figures before posting crap.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_tot_tax_we d_sin_wor
number 22 in the world, just below the USA at number 21
try changing it: http://www.democracygame.com/

The following link from the same site might add more light than heat to the overall discussion.

http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/spo_sum_o ly_med_all_tim_percap

It's easier to find and train 5 Gold-Medal Olympians in a pool of 100 than 25 in a pool of 500. Chances are, the difficultly level in terms of finding and training qualified candidates does not span linearly. Compare the United States to countries of similar size, and what do you get? You have to cut the population by 5 times (ironically, to France) before anyone of similar size even comes close to beating the US per capita. On ITS level, the US is dominating. (You have to cut the population by a factor of 56 to get to Finland!!!)

These stats imply that you think the US should be winning something between 5 and 56 times the medals it already does in order to move up in rank (assuming they're won "from" other, lower-ranking countries), but this is near impossible unless she dominated every single event. If the only competitors were the US and Finland, of the 9,877 total medals of all Olympics, the US would have had to win 9706 (and Finland only 171) for them to be "tied" in your mind. That's over 98% of the medals?! Finland could devote its resources to being the master of only 7 events per each Olympic cycle and the US would have to dominate the rest of the world in the other ~400 events for them to be considered "equal" by you!?

It's apples and oranges, mate. The US is in the Heavyweight category, and within that category she is the clear dominator.

It's easier to find and train 5 Gold-Medal Olympians in a pool of 100 than 25 in a pool of 500. Chances are, the difficultly level in terms of finding and training qualified candidates does not span linearly. Compare the United States to countries of similar size, and what do you get? You have to cut the population by 5 times (ironically, to France) before anyone of similar size even comes close to beating the US per capita. On ITS level, the US is dominating. (You have to cut the population by a factor of 56 to get to Finland!!!)

These stats imply that you think the US should be winning something between 5 and 56 times the medals it already does in order to move up in rank (assuming they're won "from" other, lower-ranking countries), but this is near impossible unless she dominated every single event. If the only competitors were the US and Finland, of the 9,877 total medals of all Olympics, the US would have had to win 9706 (and Finland only 171) for them to be "tied" in your mind. That's over 98% of the medals?! Finland could devote its resources to being the master of only 7 events per each Olympic cycle and the US would have to dominate the rest of the world in the other ~400 events for them to be considered "equal" by you!?

It's apples and oranges, mate. The US is in the Heavyweight category, and within that category she is the clear dominator.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/spo_sum_oly_me d_all_tim_percap

Olympic medals per capita, all time:

#1 Finland
#2 Sweden
#3 Hungary
#4 Denmark
#5 Norway
.
.
.

the US comes in at place 28 of 116. And as for gold medals, well, there are no total statistics on the site, but for Sydney, gold medals per capita put the US at place 31 of 48. And so on. It's pretty standard knowledge that the US does very badly in the Olympics for a country of that size. It only does well in the absolute number of medals because of its, well, absolute size, which gives it a massive pool of talented people and a lot will succeed regardless of how inferior their training/financial environment is to rich world standards.

(BTW, part of the reason why Finland is leading the all time per capita stats is that in the early 20th century Finns *were* often written off in Western Europe/America as racially inferior and there was a huge national push to succeed in sports to defeat that image...)

Military exports tops them all...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_us_mil_exp

TOTAL: $10,661,802.00 thousand

or

$10,661,802,000.00

I think 10 trillion tops anything the RIAA can do.

B.

Forgetting Poland is one thing, but forgetting Russia? It's almost double the US's size!

While you're right that Canada's numerous lakes make it larger in total area but smaller in land area than the USA, you're also forgetting that the USA's numerous lakes make it larger in total area but smaller in land area than China.

Any way you measure physical size of the country[1], the US is in third place.

[1] Not making obesity joke...

From a manufacturing base with huge exports of cars, military goods, computers, electronics and so on, to a services based economy.

Companies like GM, Ford, boeing are all being overtaken by European and Asian counterparts such as Airbus, Mercedes (who of course, recently took over Chrysler), Toyota and so on. Traditional industrial areas such as Arms manufacturing have been undercut by the European weapons giants FN and Heckler and koch, (the designers and makers of the next gen US army replacement rifle that will soon be replacing the M16.

IBM going to China, Chrysler going to Germany, Ford and GM opening plants in Mexico and Canada. America does not actually make that much stuff anymore (Germany remains the number one exporter in the world with China a close second).

But does that matter, is it no longer profitable for companies like IBM or GM to make product in America? Is the real money in IP, like with Microsoft, or with American Pharma giants like Pfizer? Or how does that explain companies like toyota opening up manufacturing plants in America? How does a service based economy provide the jobs necessary for 300 million people?

Then why are we 4th in spending dollars-per-student? It seems that a lot of other countries are doing just fine with less.

In other words, solve the problem by throwing money at it. Just look at what all that extra $$$ has done for our public education system.

This is satire, right?

If you are talking about the United States, we hardly spend any money at all on education, comparatively-speaking.

In other words, solve the problem by throwing money at it. Just look at what all that extra $$$ has done for our public education system.

This is satire, right?

If you are talking about the United States, we hardly spend any money at all on education, comparatively-speaking.

You say we are reducing crime with harsher sentences, but we have the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world. What should we make of the fact that we have 80% more people in jail than the global average (and leading Canada by 84%)? Are just better at catching people? Then there is the fact that yearly prisoner intake is increasing steadily. Of course, that said, I am not sure how to interpret that the incarceration rate has slowed. I would also like to point out that just because violent crime is going down (as your data demonstrate), it does not indicate that crime as a whole is decreasing. Case in point: we have more and more white collar crime that (largely) goes unpunnished. Your assumption, by the way, that harsher sentencing is a direct contributor is likely erroneous. Take Finland’s admirably low crime rates and note their justice system utilizes lighter sentences which focus on rehabilitation (I will cite a source after I get to work ;).