Slashdot Mirror

The United States currently pays the most for health care by far compared to other industrialized nations. Subsidizing a wildly profligate system is not sustainable or wise in my opinion. Being that we are the most obese country in the world, we should cut the food subsidies that result in obesity first and only then may we find ourselves with an affordable and sustainable health care solution (with a nice benefit of a healthier population). Yes, I'm taking the statistical leap of faith and tying our obesity to our health care costs. I will continue to do so until I am shown otherwise. :^)

Gasoline prices in the US are comparatively very low, about the same in dollars as Bangladesh and Romania, which is really saying something:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices

So if the likes of Japan and the United Kingdom can sustain their economies with oil-fuel prices about 80-100% higher, why not the US?

Other oil? Not so sure. Russians have always been operating a policy of "use 1, save 1". They have a considerable state reserve, so does USA in Alaska.

Estimates say there are 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska. The US consumes about 20 million barrels per day. So all the oil up there will only be good for about 500 days or one and a half year. The point is that the oil will run out whether the Alaskan oil fields are exploited or not. Delaying the inevitable with, at best, 1.5 years is hardly worth the effort.

I know it's bad form to reply to my own comment, but I had to add a P.S. here: when it comes to murder-per-capita, the US comes in at #24:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

So your little "ZOMG THE US HAS DA MOST GUN MURDRS!" statistic is a wee bit misleading. I doubt that murder victims really give a shit what tool was used to kill them (unless it's a rusty spoon or a potato peeler).

Your stats are also misleading because you're mixing suicides and homicides together, and calling them "gun deaths", which is fucking retarded.

Wrong.

The statistics handily provided by someone else in this thread here prove you wrong. UK has a higher robbery rate than the US, and Spain appears to lead the world.

Actually, you have way more robberies than (most of) europe.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_percap-crime-robberies-per-capita

Really?

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

# 8 United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people

# 11 Germany: 75.9996 per 1,000 people

# 19 Italy: 37.9633 per 1,000 people

# 31 Russia: 20.5855 per 1,000 people

# 34 Japan: 19.177 per 1,000 people

Looks to me like the U.S. is better at catching, convicting, and incarcerating criminals than the other countries you listed.

• no 1 United States: 715 per 100,000 people
• no 2 Russia: 584 per 100,000 people
• ...
• no 91 Italy: 100 per 100,000 people
• no 93 Germany: 96 per 100,000 people
• ...
• no 126 Japan: 54 per 100,000 people
• ...

Did I hurt your feelings? I'm only trying to be objective here, I don't have any feelings for or against Brazil. I believe it will become a fully developed country within a few decades.

Israel is clearly a developed nation in every aspect of the word. A structured society, ruled by law, organized and effective, high income status, high GDP levels, high levels of education and research all speak in favor of this status.

I assume you object because of the nature of the conflict with/over Palestine? That fact does not detract from the fact that Israelis enjoy a higher quality of life [on average] than say Brazilians. Please, remember I'm not referring to the top echelons of either society.

Freedom House's American origins not withstanding it still produces solid reports, I doubt you can find factual faults with that report?

At least I provided sources and arguments for my claims, you just dismissed the source without providing any counterarguments.

You also seem to have skipped criticizing all the other international sources I named from the OECD to the UN? Do you at least approve of them?

I did my homework, you on the other hand have nothing but hot air.

Sources

How about an official UN report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on your country and crime, corruption and violence?

How about the UNESCO's official page for Brazil:

"Brazil has been historically marked by social, economic and cultural inequalities. Both society and government are increasingly aware of the need for changing that scenario by creating mechanisms of social participation and control, programmes, projects, and actions that represent a movement towards positive changes."

"Although it has a large number of poor people Brazil is not a poor country, but still has to overcome social injustice and inequality. The social injustices are are reflected in a medium rank in the Human Development Index (HDI), which means that difficulties are still to be overcome in education, health, income distribution and employment conditions."

How about a report from Brazil itself (Ministério da Educação)?

I quote:" In spite of these undeniable advances, Brazil still needs to make great improvements in
these indicators. In terms of HDI in the Latin America and Caribbean region, Argentina,
Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cuba and Mexico all have higher scores than Brazil."

"In spite of Brazil having the eighth largest economy in the world, the extreme inequality in
income which still typifies the country means that problems of social exclusion running
alongside economic growth continue to exist."

"These data show that, in spite of the progress made, the defects in the Brazilian school
system are still producing large numbers of people with insufficient levels of education,"

"The situation of socio-economic exclusion and insufficient provision of basic education are
also reflected in the opportunities for lifelong learning."

Nationmaster further provides details and sources on the crime rates in Brazil:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/br-brazil/cri-crime

And so on...

We're well our way!

Colbert had some state department monkey on a couple weeks ago. He thought that China ranked higher than us, but China's all the way down at 71! Your government starts getting dangerous when they start believing their own propaganda.

Mobile phone markets are NOT the "freest communication network in the US". Where on earth did you get that idea? First of all, you need some cash to buy out or license certain radio frequencies. Next, radio frequencies are not magical. They can only handle so much traffic. On the other hand, any landline based telecomm can bury cables. There's no physical restriction limiting them, whereas there is for mobile networks.

Anyone can get a licence if they have the money and how much frequency there is doesn't make it any less free. The carriers are free to charge what they want for their services and more or less do what they want with it. These same restrictions and more exist in the UK yet they have better mobile phone service. The size of the US doesn't matter either because your call doesn't travel through the air the whole way from your phone to another country / state. It only travels through the air from you phone to the tower. So it doesn't really matter to me if the US is larger than the UK or not. My signal in PA for example will travel just as far as it will in the UK. Hell if it travelled only in the air it would be nearly impossible to call across the states and calling the other side of the world would be nearly impossible.

When Verizon is bury cables it is for both landlines and cellphones. The only restriction on cellphones is line of sight to the tower and how many people are around. A signal can travel up to 25 miles I believe so rural users don't really need more towers or anything special and again once it hits that tower it becomes a land line call the rest of the way.

If a free market is better than there is no reasaon US prices should be anywhere near the UK prices when the UK is generally more expensive, has more tax and has more regulation. Hell there are poorer countries that have higher mobile phone usage. How is it these poor countries can a manage to give service to and phones to people but it is so expensive to operate in the US?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_mob_pho-media-mobile-phones

I'd personally be embarrassed if I was being beaten by the Czech Republic and Greece. Of course they're both in Europe and companies can't lock customers in so anyone operating there, like any where else in Europe really only have price and better service to compete with and it's not like they're making less money. Companies can afford to advertise using big name Hollywood stars. The A-Team movie featured a big advert in the previews for Orange and their phones featuring the A-Team cast.

I should also point out that the size of the countries do not matter because most companies do not only operate in Greece or the UK. They operate across the Europe and even outside of Europe. In case of T-mobile they're even in the US so they are building big networks too rather than just connecting two houses with sheep farmers.

Secondly, I don't know if you've noticed, but while there's 5 major carriers on the national level, there's local competition in tons of markets (here, it's Cricket). There's also the option of prepaid phones. Really, there is quite a bit of diverse competition, but the reason you aren't seeing much more is for the reasons mentioned above.

You can't use the mobile networks as an example, because it's a severely limited resource. Nice try.

Cricket isn't local, they're national and I just checked. Their prices aren't really better than Verizon and you still don't really get any decent free phones. Then again why should they offer it to you when no other company does and it will keep shareholders happy if they give as little away as possible.

I don't know what world you live in, but if someone wants more customers, they'll try to offer customers a better deal. Either it'll be product quality or price, or both. In a free market, if this isn't done, th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Scotland, I'm told, is second in the world if treated as separate from the rest of the UK. Second to the US, that is.

Unless you're doing a scientific survey, it may very well *appear* to be just as many overweight people in Europe, when you look at the numbers, the US is well in the lead.

Here are the top 5 leaders (losers?) in Obesity:

1. 1 United States: 30.6%
2. 2 Mexico: 24.2%
3. 3 United Kingdom: 23%
4. 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
5. 5 Greece: 21.9%

The full list is here

So, unless you're actually counting people, it may be hard to see the difference between the 23% in the UK and the 30% in the US, but still it's a large difference.

And yet the statistics suggest it's not a stereotype but that it's a fact. Of course, the figures tend to be for entire countries or regions, it's more than possible that you live in an area of the states with lower than average obesity or that the places you visited had higher than average obesity rates than the rest of those countries, but overall the world is generally getting fatter and North America still tops the scales.

How many of those "pirates" live in places where $20 is a more than a whole day's wage?

Crime Statistics > Software piracy rate (most recent) by country
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sof_pir_rat-crime-software-piracy-rate

The US penalizes innovation and experimentation more than anyone.

Really?! For a country that penalizes this stuff more than anybody else, we sure do whole lot of it!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_res_and_dev_exp_of_gdp-economy-research-development-expenditure-gdp
http://ideas.repec.org/a/eaa/eerese/v5y2005i5_9.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation#Measures

Perhaps next time you should engage your brain before spouting off Slashdot banalities designed to curry you favor with the mods!

As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"...

Taubes is a scientific and journalistic fraud, who pushes nutritional pseudoscience and misrepresents the positions of people he interviews. See http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html and http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/105/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest.htm.

A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates.

No, in fact the bulk of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now, highly refined carbs do make it easier to overeat -- as do fatty foods. But the bulk of our problem is very simple: we eat something on the order of 25% more calories now than we did three or four decades ago. When you're overeating by 500 calories a day, shuffling around the proportions of macronutrients is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on

Yeah, that's why you see so many fat Japanese people, all that rice. And why we've had all these "western diseases" for centuries, as we ate a grain-centered diet since, like, the beginning of human civilization.

Oh, wait a minute...obesity rates in Japan, where the typical diet gets about 55 to 60% of calories from carbs, are about 1/10 those of the U.S. -- but are rising as carb levels decrease and fat and protein levels increase.

And the fact that for most of human history[*] the majority of the human race has eaten a grain-centered high carbohydrate diet -- these "diseases of affluence" were awfully rare until the 20th century.

([*]To be taken literally: history starts with writing, which comes after the Neolithic revolution.)

And a high protein meal will also raise insulin levels -- good, since insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids protein synthesis.. And people who are exercising lose weight and improve insulin response on high carb diets better than on high fat ones. And a high-complex carbohydrate diet will have you lose much more weight that a low-carb, high fat diet.

So, in summary: Taubes, full of shit; low carb diets, not backed by science.

Apparently you don't know the numbers:

by allowing the country and people to save again

The personal savings rate has already returned to 1995 levels.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt

by getting rid of the insurmountable debt

America is in the middle of the pack for debt per GDP.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_pergdp-economy-debt-external-per-gdp

by increasing production capabilities of the country.

Again, the US is in the middle of the pack for value added manufacturing per GDP (and still #1 in the world in raw dollars). We're #13 for per capita manufacturing, and China is #64.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_man_val_add_cur_us_pergdp-added-current-us-per-gdp

Peter Schiff is trying to convince you that America is last place in the world economy, and the rest of the world has no incentive to prevent us from collapsing. He's wrong, and you're credulous. QED.

Apparently you don't know the numbers:

by allowing the country and people to save again

The personal savings rate has already returned to 1995 levels.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt

by getting rid of the insurmountable debt

America is in the middle of the pack for debt per GDP.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext_pergdp-economy-debt-external-per-gdp

by increasing production capabilities of the country.

Again, the US is in the middle of the pack for value added manufacturing per GDP (and still #1 in the world in raw dollars). We're #13 for per capita manufacturing, and China is #64.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ind_man_val_add_cur_us_pergdp-added-current-us-per-gdp

Peter Schiff is trying to convince you that America is last place in the world economy, and the rest of the world has no incentive to prevent us from collapsing. He's wrong, and you're credulous. QED.

I'm afraid what's amusing you is your lack of knowledge of the facts. The US has far more obesity than anywhere else in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Yes, American fast food is having a bad effect on obesity on Europe too. But it's still not in the same league as America itself.

The relationship is neither linear nor foolproof. Italy managed to win the World Cup in 2006, despite its relatively average infection rate of 33 percent. Certain African countries plagued with public health problems have astronomical Toxo rates. Yet the heavily infected players of Ghana, Gabon (71 percent), and the Ivory Coast (60 percent) have not yet managed to win a single cup. On the other end, England (6 percent), the U.S. (12 percent), and Japan (6 percent) are pretty OK at soccer yet have some of the lowest rates in the world.

Basically it is a case of someone noticing an interesting coincidence and wanting to point it out to everyone, but it seems there's about as much evidence for it as there is for an octopus choosing world cup winners.

Bottom line: if you want to know for sure, you have to make sure the statistics are sound.

From your previous posts my guess is that you are from Australia. In Australia 29% of the population aged 25-64 have a tertiary education compared with 37% in USA:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_att_ter-education-educational-attainment-tertiary

So it does seem that your government do in fact think that education is less important than people in the US believes.

Just because government is not funding something does not mean that it is less valued in a country. Just that the electorate prefers a (generally more efficient) market based solution to the problem.

"You paid for it just like the rest of us. The only difference is that your payment came (and comes) in the form of taxes, rather than student loans (or whatever else)."

No that is not the only difference. Most western countries such as mine (Denmark) have a progressive income tax. This means that people taking educations that result in a large productivity are actually paying for the ones taking educations that result in lower wages (but maybe more personal satisfaction). In effect this means that these countries are not getting the optimal utility of the education since effectively less productive educations are subsidized. And the time it takes for students to finish their degrees is also in general higher for the same reasons (time spent drinking beer at the dorm is subsidized through free education and high taxes).

And government sponsored education systems are producing less people with tertiary education than in US:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_att_ter-education-educational-attainment-tertiary

They are able to get as much done in a standard 7 hour day/35 hour week as most Americans do in 8 hour day/40 hour week.

No.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp

And http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm

And ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt

And http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

wrong answer, try again!

Infant mortality rates: the US ranks an embarassing 33rd according to the UN, 46th according to the CIA

US also ranks pretty shittily in heart attack rates too

Do I really need to go on pointing out what a farce the supposed "superior" US healthcare system is?

1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person

2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life

i mean its not like the ancient roman or chinese empires, with very little media, were places of calm and devoid of transgression. the opposite in fact is true. the history of mankind is LESS violence and transgression with more civilization (i'm talking domestically... in terms of war, population growth, the rise of nationalism, the march of technology has meant some spectacularly awesome killing fields). people are always talking about how we are all doomed, everyone is getting more violent, etc. the opposite in fact, is the real truth. people are just historically myopic. for every horrible story of murder and mayhem on your 6 o'clock news, human history offers far far worse, in much greater per capita bulk

and you only need to spend 5 minutes in your average kindergarten to come to the undeniable realization that bad behavior is innate, not taught

the fact is, if you took a psychologically normal human being and exposed them to 16 hours a day of violent pornography or violent fps videogames for 10 months, they will not become rapists or murderers. however, a psychologically problematic person might eventually rape or murder. anything could set him off, from his neighbor's barking dog or his boss's reprimands. such a psychologically unhealthy person might also seek out pornography and violent media, in a desperate attempt to get the catharsis most psychologically normal people take for granted. therefore, when violent videogames or pornography are found in the homes of rapists and murderers, someone somehwere will always say "see? that's the cause"

when in fact, there's no causal relationship at all. do some people REALLY believe that if you waved a magic wand and removed all sexual and violent media that everyone would be tranquilized and crime would drop?

in 100% honesty, i assert the opposite: we should ENCOURAGE people to use violent and sexual media. the result would be a LESS violent and sexually transgressive society. i say this with a completely straight face. i believe this wholly and thoroughly

japan has one of the highest production rates of pornography in the world. it also has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

japan also has free and widely available access violently transgressive media. and it also has very low murder rates

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

any country can emulate japan's enviable murder and rape statistics: just make pornography and violent media freely and widely available

the simply truth is, if you are honestly interested in the reduction of real world rape and murder, you are also interested in promoting, yes PROMOTING, violent videogame and pornography consumption. i sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that

it all gets back to the psychological notion of CATHARSIS

and understanding that we are NOT vessels of purity that are corrupted. we all carry rape and murder in our hearts. the question is: do we eject these asocial tendencies harmlessly on a computer screen? or in the real world?

access to violent and sexual media is the deciding factor, and MORE access to violent and sexual media results in LESS real world rape and murder

1. we are all born vessels of purity, and the world corrupts us. the idea is to limit exposure to this corruption, and thereby remain a coherent person

2. we are all born with the seeds of rape and murder in our hearts. the idea then is catharsis: express your asocial transgressive tendencies harmlessly on sexual and violent media, and therefore you feel no compulsion to visit those tendencies on real people in real life

i mean its not like the ancient roman or chinese empires, with very little media, were places of calm and devoid of transgression. the opposite in fact is true. the history of mankind is LESS violence and transgression with more civilization (i'm talking domestically... in terms of war, population growth, the rise of nationalism, the march of technology has meant some spectacularly awesome killing fields). people are always talking about how we are all doomed, everyone is getting more violent, etc. the opposite in fact, is the real truth. people are just historically myopic. for every horrible story of murder and mayhem on your 6 o'clock news, human history offers far far worse, in much greater per capita bulk

and you only need to spend 5 minutes in your average kindergarten to come to the undeniable realization that bad behavior is innate, not taught

the fact is, if you took a psychologically normal human being and exposed them to 16 hours a day of violent pornography or violent fps videogames for 10 months, they will not become rapists or murderers. however, a psychologically problematic person might eventually rape or murder. anything could set him off, from his neighbor's barking dog or his boss's reprimands. such a psychologically unhealthy person might also seek out pornography and violent media, in a desperate attempt to get the catharsis most psychologically normal people take for granted. therefore, when violent videogames or pornography are found in the homes of rapists and murderers, someone somehwere will always say "see? that's the cause"

when in fact, there's no causal relationship at all. do some people REALLY believe that if you waved a magic wand and removed all sexual and violent media that everyone would be tranquilized and crime would drop?

in 100% honesty, i assert the opposite: we should ENCOURAGE people to use violent and sexual media. the result would be a LESS violent and sexually transgressive society. i say this with a completely straight face. i believe this wholly and thoroughly

japan has one of the highest production rates of pornography in the world. it also has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

japan also has free and widely available access violently transgressive media. and it also has very low murder rates

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

any country can emulate japan's enviable murder and rape statistics: just make pornography and violent media freely and widely available

the simply truth is, if you are honestly interested in the reduction of real world rape and murder, you are also interested in promoting, yes PROMOTING, violent videogame and pornography consumption. i sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that

it all gets back to the psychological notion of CATHARSIS

and understanding that we are NOT vessels of purity that are corrupted. we all carry rape and murder in our hearts. the question is: do we eject these asocial tendencies harmlessly on a computer screen? or in the real world?

access to violent and sexual media is the deciding factor, and MORE access to violent and sexual media results in LESS real world rape and murder

"First of all, America is just one of many (if not all) nations which are addicted to oil. Singling out the US and americans for this is preposterous."

Really?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption

No other nation comes close to the US in oil consumption. Regarding the Wikipedia list, and the EU being second, remember that the EU has 535 million people in it and an economy around 15% larger than the US'. The US has a population of 300 million. In other words, the whole of the EU uses only just over 75% of the oil the US does, but has a far larger population and still manages to maintain a far larger economy. In other words, there's no real valid excuse for the US' massive oil consumption.

"Secondly, and more importantly, as much as we all want (or at least, need) oil, no one forced BP to cut corners and be sloppy."

No one raise their voice about it either, because it meant they could keep their oil cheap. Just as no one raised a concern about any of the other oil companies who equally cut corners. BP being the ones unfortunate enough that it happened to them, doesn't mean the other oil companies act any differently whatsoever.

"And I mean BP specifically. They have a far worse record than other companies."

One single incident is your source to prove they have a far worse record than other companies? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess the inconvenient truth that Exxon mobile itself is currently also responsible for a major underwater oil leak passed many people by, because Africa just can't make the kind of world media noise that Africa can:

http://saharareporters.com/real-news/sr-headlines/6244-exxonmobil-oil-spill-in-niger-delta-exposes-nigerians-to-poisoned-fish.html

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/nigerian-oil-spills-make-exxon-valdez-look-like-drop-in-the-bucket/19483921

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05iht-edejikeme.html

Do you still think the US is just like every other country in terms of oil addiction? Do you still think BP is somehow unique in it's spill? Feel free to search on the subject a little more to confirm the figures if you don't trust my links.

In any case, you can vote for the "least bad" candidate, which isn't an option in a dictatorship.

Again, you're using the "we're marginally better off, so this is a good way to do it!" train of thought.

That was a worst case for choosing who to vote for. It's significantly better than having no choice at all. If lots of people don't like any of the candidates then they can field their own candidate.

Unfortunately, there isn't a massive public outcry.

Perhaps not in the UK,

Which is all I can speak for, I don't read enough media from other countries to know for anywhere else.

Any time this comes up, I remember Brian Cox on Top Gear when Jeremy criticized the US and made a comment about the US losing freedoms - Brian pointed out that, having moved to the US a few years earlier that, despite Americans having fewer freedoms now than we used to, we still have infinitely more freedoms than those in the UK.

I just watched that on YouTube. It's a comedy show, and Top Gear fabricate plenty of stuff (e.g. I doubt they were really chased by Americans with guns for writing gay slogans on their cars). Brian Cox didn't argue when Clarkson said Alabama wasn't free. All they mentioned was CCTV cameras.

I see very little difference in the freedom of British and American people.

That's so low it's a joke to claim that someone can't reasonably afford that without any help from their parents or a loan.

(Tuition fees + living costs) * number of children might be significant.

It's a massive benefit to society if everyone is educated.

It's a "benefit" with diminishing returns. A mechanic knowing a little more about Shakespeare, which has no impact on his career nor on the culture around him, is NOT worth the cost that the rest of society had to pay to put him through college.

In the UK we stop general education at 16. I doubt many people that end up mechanics studied English at 16-18 (I didn't). University courses are usually entirely focussed on a single subject -- e.g. I did computer science, and did one non-CS course in total.

If you can prove that certain important jobs, such as doctors, had more people going in to the field due to everyone else being forced to pay for someone's education, then you might have a point.

That's a good way of measuring it. I don't have time to investigate though.

Sorry, but again, bullshit. You had time for more, but it would've cut into your social life. Yea, I get it, no one wants to work when they could be hanging out with friends. However, trying to claim that you "didn't have time for more" is just plain BS.

*shrug* Social life is considered an important part of university here. Companies aren't allowed to require their staff to work more than 48 hours in a week, why should students work more than that?

Article from my university's engineering department student newspaper.

Are you aware that there are a more people earning below the median income in the US than the UK?

Would you like to show me where you came up with that?

Here. Social security in the UK is supposed to not result in poverty, although sometimes it does (e.g. single mum spending too much on beer and cigarettes and not enough on her children).

Because it is? People always bash the US as being so consumer driven - the reason for that is because we're one of the very few countries who have a high enough mean & median income to be able to AFFORD to spend money like that. When even the people below th

It's always so fun with all the Americans on Slashdot speaking about how much oil/coal/energy they use in China without understanding that it's consumption of items/services which drives demand/resource usage and not actual production / out of nothing.

There's no fucking way the Chinese PEOPLE consume more resources or generate more waste than their American counterparts. Not per individual and I would be very surprised if they even did it on country level.

It's not the Chinese people who pollute / use up all resources / whatever ... it's the consumers of the products produced under those conditions.

China builds items for more or less everyone, including the US.

If we talk electricity or heat generation in general I'm sure they build out their infrastructure and capabilities to produce more and cleaner energy in whatever way possible. Give them 10-20 years ..

Just Saying....

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption

They could STOP the flow if they wanted, they are trying to RECOVER the oil.

It isn't often that I say this, but you truly are an idiot. If they could stop it today, they would, regardless of cost. Even if the leak is 10x the estimate, 50,000 barrels a day, that is less than $4.5 million a day at $85 a barrel. That is nothing compared to the $20 to $100 BILLION or more it will take to fix this.

They are not worried about "losing" the oil. In 2007, the US used 20,680,000 barrels per day (cite). If this leak is 10x larger than reported, that would mean it equals .2% of national consumption. Not even a drop in the bucket. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of wells the US has, both on the sea and on land? And that most of our oil doesn't come from here anyway? The loss of this well doesn't hurt BP financially. Cleaning up the mess *does*.

If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed.

I would, but according to this that might not be a good idea since 300 people strangle themselves in bed every year in the US.

south africa has the 2nd highest rate of murder in the world, most of the other african countries would be right up there with it if they had accurate records. the USA is ranked 24th, and has 10x less murders then south africa. and remember south africa is probably the most developed country out of all of them. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Now we expect the same of all these random goat herders, but they don't want to drop their farm and start working in a cubicle and watching comedy central. This isn't the only reason for terrorism, but its something to ponder anyway.

Perhaps you should speak with your teacher about the proportion of "goat herders" living in the Middle East today? If you've been left with the impression that these societies are largely populated by goat herders, you should be taking another course. Take a look at this list of countries ranked by percent urban. Sure Yemen and Afghanistan are pretty rural, but most other countries with substantial Muslim populations have a lot of city-dwellers as well.

We don't need to get rid of the entire military to cut back military expenditures. Nice strawman, assigning me the slippery slope that I never promoted.

How much defense budget do we need? Probably less than 41.5% of the world's total defense expenditures. How about, instead of spending 1.3 times as much as the next 14 top nations in overall funds, we only spend as much as the next 10 top nations in military expenditures? How about, as a start, instead of spending $123,000,000,000 more than the rest of the world in absolute military expenditures we merely match the rest of the world's defense budgets?

Good news? Other reports list the US as "only" 41% to 42% of overall worldwide military spending.

• Countries by Military Expenditures
• World Wide Military Expenditures
• World Military Spending
• Military Capabilities: Defense Budgets
• Defense Spending By Country (includes a nice bar graph)

"Like it or not, there's no such thing as a school that couldn't do a better job educating kids with more money. It does take money to teach kids. The more the better."

That's absolutely farcical, and further, is demonstrably untrue. And the argument about public vs. private here doesn't wash, because the rankings for school spending and test scores don't even take private schools into account. The rankings for dollar per kid are for public schools only.

Washington D.C. spends more per pupil than any other major city, and far more money than most states. And yet they have arguably the worst school system in the nation. And if you look around the country, you'll see that in terms of dollars-per-child, most of the worst performing systems are those with the highest average spending. Money will not fix schools. Period. If you're spending enough for books, teachers, and keeping the lights on, then the success of your students depends overwhelmingly on factors completely unrelated to cash. While DC spends more for less results, Utah public schools spend less than anyone per pupil, and yet has test scores and graduation rates well above the national average. So D.C. spends money comparable to many fine private schools, and they still stink, while Utah public schools spend a pittance. Again, money is not the problem here.

And BTW, it's not like the US is skimping on education spending when compared to our competitors, either. The US is third globally in spending-per-pupil, far ahead of other countries that regularly beat us in math and science scores, like Germany and Japan. Only Austria and Switzerland spend more per child, so again, the notion that "more education money = always better" is just flat wrong.

"Anybody who parrots the right-wing talking point that the problem is teachers unions has never taught in both public and private schools."

Unions by themselves are not the only problem, but they are a big one. And I come from a family of teachers in both public and private schools. Go to a unionized public school and take a private survey. Ask how many teachers send their kids to non-unionized private schools. You're going to be surprised just how many do. Many teachers join the union because they basically have to do so to get a job at a public school. Further, every boneheaded "reform" of the last 50 years... new math, whole language instruction, bussing students, etc, were all firmly backed by the teachers unions. Any real reform... pay for performance, charter schools, making it easier to fire bad teachers, etc, have all been fought with a scorched earth campaign by the same unions.

" She went to public schools here in Chicago and got a first-rate education (she's in grad school now). "

What a shock. The daughter of a professional academic does well in school wherever she is. No one saw that one coming. I mean, it had nothing to do with parents that expected her to perform, right?

"The problems are many, but at the top are funding,"

Again, bull.

"shitty parenting"

We agree on something

"a growing socially and economically-impoverished underclass (thank you Ronald Reagan)"

We've always had an underclass. We always WILL have an underclass. That's humanity. That's never going to change. And yet we never had the systematic problems in school with that underclass that we have now until the 1960's. I look forward to your explanation of how Ronald Reagan is responsible for that, or how he caused black kids to decide that academic success is "acting white", or how despite the fact there is more opportunity to better yourself than in any time in history... more colleges, weaker entrance requirements, more pell grants available... some kids just don't give a ****.

"that is increasingly anti-educ

Anecdotally, I live in a small town (approx' 20K people) in Arizona. More than half the population here has a handgun (I have 2), closer to 75% if you add rifles and shotguns. In the last 2 years there has been 2 murders, only one with a gun, and that involved a gang that chased someone and happened to catch up with them in our town.

0.5 murder per 10k population per year, or .005 per 1000. If your town was a country, that would make you the 20th most violent country in the world according to Nationmaster's list (first Google result for "murders per capita"). Being kind and comparing to the national average, it makes your town about 1.17[1] times worse than it should be. If I wasn't to be kind, I'd exclude the large cities, which tend to be above the national average.

Of course, if I was to be really serious, I'd compare it to areas without such lax gun controls as the US *near by*, and I'd find that many European countries manage to have about 1/4th as much murders as the US. But guns is unlikely to be all of that (Norway and Switzerland have lots of guns) - more likely, there are other cultural factors. How would you change the US culture to make you murder each other four times less? (I personally would start with changing the idea that private violence for 'defense is reasonable. In Norway at least, guns are for hunting or for war, not for "defense against intruders" and similar - "defense against intruders" isn't a topic for discussion at all.)

Eivind.

[1] I doubt that your data is accurate to 3 digits, but let's pretend for a moment.

Or we could have reasonable gun control laws. Cue the nutcases who think they're going to 1) have a reason to fight the US Army and 2) think they could possibly beat them.

Thanks NRA! Not only are you keeping our murder rate high, but you're also helping to kill Mexicans too.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_exp_pergdp-economy-exports-per-gdp

Scroll down - we're between Burundi and Cape Verde, at number 179.

Does the richest country in the world have the most manufacturing? Yep. Are they in the top ten in manufacturing per capita? Nope. Are they even in the top fifty for manufacturing per GDP? Nope.

These numbers are by "value added" manufacturing. So, we've got a lot of bullshit that we put together that's manufactured almost entirely in east asia. Gluing it together, shoving it in a box, and then raising the price is not what I would call manufacturing.

While germany's external debt is ~2.5 less than the US, it is #3 in the world a worse per capita debt.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=94

The GP is correct that by and large as a percentage of GDP, most of the larger western european nations are in fact worse than the US, but no where near as bad as Japan (170% of GDP).

Italy 104%
Belgium 84.6%
Germany 64.9% of GDP
France 63.9%

US 60.8%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pub_deb-economy-public-debt

Nationwide cost and longevity statistics seem pretty compelling to me:
Life expectancy, 2008, CIA Factbook
Spending, percentage of GDP, 2004, World Bank
Spending per capita, 2004, World Bank
Give it a look. I came into this thinking roughly what you do about costs, viewing it as desirable only because of the moral issue (care for all, thought it would cost more but would be the right thing to do), was shocked to discover that we pay much more than any other country, and die 1-4 years sooner (on average) than about 20 "modern" countries of statistically interesting size, all with some form of universal health care. None of them are going so broke, that they would not be rolling in dough, if they spent as much as we do. And as far as taxes versus paying the insurance company, money is money, they spend less, and they get more. In particular, they get more years of life.

I notice that you seem to have some preconceived notions as well, and even made an inaccurate guess as to how I view this. That's a GREAT way to represent your point of view. And blustering about "no one cares" makes me think you either have no sources, or they are crap. Can you come up with a statistic that is more concrete than life expectancy? We're pretty good at measuring age and agreeing that someone is dead.

Nationwide cost and longevity statistics seem pretty compelling to me:
Life expectancy, 2008, CIA Factbook
Spending, percentage of GDP, 2004, World Bank
Spending per capita, 2004, World Bank
Give it a look. I came into this thinking roughly what you do about costs, viewing it as desirable only because of the moral issue (care for all, thought it would cost more but would be the right thing to do), was shocked to discover that we pay much more than any other country, and die 1-4 years sooner (on average) than about 20 "modern" countries of statistically interesting size, all with some form of universal health care. None of them are going so broke, that they would not be rolling in dough, if they spent as much as we do. And as far as taxes versus paying the insurance company, money is money, they spend less, and they get more. In particular, they get more years of life.

I notice that you seem to have some preconceived notions as well, and even made an inaccurate guess as to how I view this. That's a GREAT way to represent your point of view. And blustering about "no one cares" makes me think you either have no sources, or they are crap. Can you come up with a statistic that is more concrete than life expectancy? We're pretty good at measuring age and agreeing that someone is dead.

Nationwide cost and longevity statistics seem pretty compelling to me:
Life expectancy, 2008, CIA Factbook
Spending, percentage of GDP, 2004, World Bank
Spending per capita, 2004, World Bank
Give it a look. I came into this thinking roughly what you do about costs, viewing it as desirable only because of the moral issue (care for all, thought it would cost more but would be the right thing to do), was shocked to discover that we pay much more than any other country, and die 1-4 years sooner (on average) than about 20 "modern" countries of statistically interesting size, all with some form of universal health care. None of them are going so broke, that they would not be rolling in dough, if they spent as much as we do. And as far as taxes versus paying the insurance company, money is money, they spend less, and they get more. In particular, they get more years of life.

I notice that you seem to have some preconceived notions as well, and even made an inaccurate guess as to how I view this. That's a GREAT way to represent your point of view. And blustering about "no one cares" makes me think you either have no sources, or they are crap. Can you come up with a statistic that is more concrete than life expectancy? We're pretty good at measuring age and agreeing that someone is dead.

So tell me - why has every other first world nation been able to implement universal coverage? Why have so many of those nations consistently beaten the US in virtually every measure of health care efficacy? Why have so many of those nations consistently beaten the US when it comes to quality of life,

Because the metric used included equal access to health care. Of course a system which provides health care to all its citizens will score higher than a system where some citizens are not covered because they choose not to or cannot afford to buy insurance. Citing that metric as a reason why the U.S. needs universal coverage is circular reasoning.

child mortality rate,

When I looked into this and added up the stillbirth and infant mortality rate (PDF warning), the U.S. ends up in the middle of the pack of developed nations. Indicating there's still misreporting of infant deaths as stillbirths to try to lower your hospital/country's infant mortality rate, artificially lowering the U.S.' ranking in world infant mortality rate.

and lifespan?

Has more to do with lifestyle. All those jokes about fat, lazy Americans have a degree of truth to it.

In terms of quality of health care, the U.S. is really no different than other developed nations. That's not what's broken. The problem is the U.S. spends a massively disproportionate amount of its GDP on health care compared to those countries. 14% vs. about 8%.

UK has very low cancer and heart disease survival rates.

That's because it's a National Health Service, i.e. it works for the good of the nation. Sick and weak individuals must be purged from the gene pool.

You have been misinformed.

A descent proxy to define a "good" health care system would be survival rates of life threatening diseases like cancer and heart disease. These are the leading causes of death in most countries and require much more time within the health care system then many other diseases.

UK has very low cancer and heart disease survival rates. Here's another article about both or you can simply google something like "cancer survival rates by country"

You'll also notice that the US comes out far ahead of the UK.

I rather think "survival" is a better way of assessing a health care system then whether or not you have to pay a co-pay.

No ...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

No ...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Here is another article that lists spending in USD pr capita and the US is still far ahead of the rest ;)

When kids are raised in an atmosphere that respects sexuality as part of our life instead of vilifying it they will be so much more ready when the time comes.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita