Slashdot Mirror

Actually, Norway is larger than New Mexico, that's your 5th largest state.

I'm just going to point out, again, that the oil revenue is sent directly to the sovereign fund. It's not included in the tax basis for our national budget.

While the oil sector does generate 25% of GNP, it does not fund our welfare state. The biggest contributor to our budget is in fact general sales tax [on consumer goods].

Norway's economic planning has certainly been credited by the OECD and major economics experts from around the world.
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_33873108_33873681_44704905_1_1_1_1,00.html

And why are Americans always so quick to point out that European nations are "smaller" than your own? Europe as a whole is twice the size of the US in terms of population, and even has the bigger economy! That's not including Russia or Turkey.

Furthermore if a "small" nation can do it, why can't a bigger and more resourceful nation do even more!

The UK was badly hit by the recession obviously, but Germany has been out of recession for a long time now. Germany is the major nation in Europe. I believe France technically came out of recession too. Spain, Portugal and Greece are not large countries. I doubt you can find a European country that experienced the recession on the scale of the US.

The recession hit Europe harder than it did the U.S. GDP in the Euro area shrank by about 4% annually, while in the U.S. it only shrank a little more than 2%. Germany was actually one of the worst-hit OECD countries, faring significantly worse than the UK. They did come out of the recession quicker though. The U.S. recession in contrast was rather mild compared to all OECD countries. Where the U.S. has suffered most is in the government debt accrued during the recession.

Here's the life expectancy figures from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy. They're from the CIA world Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html) and the UN ().

The figures on per capita spending on health care by country come from the OECD. Here's a handy chart: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH

There was an awesome comment in the Globe and Mail in reply to this op-ed by handle:Atreya. I'm reposting it below:

I believe that this article is factually incorrect. The OECD Broadband report HAS a measure of Broadband connections per household. The authors claim that is the real measure of penetration. Then why didn't they use it? The reason is because it would contradict their findings. It shows Canada is 7th, and the US is 17th out of 30. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls

Also, their claim about actual broadband speeds is patently false. The Google broadband speed tests called Measurement Lab is a much more transparent measure of actual broadband speeds. It shows that European countries have better actual speeds than us in Canada and the US. I can also say from personal experience that the Internet was faster.

Finally, the claim that Canada has the worlds most advanced 3.5G network is a joke. No one else in the world cares about 3.5G. They are going from 3G to 4G. And Canada was far behind the rest of the world in 3G deployment (only Rogers offered it). Also worth mentioning is that Videotron is only in Quebec, and they are still in the planning stages. Other carriers around the world, including the US are much closer to actual deployment.

The truth is, we pay too much for too little in Canada. And that is simply because of deregulation and a lack of competition. We need both. I'm left to wonder if this article is any way related to Bell's parent owning this newspaper.

No, I am aware that there will be minimum standards for insurance plans, however I don't buy the argument that they will no longer protect you from catastrophe. Since everyone will have them, they will still be protected, however the insurance company saves money in the long run, as it turns out, by making you buy coverage for preventative care as well, thereby making catastrophe less likely. This is not to mention the assertion I made above that even long-term recurring costs (e.g., medication) can be catastrophic, and I'm assuming that under a catastrophic-only plan those would not be covered.

To your point about best versus cheapest care: in Medicare, the government, by its taxpayer-funded nature, does not care about making a profit, versus insurance companies who clearly do. The hospitals and doctors providing care certainly do, but they're not deciding how much care that my insurer will approve. There exist decision-making bodies for such purposes and they lie within the entity insuring the patient. And in a government system, as the board of decision-makers do not have their salaries dependent upon denying my care, what they are left with is "what's the most we can get for the money?" i.e. the most cost-effective care.

I can tell you that I searched out the data used to make that plot, and found that it's from this OECD spreadsheet. Within the spreadsheet there's a link to the online database from which the data is extracted, and within which you can find the precise details about which metrics are what, and how they are measured.

To do a bit of adventurous guessing re: how we'd keep these costs in check, I'd suggest that we look at how these other countries run their healthcare systems. On the whole it appears as though they all have universal healthcare. We're certainly an outlier, and this seems to be the most noticeable difference, so why don't we try that and see if it works? If not, well, we'll have saved some lives in the process.

I disagree. Firstly, the government employs people like the private sector. Secondly, government run mail services, for example, create just as much wealth as a privately run service.

I have proof to the contrary in the US. UPS and FedEx wouldn't exist, if the US Postal Service did their work better and cheaper (in other words provided more value and hence wealth than the two companies). Just "employing people" is not a serious economic factor. What are those people doing? That's the difference. Private companies employ those people efficiently. Government can just borrow or tax more and have their workers do any number of retarded, useless things without consequence.

I don't think the European welfare states operate out of ignorance. I think they operate that way because it works best. Looking at any of the stats (crime rates, life expectancy, 'happiness') you'll find Scandinavian countries very high up.

That's not the only thing about Scandinavian countries. They also tend to be ethnically monolithic and have a dominant culture that tends to be extremely honest. They aren't the only high tax socialist paradises. What about the performance of other countries? Italy or France, for example?

Glancing at a table of OECD countries by total tax burden (taxes per GDP), it's interesting to see that there are a number of consistently low tax countries, South Korea and Japan that have done very well over the past few decades, even compared to the Scandinavian countries. In other words, we have at the high and low end of OECD tax rates, countries that do very well and countries that don't do so well. What that says to me is that there are other factors, perhaps even more important factors than merely the size of the government.

To be clear, I don't think that profit is a complete measure of the performance of the US biotechnology industry. I claim that 'the US is good at biotechnology innovation' but I don't back up that claim with any evidence. By 'reason' I mean 'cause'. Stated another way, 'a cause of the high output of innovative activity in biotechnology is the relative certainty of appropriability provided by patents'. The reason is antecedent to the outcome. My argument is incomplete but not circular.
As to how to measure innovation in biotechnology, most research relies on patents, investments or profitability. If a private firm can't contribute to good health outcomes while making money, backing up my claim with that research would be circular. Health outcomes -- lifespan, infant mortality, etc -- have tons of confounds.
Having said that, the point I'm trying to make stands. Private participation in innovative activity requires an appropriability regime. Reducing patent protection will decrease investments in innovation by decreasing the return on those investments. Whether private participation in health research generally is moral or desirable or effective is another issue, but as long as private firms are able to participate in the provision of health-related products and services, the rate and direction of that participation will be determined by profitability. The institutions that align public and private benefit may be flawed, but any argument against them has to acknowledge their underlying purpose.

Like the report they had 2 years ago in USA today.. they asked several thousand people, "name 3 countries."

There was a significant amount of them that said Europe or Africa. The fact that almost ALL contestants on the TV show "are you smarter than a 8th grader" fail basic math, English and science questions.

Yes, Most americans are stupid as HELL. Want proof? http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html

The first two links you provided only account for 4th and 8th grade test scores. While it's nice that they're tested, the level of math and science that 4th and 8th graders are subjected to are relatively basic. The 3rd link you posted references a non-comparable score based upon the addition of individual countries' teams' scores.

It's much more accurate to gauge high schoolers' educational performance when judging overall aptitude.

The PISA tests are pay-to-read, but are reported on by many media sources. The executive summary is available from here, and it places the U.S in a 4-way tie for 32nd, or "significantly below the OECD average" for mathematics (page 53). We are also below average in science. tied for 24th (page 22).

Fact: Canada pays about 35% less for drugs than the US. source - pdf alert

Fact: The US drug market is currently almost $300 billion - $291 billion in 2008. source

So, IF the US were to implement a single payer system like Canada's, we would presumably be paying what Canadians do for drugs... in our case saving about $100 billion dollars.

Where, exactly, does my logic fail? In what way is that $100 billion not acting as a subsidy?

Here's a different study, where the USA's scores are consistently average at best: PISA Summary on Wikipedia

That data is available here: http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html
1) The belief in pseudo science is probably about as damaging as fundamentalist religion, and the latter is much more rampant outside Europe.
2) The inner city underclass is part of the population, what reason do you have to 'factor them out'?

I wish someone would explain to me how and why the IP industry is powerful in the UK. There are so many industries that the UK government doesn't seem to care about. The don't spend much as a percentage of GDP on research in science of technology. They seem to hate economic development. Try building any kind of high tech manufacturing. Either they will say flat out no or burden you with red tape so much that you will just have to give up. It's sad because the education in the UK has improved tremendously over the last 20 years but all that talent is wasted. (See here for more details - http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34111_39352401_1_1_1_37443,00.html )

The question gets more poignant though when you think that political party financing is a lot more regulated that in the USA. Lobbying in politics has never been quite what it is the USA either. Government ministers get ideas and go with them sometimes no matter how crazy they are. But normally they are ideological - the poll tax, child welfare, spying on people, high taxes, etc. So the question comes up again - why the f*** are they so gung ho about IP?

The US already has more households with broadband than with cable TV. About 20% of the population can barely read, let alone type. Why expect broadband penetration to go much higher.

The countries with higher broadband penetration than the US are all either tiny or very cold. Except for South Korea, where most of the population lives in big apartment buildings.

You miss the point - delivering the Internet to conumers is only profitable for a company if they are a near-monopoly. Having a couple of customers here, a couple there doesn't work - there are labor-intensive resources that are tied to geography. Like fixing wires when they break.

Wow, you pulled all that out of the AC's post? You can definitely read more between the lines than I can.

Anyhow, the facts disagree with your belief that a monopoly is required to be profitable. I'm not surprised by this as you are among the majority who have either lost faith in free market and competition or never believed in it in the first place.

In reviewing the latest 10Q SEC filing for Comcast and AT&T, two opponents of net neutrality who arguably are engaged in a competitive market for broadband internet, they are making a tidy profit on their internet operations.

Comcast had an operating income of $1.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $8 billion for their cable segment for the last 3 months.

AT&T had an operating income of $2.7 billion after expenses, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $17 billion for their wireline segment for the last 3 months.

And so the battle goes on and on. Each side offering better numbers (speeds, etc.) and lower prices - utterly unsustainable prices that make no sense but designed to capture market share. Once the competition is eliminated prices can return to that which actually pays for the service, but not until.

Welcome to the free market where ROI includes risk. It is sustainable and works for many other industries. Take a close look at electronics manufacturers, probably the most cut throat competitive industry around. Electronics manufacturers compete, some win some fail, the market continues and consumers get awesome products at great prices. When competitors lower their prices below sustainable levels in an attempt to gain market share and drive competitors out of business they are breaking the law, very much like breaking the law when competitors scheme to fix prices or use other illegal tactics to build or maintain monopoly positions so they can gouge consumers.

Another side effect of this is the consumer isn't paying for access

See the SEC reports, consumers are paying, providers are profiting. Reality trumps theory.

especially when you can get a DSL connection for $14.95 a month

That would be awesome! :) Unfortunately you picked the minimum data point for broadband access with nothing to explain exactly what you get for $14.95, the truth is that average broadband access rates are $53.06/month in the United States.

Think people are comfortable with the idea that the current ISPs are running at a loss and just hanging on with the hope of driving everyone else out?

Please, read some of the financial statements for the corporations who are fighting net neutrality and who want to tax other companies who profit by providing valuable services over the network the ISP is already profiting from.

Most of my friends and acquaintances are self-employed. I'm in HI, so I'm familiar with the scene in a heavily regulated and taxed state.

Your claim that the US Federal corporate tax is "second only to Japan" doesn't hold water. Obviously, if you pick the right State, you can really pay through the nose. Taxes may or may not be lower in China, India, or Bangladesh, but many 3rd world locations introduce issues and uncertainties that go 'way beyond a quarterly tax bill.

here I found a nice link to accompany my (admittedly) lengthy post:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/57/34081266.pdf

Yes, because we all know the government always does everything in the most economical and efficient way, right?

not always, that is why the parent specified full transparency, so that inefficiency (and corruption) could be better eliminated. that aside, you want the sanity the most economically efficient way, or the most attentive to your health? some weeks ago there is a huge scandal where in a private clinic here in italy many people were chirurgically operated for profit, not because they need the operation!!!!

You may want to take a look at this paper about health care in France. It comes from a very trustworthy source, the OECD, and presents some surprising data. Although public health care in France is "universal" in the sense that almost everybody is covered by the public health care system, 92% of the French people have additional private health insurance.

Let me quote from the summary: "The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost-containment policies have not proved very successful. The government has signalled an interest in reforms that would redefine the role of public and private insurance, shifting some responsibilities from the former to the latter."

could not make it a sure statement, i do not know the france politic, but if it follow similar lines to the italian one (not on the same disastrouse magnitude for sure but maybe some similar pattern)
the right wing government (who has plan to dismantle pubblic sanity) could be encouraging some disastrous attitude instead of trying to cure it to foster pubblic outrage and advance his dismantling agenda.

I tell this in reference to italy where i live, here the somewhat right wing government had many homicidal (in regard to the state) libertarian policy that continue to make abnormal damage (we will likely be the next state to bankrupt after argentina if this trend continue)

for example, there are many incentive to use private clinic conventioned with the pubblic healt instead of waiting for pubblic service, the regional sanity then pay back the clinics (more than making the service itself of course!). at the end of the year many regional sanity had a negative ballance (about all the ones with right wing government, few of the one with left wing ones...) so the national healt is in debt, but instead of trying to resove it the government made a FUD campaign attributing it to the previous leftish government and punishing the pubblic workers (economically and with mobbying rules!), inflame the common (uninformed and stupid) people versus the pubblic health and so prepare the road to more privatization.

as for the people of U.S.A. I somewere read already during the clinton administration there were an huge dossier on the hugely augment of the cost of private sanity instead of public ones. but cause of lobby and prejudices it stopped there...

It may not be perfect, but I feel it's a heck of a lot better than the mess that's the USA healthcare system.

You don't say where you are but I live in the USA and have had quite an experience with healthcare here. As a college student without insurance I was hit while riding my bike one day after my classes. I was medevacted by helicopter to the hospital where I got treatment while in a coma. I spent about a month in the hospital before I was moved to a rehabilitation house where I lived about 1 1/2 months while getting therapy. When I left the house I moved into my mother's house. I went to the hospital 2 days a week for more therapy for a couple of months. My medical bills totaled more than $120,000 yet all that was spent despite no one, doctors, hospital, or rehab house knowing if they would see a dime from me. Actually while I was in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived and as a student I wouldn't have been able to pay. Even today more than 10 years later I'd argue with them about my being alive is a miracle, my life has been more like a living hell.

Even without my experience, I have an idea how medical practice is in the USA, my mother is a lab tech in the hospital I was taken to, actually that's how she found out, a coworker asked her if she knew me. I also have a sister who's a nurse. As it is now, by law a hospital has to provide medical care in an emergency in the US even if the patient has no insurance.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the USA has the best health care system in the world for everyone but I do believe a free market, which the US does not have in health care, can lower costs and make medical care affordable for more people. Some people say France has the best system but the Organization For Economic Co-operation a Development, OECD, disagrees. In the report "Private Health Insurance in France" it says "While France has a universal public health insurance system, the coverage it provides is incomplete and the vast majority the French population has private complementary health insurance."

Falcon

It may not be perfect, but I feel it's a heck of a lot better than the mess that's the USA healthcare system.

You don't say where you are but I live in the USA and have had quite an experience with healthcare here. As a college student without insurance I was hit while riding my bike one day after my classes. I was medevacted by helicopter to the hospital where I got treatment while in a coma. I spent about a month in the hospital before I was moved to a rehabilitation house where I lived about 1 1/2 months while getting therapy. When I left the house I moved into my mother's house. I went to the hospital 2 days a week for more therapy for a couple of months. My medical bills totaled more than $120,000 yet all that was spent despite no one, doctors, hospital, or rehab house knowing if they would see a dime from me. Actually while I was in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived and as a student I wouldn't have been able to pay. Even today more than 10 years later I'd argue with them about my being alive is a miracle, my life has been more like a living hell.

Even without my experience, I have an idea how medical practice is in the USA, my mother is a lab tech in the hospital I was taken to, actually that's how she found out, a coworker asked her if she knew me. I also have a sister who's a nurse. As it is now, by law a hospital has to provide medical care in an emergency in the US even if the patient has no insurance.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the USA has the best health care system in the world for everyone but I do believe a free market, which the US does not have in health care, can lower costs and make medical care affordable for more people. Some people say France has the best system but the Organization For Economic Co-operation a Development, OECD, disagrees. In the report "Private Health Insurance in France" it says "While France has a universal public health insurance system, the coverage it provides is incomplete and the vast majority the French population has private complementary health insurance."

Falcon

You may want to take a look at this paper about health care in France.

Thanks for the link. Now when someone says how good France's health care is I have a reliable source to point to that differs.

Falcon

Fundamental public services should not be privatized they should be public and operating in a fully transparent manner.

Yes, because we all know the government always does everything in the most economical and efficient way, right?

You may want to take a look at this paper about health care in France. It comes from a very trustworthy source, the OECD, and presents some surprising data. Although public health care in France is "universal" in the sense that almost everybody is covered by the public health care system, 92% of the French people have additional private health insurance.

Let me quote from the summary: "The public system is facing chronic deficits and recent cost-containment policies have not proved very successful. The government has signalled an interest in reforms that would redefine the role of public and private insurance, shifting some responsibilities from the former to the latter."

I just quoted this paper about health care because I had it on hand, and you mentioned health care, but I admit that electric power is more of a "natural monopoly" than health care in some ways. I think emergency health care should be guaranteed by the government, because when you suffer an accident you are in no position to negotiate, but health care does not need to run wires all the way from the power plant to your home.

So, yes, I think there is need for some regulation in electric power, but from all I have read, California is hardly an example of a well-conceived deregulation. I think there are many ways of creating a better system for private utilities. You cannot say that all deregulation is bad based on just the California example.

Admittedly, given most countries dismal performance at the test, there's not much of a difference with the tower...

a) sorry, I left out a reference - http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf

The U.S. gives more money to countries in need than anyone other country in the world...
If you're going to rattle off broad claims like this you should at least cite them.

The US give by far the most in dollars, but fairly low in terms of GNP. But that is only counting UN Official Development Assistance contributions. I couldn't find numbers for private donations or other non-military aid. Although the Gates Foundation wrote just over $2 billion in grants in 2007, which would put their giving on a level just between Denmark and Australia.

If you're going to insult a culture do it intelligently... That being said, yes there are many fakes all over the world.

Personally I like Creative players more than iPods (I traded my 30 Gig IPod Video for my sister's creative Zen Touch, better sound quality).

An mp3 player is a very cheap general processor or audio processor some simple UI software and a flash disk, they are increadibly over priced and their ergonomics and ui are a matter of preference, people aren't that different and if iPod's appeal to 70% of north American's then yes it's likely that they'll appeal to a similar percentage in other cultures, but it's not necessarily so.

Personally I think the iPod succeeded in North America because of poor competition, in Korea Samsung doesn't have much competition.

Koreans have a slightly lower average income . However, lower costs of: living, social services and prices mean that the average Korean can buy more products, and Samsung's $4-600 mp3 players are wildly successful there.

Korean commercialism is something of an oddity, my Korean ex. was adamant that regardless of income level Koreans prefer KIA vehicles, which north americans consider unacceptable.

The same author also wrote on a brand new OECD report that tells how we are going to need a minimum of 50Mbit/s in order in the near future. And best of all he sais, it's going to be brought to us by ferrets.

To get an idea of recent R&D spending, see this graph.

While amounts have flattened out recently, the levels are much higher than during the 1990.

US public R&D is higher than EU-25 or OECD average levels as a percent of GDP (and US business R&D is much higher than EU-25 or OECD average levels as a percent of GDP, with the notable exception of Japan...More details here)

The big Federal funds go to NIH (~$30 billion), NSF (~$6 billion), NASA science ($~5.5 billion)

The World is Flat talks about how the American advantage is having a broad education that includes history and literature and art. it really a surprise to find that half of the country does poorly in Math and Science when students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a diverse landscape of experiences including sports and music?

PISA 2006 results - science - country mean score: Finland 563 Hong Kong-China 542 Canada 534 Chinese Taipei 532 Estonia 531 Japan 531 New Zealand 530 Australia 527 Netherlands 525 Liechtenstein 522 Korea 522 Slovenia 519 Germany 516 UK 515 Czech Republic 513 Switzerland 512 Austria 511 Belgium 510 Ireland 508 Hungary 504 Sweden 503 Poland 498 Denmark 496 France 495 Croatia 493 Iceland 491 Latvia 490 United States 489 Slovakia 488 Spain 488 Lithuania 488 Norway 487 Luxembourg 486 Russia 479 Italy 475 Portugal 474 Greece 473 Israel 454 Chile 438 Serbia 436 Bulgaria 434 Uruguay 428 Turkey 424 Jordan 422 Thailand 421 Romania 418 Montenegro 412 Mexico 410 Indonesia 393 Argentina 391 Brazil 390 Colombia 388 Tunisia 386 Azerbaijan 382 Qatar 349 Kyrgyzstan 322 http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html

Your ass is correct. In 2006, the USA spent $23.5 billion on official development assistance, and $100 billion on the war in Iraq. (Iraq is currently the largest recipient of American aid, and one could debate whether that portion of the aid budget should actually be counted as part of the cost of the war. Before the Iraq war, the largest recipient of aid was Israel.)

"The United States also continues to spend far more on a per capita basis for healthcare than any other country. It spent over $4,600 per capita on healthcare in 2000 - more than twice the average of almost $2,000 across OECD countries. Public spending per capita in the U.S. is also high (it follows Iceland and Germany), even though only about one-quarter of the population is insured through public programmes"

OECD

Once you aquire your degree however, you will notice that it is not a degree that makes an engineer. It is a hard heart and hard work that do.

This said I agree one can use modern technology to open education to more people. Everybody profits this way. Recent study of OECD seems to confirm that more educated people make life better for all - see this link: http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39315897_1_1_1_1,00.html or look into this discussion: http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39414933_1_1_1_1,00.html

Once you aquire your degree however, you will notice that it is not a degree that makes an engineer. It is a hard heart and hard work that do.

This said I agree one can use modern technology to open education to more people. Everybody profits this way. Recent study of OECD seems to confirm that more educated people make life better for all - see this link: http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39315897_1_1_1_1,00.html or look into this discussion: http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39414933_1_1_1_1,00.html

Do you think it'll encourage more than 8% of journeys to be made by rail?

"OECD in Figures 2005 - Transport"
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,3398,en_2825_497139_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Or is it just a way for politicians to make themselves look good while wasting vast quantities of money?

Do have a reference for this? How is penetration measured?

Here

It is measured broadband per 100 persons.

Country DSL Cable Fibre/LAN Other Total Rank Total Subscribers

Denmark 19.6 9.4 2.6 0.4 31.9 1 1 728 359
Netherlands 19.5 12.0 0.4 0.0 31.8 2 5 192 200
Iceland 28.8 0.0 0.2 0.6 29.7 3 87 738
Korea 11.4 10.7 7.0 0.0 29.1 4 14 042 728
Switzerland* 18.8 8.8 0.0 0.9 28.5 5 2 140 309
Norway 21.7 3.8 1.5 0.6 27.7 6 1 278 346
Finland 23.5 3.5 0.0 0.3 27.2 7 1 428 000
Sweden* 16.0 5.2 0.0 4.8 26.0 8 2 346 300
Canada 11.4 12.3 0.0 0.1 23.8 9 7 675 533
Belgium 14.0 8.4 0.0 0.1 22.5 10 2 353 956
United Kingdom 16.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 21.6 11 12 993 354
Luxembourg 18.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 20.4 12 93 214
France 19.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 20.3 13 12 699 000
Japan 11.1 2.8 6.2 0.0 20.2 14 25 755 080
United States 8.5 10.3 0.3 0.6 19.6 15 58 136 577
Australia* 15.0 3.3 0.0 1.0 19.2 16 3 939 288
Austria 10.6 6.4 0.0 0.3 17.3 17 1 427 986
Germany* 16.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 17.1 18 14 085 232

In all fairness, it's not really socialism - none of the countries mentioned (Netherlands, Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.) have command economies, state ownership of property, and so forth. A lot of Americans seem to think that a national health care system automatically equals gray concrete walls and red stars, but it's not so.

Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes I get the impression Americans use 'Socialism' as a synonym for 'non-US', and really have no idea what the term actually means. They seem to use it for pretty much everything.
Telecommunication markets in Europe, generally, are completely open and privatized, just regulated. Usually that means that the former state-monopolist corporation must make infrastructure available to competitors at fixed prices.

On the other hand, the U.S. is still the best place to go and start a business, thanks in no small part to their labour mobility (easier to hire and fire).

AFAIK, that's pretty easy in the Netherlands, too. In any case, workers at small companies don't have the same kind of protection those at larger ones have.
Also, as a company in the Netherlands, you pay about 10% less taxes than you would in the US. (Yes, that surprised me, too.)

This OECD chart is probably a better way of comparing income. It is GDP per head in order of ranking, and is not selected nations. You will note in the footnote that the PPP algorithm changes things a bit--such as Japan dropping because of it's high costs. (I don't know what goes into the PPP algorithm. For instance, health care takes up about 15% of US GDP but in Western Europe it's usually 8-10%. Does the PPP algorithm take into account higher health care costs in the US? I don't know for sure but I suspect it does. So the higher cost of health care in the US should already be built into the calculation that created that chart.)

Having said that, the chart does not take into account things like GNI. Ireland is doing extremely well, but since it's a highly export based economy now, and a lot of what it makes goes overseas, this chart implies it's doing slightly better than it really is.

And this is before paying for what other countries have already paid for, like healthcare and schooling.

If you are comparing statistics like median income from nation to nation, taxes aren't taken into account from that anyway, which is what pays for healthcare and schooling. So in that regard, the numbers are comparable without difficulty. If a PPP algorithm has been run on the data set than healthcare/schooling has been taken into account in some way in all countries.

Here in the US, 40% of the population gets distributed less than 1% of the wealth (while the top 1% controls 38% of all wealth)

I know and can confirm the latter statistic. I can't find the former but have no reason to believe it to be untrue, but there is a caveat to how those statistics can be read. Household wealth is assets-liabilities, and quite a lot of Americans have too much debt to have any wealth at all, regardless of their income. My parents, for instance, have a household income of $140k/year but between their mortgage, credit card, motor vehicle and other debts, they would be considered as having no wealth for statistical purposes and fall into that 40%, despite their fairly good household income.

I have been doing a lot of reading up on health care statistics lately, and I recognize most of those mentioned in the above post. The most astonishing fact I've stumbled upon is that the U.S. *government* spends more on health care per capita than most other nations (including Canada). Then, you add on that the States also spend more (much much more) per person than other nations on private funding, and you can understand why the system costs more.

I think the whole "public healthcare raises taxes" argument is lost right there -- if the States had a system anywhere close to the efficiency of other industrialized nations', they could theoretically be spending just as much at the government level and chuck most of the private health costs. Of course, that's probably unrealistic in that it would likely be politically difficult to build a system like that out of the one in place now.

Anyway, since I can't recall all of the sources of the statistics I've read, I did a bit of googling for you. Right off the top, the OECD (http://www.oecd.org/) is an excellent source that often pops up in such discussions. They have an entire section on Health statistics of member nations.

And here's spending info courtesy of the WHO: http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_selec t_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
This includes per capita government spending on health care, which happens to show that Canadian governement spending (for example) is less than U.S. Government spending, per capita.

And a bit of a comparison of average life expectency and spending on health care (note the disparity when it comes to the U.S.): http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php.

Anyway, what tends to bother me the most about these debates on Slashdot is that it often comes down to people with data to back them up versus people who blindly believe that the American system MUST cost less. I mean, it isn't government-run, right?

That position is undeniably false, and I really wish we could at least get past that part of the debate so that something meaningful can come from these discussions. Of course, faith in the free market, just like any other faith, doesn't require facts to be believed.

OECDFAIRINFORMATIONPRACTICE (FIP) PRINCIPLES In its 1980 Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data , the OECD enunciated eight basic principles for data privacy. These have served as a basis for a number of other regulatory guidelines,which are often referred to generically as Fair Information Principles (FIP). The United States Federal Trade Commission FIP and the EU Privacy Directive draw on the OECD document. The eight principles, drawn verbatim from the OECD document, are: 1. Collection Limitation Principle: There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject. 2. Data Quality Principle: Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date. 3. Purpose Specification Principle: The purposes for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of data collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfilment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose. 4. Use Limitation Principle: Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with [the previous principle] except: (a) with the consent of the data subject; or (b) by the authority of law. 5. Security Safeguards Principle: Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorised access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data. 6. Openness Principle: There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available of establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller. 7. Individual Participation Principle: An individual should have the right: (a) to obtain from a data controller, or otherwise, con-firmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him; (b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him: within a reasonable time; at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; in a reasonable manner; and in a form that is readily intelligible to him; (c) to be given reasons if a request made under subparagraphs(a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and (d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended. 8. Accountability Principle: A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above .

Do note that Netherlands has a far higher broadband penetration. From the first result in Google Netherlands has 22.5 broadband connections per 100 inhabitants ranking #2, Germany ranks #18 with 10.2%. Belgium, partly Dutch ranks #8. Full stats.
Also in the Netherlands online video is very popular, the public broadcast puts all self created shows on the internet, other providers also have online offerings. The VPRO already has a Youtube channel, so has the Public broadcasters in general and the institute for Beeld en Geluid.
While population wise the Netherlands is small, with the high broadband we have many active internetusers. Microsoft Live mail for instance was launched in the Netherlands even before any other country because we have a high broadband penetration and a population eager to test new things.

The fact is, you won't see 2 million extra subscribers with this upgrade, which is what Australia would need to match Korea with the above figures. It's just political spin to get marginal seats in the upcoming elections. What you will see is everyone with their farcical 1.5mbs connections get a whopping 10-12mbs boost, slowly crawling closer to a fraction of Korea's 100mbs connections - its not broadband, its a freakin LAN!

How did this come about in Korea? Oh yeah, a government with foresight and vision, not just empty promises. Neither Howard or Rudd inspire me with any confidence in their vision for broadband. I hope that all that will end up happening is Optus and Elders will go ahead do it and the government just beats Telstra into compliance.

Yep, if you look at a slightly different metric - broadband subscriptions per 100 population - the US comes in 12th, with 19.2 subs/100.
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,2340,en_2649_3422 3_37529673_1_1_1_1,00.html

It looks like those of you who have broadband have it mostly to themselves, while the rest of the world shares their connections amongst a larger group.

From where I sit, any country that takes away 28-51.3% of your personal income s socialist (that figure was second only to Denmark, btw).

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/1/33826979.pdf

But then again, I guess I'm just an ignorant redneck[..]

Well hosting his own works raise a lot of troubles, and some can't be resolved:

1) Domain: Not everyone hold a domain or a static IP that people can use to contact their site. Even if free solutions exists, it needs a little bit of knowledge to set it up and to discover them.

2) Internet connection: even if Iceland is 3th on the broadband penetration (http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_342 23_38446855_1_1_1_1,00.html#Data2005) it doesn't mean there is no restriction on the amount of data that can be sent and received per month. Increasing would require more money.

3) Setting a _AMP solution for a normal user would mean exposing his computer. Most people use windows and as we know that it doesn't last long unprotected: (http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/54201306). Would you let your local photograph secure your computer?

4) 24/7 computer usage mean electricity bill raise. I know most of /. users are leaving their computer(s) opened 24/7, but let's not forget we're the exeption, not the rule.

5) Bring the people: what's the point of loading your pictures on the net if nobody watch them? Pretty useless isn't it?

Even tought I agree that it's best ot keep our own stuff under our control, some people can't, for lots of reason, do so. What's the best solution for them? Watermarking. Professional cameras* should come with a way to upload a watermark and insert it automatically in all taken picture. That way, if you know your work is used by another one, all you have to do is show them the watermark. Would still require some knowledge to use but if the app is done correctly, could be pretty easy to use. Mix that to a fingerprint scanner and your watermark become your fingerprint: pretty hard to prove the picture is yours when it's marked with someone else fingerprint.

* May already exists

GP is of course wrong, I aint even gonna bother with a rebuttal for his unsubstantiated crap.

However if you want to take a look at the numbers then OECD is an excellent source. http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,2340,en_2649_344 47_36661793_1_1_1_1,00.html

For a digest, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi d.asp

GDP growth rates higher than the US, positive balance of payments, higher life expectancy and literacy, lower infant mortality, lower crime rate, TEN TIMES less people in prison, much higher savings rate, lower personal debt, ...

Oh yeah, you're right, unemployment is higher. Great. You know what? It doesn't mean shit.

4th quarter 2004, unemployment rate men aged 25-54: 7.4% in France, 4.6% in the US.

You're right, it (look)s bad.

At the same quarter, the employment rate, that is, the number of people working vs. the total number of people in that sex/age group was 86.7% in France as opposed to 86.3%. That's right, more people working in France than in the US. (Source: OECD Employment Outlook 2005 (pdf))

There's a few reasons for this discrepancy, one being that we don't put 1.5% of our active population in jail, most of whom are poor blacks, likely candidates for the "unemployment" row.

For whom your standard group based transport system is completely useless.

http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_282 5_497139_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Even in the EU, 9 out of 10 passenger miles do not involve public transport. There are good physicical limitations why and it has nothing to do with addiction, instead it has everything to do with the fundamental limitations of group based vehicles.

No surprise?
If you want to compare numbers, all is not so black and white..
Take Finland as example:
Population density is 16 / sq km (USA 31 / sq km).

Broadband penetration (June 2006) from OECD's report:
Finland 25% (USA 19.2%)