Slashdot Mirror

• Chernoby cleanup cost: $235 billion.
• Fukushima cleanup cost: $197 billion
• Total amount of nuclear power generated since commercial nuclear power became widely available: about 86000 TWh
  about 20 years ramping up from 0 to 2000 TWh/yr, plus 30 years at about 2200 TWh/yr = (20*2000/2) + (30*2200) = 86000

Cost of the above two cleanups divided by the amount of energy generated by nuclear power: $432 billion / 86000 billion kWh = $0.005 per kWh = 0.5 cents per kWh

I can live with paying an extra half cent per kWh to cover cleaning up after the occasional disaster every 25 years, in exchange for using a completely carbon-neutral power source which boasts the fewest deaths per amount of power generated. Why exactly are you opposed to it?

I didn't say you did.

So why are we here?

Controls are bans.

Ok if we're not even speaking the same language no point continuing. Is English your first language?

I said fewer guns would mean fewer shootings, that is obvious.

That wasn't so hard was it...

I also said, and this is important, that fewer guns means more crime and murder.

Yet I posted a link to research that shows this is not true, and you clearly choose not to accept this.

I did a study on this for a statistics class.

Cool story. Citation or shut up.

There was a book written on this correlation between guns and crime which is widely regarded for its scientific rigor. Crap. John Lott is a gun lobbyist with good credentials but poor methods. His book is commonly used by gun nuts but already extensively debunked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.armedwithreason.com...

I think this is bad because you cherry pick the nations by limiting yourself to comparing the USA to "developed" nations. Mexico is a developed nation

Really? Really? This is scraping at the bottom of the barrel. I compare the US to developed nation because the US is supposed to be a developed nation. The richest country on the planet with a crime record similar to that of a war-zone and you think this is ok because Mexico is equally terrible?

People like the VPC overlook Mexico and claim it is not "developed", why is that? The answer is simple...

It's simple because it not a developed country (seems obvious, but here we are). And don't take my word for it: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
Ranked 74th. The OECD which is generally considered the bulk of "the developed world" is the top 35 nations. So Mexico is not even close. Everyone with a brain knows this except gun nuts that like to trot out Mexico because their numbers make the America's look not so shocking.

People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.

Gradually/Marginally getting better != devastating

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...

And yes, that accounts for income inequality. Is there room for improvement? Sure! Is it worth years of certain turmoil to try something else (what exactly??) that in all likelihood will be worse (using human involvement and history as a reference)? Not to me...and probably not most of the developed world either. But one way or another, parts of the population are determined to find out. Yeeehaaaa!!!!

People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.

Gradually/Marginally getting better != devastating

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...

And yes, that accounts for income inequality. Is there room for improvement? Sure! Is it worth years of certain turmoil to try something else (what exactly??) that in all likelihood will be worse (using human involvement and history as a reference)? Not to me...and probably not most of the developed world either. But one way or another, parts of the population are determined to find out. Yeeehaaaa!!!!

The stuff most aid organizations provide (food, clean water, medicine) aren't really what poor countries need. It's literally putting the cart before the horse, and can even be counter-productive by making life harder or impossible for domestic producers of those things, and allowing these countries' population to grow beyond their ability to self-sustain themselves.

These countries need to develop their own economy first.That's why UN assistance for developing nations focuses on building infrastructure, increasing the number of citizens participating in the economy (education and gender equality), figuring out ways to exploit natural resources, facilitating trade and economic development, and helping set up government programs to help support all these things. Once you get the economic ball rolling, they can grow their own food, clean their own water, build their own hospitals. These things are the result of development. Giving people the end product instead of the means to produce the end product is exactly what the aphorism "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life" tells us not to do.

Of the four depressions in the list you provided, one was not in the US at all (the Greek depression), and the others aren't obviously supportive of the "one worse than the last" claim.

Worse — for your argument — even if it were true, having a depression "every few decades" is still much better, than having a famine or a mass-murder, which Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite) bring about with alarming persistence. One is unravelling in Venezuela right now — which is far worse off today, than it was before it elected a Socialist to help divide the spoils of oil-wealth "fairly".

Despite being insanely wasteful, it [FDR's first 8 years in office -mi] was hugely successful at solving economic problems

Was it successful? Or did it simply perpetuate the depression — making it much "greater" than it had to be?

UN Human Development Index is a measure of success

Lies, damn lies, and benchmarks... A measure of success according to who? Bureaucrats sent to the UN by their governments? Of course, they are going to consider Statist countries more "successful". For just one example, this index of yours awards extra points simply for "years of schooling" the country provides...

What would yours be?

I would consider GDP per capita and the attractiveness to (would-be) immigrants.

You know what, fuck it. Here's another post for you racists to mod down.

Not one goddamn person has supported his notion that Africa hasn't had progress.

Multiple people have modded me down for calling him out on his racist bullshit.

One of you ignorant fuckers defend this shit.

I mean, just look at the HDI growths, and keep telling me nothing changed.

There's just nothing to this bullshit. And you guys just eat it the fuck up.

What's wrong with you?

What's wrong with you?

You're absolutely right. I live in Mozambique and people in the DEEP bush (read: rural areas) who live in houses made of mud or grass have cell phones are able to do simple banking even on old candy bar phones. Here in the capitol of Maputo, in the last year, smart phone and tablet use has exploded. Mozambique has 3 cell networks that offer 3G connectivity and one is talking up their 4G transition for next year. I think the intuition of the touch screen is being proven here as people who were raised without running water or power are able to pick up and use a smartphone while the same person struggles to a comical degree trying to understand and use with any semblance of efficacy a laptop or desktop PC.

Oh... Mozambique is the 3rd least developed country IN THE WORLD according to the UNDP
So yeah, this Les Cotrell is just a guy wanting to sound smart by explaining things about Africa to people who know nothing about Africa. This happened long ago.

HDI is a growth index.

No it's not.

From wikipedia:

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.

From the U.N.:

The Human Development Index (HDI) measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living.

There is no component that reflects current growth rate or expected future growth. HDI is a snapshot of a country's current situation in terms of income, health and education.

Well, for one, the U.S. has a higher HDI score than any of the countries whose cities made the Internet Top 10. Then again, I put about as much stock in the U.N. HDI data as I do the Internet Top 10.

When I select HEALTH index (only) the United States ranks #38. The United States is trailing the industrial powerhouses of Cuba and Costa Rica.

Build your own index using UN data:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/build/

To prove grandparents wrong the finer point is this one article seems a direct conflict with another mass media article, specifically http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/united-nations-announces-world%E2%80%99s-happiest-country-247768. So according to CNN America is the fourth happiest country, this survey kind of stunk after seeing the way politics is going in the country, just didn't ring true at all.

Unless Americans really enjoy living in a country where they can't trust anything, not the government, not the banks, not corporations and especially not mass media.

When you go to http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/build/ and add in inequality you get a more accurate picture. Yeah, some are doing well in the US, it seems they are just climbing over the bodies of those who are failing and are happy to do so.

Sir, you are well named.

My South African friend was sure a particularly evil politician would stay in power in an election we were looking at. He was voted out in a landslide partly because of informed voters. (UN control of voting booths helped a lot too.)

African farmers are increasingly able to make use of modern farming methods. This too is due to the information age. B2B sales of farming equipment and open markets, global competition, and training via the internet have all played their part.

Technology failed to help in the past because it was being wielded by imperialists with agendas. Things in Africa are getting better and will keep getting better.

There are those with boots on the ground in these poverty stricken areas that disagree with your conclusion about redistribution. There was PBS documentary a few years ago about an Ethiopian expat. working in the US who returned to her home country to solve the problem of famine. In spite of many decades of billions of dollars of direct aid, there were still massive regional famines in her home country. She saw that access to capital and markets was restricted for poor rural farmers, so they were not getting fair prices for their product nor were they able to get accurate market information about which crops to grow. The issue is very complicated, tied up with government corruption, state control, rent-seeking monopolists, etc., but many international aid organizations including the UN have embraced the concept.

The basic premise is a variation on the "teach a man to fish" argument. In this case it is "give a man access to a market where he can sell the fish for a fair and transparent price" and he'll eat for a lifetime. The agricultural revolution in the west was not simply one of better farm machinery and fertilizers. It also included infrastructure like grain storage, transportation, access to capital and futures markets.

The notion that such tribes lived in some sort of special harmony with nature is ridiculous

That is exactly my point: humans have never lived in "harmony with nature", and they never will. Yet, you say you want a world in which humans do not "use up resources faster than they can recover".

Every step forward in one area is counterbalanced by two steps back in another. All the fear is because things can only keep getting worse for so long before horrible things happen to the whole human race

Bullshit. Humanity is better off than it has ever been. Don't take my word for it, look at the UN data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Development_Index_trends.svg

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/trends/

The negativity is because there are so many people like you who are either outright insane or just ignorant and you're so proud of it that you actually expend effort to actively fight attempts to improve our situation and exercise the most basic amount of caution.

It's you who is ignorant. You start off with the preposterous assumption that things are getting worse for humanity, and then you arrive at the equally preposterous conclusion that non-sustainable resource usage is to blame. And as a solution, you propose killing off the primary resource that has made human development over the last century possible: fossil fuel.

I'm all for "basic amounts of caution": I think toxic emissions should be limited, products inspected for their safety, garbage reduced, and resources recycled. I'm also for doing even more work on future energy sources, since we will run out of fossil fuels sooner or later.

But you don't want "basic amounts of caution", you want destructive interventions based on irrational FUD. Learn something about the world you live in and stop wallowing in your ignorance.

Check the comments for some of the more obivous flaws in that analysis. It's the other way around. In order to learn about that you'll have to read something like http://www.undp.org/publications/hdr2010/en/HDR_2010_EN_Complete.pdf rather than random bloggers citing Swedish ultra right wing think tanks.

Just for reference:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Table4_reprint.pdf

USA rank for gender inequality:35th

Tunisia :rank 56: 99.5% muslim.
Maldives:rank 59: 99% muslim.
Libya: rank 52: 96.6% muslim.
Kuwait: rank 43: 95% muslim.

but I'm guessing none of them are muslim enough for you.

The HDI is an average measure of basic human development achievements in a country. Like all averages, the HDI masks inequality in the distribution of human development across the population at the country level. This year’s report introduces the ‘inequality adjusted HDI (IHDI)’, a new measure for a large number of countries which takes into account inequality in all three dimensions of the HDI by ‘discounting’ each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI is thus a measure of the average level of human development that a country has achieved in the three HDI dimensions, given the existing inequality in distribution of achievements and the level of aversion to inequality which is set this year to a low level of 1. When there is no inequality in the HDI dimensions or no aversion to inequality, the average level of human development is reflected in the HDI. In this sense, the HDI can be viewed as an index of 'potential' human development and IHDI as an index of actual human development. (from http://hdr.undp.org/en/)

So in the actual HDI USA trails Germany much more badly. Basically the small rich minority makes your country look good on such indices. (2010 HDI and IHDI)

Yeah, if we're not careful, we'll end up like socialist countries such as Norway who consistently end up on the top of the list on the Human Development Index. That would be terrible.

despite the fact that united states of america, in the words of the chinese representative to wto, 'is a bankrupt nation', and your wall street scammed ENTIRE earth, and your income distribution is WORSE THAN the medieval times in which feudal lords ruled the land, europe is going to go bankrupt.

yes, the europe which provided bailout money to all the banks in a blink, WITHOUT printing money, DESPITE the fact that it was american wall street that caused the intoxication of world financial assets and hence american's responsibility.

moron.

that is the difference in between the europeans, and you americans. you do not get enough 'socialism' in your supposedly free country, dont have culture, education enough as a result, you do not know what kind of shit you are living in, and then you come up advertising the shit you live in to other people.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

behold, and weep.

its you idiots' brainwashed minds that keep you in corporate servitude, make everything scarcer, ranging from education to jobs, and then ending up poorer and indebted to china. is there ANY other country in the world, which is being financed by china ? huh ? NO.

he retains his finnish citizenship. had you known zit about the life standards and amenities in finland, you would go crying in a corner.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

ignorant people like you are easy to keep in servitude by getting fed the bullshit that is 'greatest nation on earth'. good going !!

I hate to break it to you but there is no such agreement.

The exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic, spiritual or political criteria are employed.

From a cultural point of view Brazil could very well belong to the West, however that is not what is being challenged here [in my opinion].

The obvious cultural, economic and political differences between Brazil and what is known today as described by the term "the West" (Western Europe, North America, Israel, Australia and New Zealand) are clear. Corruption is endemic, the justice system incapable, crime rates sky high, racial discrimination heavy, wealth distribution skewed.

It would perhaps be more pertinent to discuss this in light of Brazil's present and future economic situation.

As of today Brazil is not a developed country according to the IMF, OECD or the UN.

It is perhaps most clear when considering the unequal nature of Brazilian society and Brazil's ranking according to the Human Development index. Brazil is ranked far below the average OECD country (Figure #1).

I think the report speaks for itself: "By looking at some of the most fundamental aspects of people’s lives and opportunities the HDI provides a much more complete picture of a country's development than other indicators, such as GDP per capita."

I think he really meant the UNDP, not the UNHCR. But no, the UN does not take an active role in getting people off the streets in your local community. Churches do tend to take that role.

Well I know my edumacation ain't very good being from the United of States and the South at that, but shoot, they always learned us that 13 racoon skins was less than 20: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Your analysis rests on GDP per capita, as if that's how much workers mak, but it's not. GDP per capita might be $48,000 in the US, but it's not shared evenly by everyone. The median personal income is only about $32,100. Chinese median personal income is hard to find cited, but in 2003 urban median household income was about $900. In 2007, the US median household income was about $50,000. The American median is about 56x the Chinese urban median (rural China's large and poor population would make the difference even bigger, but they're not competing with Americans for factory jobs).

The GDP per capita is an average that includes all the money made by the few richest. All the profits on labor taken by corporations and investors. In America that disparity is pretty large, but in China it's larger.

Only Greece rivals the US in plumpness.

I call bullshit. For one, your BC study is out of date by a decade, and in that decade, healthcare costs in the US have risen 87%.

And even granting the fact that Greece is as fat as us, or fatter, Greece has national healthcare and ranks fourteenth on the same scale that rates the US as #37 (2005). And the Greeks spend the least per-capita on healthcare in the EU at $2,179/person, per the 2007 UN Human Development Report. (not, however, the least as a percentage of GDP, according to the first link). The US, per the same report, spends $6096/person.

So what accounts for the other $4000? We aren't 3x as fat. Just 3x as stupid because we accept this state of affairs.

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
With som additional statistics and explanations.

My home country, Sweden (#7 in the HDI list), seem to be the best country at empovering women (GDI). I'm not very surprised as there has for decades been a steady stream of enterprising women from all parts of the world migrating to Sweden because they don't get the same chances in their home countries. But I am a bit disappointed as there is still some gender discrimination in Sweden and I thought there would be at least some countries where they treat their women better.

Sigh, and there where just some guy being prosecuted, in Sweden, for linking to a live, and legal, video stream of a hockey game.

Sure naz404.

Try living in a third-world country for a change.

Yeah, before I posted.

Why should I? We already have our own remote mountain-jungles and dirt-cheap poor communities who live on way less than a dollar a day, thank you.

Philippines, Human Development Index

• HDI Value: 0.771
• GDP per capita: 5137 US$

DRC, Human Development Index

• HDI Value: 0.411
• GDP per capita: 714 US$

Of course, these are just stats and I don't mean I know everything. I've never visited Philippines and I'm sure that you're right about life and technological conditions there.

All I'm doing, is inviting you to face the extent of poverty in DRC and realize that it might be far less advanced than Philippines.

Cell phones, it's most that Congo has for technologies. I'm sure I could never comprehend the situation this doctor (and patient!) were in. Sit back and relax, are you really saying that saving someone's life in one of the poorest country in the world, with the ONLY technology available is no news?

Sure naz404.

Try living in a third-world country for a change.

Yeah, before I posted.

Why should I? We already have our own remote mountain-jungles and dirt-cheap poor communities who live on way less than a dollar a day, thank you.

Philippines, Human Development Index

• HDI Value: 0.771
• GDP per capita: 5137 US$

DRC, Human Development Index

• HDI Value: 0.411
• GDP per capita: 714 US$

Of course, these are just stats and I don't mean I know everything. I've never visited Philippines and I'm sure that you're right about life and technological conditions there.

All I'm doing, is inviting you to face the extent of poverty in DRC and realize that it might be far less advanced than Philippines.

Cell phones, it's most that Congo has for technologies. I'm sure I could never comprehend the situation this doctor (and patient!) were in. Sit back and relax, are you really saying that saving someone's life in one of the poorest country in the world, with the ONLY technology available is no news?

>If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.

The US was recently listed as 12th in "standard of living" by the UN:

1 Iceland
2 Norway
3 Australia
4 Canada
5 Ireland
6 Sweden
7 Switzerland
8 Japan
9 Netherlands
10 France
11 Finland
12 United States

Source: (PDF WARNING) http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf

So enough opportunity for me would be the opportunity to enjoy the standard of living and average per capita GDP of a country like Sweden or Norway. I'd love their reasonable work-week and wonderfully abundant vacation and holiday time. Also, take a note of how "horribly socialist" most of those top 11 countries are.

While we're at it, I'd like to feel like I'm part of a community, rather than a consumer pawn in the big corporate scheme.

Just because U.S. capitalism is better than living in Bangladesh or Georgia, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it.

Go ahead and mod me down, but some American citizens are unsatisfied, and want to live in a country with some real freedom/rights, and has general equality that they want. As a US citizen, I'm a little unhappy, so if I had a chance to get a job in Norway, Iceland or Sweden, I would probably go for it - expecting the environment and such to be far different then what I grew up in the United States.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

... semi-First World countries like those in Europe ...

Hehehe... American, are you? Take a look at the UN Human Development Report. I also think that one of the thing the top 10 countries in this index have in common is that the government is usually voted by the people. I'm not sure if the same can really be said about the true-first world country in the 12th place. But very funny parent anyway... :)

Is there really a long list of countries with such a better standard of living then the USA?

Only 11 countries. If 11 countries is a long list to you, I suppose.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

You can pontificate about how Cuba's living standards are lower than so-and-so, but just compare to El Salvador

Dude, my family videoconferences with my family in El Salvador every week over their high-speed Internet connection. Would you like a job in the IT sector in El Salvador?

El Salvador has gone up more than 0.1 HDI points since the end of the civil war.

Reference: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

According to the 2006 Human Development Report even if the Millennium Development Goal for water is achieved, "there will still be more than 800 million people without water and 1.8 billion people without sanitation in 2015" (page 4). Is it just me or does that seem outrageously big?

• Guantanamo, snooping laws, one of the highest incarceration rates in the world
• Highest Human Development Index - Ireland, Highest Life Expectancy - Japan, Highest GDP per-capita - Luxembourg (source http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_ISL.html)
• Social mobility in the US at the lower end of the scale (source http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf)

See http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/ 32.html for a better set of median oncome numbers.

The US has the highest portion of households (17.0) below the povery level of all advanced countries. Compare to the UK (12.4), France (8.0), Sweden (6.5), etc.

The USA appears to be a clear net beneficiary of cordial relations with the rest of the world. It's record on providing food, medicine, etc. to the rest of the world is not all that convincing in the first place, and what the rest of the world would gain by US isolationism is for instance the liberty to ignore US pharmaceutical patents, which immediately makes a billion in US medical aid replacable by a million of the same aid by a country that produces cheap copies of US pharmaceuticals. This is just an example: the price a country pays for participating in the international beauty contest for assistance and investment is respecting the rules of the game wrt. to property, IPR, patents, import tariffs, etc. The US normally buys the loyalty of most of the rest of the world for a very modest amount. Occasionally the US makes a costly mistake like Iraq (= invest a lot of money to lose goodwill in the international arena), but on the whole it is worth every penny.

Also, obviously, other countries will stop trading resources amongst eachother in dollars if the USA takes a less central place in the international arena, so Americans will have to get used to dollars not being very much in demand. The fundamental reason why the US attracts so much foreign investment is that it is perceived as low risk because it is the home market of the dollar, which functions as a kind of international yardstick of wealth. Central banks of other countries hold a major part of US public debt. Foreign direct investment will be targeted elsewhere if the US turns isolationist, which will be a great boon for higher risk developing countries since there is no alternative safe haven for investment capable of absorbing so much money as the US, and will cost the US 5.3 million jobs (41% of manufacturing jobs) which pay 15% higher on average than wages paid by U.S. companies, a steep increase in US interest rates, 12 percent of US corporate tax revenues, etc.

It's hard to say... international programs like this are generally rife with corrupt (can we say "oil-for-food"?).

It's funny that you mention "oil-for-food" scandal, which involved top to bottom corruption at the UN. Now who, again, will administer a international carbon credits program?

Here's a particularly disgusting one: "carbon financing will be used to fight poverty," the wealth transfer policy is the environmental policy -- like all carbon trading schemes are, just this one is more upfront about it.

I would say it is more down to politics and culture.

I donate to Oxfam via quirky presents every Christmas -- I buy my family goats/ condom kits/ toilets etc. The rest of the year I get sent their newsletters, which play repeteadly on one kind of story, which can also be seen in many newspapers and heard at many polite dinner tables...

"Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!"

Starbucks is big and therefore slots nicely into this story as being big and therefore evil. In the UK many nice middle-class people refuse to have Starbucks, because it's American/ multinational/ must be destroying someone's indigenous something.

IMHO this is probably a key reason why Oxfam choose Starbucks -- becuase they know "Ethiopians vs. Starbucks" a story which will resonate with their target audience.

There's just one problem with this story: it's a crude oversimplification; and if your aim is truly to liberate people in developing countries from poverty, big corporations have done a far better job than charities.

How? Through global capitalism, which in East Asia has brought about the greatest mass liberation from poverty in the history of the planet. For interesting data, check out: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/ [undp.org] (Click on "full report")

I'm not an expert on the situation in Ethiopia, but I find it very easy to believe Starbucks' rebuttal. My sister (unhappy recipient of various Oxfam goats etc from me) has just started work as a teacher in the UK. And was interested to note that she's being paid less than a Starbucks barista. But does this people think "oh, Starbucks pay their people well"? Hell, no -- because "Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!" remains a seductive story, almost regardless of how the big people actually behave...

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us [bbc.co.uk] that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand, which is backed by the statistical community.

It most certainly is not (keep in mind, this is from a fairly anti-war website).

The 655k figure study, by the Lancet medical journal, sampled heavily from the most violent areas. The 655k figure is BS, and so is the survey.

A much better study is available here.

What country would that be? That does not happen in any proper democratic European nation. I'm of course not including Russia in my definition of Europe - where that might actually happen. Russia is not a fully democratic nation, just like the US. Now, if you only knew the level of taxes in Europe you would not think twice about asking for a refund from the US government. The "insanely" high taxes you mention are about 32-35% for me. We do not pay local, county, state or federal taxes - just the single income tax. From what my American friends tell me the tax burden here is in fact LOWER. However there are about 50 countries in Europe so it certainly varies. Americans have been fed the propaganda about "socialist" Europe for far too long. I am quite happy about living in a safe, democratic country that ranks far above the US :)

Hear, hear.

Some figures:
Country, literacy rate in percent (world ranking)

Kazakhstan, 99.5 (29)
Ukraine, 99.4 (32)
Tonga, 98.9 (36)
Mongolia, 97.8 (47)
Argentina, 97.2 (53)
United States, 97 (55)
Thailand, 92.6 (72)
Zimbabwe, 90 (85)
Brazil, 88.4 (90)
Namibia, 85 (103)
Libya, 81.7 (111)

Source
Discussion of Source accuracy
UNDP Human Development Index Report, 2005 [pdf]

Before I go any further, let me just say I am in no way upholding Libya as a shining example to the rest of the world. I don't want to sound as if the government there is perfect in everyway or that they have only the concerns of their citizens at heart.

I disagree with the statement that Libya is the most oppressive state next to North Korea. True, they rank 152 out of 157 in Economic Freedom as well as 162 out of 167 in Press Freedom. But Iran and Burma are below Libya in both. That may just be arguing over technical details, but there is some difference in Libya. Libya is making real attempts to reintegrate itself with the international community.

That article also paints a very opinionated picture of Libya. Check out some of the Human Development Reports on Libya. They ranked 58 out of 177. Life expectancy at birth 2000-2005? 73.4 years. Combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools, 2002/03: 96.1% Furthermore, it's oppressive nature is changing aswell, checkout some of the human rights they've accepted. You can check the link above to see individual rankings in enforcement, but they hover around 58 out of 177 on these issues as well:

International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Libya is making improvements, and that's the difference I sought to point out. the CIA also had this to say:

"Libyan officials in the past four years have made progress on economic reforms as part of a broader campaign to reintegrate the country into the international fold. This effort picked up steam after UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003 and as Libya announced that it would abandon programs to build weapons of mass destruction in December 2003. Almost all US unilateral sanctions against Libya were removed in April 2004, helping Libya attract more foreign direct investment, mostly in the energy sector. Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial steps - including applying for WTO membership, reducing some subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization - are laying the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based economy."


Then again, I'm getting off my main point which simply was that these cheap, robust laptops were a good choice for the Libyan government. It follows along side their steps to improve their country, their economy, and ultimatly their people's lives rather than relying on "hand-outs" of advanced medicine for their oil.

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet the massive subsidies provided to fossil fuel power plants. Coal alone gets over 30 Billion USD annually worldwide. On page 73 of this UNDP report there is a nice table. If these subsidies were revoked and given to alternative fuel sources the alt. sources surely would be more competitive.

According to these statistics the per capita electricity consumption in the US is 10336 kWh/y. That's an average consumption rate of 1180 W. You'd have to replace about 2 60 W bulbs per person just so cut back consumption by 10%. Or 3 per person if they're only on 16 hours a day.

The sentence that follows the paragraph quoted in the summary is, "That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million." An oft overlooked corollary of the law of large numbers is that you have to divide your savings by the large number to calculate a percentage.

Sorry, but you could replace every conventional bulb in the world with CFLs, and it still wouldn't save the world, or bother the oil companies much. Besides, this is old news; I've been using CFLs for a few years now in some lamps. I like them because they come in more spectra than "orange" and they don't get as hot (though they do get hot).