Slashdot Mirror

Uh, before you brag too much, you might want to check this out.

$800 a month in India is more than 3 times more than the income of an average person in India.

$732 a week is only 20% higher than the average Canadian. So imagine making 3 times more than you do right now, and you'll have some idea of how well that guy's doing in India.

That's why outsourcing is so popular. In theory, companies can hire 4 people in India for the cost of one co-op student here. And to top it off, all 4 of the Indians will be living like kings.

a lot more funds are spent toward oil-finding than pyramids-finding.

There have been stresses and disruptions in many countries due to globalization, but I believe the results have been positive. Never forget the 400 million chinese who no longer live in poverty. That's a lot of people. Now if we can only get this working in Africa and the Middle East.

USD$4000 would go quite far in providing teachers and supplies in developing nations.

Worldbank.org stats make some interesting reading...
Let's see what $4000 would buy using their Gross National Income figures with the very handy PPP calculation already figured in...

low income country $0-$825 59 countries (at least 4 teachers)
lower middle income, $826 - $3,255 54 countries (at least 1 teacher)
$3,256 - $10,065 upper middle income 40 countries (maybe 1 teacher)
$10,066 or more high income 55 countries (no teachers)

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATI STICS/0,,contentMDK:20420458~menuPK:64133156~pageP K:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html

This data suggests that if I spend the money on teachers, the poorest of the poor benefit the most! If you assume 40 students in a class, that means AT LEAST 160 MORE children are educated in the poorest of the poor nations, 40 in low middle income, etc.

If I spend it on laptops, rich or poor the $4000 only buys 40 laptops. If I were King of the World, I would choose educating 160 more kids every year over a laptop.

I do agree that access to books would be the best application and an excellent use for the laptop. Excellent point.

But the rest of it seems very much like the fruitless rush to computerize American classrooms from years ago.

The politics will soon follow the economic. it would be wise to stay ahead of things in this regard.

You are assuming energy consumption and "carbon emmission" is the only means of polluting.

You are much more likely to get clean water in a rich country than a poor one. The USA doesn't deplete its forests like Brazil or Liberia. Nor does the USA pollute her water sources as much as India, Mexico, or China. Fact is, when people are rich they are more capable of enforcing "Not In My Backyard". Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan etc. do not pollute as much as China or India.

If you believe that poor countries have cleaner rivers and less deorestation and their people have better access to sanitation and clean water ... please do some research .. here's a link to get you started:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EN VIRONMENT/EXTEEI/0,,contentMDK:20487946~menuPK:118 7800~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:408050,00 .html

Nuclear power plants are far, far less polluting than coal-fired plants, and they conveniently store *all* of their pollution in spent fuel rods rather than tossing it willy-nilly into the atmosphere.

And those fuel rods still need to be stored somewhere, millions of years and not the 10,000 the government says, before they aren't dangerous. And disposal of them is just one of the ways the government subsidizes the nuclear power industry.

Hydropower is even less polluting than that, but it commits the blaspheming act of *altering the environment to satisfy human needs*, an unforgivable crime in environmental circles.

Hydro power can does do that but it also can do much more. Because of China's Three River Gorge Dam millions are being forcibly relocated. Dam projects in India are forcing others to be relocated as well. The World Bank which finances or financed many dams has found that they can have significant social impacts. Dams may provide benefits, the WB admits however without proper provisions being made, these dams can also cause considerable damage to upstream and downstream ecosystems.

Environmentalists go on and on about "alternative" sources of energy, conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't possible to power the entire economy on solar or wind, nor is it practical in many places

You're right, there are places solar or wind isn't possible but where one isn't the other may be. Where neither are feasible there are other possibilities, clean coal perhaps being one. Biodiesel and hydrogen may work as well. While it may be some years before hydrogen and fuel cells are ready, biodiesel is here now. Rudolph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on most any vegetable and seed oil. On his Iron Mountain Estate Henry Ford designed and built a car that both used hemp in it's construction and was fueled by methanol made from hemp.

solar cells have an extremely dirty and poisonous manufacturing process, something greenies never seem to think is worth mentioning

This is something I've been thinking about for some tyme, but I have yet to come to any conclusion. Maybe the waste from the manufacture of PV cells can be used as input for another manufacturer.

Hell, even wind power is being blasted by some environmentalists because wind farms occasionally kill birds.

Older wind genies earned the rep for killing birds, however many of those spun relatively fast whereas new wind genie designs are proving to generate as much power at slower blade speeds than older ones and at slower speeds birds aren't at as high a risk of being killed. Other measures are being taken to reduce the hazzard to birds as well. There's also the NAMBY factor.

And if there were a true 'free market' in power generation, the plants would be even cheaper. And less safe, as well. But certainly cheaper than an equal power production capacity in gas, oil, or coal. Transportation savings alone would be enormous.

Even if they do prove safer, the new designs may not necessarily be cheaper. By the reckoning of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has just produced a new analysis of the economics of nuclear power*, the capital cost for today's nuclear designs runs at about $2,000 per kW, against about $1,200 per kW for coal and just $500 per kW for a combined-cycle gas plant. History also suggests that not everything goes as planned when turning clever paper designs into real-life nuclear plants. What is more, the debts of any new plants, unlike the debts of existing plants, will not be written off. In fact, the t

Nuclear power plants are far, far less polluting than coal-fired plants, and they conveniently store *all* of their pollution in spent fuel rods rather than tossing it willy-nilly into the atmosphere.

And those fuel rods still need to be stored somewhere, millions of years and not the 10,000 the government says, before they aren't dangerous. And disposal of them is just one of the ways the government subsidizes the nuclear power industry.

Hydropower is even less polluting than that, but it commits the blaspheming act of *altering the environment to satisfy human needs*, an unforgivable crime in environmental circles.

Hydro power can does do that but it also can do much more. Because of China's Three River Gorge Dam millions are being forcibly relocated. Dam projects in India are forcing others to be relocated as well. The World Bank which finances or financed many dams has found that they can have significant social impacts. Dams may provide benefits, the WB admits however without proper provisions being made, these dams can also cause considerable damage to upstream and downstream ecosystems.

Environmentalists go on and on about "alternative" sources of energy, conveniently ignoring the fact that it isn't possible to power the entire economy on solar or wind, nor is it practical in many places

You're right, there are places solar or wind isn't possible but where one isn't the other may be. Where neither are feasible there are other possibilities, clean coal perhaps being one. Biodiesel and hydrogen may work as well. While it may be some years before hydrogen and fuel cells are ready, biodiesel is here now. Rudolph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on most any vegetable and seed oil. On his Iron Mountain Estate Henry Ford designed and built a car that both used hemp in it's construction and was fueled by methanol made from hemp.

solar cells have an extremely dirty and poisonous manufacturing process, something greenies never seem to think is worth mentioning

This is something I've been thinking about for some tyme, but I have yet to come to any conclusion. Maybe the waste from the manufacture of PV cells can be used as input for another manufacturer.

Hell, even wind power is being blasted by some environmentalists because wind farms occasionally kill birds.

Older wind genies earned the rep for killing birds, however many of those spun relatively fast whereas new wind genie designs are proving to generate as much power at slower blade speeds than older ones and at slower speeds birds aren't at as high a risk of being killed. Other measures are being taken to reduce the hazzard to birds as well. There's also the NAMBY factor.

And if there were a true 'free market' in power generation, the plants would be even cheaper. And less safe, as well. But certainly cheaper than an equal power production capacity in gas, oil, or coal. Transportation savings alone would be enormous.

Even if they do prove safer, the new designs may not necessarily be cheaper. By the reckoning of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has just produced a new analysis of the economics of nuclear power*, the capital cost for today's nuclear designs runs at about $2,000 per kW, against about $1,200 per kW for coal and just $500 per kW for a combined-cycle gas plant. History also suggests that not everything goes as planned when turning clever paper designs into real-life nuclear plants. What is more, the debts of any new plants, unlike the debts of existing plants, will not be written off. In fact, the t

China does not send direct Foreign Aid to the United States. China does buy US Government Bonds, to finance the US Government Debt. That is not the same as sending direct economic aid. Is financing the US Debt a bad thing for the US? That depends upon your point of view. If the US President was interested in the future of my country, he would simply raise taxes to pay for all of the expenses he is incurring. That would reduce the size of the Deficit and have the resulting impact of reducing the dependency upon Japan and China for financiing the deficit.

My original post was written to remind everyone that China is spending about $1 billion to launch this spaceship (see the end of this article), while it receives significant economic development aid from the World Bank. Where are China's priorities?

Take a look at this. Remember, GW Bush just appointed Paul Wolfowitz (the man that is the considered the lead neo-conservative in the United States) to head the World Bank.

I know exactly what he was talking about. However this is just as much geothermal as that and is far cheaper, more practical and useful.

Yes, but that's not what he was talking about. He was talking about this kind of thing, as should have been transparently clear.

First of all, I'm intrigued by this 80% of old communist institutions
 
I pulled this number out of the air to simply stand for "a high percentage", not expecting an actual Russian to call me on it. I have a university degree in economic policy and was speaking from a reasonably informed point of view as a western educated ecomonist. If your local point of view is different, I'd love to hear it.
 
I found this article on the World Bank's website: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/reducingpoverty/docs/ newpdfs/case-summ-Poland-CountryCase.pdf
And here is a highlight illustrating the point I was making in my original post:
 
  In Russia economic contraction was more pronounced. Slow and inconsistent
macroeconomic stabilization and liberalization hampered the structural and institutional changes
that were necessary to stop and reverse the decline in output. Populist policies slowed the adaptation
process and made it more severe. Russia's negative growth through most of 1990s can be traced to
the slow pace and poor sequencing of economic reforms.

So out of all the money you earn each day you only keep $1 a day and you give the rest to charity? Or if you live in the US, I might rephrase and ask if you really only keep $9,827 of your annual salary and give the rest to charity?

I'm guessing you are either in high school or college and don't realize just how long it really takes to make $120,000.

The fact that Australia is only a couple of percentage points behind given that it has a far lower population density AND has a monopolostic telecomunications carrier should be a worry. Most of Australia does not have access to cable television (only in upper middle class suburbs or better), hence most Aussies only have ADSL if Telstra has bothered to make it available.

Da ZombieEngineer

Moscow has become a booming city ripe with economic opportunity

Russia may be treating its oil/gas wealth better than some countries (like Venezuella or some of the Gulf states), but certainly is nowhere near Norway's resilience to the prices' fluctuations.

Given the number of immigrants that come to the US legally and start successful, even if small, companies, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Americans have some sort of monopoly on the ability to make companies go.

Yes. the business innovation you see from the US comes from our legal system which allows ventures to launch, get funded, and to either succeed or fail. It isn't from DNA, it is from appropriate and low levels of regulation.

Starting and running a business in most other countries and complying with their labor laws and financing regulations is actually much harder.

See Doing Business guide to see how hard it is to start a business in other countries. For example, in Brazil, it takes 152 days to start a company, compared with 5 in the US.

Globally there is plenty of entrepreneurism, unfortunately, in many poor countries it has been stifled or forced into the illegal and less productive "informal sector" because of regulations, some of which are more stringent than ones in the developed world.

If you think letting religion run society is a good thing, consider comparing the Middle East to Europe.

Round about 1200, Arab civilization was leading Europe in practically *every* category of art and science.

Then, for various reasons, Europe went through the Renaissance, where pre-Christian achievements were admired again, the Reformation, where the grip of the Catholic church over secular power was broken, and the Enlightenment, where rational inquiry was finally lifted above theology and scripture. The culmination for all of this was the devleopment of modern science, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.

The result of which is that you, sitting in Kansas, as the heir to all of this SECULAR ACHIEVEMENT, can type on a cheap computer and communicate with anyone anywhere in the world, in one of the richest countries on Earth, in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. In the achievement of which, religion sought to obstruct EVERY step along the way.

While, back in the Middle East, they've still got their dominant religion, and even got the chance in Iran and Afghanistan to have true rule by religious principles. The result of which is that the *entire* region http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/pdfs/tab1_1. pdf
of the Middle East and North Africa, with 290 million people, has an economy about the size of SPAIN, with 39 million people.

Yeah, I'd say that secularism is a good thing.

ITC eChoupal brings the power of scale to the small farmer, relevant and real-time information despite
distances, and customized knowledge despite heterogeneity. As a result, farmers earn higher incomes
through increased yields, better quality, and lower transaction costs. The increased efficiencies and
improved crop quality contribute to making Indian agriculture more competitive.

Free access to the Internet is also opening windows of rural India to the world at large. Many
sanchalaks track futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade and other global exchanges directly, in
addition to the prices provided on eChoupal sites. Local language news and entertainment portals are part
of the websites surfed regularly. All sanchalaks have become proficient in using email. Net-based
chatting among sanchalaks is on the rise. Village children use the eChoupal computers for schoolwork,
games, and to access their academic test results.

eChoupal is now regarded as a reliable delivery mechanism for resource development initiatives.
Its potential is being tested through pilot projects in water management and cattle health management
with the help of nongovernmental organizations.

Really? Nothing beyond the cause of World Capitalism?

Silly me. I thought that the World Bank works on project such as an urgently needed sewage treatment plant in Gaza,
post-secondary education funding in Ethiopia,

and rural electrification in Cambodia.

The World Bank's proper name is "the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)". It's called that because, well, that's what it does - and it's done that ever since it was started following World War 2 to assist in the rebuilding of a war-ravaged Europe. Are some World Bank projects questionable? Sure - in the 1980s, there were *huge* protests over the World Bank's willingness to ignore environmental concerns in funding development projects - but since then, it's developed entire programs dedicated to biodiversity and other environmentalist concerns - hell, you can walk into the World Bank and grab a free book on biodiversity projects in South Africa. Yes, the linked article discusses a proposed dam. But the sorry truth is - dam construction is not an unmitigated evil. You need to balance the needs of environmental concerns against development needs, or find ways to combine the two - but environmental issues are very much on the table.

The other big (legitimate) gripe people have with the World Bank is that loans tend to come with strings attached - market liberalization, government asset privatization and reduced government spending, free capital flows, and so on. This is bitter economic medicine, though mostly necessary in the long run (even committed free-traders like Jagdish Bhagwati admit that free capital flows, without regulation, can do great harm - see the Asian financial crisis.) But these standards (known as the Washington Consensus) are subject to constant revision and review, and the World Bank is starting to move away from "one-size-fits-all" macroeconomic solutions attached to loans.

In short - the World Bank does a great deal of good. Are there problems? Certainly. But those problems can and should be discussed and solved without simply dismissing the World Bank as simply dedicated to "world capitalism...blind to the plight of the people that it is ostensibly supposed to benifit." This is a disservice to the men and women who work there, and to the institution itself.

Really? Nothing beyond the cause of World Capitalism?

Silly me. I thought that the World Bank works on project such as an urgently needed sewage treatment plant in Gaza,
post-secondary education funding in Ethiopia,

and rural electrification in Cambodia.

The World Bank's proper name is "the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)". It's called that because, well, that's what it does - and it's done that ever since it was started following World War 2 to assist in the rebuilding of a war-ravaged Europe. Are some World Bank projects questionable? Sure - in the 1980s, there were *huge* protests over the World Bank's willingness to ignore environmental concerns in funding development projects - but since then, it's developed entire programs dedicated to biodiversity and other environmentalist concerns - hell, you can walk into the World Bank and grab a free book on biodiversity projects in South Africa. Yes, the linked article discusses a proposed dam. But the sorry truth is - dam construction is not an unmitigated evil. You need to balance the needs of environmental concerns against development needs, or find ways to combine the two - but environmental issues are very much on the table.

The other big (legitimate) gripe people have with the World Bank is that loans tend to come with strings attached - market liberalization, government asset privatization and reduced government spending, free capital flows, and so on. This is bitter economic medicine, though mostly necessary in the long run (even committed free-traders like Jagdish Bhagwati admit that free capital flows, without regulation, can do great harm - see the Asian financial crisis.) But these standards (known as the Washington Consensus) are subject to constant revision and review, and the World Bank is starting to move away from "one-size-fits-all" macroeconomic solutions attached to loans.

In short - the World Bank does a great deal of good. Are there problems? Certainly. But those problems can and should be discussed and solved without simply dismissing the World Bank as simply dedicated to "world capitalism...blind to the plight of the people that it is ostensibly supposed to benifit." This is a disservice to the men and women who work there, and to the institution itself.

Really? Nothing beyond the cause of World Capitalism?

Silly me. I thought that the World Bank works on project such as an urgently needed sewage treatment plant in Gaza,
post-secondary education funding in Ethiopia,

and rural electrification in Cambodia.

The World Bank's proper name is "the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)". It's called that because, well, that's what it does - and it's done that ever since it was started following World War 2 to assist in the rebuilding of a war-ravaged Europe. Are some World Bank projects questionable? Sure - in the 1980s, there were *huge* protests over the World Bank's willingness to ignore environmental concerns in funding development projects - but since then, it's developed entire programs dedicated to biodiversity and other environmentalist concerns - hell, you can walk into the World Bank and grab a free book on biodiversity projects in South Africa. Yes, the linked article discusses a proposed dam. But the sorry truth is - dam construction is not an unmitigated evil. You need to balance the needs of environmental concerns against development needs, or find ways to combine the two - but environmental issues are very much on the table.

The other big (legitimate) gripe people have with the World Bank is that loans tend to come with strings attached - market liberalization, government asset privatization and reduced government spending, free capital flows, and so on. This is bitter economic medicine, though mostly necessary in the long run (even committed free-traders like Jagdish Bhagwati admit that free capital flows, without regulation, can do great harm - see the Asian financial crisis.) But these standards (known as the Washington Consensus) are subject to constant revision and review, and the World Bank is starting to move away from "one-size-fits-all" macroeconomic solutions attached to loans.

In short - the World Bank does a great deal of good. Are there problems? Certainly. But those problems can and should be discussed and solved without simply dismissing the World Bank as simply dedicated to "world capitalism...blind to the plight of the people that it is ostensibly supposed to benifit." This is a disservice to the men and women who work there, and to the institution itself.

parent is wrong. the US is NOT polluting more than any other nation on earth. Don't make claims without cold hard facts

First, let's start with the obvious facts. The US is one of the largest industrialized nations on earth. Larger countries pollute more -- arguing otherwise contradicts common sense.

Secondly, developing nations pollute far more than modern countries like the US. Dirty industry is far more prevalent in countries like china, mexico, and india. Simply put, they can't practically afford cleaner technologies. Over time, they will develop, but every country needs to go through this 'dirty' phase before they develop cleaner technology.

Finally, I point you to this chart from the World Bank's 1995 pollution survey of 25 of the world's largest cities. The 3 US cities listed are among the cleanest. This chart was one of the first google results for
air pollution statistics by country' -- I could find more, but the results are pretty much in line with other data i've seen. If anyone else has scientifically tested data which they can use to disprove me, please let me know.

How do you figure that? According to the World Bank, in 2003 the US produced 21% of the world's GDP on a PPP basis - the nearest thing to a suitable proxy that I can think of. (If you don't use PPP, it's more like a third, but PPP is surely more appropriate here as you are basically talking about raw production of goods and not the value or quality of those goods.)

No, people haven't stopped having children entirely. But for the past 30 years or so, the U.S. birthrate has been below replacement level.

Replacement rate is somewhere slightly above two births per woman, and the US has been pretty close to that lately. Moreover, US population is expected to increase from 290m to circa 420m by 2050. Why? Because births are not the only way we get new taxpayers; immigration is the major source of US population growth.

So although Europe is facing major demographic problems that demand serious pension system reforms, that's not the case here.

the idea that deaths should be scaled by life expectancy

This concept is used all the time in the field of public health. The term used is DALY (disability adjusted life-years), and basically is a measure of healthy years lost (whether due to illness or premature death).

Thus the death of a 90 year old male is thus nothing in comparision to a 6 year old child contracting malaria.

Most foreigners comming to teh USA, STAY. They don't go home and draw your money and your knowledge outside.

Only if Bush & Co. let them. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) whose visa was pulled for no apparent reason, who had been in the country legally and definitely contributing to society (he's a highly skilled worker). Rather than fight his de facto deportation, he simply moved back to India, where I hear he is doing quite well. In addition, I attend a university with an extremely large number of foreign students (I don't know the numbers, but I have yet to have a class that didn't have a significant number of them) and many of those with whom I have spoken are eager to return to their home countries when they graduate. But that's not a scientific poll or anything:)

Workd economists just call the behavior of the USA to draw bright people from second world countries imperialism.

Wow. I didn't know we were kidnapping them and forcing to come to our schools. I didn't know we were forcing their governments not to develop effective education systems rather than taking the money for themselves. Imperialism implies some form of coercion. While I certainly don't think America is perfect, providing these students with a quality education is one of the good things we do. The only silver bullet in this world is education. High-quality education should be available to all that seek it, and everyone should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Education is the only way to erase all the bigotry, hatred, and anger that keeps us trying to kill each other.

The fact that economies in China, Indonesia India etc. is growing slow is mainly based on the fact theat the people there lack money to start business and go to USA.

Ummm, since when are those economies growing slowly? China's growth has averaged 9.9% every year since 1983. That means they're doubling the size of their economy every seven years! While Indonesia and India haven't experienced the same dramatic growth as China, they've grown at respectable rates of 4.9% and 6.9% respectively. For comparison, average growth for the US economy since 1983 (I couldn't find earlier data) has been 3.5%. So I don't think there's any way that the economic growth of these three countries can be called slow. Sure, many parts of those countries are well below the standard of living in the US, but they started further down on that ladder.

Then you go and patent the inventions those foreigners make, because you claim they did it with your money.

If they created it using the facilities provided by a US research university, they did. If they created it under the employ of a US corporation they did. The only way they didn't use US money to invent something is if they built their lab themselves. At which point, they're probably among those foreigners that will stay, since they have a capital investment in the US, so it's still US money.

All in all, I don't really see where you've made any valid points in this post. Let's try to keep the America hating to valid reasons please, like our overaggressive foreign policy. Let's not hate America for the things we do right, ok?

Most foreigners comming to teh USA, STAY. They don't go home and draw your money and your knowledge outside.

Only if Bush & Co. let them. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) whose visa was pulled for no apparent reason, who had been in the country legally and definitely contributing to society (he's a highly skilled worker). Rather than fight his de facto deportation, he simply moved back to India, where I hear he is doing quite well. In addition, I attend a university with an extremely large number of foreign students (I don't know the numbers, but I have yet to have a class that didn't have a significant number of them) and many of those with whom I have spoken are eager to return to their home countries when they graduate. But that's not a scientific poll or anything:)

Workd economists just call the behavior of the USA to draw bright people from second world countries imperialism.

Wow. I didn't know we were kidnapping them and forcing to come to our schools. I didn't know we were forcing their governments not to develop effective education systems rather than taking the money for themselves. Imperialism implies some form of coercion. While I certainly don't think America is perfect, providing these students with a quality education is one of the good things we do. The only silver bullet in this world is education. High-quality education should be available to all that seek it, and everyone should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Education is the only way to erase all the bigotry, hatred, and anger that keeps us trying to kill each other.

The fact that economies in China, Indonesia India etc. is growing slow is mainly based on the fact theat the people there lack money to start business and go to USA.

Ummm, since when are those economies growing slowly? China's growth has averaged 9.9% every year since 1983. That means they're doubling the size of their economy every seven years! While Indonesia and India haven't experienced the same dramatic growth as China, they've grown at respectable rates of 4.9% and 6.9% respectively. For comparison, average growth for the US economy since 1983 (I couldn't find earlier data) has been 3.5%. So I don't think there's any way that the economic growth of these three countries can be called slow. Sure, many parts of those countries are well below the standard of living in the US, but they started further down on that ladder.

Then you go and patent the inventions those foreigners make, because you claim they did it with your money.

If they created it using the facilities provided by a US research university, they did. If they created it under the employ of a US corporation they did. The only way they didn't use US money to invent something is if they built their lab themselves. At which point, they're probably among those foreigners that will stay, since they have a capital investment in the US, so it's still US money.

All in all, I don't really see where you've made any valid points in this post. Let's try to keep the America hating to valid reasons please, like our overaggressive foreign policy. Let's not hate America for the things we do right, ok?

Most foreigners comming to teh USA, STAY. They don't go home and draw your money and your knowledge outside.

Only if Bush & Co. let them. I have an acquaintance (friend of a friend) whose visa was pulled for no apparent reason, who had been in the country legally and definitely contributing to society (he's a highly skilled worker). Rather than fight his de facto deportation, he simply moved back to India, where I hear he is doing quite well. In addition, I attend a university with an extremely large number of foreign students (I don't know the numbers, but I have yet to have a class that didn't have a significant number of them) and many of those with whom I have spoken are eager to return to their home countries when they graduate. But that's not a scientific poll or anything:)

Workd economists just call the behavior of the USA to draw bright people from second world countries imperialism.

Wow. I didn't know we were kidnapping them and forcing to come to our schools. I didn't know we were forcing their governments not to develop effective education systems rather than taking the money for themselves. Imperialism implies some form of coercion. While I certainly don't think America is perfect, providing these students with a quality education is one of the good things we do. The only silver bullet in this world is education. High-quality education should be available to all that seek it, and everyone should be encouraged to take advantage of it. Education is the only way to erase all the bigotry, hatred, and anger that keeps us trying to kill each other.

The fact that economies in China, Indonesia India etc. is growing slow is mainly based on the fact theat the people there lack money to start business and go to USA.

Ummm, since when are those economies growing slowly? China's growth has averaged 9.9% every year since 1983. That means they're doubling the size of their economy every seven years! While Indonesia and India haven't experienced the same dramatic growth as China, they've grown at respectable rates of 4.9% and 6.9% respectively. For comparison, average growth for the US economy since 1983 (I couldn't find earlier data) has been 3.5%. So I don't think there's any way that the economic growth of these three countries can be called slow. Sure, many parts of those countries are well below the standard of living in the US, but they started further down on that ladder.

Then you go and patent the inventions those foreigners make, because you claim they did it with your money.

If they created it using the facilities provided by a US research university, they did. If they created it under the employ of a US corporation they did. The only way they didn't use US money to invent something is if they built their lab themselves. At which point, they're probably among those foreigners that will stay, since they have a capital investment in the US, so it's still US money.

All in all, I don't really see where you've made any valid points in this post. Let's try to keep the America hating to valid reasons please, like our overaggressive foreign policy. Let's not hate America for the things we do right, ok?

You are -- quite understandably -- confusing some things which, while related, are separate. A list of concepts covered at Mises.org would include:

History
Austrian Economics
Libertarianism

Within libetarianism, there are three sub-categories:

Anarcho-Capitalist
Minarchist
Constitutionalis t

Murray Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist; Mises. however, was minarchist. Sen. Ron Paul is Constitutionalist / minarchist.

Saying that you think anarcho-capitalism is unrealistic is not an argument against Austrian economics or the ATBC. Austrian economics merely describes the results of various scenarios. It is consequentialist. It is void of morality.

Libertarianism is a position on what should be law. It is a moral position on law and justice. It holds that it is justifiable to use coercive force against the initiation of aggression, but nothing else. Anarcho-capitalism holds that States necessarily violate that principle, thus are criminal organizations that are undesireable, and should be abolished.

The practicality of this position does not weigh on the judgement. Capitalism happens to be the most efficient system possible; however, even if it weren't, so what? If socialism were somehow more efficient, that wouldn't justify it. Rothbard acknowledged this point. Mises refused to even consider it. When presented with the question, "What if socialism was more efficient than capitalism?", he simply said, "But it isn't," and that was all that could be gotten.

Libertarianism is just as irrelevant to the conclusions of Austrian economics as is vica versa. Austrian economics is not a position on what forms of government should exist. It is a factual pursuit of knowledge. Your criticisms against anarcho-capitalism are thus nothing more than the result of poor aggregate thinking, and completely miss the target. There can be non-libertartian Austrian economists (see Greenspan). There can also be non-Austrian libertarians (see Bryan Caplan).

History is something to be interpretted through economics and politics. It can also inspire the study of both. However, it cannot tell us anything about the truth of either. It must be interpretted. Without our proper interpretation, history would be just a series of different things, without any causal connections.

Finally, regarding your criticisms on anarcho-capitalism. As someone who's read up on history, you should know that Ancient Ireland and Ancient Iceland were Stateless, the former for almost a 1000 years, the latter for almost 300. The "Wild West" was largely stateless, yet was very peaceful (despite dramatic renditions in the movies). Somalia is essentially anarcho-capitalistic, though experiencing difficulties. I suspect that given time, private solutions to law will arise. Anarcho-capitalists do not assert anything about the quality of human beings, only that for any given distribution of human character, anarcho-capitalism is the best system. Whether all men are evil and stupid or not, having a State doesn't fix the problem -- but only allow the worst to rise to the top.

Is it really surprising that the Czech republic spends less on education? Their Gross National Income per capita is $6,740, while it is $37,610 for the US source. I would be surprised if salaries there are 1/3 of salaries in the US; they're probably lower (though the purchasing power parity figures might be higher, but I doubt that's how the 1/3 figure was calculated). However, this doesn't mean that their teachers are any less effective, they just get paid less. So I fail to see how it is surprising that they get more for their money. Furthermore, for the Czech republic to spend 1/3 of what we spend on education, they would have to be spending a much larger percentage of their GDP on education than us, since our GDP is much larger than 3 times the Czech Republic's. So we find after all that the Czech republic cares a lot about education and spends a lot of their money on it. Is it any surprise then that their schools are good?

I believe this is where you explain why paved roads are a prerequisite for researching and publishing papers. As much fun as it is to compare apples and oranges, your comparison here is only a couple of baby steps beyond "oh yeah? Well, you're funny looking!"

I think it is quite relevant, and I think you ad hominem attacks are rather uncalled for. What you are implying is that the US should be spending on research at least as much, on a per unit of wealth basis (still as of yet not defined to my satisfaction)as India is currently doing.

The purpose of research, which you fail to recognize, is to brink new technology or ideas to a particular culture, and thus the world. The inability of India to engage in a basic measure of civilization despite have a huge surplus population speaks volumes of their priorities and organizational efficiency. What worth can their research possibly have if such basic activities prove impossible for them?

You fail to understand how major aspects of a society are nowhere near as independent as you seem to believe. This is a sign of intellectual immaturity and youthful egoism, as you cannot see how ultimately every societal pursuit is intimiately related to form a culture.

I'm also kinda curious as to how much you know about the country anyway. You do know that India has weird things like highways, major cities, electricity and so on, right? This claim that they're somehow trapped two millenia in the past is pretty ignorant, even by the standards of Slashdot's usual brilliance about anything outside of the US' borders.

I have been to India. I have been in towns where electricty is off just as frequently as it is on. I have been to villages without ANY electricity. I have seen that most roads are certainly not paved, even in major cities. There are some highways, but it is not a comprehensive national system by any means. Highways in India are what we call roads in the US. Roads in India are any man-made attempt at surface equalization. Packed earth counts as a road. Gravel counts as a road. Even the World Bank indicates only 500km of highways in India are actualy more than two lanes.

I know people have this kneejerk reaction to assume anything coming out of other countries has to be some affront or threat to Our Way Of Life that must be put down as much as possible, but things have been getting more infantile than usual these days. "Oh, but nothing they do matters, because they're not us yet!"

Why don't you go ask the starving children, dozens of whom will come to greet you the moment you step foot in that country, if that research means anything to them. I have no doubt that perhaps some interesting research goes on in India, but clearly there is disconnect between the ultimate goal of research, ie building a greater civilization, and the research that is currently taking place. This has nothing to do with India as a whole, as this research is certainly benefiting several hundred million people there. It is those people in fact I am referring to. The intellectual elite of that nation who have had the educational opportunity to become researchers, should instead focus on their immediate nation. Researching obscure technologies is a luxury for advanced civilizations, which comparitively, India is not.

Research for the sake of research is a modern sickness.

actually that figure would be more like 7.50*5=37.50. The World Bank shows that the GNI per capita for India is 2,880$ with purchasing power parity (PPP) as opposed to simple dollar figure of 530 showing a multiple of approx 5.

Here is a very very short list of American charities that do work that impacts the world. I'm only listing a few to give you a few links. You can find a gazillion others.

http://www.pedaids.org/

http://www.cancerresearch.org/

http://www.children.org/home.asp?sid=98BD1FD2-E8B7 -42F2-B0A7-BC88E745D831

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/home

http://www.afsc.org/

http://www.accion.org/default.asp

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=49986

You can get a nice list of the top ranked (in terms of money raised being used wisely) charities online

According to American Association of Fundraising Counsel" Americans gave $241 Billion to charity in 2003.

<sarcasm>

That's only ~$1000 per person in the US, which probably does seem a bit niggardly to other countries who like to envision the United States Citizens as fat bloated and heartless. Look at it this way: The average income for a family of 4 in the US is $40k. Giving $4000 for that family is just down right cheap.

</sarcasm>

Certainly if you look at the charts you'll see that Americans did indeed give the Lions share on internal charity, because charity does in fact begin at home, but the amounts spent on international charities, plus the amounts spent for medical research that will eventually benefit the world are hardly insignificant. Donations to save the environment benefit everyone, as does charitable giving in many scientific and medical areas of research.

So, there are some of my figures. If I may turn the tables, you said :The hike in interest rates in the 1980s, caused indirectly by Star Wars expenditure, raised these repayment rates to crippling levels. Would you return the courtesy and post some documentation/facts/figures to back up that statement? I know that the "Star Wars defense was proposed in 1983, and that $60 Billion had been spent on Star Wars in the last 20 years. Yet, if Americans gave away 241 Billion in 1 year, I can't see how 60 billion over 20 years would have caused a hike in interest rates.

I also agree that debts can be crippling, which is why now there are policies established such as the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (run by USAID) call for forgiving foreign debt (at least in South and Cetral America) in return for children's welfare reform. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative also makes sure that countries are able to survive their debt. I would very much like to see Iraq be forgiven the debts that their Dictator amassed in their name, but it seems Iraq's creditors will have their pound of flesh.

You can bet that the bill will be footed from here, and we

According to this DOE fact sheet article, until recently they were flaring off almost all the natural gas

Flaring is a method used in the oil and gas industry to get rid of the portion of flammable gas that is produced during oil recovery, and which is uneconomical to recover. Safety issues are also sometimes a driver for flaring - you don't generally want a lot of flammable gas just hanging around your well site. Blowing up is bad. If you sum over the well sites in a geographical area, there may be a considerable amount of gas being lost, but if there is only a tiny bit being released at each site it's often not feasible to do recovery.

You might be interested to know that the practice of flaring is common in the "developed" world. In Alberta, Canada, for example, there are many, many flare sites spread throughout the province and in the last few years a lot of effort has been put into strategies for flaring reductions. In fact, Alberta's efforts have become a model for other countries, including Nigeria, which have expressed a desire to make flaring reductions.

We could do a lot more good in the world if we spent more time helping and less time finger pointing - especially when we don't understand the issues. People who are working to bring the internet to those who don't have it should be commended

First - yes, the US must change to meet the new global economy. I support outsourcing, at the expense of my own salary and living conditions. I imagine my stance will change over time. Disclaimer - I'm not an economist, I'm current taking a macroeconomics class but it's really just a skim overview of economics.

And GDP numbers I bring up below are from the world bank Total GDP 2002 report.

The E.U.s GDP is approximately the same as the U.S. About $10 trillion if I recall.

6,648,492 million. About 1/5 of the world economy. Part of the reason, I suspect, for the US's huge GDP is the cultural acceptance of high personal debt, which I understand is not a cultural similarity to many nations in the EU, though it is slowly creeping in over there. Home ownership and low cost mortgages, federal bank insurance, tax credits on various debts, etc early on in the 20th century provided a fertile field for today's economy in the US.

China's GDP was around 6 trillion...it will eventually pass the U.S. and not in the so distant future.

To be pedantic, China's GDP is 1,266,052 Million. I agree that it eventually must pass the US GDP if 1) China remains one cohesive state and 2) Any societal/cultural/governing revolution is started, mediated, and controlled by the gov't. I don't think China can withstand any of those revolutions economically, despite state efforts to do so. Further the gov't must spend so much money training and keeping their citizens in line it may be difficult to sustain any temporary growth.

Its true the U.S. GDP is growing again but that is almost entirely due to very low interest rates and the massive fiscal stimulus the Federal government is injecting in to the economy...This deficit spending is leading to near term prosperity at great future risk.

Well, at least you agree that the current administration's plan is working, albiet extremely risky. When the depression struck the gov't tried all the 'normal' methods to get the economy going, and then a guy by the name of Keynes wrote several treatises on the subject of economics which effectively said that then current theories were no longer applicable to then current economies. The economy only did well when aggregate spending, private, busines, and public, was up. It is his model of the economy which we use. Therefore, when the economy is bad the gov't must increase its spending, and encourage private and business spending. Further, deficit is a tool to be used to increase spending. Whether the rich or poor should be the ones receiving the encouragement is up for debate.

Personally, I hope to see more foreign investment and outsourcing. I hope that I can personally stay ahead of the curve and make myself valuable as an employee, but in the end the relationship I have with an employer is a business relationship. If he can get a better deal on milk at KMart, then he might stop shopping at Kroger. If I don't step up to the challenge and make a better offer then I can't reasonably force them to choose me over a better/cheaper product. I think too many people are fairly prideful on this point - as if it were their right to be making more than 80% of the world's population at the expense of other employees and businesses.

Besides, as companies get burned by outsourcing, and others have great success many jobs will move back here and other jobs will leave. This cycle will find another equilibrium just as past outsourcing 'emergencies' (cloth mills, steel, cars, etc) did. It's just another decade in the global economy - nothing to see here, move along. If one really didn't agree with outsourcing, one would have to forego buying any products made elsewhere.

Our economy already depends too much on outsourcing of goods and services. The real shock will be when we're forced t

Get a clue.
Read some actual reports on Russian economy.
Russia still has regions living in extreme poverty, but as an overall economy it has had a year on year GDP grouth of 7+ for the third year running. So in fact economically, it has no problem in affording it.

OK, let's read an actual report about the Russian Federation's economy.
Population below national poverty line: 25%
GNI per capita US$2,140
GDP US$346.5 billion
GDP Growth 4.3 %

Let's see, $346B is 1/5 that of England (half the population of Russia) and 1/30 of the USA. And per capita of $2k with 25% under national poverty is hardly a few poor regions. Large growth rates of something small is still not much. With all due respect to Russia's world class rocket science know-how, no, their government shouldn't be blowing money on this kind of thing it right now.

Care to provide any sources to back up your statements?

According to an interview Germany has practically no waiting-lines. I assume the Scandinavian countries are known to have an even better health-care system.

In the WHO World Health Report 2000 France is ranked first, the US 37th.

> You want cheaper healthcare? Get the government OUT of it.

I did not see the parent saying anything of cheaper healthcare. Not everyone is an egoist.

Oh, BTW:
> The U.S. spends more total dollars and more dollars per capita on health care than any other nation and New Zealand is in approximately the top 10% in spending.
Source

Even to provide light for a large greenhouse during the lunar nights (not to mention maintain a constant temperature during this cycle that ranges from -180 C to 110 C would be an enormous amount.

Solar radiation in the tropics is something like 1000 watts per square metre. Say you need 30% of that (we'll be generous), and because you'd only need to illuminate for half the time we'll halve it again. So we could work on a constant 150 watts per square metre. Over one year, that works out to 1314 kW/h. We have to add in an allowance for the less-than-perfect efficiency of the lights, but I have no idea what that factor might be. But, ignoring that, at 10c per kW/h, which is a ballpark figure for power generation on Earth (rather than the moon, where it's likely to be much more expensive), we're up to $131.40 to illuminate our crop for a year.

Now, how much are you going to produce out of that one square metre of land? According to this article, efficient rice farmers get about 8 (presumably metric) tons per hectare. Maybe you could double this in a moon farming situation - no pests, optimal watering, custom-built soil, etc. etc. etc., so we'll say 16 tons per hectare. That works out to 1.6 kilograms per square meter.

So our rice costs at least 80 USD per kilogram, just for the power to keep it lit!

That's just the beginnings of our problems, however. We need water and soil for our plants. Water doesn't seem to be exactly abundant on the moon - at best, there's water on the poles but it's going to be a PITA to get at it (if it's there, it'll be in a crater that never sees the sun and is consequently under about -200 Celsius). We could potentially cheat and make water by bringing hydrogen from somewhere else and mixing it with the much heavier oxygen we could get by melting lunar rocks. What else do we need? Carbon, for one. Even the Artemis Project, a bunch of people trying advocating lunar colonization, doubt that there's much carbon available. Carbon will have to be either a) imported from Earth, or possibly b) obtained from the asteroid belt (which, longer term, is actually likely to be easier than from Earth).

All in all, therefore, lunar agriculture is looking dodgy until the cost of energy drops dramatically.

When i lived in Finland, a rather poor country..

Frogs jumping in asbestos can be very entertaining to watch. Usually it's just boring...

financial institutions usually scores Finland very high on their credit lists... According to worldbank France and Finland are essentially equal on GNP/capita.

Whaddayameanpoorcountry?

• In terms of cost, any productivity advantage the US worker has is vastly overwhelmed by the wage differences across different countries.

• In terms of cost, any productivity advantage the US worker has is vastly overwhelmed by the wage differences across different countries.

I won't comment on your theory, but your GDP numbers are just plain wrong. The US accounts for about one-third of global GDP, not 10% as you suggest. Global GDP per capita is thus around $5000, nowhere near the $18k you suggest. And since 1995, the US has accounted for fully 60% of world GDP growth. The US economy is still the main engine for world growth. I'm not saying anything about how fair or equitable or sustainable that American economic growth has been. And it's good that you're trying to raise some sort of alarm about the dangers of race-to-the-bottom off-shoring. But if you use numbers so absurdly detached from reality as yours, no one will take any argument you make seriously.

Sources are also your friend.
Source: World Bank

They don't need to tax the phone call per se.

That's completely different from what is being proposed now. Taxing phone calls "per se" is exactly what they're considering.

If they must tax the internet, then a percentage tax taken from the bill collected by the ISP would be a much better idea. That, at least, would be fair and wouldn't discriminate amoung one internet protocol or another. I don't want to see (for example) people prefering NetMeeting over VoIP or AIM over email just because one of them isn't taxed.

Taxes are much less onerous when they are attached to an existing monentary transaction. Sales tax, hotel tax, income tax... the hurt that those things do to the payer is mainly from the actual money taken away. But taxes on something free impose many more costs- you've now got to go through all the paperwork of making a transaction that hadn't been necessary at all. (Like how the biggest irritation of tollbooths is not the money itself, but the traffic congestion from having to sit in line digging for coins)

But if you buy the argument that web and e-mail access should be universal, then it suggests the need for some form of tax & subsidy scheme to provide that access to everyone.

Again, that is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. The government certainly isn't proposing a "Rural Internetization Project". There's no specific internet service they'd be funding- the tax would go towards the general fund.

Statistics on telecommunications technology are kept by the World Bank.

The highlight of the statistics for the US is that there are about 660 telephone lines per 1,000 people. There are about 2,100 radios per 1,000 people. That means the average person has two radios to listen to, but only 60% of the people have a telephone line. Now, if you adust from people to households, it gets a bit more optimistic. Only about half of people have Internet access. Radio is one of those "lifeline services" in telecommuncations policy buzzspeak.

Start looking at countries other than the U.S., the numbers get worse.

The Grameen Bank, the original microcredit lending bank, is using cellphone technology to help remote villages get the information they need. Of course, they don't need a mob --- just one cellphone per village, owned and operated by a "phone lady" who rents it out to anyone who needs it. That way villages get the info they need without having to wire everything in sight. Here's a Wall St Journal article about one "phone lady". And a World Bank article about the GrameenPhone network.

Microsoft expects to rake in 35 billion in 2004. Planet earth's total GDP for 2002 was 32 trillion. Therefore, an entity a thousand times bigger than Microsoft would exceed the total economic output of the known universe.

Actuall, the GNP per capita in USD is only $380 in India. The data is a bit outdated, but things haven't changed much in 6 years. And since the Full Version of Windows XP is $299, that only leaves a family with $81 for food for the rest of the year...Oh, and the computer too...

Maybe "us Yanks" make more of the pollution because we actually do stuff, you know, like make things and run a strong economy? I suppose we could all go live in mud huts with our thumbs up our asses and congratulate ourselves on our moral purity while we starve (and there would still be a faction complaining about how we were ruining the riverbank by collecting mud for our huts) but I say, you first. You don't seem to be in a hurry to give up modern technology since you apparently have a computer and internet access, but that means you are probably in something like the wealthiest and most polluting 1/100% of humanity. And as far as "screwing the environment" goes, are you aware that infant mortality and life expectancy have improved everywhere over the last century, in the "developing world" more than in the "first world"? And that large parts of the "Western world" are significantly cleaner than they were 50 years ago? (For example, wild salmon have returned to Scotland's River Clyde.) If that's "screwing the environment", let's have more of it. I realize that believing that EVIL POLLUTERS ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD!!! is more exciting than looking at the mixed and confusing picture the real world presents, but come on, put down the Paul Ehrlich book and the bong.

Be glad you don't live there. From the link: The city currently lacks a wastewater collection and disposal system; virtually all domestic and industrial wastewater discharges through some 600 random discharge points into the two rivers, which run through the city. Since these two rivers are the source of the city's drinking water, the lack of wastewater management facilities gives rise to a daily risk to public health.

Phew. No thanks.