Log in

View Full Version : America?



jenar
8th June 2005, 23:52
· Vol 26 · Issue 1264 · PUBLISHED 2/23/2005
URL: www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp
HOME: www.citypages.com


No. 1?

America by the numbers


by Michael Ventura


No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:

The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).

The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

"The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).

Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!

"The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).

"Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).

Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).

Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.

The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.

"The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.

Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
"U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.

Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).

The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).

"Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
"Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).

"Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).

The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).

U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).

Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).

Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).

"Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).

"Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

"Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).

No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.

The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.



Reprinted from the Austin Chronicle.

· · Vol 26 · Issue 1264 · PUBLISHED 2/23/2005
URL: www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp
HOME: www.citypages.com


City Pages is the Online News and Arts Weekly of the Twin Cities

codyvo
9th June 2005, 00:09
Very interesting, some of the facts surprised me, some didn't. I think it shows that our primary interests are quite misguided and it shows that the average american is much more ignorant and downright stupid than most people from other countries. I personally didn't like when it compared the US to europe, europe is made up of lots of differant countries and is much larger than the US but overall I liked it. I also like looking at the CIA world factbook.

Frederick_Engles
9th June 2005, 00:16
But you have the glory of choice!

Publius
9th June 2005, 00:18
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA. The results of the new study represent a grave critique of European economic policy.

Stark differences become apparent when comparing official economic statistics. Europe lags behind the USA when comparing GDP per capita and GDP growth rates. The current economic debate among EU leaders lacks an understanding of the gravity of the situation in many European countries. Structural reforms of the European economy as well as far reaching welfare reforms are well overdue. The Lisbon process lacks true impetus, nor is it sufficient to improve the economic prospects of the EU.

EU versus USA is written by Dr Fredrik Bergström, President of the Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr Robert Gidehag, until recently Chief Economist of the same institute and now President of the Swedish Taxpayer's Association.

Exploited Class
9th June 2005, 00:29
All the groups that took data to come up with those figures and rankings just hate America and Freedom.

It is a giant liberal press conspiracy because America really comes in #1 in the world on everything good and last in everything bad.

If you believe anything else then you just hate America and love the terrorist.


If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states.
Well it is neat to see that even with such a low GDP, their efficency is so good that they can out rank America in all the important areas. I guess economy isn't everything.

Publius
9th June 2005, 00:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:52 PM




No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:

This guy is so 'un-American'! He must hate our 'empire'!



The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).

...with over a 97% literacy rate. Taking our influx of immigrants into account, I don't see this as bad at all.


Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

There is no possible way. Without the study, I cannot believe this.



"The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).

So Americans with little education score worse than Europeans with little education?

Compelling.


Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!

Without 'remedial' being defined, this means nothing.


"The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).

Well since there are more people in Europe, this makes sense.

Per capita, I'm sure a different story is told.

And there is literally no way Europe is beating America in capital raised. Europe is not growing fast enough to be raising any capital. It defies logic.



"Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).

Europe has more people.


Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).

Can a correlation between NSF funding and the publication of scientific literature be proven?


Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.

Prices of grad schools went up.

And this data means that more AMERICANS are getting into grad schools (As grad school admissions are not going down).



The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.

So America's socialist system is worse than other countrie's socialist system. I'll agree with that.

Go back to the 50s, when we had a free-market health care system and we were the world leader. Correlation? I think so.

And I need to read the report before I'm able the judge it's findings, but I think it's ludicrous to say that America has the 37th worst health care in the world, when it boasts the Mayo Clinic, numerous top hospitals at our univertities, and is a country thousands of people go to to recieve medical attention.

I cannot possibly think of any criteria that would place the US at 37th. It defies logic.

There aren't 37 first-world nations on earth.




"The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.

The US provides health to all it's citizens. You can go to the doctor any time.

And the U.S. government already funds 60% of health care in this country, I can only imagine how much worse it would be if it funded 100%.


Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
"U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.

How many people die each year due to waiting lists for care?

And read the Timbro study.



Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm



The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

Thank our socialist health care system.

And Cuba's made-up numbers.


Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

Thank our socialist health care system.


The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).

As opposed to what? It just shows that pregnant women are very healthy in this country.



"Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
"Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).

Read the Timbro study. Americans are far more wealthy than Europeans.

Again, there are more people in Europe.



"Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).

What kind of EU subsidies do these companies get?

Since the EU is many countries, and those countries have native banks, it makes sense that they would have more large banks.

And that list is pitiful.

Microsoft, P&G, many other companies show that.


The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).

And gained more than that back.


U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).

And gained them back.


Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).

I'll dig up a few pieces on insurance.


Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

And this isn't even worth getting into. It's just ludicrous.

Those countries owning our government bonds is not a bad thing at all. End of story.


Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

< 2% of Americans are farmers.

What percentage of Brazlians are farmers?

And how do we bear trade deficits to them? Do you hold a trade deficit with your grocer?


As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

<2% of Americans are farmers, compared to what percentage of the world population?



Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn&#39;t show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That&#39;s more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don&#39;t show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

Irrelevent.


One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).

Compare this to Europe.


"Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).

I really doubt this one, it just does not make sense at all.

Even if it is true, though, it&#39;s still irrelvent.


"Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

Absolute tripe.



Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

If you capture a terrorist who is planning to set of a nuclear bomb in New York City, but won&#39;t talk, would you torture him to find out the information?


"Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).

Nothing to compare this with.



"The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).

Well good thing that just isn&#39;t an unsubstantiated opinon&#33;



No. 1? In most important categories we&#39;re not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.

Ha&#33;


The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.

Weaponry? Without it, we wouldn&#39;t have anything.

Consumer spending? Is a good thing.

Debt? Huh?

Delusion? The American author of this piece provides delusion to make America number by a large margin.

Andy Bowden
9th June 2005, 15:27
In what respect does the USA have a "socialist" healthcare system? My understanding is Healthcare is private in the USA, with Americans taking out a form of insurance to pay for it. Europe has a far more "socialist" healthcare system by comparison in which women are 70% less likely to die in childbirth.

Cuba&#39;s numbers are not "made up" either, they have been confirmed by the UN and even the Economist admitted Cuba had excellent healthcare,

"Cuba maintains levels of health care unknown to most poor countries; and rare still, does so in the countryside as in the cities"

Unless of course you believe the UN is part of a Communist conspiracy, in which case keep a look out for those black helicopters :lol:

ahhh_money_is_comfort
9th June 2005, 16:01
You neglected a few stats:

Olympic gold medals
Noble Prizes
Car ownership
TV ownership
Private machinegun onwership
Hollywood movie stars


You know. The important stuff.

Professor Moneybags
9th June 2005, 16:14
"Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

What&#39;s the bet this one-in-four are all socialists ?


Unless of course you believe the UN is part of a Communist conspiracy, in which case keep a look out for those black helicopters

Or African dictators trying to steal your farm (in which case the UN will just look the other way).

Publius
9th June 2005, 16:43
In what respect does the USA have a "socialist" healthcare system? My understanding is Healthcare is private in the USA, with Americans taking out a form of insurance to pay for it. Europe has a far more "socialist" healthcare system by comparison in which women are 70% less likely to die in childbirth.

Cuba&#39;s numbers are not "made up" either, they have been confirmed by the UN and even the Economist admitted Cuba had excellent healthcare,

"Cuba maintains levels of health care unknown to most poor countries; and rare still, does so in the countryside as in the cities"

Unless of course you believe the UN is part of a Communist conspiracy, in which case keep a look out for those black helicopters :lol:

Cuba&#39;s numbers are not reliable at all. Cuba&#39;s &#39;official&#39; numbers, the UN numbers, and the CIA World Fact Book numbers are often in confrontation.

And I&#39;ll look for the Economist article, I&#39;m sure you&#39;re misrepresenting it.

And the U.S. has a socialist healthcare system in that 60% of all health care costs are paid for by the government. This is more than is payed by the governments of those European countries.

Andy Bowden
9th June 2005, 19:43
With the exception of Private healthcare in Britain which is used by the minority, The Govt pays for all healthcare from taxation - although there has been the introduction of PFI (Private Finance Schemes) in British healthcare, the vast majority is publicly funded.

Also, a govt funding an agency does not make it Socialist. The US funds it&#39;s military and police - presumably this makes them "socialist" :rolleyes:

Cuba&#39;s social achievements have been recognised by even those who oppose Castro - even Colin Powell confessed at one point that Cuba had made great advances, while swiftly adding that Cuba was in a "timewarp".

Also even free - market spokesperson James Wolfehnsohn who head(s?) the World Bank admitted that Cuba had done "A great job" in terms of Social Welfare.


http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http...title/learn.htm (http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http://http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/learn.htm)

Publius
9th June 2005, 19:52
Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 9 2005, 06:43 PM





With the exception of Private healthcare in Britain which is used by the minority, The Govt pays for all healthcare from taxation - although there has been the introduction of PFI (Private Finance Schemes) in British healthcare, the vast majority is publicly funded.

Fascinating.



Also, a govt funding an agency does not make it Socialist. The US funds it&#39;s military and police - presumably this makes them "socialist" :rolleyes:

Govt. funding of an agency makes it socialist. The U.S. military is socialist, in the sense that the market is not providing it.

I would argue that the market cannot provide it effectively, so it&#39;s justified, but it&#39;s still socialist.



Cuba&#39;s social achievements have been recognised by even those who oppose Castro - even Colin Powell confessed at one point that Cuba had made great advances, while swiftly adding that Cuba was in a "timewarp".

Tell me, how much has Cuba&#39;s GDP per capita gone up since Batista? How much has the GDP of other Latin American countries risen?



Also even free - market spokesperson James Wolfehnsohn who head(s?) the World Bank admitted that Cuba had done "A great job" in terms of Social Welfare.

Does social welfare mean that you can&#39;t get arrested for speaking your mind?

Tell me, how do Cuba&#39;s policies differ from those of the Soviet Union, or of North Korea?

Why is Cuba a better country?

Andy Bowden
9th June 2005, 20:47
I don&#39;t know offhand how much Cuba&#39;s GDP has risen by since the revolution - I know that Sugar production increased dramatically - from 1 million tons to 1.9 million in the year after the revolution.
In any case I think GDP and other calculations can be misleading. For example in Cuba the per capita income is &#036;2500 dollars and in Pakistan &#036;3000 - in theory Pakistanis should be better off but in practice the opposite is true.
Technically, Cuba is one of the poorest countries in Latin America but because this wealth is distributed far more fairly, it makes the difference.
At the end of the day what matters to most Cubans is that the living standards they enjoy are considerably better than other latin american countries and light years ahead of Batista.
In terms of freedom of speech, while the PCC (Cuban Communist Party) is the only legal party, it cannot formally stand for elections. This means non-PCC members can stand - and have won - seats in Cuba&#39;s parliament. There are 2 baptist ministers in parliament for example.
The British TUC (trades union congress) visited Cuba and denied any accusation Cuban Unions were "arms of the state", this is reflected during the special period, were Cuban Unions led a successful campaign against a proposal by some in the Cuban Govt to tax workers wages more.
Those arrested last spring where not arrested for "speaking out" - it was because they were accepting money from a hostile foreign power, as they were meeting James Cason. I&#39;m sure if CPUSA members accepted money and met the Soviet ambassador during the cold war they would be clapped up and no-one would bat an eyelid.
Is the CIA also Socialist in your opinion? I&#39;m sure this will come as a great surprise to much of Latin America :lol:
The fact is the majority of the people (in britain at least) are strongly in favour of having a publicly funded health, education etc. "Market forces" have been a disaster for British railways for example.

Professor Moneybags
9th June 2005, 22:17
The fact is the majority of the people (in britain at least) are strongly in favour of having a publicly funded health, education etc.

Argument by popularity. Just because a large number of people are in favor of something doesn&#39;t make it a good idea, or right.


"Market forces" have been a disaster for British railways for example.

Prior to nationalisation, they worked fine.

jenar
9th June 2005, 22:57
Originally posted by Publius+Jun 8 2005, 11:47 PM--> (Publius &#064; Jun 8 2005, 11:47 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 10:52 PM

Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That&#39;s why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.

And this isn&#39;t even worth getting into. It&#39;s just ludicrous.

Those countries owning our government bonds is not a bad thing at all. End of story.

[/b]
Yes, it´s ok - untill they wanna sell the bonds, all at the same time... :)

And GDP per capita does only tell half the truth - it does not tell you how the income is divited among the citizens...

fernando
9th June 2005, 23:31
GDP IS HOLY&#33;&#33;&#33; Well let the capitalists believe that to be the standard of prosperity...

Sure the US mgiht have a high GDP...how is the money divided? Oh...hmm, last time I check the CIA facts thingie 12% of the US population lived in poverty...Western European countries, eventhough their GDP&#39;s are lower dont have 12% poverty

Publius
10th June 2005, 02:35
GDP IS HOLY&#33;&#33;&#33; Well let the capitalists believe that to be the standard of prosperity...

Sure the US mgiht have a high GDP...how is the money divided? Oh...hmm, last time I check the CIA facts thingie 12% of the US population lived in poverty...Western European countries, eventhough their GDP&#39;s are lower dont have 12% poverty

They have different poverty rates, different criteria for poverty, and overall wealth differences.

Over 30% of Sweden&#39;s population is living in poverty using American standards.

Read this study: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

And GDP is the standard of propserity. That its exact definition: The standard of prosperity in a country.

Do you even think this stuff out?

Publius
10th June 2005, 02:41
Yes, it´s ok - untill they wanna sell the bonds, all at the same time... :)

Who would they sell them to? If anyone wanted to sell them, people would be jumping all over eachother to buy them up.

That&#39;s just stupid. The only thing that would make people sell is a catrostophe so great, the selling of the bonds would be meaningless.


And GDP per capita does only tell half the truth - it does not tell you how the income is divited among the citizens...

GDP per capita is not meant to answer this question. It tells you the average wealth of the nation.

It&#39;s like *****ing at a toaster because you can&#39;t ride it to work.

Attempts have been made to readjust GDP to take these other factors into account, but they&#39;ve all failed, it&#39;s quite simply to subjective.

GDP serves its purpose.

Commie Girl
10th June 2005, 04:30
Canada has excellent universal health care that is publicly funded through taxation, similar to other socialist countires. You have the option to purchase additional coverage for dental care, perscriptions, etc., and here in Alberta we are 1 of 3 Provinces that charges a health care premium, our is &#036;88/month for a family. Our Blue Cross coverage, optional, is about &#036;60/month. There is relief for low-income citizens, then you pay nothing. Anyone, anywhere can show up and expect equal treatment. Of course, there are some exceptions, as private for profit clinics are popping up. If you can pay, you can que-jump :angry:

Publius
10th June 2005, 18:57
Canada has excellent universal health care that is publicly funded through taxation, similar to other socialist countires. You have the option to purchase additional coverage for dental care, perscriptions, etc., and here in Alberta we are 1 of 3 Provinces that charges a health care premium, our is &#036;88/month for a family. Our Blue Cross coverage, optional, is about &#036;60/month. There is relief for low-income citizens, then you pay nothing. Anyone, anywhere can show up and expect equal treatment. Of course, there are some exceptions, as private for profit clinics are popping up. If you can pay, you can que-jump :angry:

God forbid people get something they pay for.

The humanity.

jenar
10th June 2005, 22:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:41 AM

GDP serves its purpose.
I never said it didn´t- I only said that it just said half the truth... ;)

Publius
10th June 2005, 22:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:20 PM



I never said it didn´t- I only said that it just said half the truth... ;)

Than what should we use?

jenar
10th June 2005, 23:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:54 PM
Than what should we use?
With GDP? Numbers that tells us how the income or welth is distributed. For example: (10/90) meaning that 10% of the richest people owned 90% of the national welth, or income pr. year. That would be a start... ;)

Mujer Libre
11th June 2005, 03:42
Originally posted by jenar+Jun 10 2005, 10:48 PM--> (jenar @ Jun 10 2005, 10:48 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 09:54 PM
Than what should we use?
With GDP? Numbers that tells us how the income or welth is distributed. For example: (10/90) meaning that 10% of the richest people owned 90% of the national welth, or income pr. year. That would be a start... ;) [/b]
But you know, poor people are only poor because they deserve it... :rolleyes:

And te rich deserve every cent... *SUPER ROLL-EYES*
Sorry, I&#39;m just feeling *****y this morning...

FatFreeMilk
11th June 2005, 08:39
We&#39;re still winners no matter what everybody says&#33;

Professor Moneybags
11th June 2005, 08:48
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 11 2005, 02:42 AM
But you know, poor people are only poor because they deserve it... :rolleyes:

And te rich deserve every cent... *SUPER ROLL-EYES*
Both true in 90% of cases.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
11th June 2005, 08:51
This begs the question. In the US, latino&#39;s, african-american&#39;s and asian&#39;s form a very large part of the poor. If what you stated is true, then how come these ethnic groups have so much trouble to come to the same wealth level as white people?

Publius
11th June 2005, 14:27
This begs the question. In the US, latino&#39;s, african-american&#39;s and asian&#39;s form a very large part of the poor. If what you stated is true, then how come these ethnic groups have so much trouble to come to the same wealth level as white people?

Coming from generally poor countries, they are at a disadvantage. They don&#39;t know the language or the culture (Much more important than you think) as well. They often don&#39;t have connections and contacts; it&#39;s now what you know, it&#39;s who you know, right? And if you don&#39;t know anyone, it&#39;s hard to get ahead.

But there are many cases of poor immigrant families starting a business, Koreans starting a loundromat provides an archetypal example, and becoming wealthy, if not rich.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
11th June 2005, 14:37
Alright then how come a large proportion of African-Americans and Latino&#39;s whose families have been here for decades or even centuries still haven&#39;t reached the same wealth level as the white population?


They often don&#39;t have connections and contacts; it&#39;s now what you know, it&#39;s who you know, right?

This contradicts the entire "the rich deserve and the poor deserve statement".

Black Dagger
11th June 2005, 14:48
But there are many cases of poor immigrant families starting a business, Koreans starting a loundromat provides an archetypal example, and becoming wealthy, if not rich.

Most east-Asian migration is not &#39;poor migrant&#39;-type migration, it&#39;s educated, lower mid/middle-class people who have capital behind them, enough to afford to travel to a new country and set-up a laundromat for example. This is even moreso the case now because of the skills-based migration testing, the only you can make up for lacking &#39;skills&#39; is by meeting financial criteria- which can override a lack of desired &#39;skills&#39;.

Mr America
6th July 2005, 04:32
Americans are better than any of you dirty pinko socialists.

violencia.Proletariat
6th July 2005, 04:54
Originally posted by Mr [email protected] 5 2005, 10:32 PM
Americans are better than any of you dirty pinko socialists.
someone give this guy a medal :rolleyes:

Urban Rubble
6th July 2005, 05:30
Americans are better than any of you dirty pinko socialists.

What about an American pinko Socialist?

*Watches Mr. America&#39;s head explode*

Mr America
6th July 2005, 05:36
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 6 2005, 04:30 AM

Americans are better than any of you dirty pinko socialists.

What about an American pinko Socialist?

*Watches Mr. America&#39;s head explode*
They aren&#39;t true Americans.

LSD
6th July 2005, 05:42
They aren&#39;t true Americans.

So the only "true Americans" are those who ...what? "support the President"?

:lol:

So much for "democracy"&#33;

Mr America
6th July 2005, 05:47
No I am saying that commies aren&#39;t true Americans. I don&#39;t care if someone voted for Kerry. Kerry supporters might be misguided but at they are still Americans.

LSD
6th July 2005, 05:50
No I am saying that commies aren&#39;t true Americans.

Because they ...disagree with you? :huh:

And what does "American" mean in this context anyway?

As far as I am aware, "American" merely means being a citizen of the United States of America, I didn&#39;t know that there was an ideological requirement was well.

Maybe, I&#39;m wrong, though. I haven&#39;t ever lived there myself. Could you point to the relevent statute or USC section?

Mr America
6th July 2005, 05:56
Communism has always been the opposite of everything America stands for.

LSD
6th July 2005, 06:00
Communism has always been the opposite of everything America stands for.

That&#39;s true in many ways.

But, 200 years ago, the same could be said about abolition.

Things change.

KC
6th July 2005, 06:36
Communism has always been the opposite of everything America stands for.

Actually America "stands for" freedom. Of course, it doesn&#39;t advocate freedom, it just "stands for" it.

The difference here is that communism both "stands for" freedom and advocates it.

If America "stands for" freedom, it also stands for the freedom of beliefs, on which this country was supposedly founded. Because of this, I can be communist and american at the same time. Your with-or-against beliefs are nazi-esque (You believe what we believe or youre not a true German). You&#39;re so full of the shit that the right tries to cram into you that i can smell it from here.

Professor Moneybags
6th July 2005, 20:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:36 AM
The difference here is that communism both "stands for" freedom and advocates it.


Communism pays lip-service to freedom, but that&#39;s about it.

Publius
6th July 2005, 21:33
Communism pays lip-service to freedom, but that&#39;s about it.

Communism promotes all kinds of freedom&#33;

Freedom from your property, freedom from your labor, freedom from your life&#33;

All the good ones.

Loknar
6th July 2005, 21:56
America has her shortcomings, true. but lets keep in mind that in 200 years we went from a colony of the worlds greatest power to becoming the worlds greatest power.

America is a nation with 300million people, things are more complicated in such a large country.

I believe if America changes her education system all this can be remedied. but the liberals don’t want to make the standard too high because some kid may get his feelings hurt.

KC
7th July 2005, 06:25
Loknar, from everything I&#39;ve read, you&#39;re probably my favorite cappie on the board; most of these other idiots don&#39;t understand what you say no matter how many times you say it to them. It&#39;s like they don&#39;t understand english.

There&#39;s more freedom under Communism than there is under capitalism. There&#39;s all the freedoms that are presented in capitalism AND there is the freedom from money&#33; Meaning everything is free. In capitalism you work or you die. In communism it&#39;s the same thing (it isnt work or be shot). Nobody&#39;s going to shoot you. Nobody&#39;s just going to like you. :rolleyes:


They often don&#39;t have connections and contacts; it&#39;s now what you know, it&#39;s who you know, right?
What it all comes down to is LUCK. If you want to get rich in capitalism you have to get lucky. 99.999999999999999999999% of people get lucky. Who you know is luck; for example, I can&#39;t become good friends with Donald Trump or the president because I don&#39;t know them and I have no way of getting to know them. Opportunities presented to you is LUCK. Of course, the more you put yourself out there the better chance you have of having a good opportunity come your way. But of course, the more lottery tickets you buy the better chance you have of winning. And basing a society on chance isn&#39;t fair. It isn&#39;t equal. Everybody in capitalism doesn&#39;t have an equal chance of becoming rich; this is a myth.