Kazakhstan ahead of United States in literacy

[Dustin Kesselberg]

According to a 2005 report by the United Nations, the United States is in 55th place in it literacy rates. Countries with higher literacy rates include Australia, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Kazakhstan, Albania, Mongolia.


http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf


We also happen rank..

42nd place for infant mortality rate.
43rd in unemployment rates.
24th in most violent countries when it comes to murder rates.
53rd for media freedom.
2nd to last in public belief in evolution.
92nd when it comes to income equality.
48th in life expectancy.

We also..

Have more nuclear weapons than any other country

Suck up more energy than any other country

Pollute the atmosphere more than any other country.




:USA:

[Mike B.]

Have more nuclear weapons than any other country

:USA:

Before anyone else says anything, a point of order.

The US does not and has not for a while had the most nuclear weapons.
That distinction is still held by Russia:

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

[steverino]

According to a 2005 report by the United Nations, the United States is in 55th place in it literacy rates.:

Oh well. That's what we get for celebrating diversity. (I wonder why Iceland doesn't have our challanges?);)

[Art Vandelay]

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdfGot a cite that is actually readable?

42nd place for infant mortality rate.
43rd in unemployment rates.
24th in most violent countries when it comes to murder rates.
53rd for media freedom.
2nd to last in public belief in evolution.
92nd when it comes to income equality.
48th in life expectancy.Aren't low infant mortality, low unemployment, and low violence good things?

This is clearly cherry picking. Why murder, instead of crimes in general? Why income equality, instead of income itself? How can you quantify media freedom? How about measuring "belief in killing people for insulting Allah" instead of belief in evolution? Seems more important to me. Oh, and technically. China "sucks up" more energy than we do. Furthermore, we produce more than every other country, and we give more aid than any other country.

[pipelineaudio]

How do such stupid illiterate people end up inventing the goodies and culture that so many others want?

And why is it that fads in other countries arent based on what smart americans do, theyre based on what REALLY stupid americans do

I crack up when I see russian dudes with sideways baseball caps holding "40's"

I dont see any america hating bands throwing away their electric guitars as products from an obviously inferior culture

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Got a cite that is actually readable?

I can read it fine.

Aren't low infant mortality, low unemployment, and low violence good things?

You're confusing how that ranking goes. As far as infant mortality, unemployment and violence..Those ranking closer to 1 are better than those ranked further away. For instance rank #1 would be the lowest mortality rate, violence and unemployment.


This is clearly cherry picking. Why murder, instead of crimes in general?

Because that's what I found.

Why income equality, instead of income itself?

Because when there is a huge seperation between the rich and poor in a country. That's not a good thing.

How can you quantify media freedom? How about measuring "belief in killing people for insulting Allah" instead of belief in evolution? Seems more important to me. Oh, and technically. China "sucks up" more energy than we do. Furthermore, we produce more than every other country, and we give more aid than any other country.

The USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA) consumes more energy than any other country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country) and the country's Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense) is the largest energy consuming organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization) in the world.

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

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf


And what do you mean "Energy production"? The vast majority of our energy production/consumption comes from fossil fuels which we consume.

Furthermore we can't afford to be giving billions in aid out each year. Our national debt is about 9 trillion dollars. We can't afford to do anything really. We owe money to everyone. Even Mexico.

The United States is like a stubborn old lady spending money she doesn't have to buy things she doesn't need. Maxing out credit card after credit hard digging herself deeper and deeper into debt.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How do such stupid illiterate people end up inventing the goodies and culture that so many others want?

Becuase we have some of the smartest smart people. But on average we're a bunch of morons.


I crack up when I see russian dudes with sideways baseball caps holding "40's"

What are "40's"?

[CFLarsen]

This is clearly cherry picking.

No, it's pointing out that is Kazakhstan ahead of United States in literacy.

Why murder, instead of crimes in general? Why income equality, instead of income itself? How can you quantify media freedom? How about measuring "belief in killing people for insulting Allah" instead of belief in evolution? Seems more important to me. Oh, and technically. China "sucks up" more energy than we do. Furthermore, we produce more than every other country, and we give more aid than any other country.

Who is cherrypicking now? You pick the areas where you know (or, rather presume) the US is better than Kazakhstan.

How do such stupid illiterate people end up inventing the goodies and culture that so many others want?

Who said anything about Americans being "stupid illiterate people"?

I dont see any america hating bands throwing away their electric guitars as products from an obviously inferior culture

Since you are so keen on measuring things, how do you measure how superior/inferior a culture is?

[Art Vandelay]

No, it's pointing out that is Kazakhstan ahead of United States in literacy.OR so he claims.

Who is cherrypicking now? You pick the areas where you know (or, rather presume) the US is better than Kazakhstan.No, I pick the areas that are most important. Not getting raped or killed is more important that not getting killed. Income is more important than income disparity. Believing that it's not okay to kill people for offending Allah is more important than believing in evolution.

What are "40's"?40 ounce bottles of beer.

You're confusing how that ranking goes. No, just pointing out that it's poorly worded.

Because when there is a huge seperation between the rich and poor in a country. That's not a good thing.Why? Suppose one country has a mean income of $5,000 and standard deviation of $1,000, and another country has a mean of $40,000 and a standard deviation of $10,000. Which country would you rather live in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumptionIs that supposed to support your position?

And what do you mean "Energy production"?I don't reacll using the term.

Furthermore we can't afford to be giving billions in aid out each year. Our national debt is about 9 trillion dollars. Just because we have a lot of debt doesn't mean we can't afford aid.

The United States is like a stubborn old lady spending money she doesn't have to buy things she doesn't need. Maxing out credit card after credit hard digging herself deeper and deeper into debt.We do have the money. Bonds are very different from credit cards.

[The Don]

The US is still number 10 overall and is the highest placed country with a large (> 50 million) population.

I'd also query the methodology to determine literacy in may of these countries. For example, 99-100% literacy has been quoted for many years but I've also heard of up to 20% functional illiteracy (and 22% from teh study).

[MG1962]

Income is more important than income disparity.

But the way the data is presented is the only way to compare internally with a country. Example comparing Australian and US wages is nonsensical. I earn more than Americans doing the same job. In fact I earn twice as much

Wooo hoo for me until you realise things like you spend $2.12 a gallon for fuel. I pay $5.50 a gallon. So who is better off. me with my higher wage? You because your cost of living is better?

[pipelineaudio]

Since you are so keen on measuring things, how do you measure how superior/inferior a culture is?

sarcasm clause

step away from the mic

[latent aaaack]

I think that it's harder for a hugely populous country not to be run by the lowest common denominator and harder to maintain any kind of integrity in a physical and political sense. It's certainly felt like we've been ruled by the lowest common denominator for the past several years politically and I wonder if it's getting worse.

[Rob Lister]

According to CIA world factbook
Literacy:
Kazakhstan
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98.4%
male: 99.1%
female: 97.7% (1999 est.)

U.S.
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

[CFLarsen]

No, I pick the areas that are most important. Not getting raped or killed is more important that not getting killed. Income is more important than income disparity. Believing that it's not okay to kill people for offending Allah is more important than believing in evolution.

Who made you the sole arbiter of what is important?

sarcasm clause

step away from the mic

"I paid for this microphone".

[drkitten]

According to CIA world factbook
Literacy:
Kazakhstan
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98.4%
male: 99.1%
female: 97.7% (1999 est.)

Of course, this particular datum is nearly eight years old, and only an "estimate."

[Chaos]

According to CIA world factbook
Literacy:
Kazakhstan
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98.4%
male: 99.1%
female: 97.7% (1999 est.)

U.S.
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

And the CIA, being a US organization, can be trusted to be impartial about this comparison?

Besides, how come Kazakh numbers are known to the tenth of percents, but US numbers only to the full percents?

[Marc L]

According to CIA world factbook
Literacy:
Kazakhstan
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98.4%
male: 99.1%
female: 97.7% (1999 est.)

U.S.
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

Pffft. It's not like they can read and rite english, tho, is it?

Marc

[RandFan]

Does Kazakhstan have a large influx of poor and illiterate immigrants?

America does.

[Marc L]

According to a 2005 report by the United Nations, the United States is in 55th place in it literacy rates. Countries with higher literacy rates include Australia, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Kazakhstan, Albania, Mongolia.


http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf


We also happen rank..

42nd place for infant mortality rate.
43rd in unemployment rates.
24th in most violent countries when it comes to murder rates.
53rd for media freedom.
2nd to last in public belief in evolution.
92nd when it comes to income equality.
48th in life expectancy.

We also..

Have more nuclear weapons than any other country

Suck up more energy than any other country

Pollute the atmosphere more than any other country.



:USA:

And, since no one else said it, I will. Why do you hate America?

Marc

[RandFan]

And, since no one else said it, I will. Why do you hate America?

MarcI have a better one. Why does Dustin post a negative piece without any critical analysis? Perhaps he wants others to do his work for him. That's fine. Will he now concede that this is not what it at first glance appears to be?

[Checkmite]

According to CIA world factbook
Literacy:
Kazakhstan
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 98.4%
male: 99.1%
female: 97.7% (1999 est.)

U.S.
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

But it doesn't say anything about WMD's. I thought that was the CIA's "thing"... :D

[CFLarsen]

Besides, how come Kazakh numbers are known to the tenth of percents, but US numbers only to the full percents?

Good point.

[wastepanel]

I like the Simple Life. it a good show wit a beutifull womans named Paris Hilton + Nichole Richie. THEY is the bomb. hahaha

i see you talk of kavastan. i not no were that is. but i better than that tird. US>kavastan PWNED!

[Beerina]

Because when there is a huge seperation between the rich and poor in a country. That's not a good thing.

Evidence? I will admit it's not a good thing because people can make political hay out of it. But milliong get deluded believing someone telling them ghosts are real, too.

But in a real, economic sense it's bad because...?

[Chaos]

I have a better one. Why does Dustin post a negative piece without any critical analysis? Perhaps he wants others to do his work for him. That's fine. Will he now concede that this is not what it at first glance appears to be?

Will you folks prove that this is not what it at first glance appears to be?

[Art Vandelay]

But the way the data is presented is the only way to compare internally with a country. Example comparing Australian and US wages is nonsensical. I earn more than Americans doing the same job. In fact I earn twice as much

Wooo hoo for me until you realise things like you spend $2.12 a gallon for fuel. I pay $5.50 a gallon. So who is better off. me with my higher wage? You because your cost of living is better?I think that most of that is taken into account in GDP.

Who made you the sole arbiter of what is important?That's a rather nonsensical question.

[RandFan]

Will you folks prove that this is not what it at first glance appears to be?


I'm not involved with this thread to prove anything. I'm a skeptic.
What at first glance does it appear to be? We are 10th in our HDI and the trend is improving.
We have a large influx of poor and illiterate immigrants. How well could the other nations do with such an influx?

[Dave1001]

Oh well. That's what we get for celebrating diversity. (I wonder why Iceland doesn't have our challanges?);)

A combination of communist rule and being plurality muslim may have facilitated their high literacy rates.

[CFLarsen]

That's a rather nonsensical question.

You want to decide what is important, but you think it is "nonsensical" to explain why?

You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

[Huntster]

....The US does not and has not for a while had the most nuclear weapons.
That distinction is still held by Russia

Always has, too.

Regardless, how dare you inject facts into this thread!

[Huntster]

Becuase we have some of the smartest smart people. But on average we're a bunch of morons.....

Well, if you'd relocate to Kazakhstan, they'll be proficient in making you literate there, you'd be happy to be out of the Evil U.S., we wouldn't have to hear you whining anymore, and our statistical average of morons would go down a bit.

It's win-win for all (except Kazakhstan).

[pipelineaudio]

I think its pretty neat to see such a high womens' literacy in a country with "stan" at the end of it. When we saw the taliban kill people for daring to teach women to read, its pretty encouraging to see Khazakstan.

I do wonder what defines literacy though

[Rob Lister]

And the CIA, being a US organization, can be trusted to be impartial about this comparison?

Besides, how come Kazakh numbers are known to the tenth of percents, but US numbers only to the full percents?

Very good point.

1) I think CIA is a pretty good source, but, like all sources, not perfect. I trust them more than the UN nevertheless.

2) Yes, why is it broken down by tenths for them? Where do they get their survey data? Where does the UN. All surveys have a margin of error, we know neither. I suspect the results, with or without the decimal points, and given the MOE, are identical -- assuming the input data from both sources is identical.

Additionally, I find it hard to trust the sample selection of either data set from either organization. As a good example, if you go to CIA World Fact Book, you can get a comparison on many of the stats they cite by clicking on the bar-graph icon. Try the one for unemployment and it is clear that the numbers do not reflect anything close to reality. I suspect they input many numbers directly from data provided by the host country, without question. Take for example Mexico with a 3% unemployment rate. IOW, being employed does not necessarily equal being payed.

In the end, I tend to judge a nation by the net migration rate. If you're in the black, even, or in the red, there must be a reason. That's the best indicator but not even that is removed from politics.

[steverino]

Well, if you'd relocate to Kazakhstan, they'll be proficient in making you literate there, you'd be happy to be out of the Evil U.S., we wouldn't have to hear you whining anymore, and our statistical average of morons would go down a bit.

It's win-win for all (except Kazakhstan).

Wow! That's harsh...I love it!
:D

[Art Vandelay]

Always has, too.We;;, not immediately after WWII.

You want to decide what is important, but you think it is "nonsensical" to explain why?It is nonsensical to ask me to justify my right to have an opinion about what is important.

You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?Who are you to dictate what constitutes a "high opinion"?

[Darth Rotor]

A combination of communist rule and being plurality muslim may have facilitated their high literacy rates.
Oh drat, those nasty woos, the Muslims, and their damnable positive effect on literacy. How dare they? They are supposed to leave that to the state. (Which, thanks to the first point, doubtless does not shirk in their duty, Comrade Teacher. :) ) The best feature of socialism is universal education. The worst (or riskiest) part is the indoctrination that goes with it. On balance, take the bitter with the sweet.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Who are you to dictate what constitutes a "high opinion"?
As Claus has an immensely high opinion of his own views, he'd be very familiar with that calamity. :)

Me too, I confess. :o :o

DR

[steverino]

You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, don't you?

OK. Who here on this forum has a pretty low opinion of himself or herself? Hands?;)

[Rob Lister]

OK. Who here on this forum has a pretty low opinion of himself or herself? Hands?;)

I trust my opinion only as far as I can throw it...and since the invention of the internet, that's pretty far indeed.

[Tony]

Evidence?

Mexico.

I will admit it's not a good thing because people can make political hay out of it.

So you know it's bad. Conversation over.

[Tony]

Wooo hoo for me until you realise things like you spend $2.12 a gallon for fuel. I pay $5.50 a gallon. So who is better off. me with my higher wage? You because your cost of living is better?

That's why it's better to compare the ratio of purchasing power:leasure time from country to country. Last time I looked, the USA had it pretty good.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have a better one. Why does Dustin post a negative piece without any critical analysis? Perhaps he wants others to do his work for him. That's fine. Will he now concede that this is not what it at first glance appears to be?



I did not post this with "critical analysis" because the so called critical analysis doesn't stand up to the facts.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence? I will admit it's not a good thing because people can make political hay out of it. But milliong get deluded believing someone telling them ghosts are real, too.

But in a real, economic sense it's bad because...?


Any society with poverty is bad. However it's even worse when that society has the means to fix the poverty but does not. A society that has very rich people and very poor people has the ability to bridge the gap. The fact that it does not says a lot for the morality of that society.

Secondly learning from history. This sparks rebellion and revolution for the very same reason. A society with huge gaps between the rich and poor historically speaking is very prone to revolution to fix the problems of disenfranchisement.

[RandFan]

I did not post this with "critical analysis" because the so called critical analysis doesn't stand up to the facts. I was going to just leave this as a joke but I can't do that.

No Dustin YOUR critical analysis?

The human development index (HDI) is a composite
index that measures the average achievements
in a country in three basic dimensions
of human development: a long and healthy life,
as measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge,
as measured by the adult literacy rate and
the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary,
secondary and tertiary schools; and a decent standard
of living, as measured by GDP per capita in
purchasing power parity (PPP) US dollars. The
index is constructed from indicators that are currently
available globally using a methodology that
is simple and transparent (see Technical note 1).

Did you know that out of 57 HIGH ranked nations we were ranked 10th (AHEAD of vaunted Denmark)? Did you stop to think for even one moment and maybe check the figures or did you just copy and paste the other BS figures from the propaganda site you found?

Why are we 10th Dustin if we are doing so bad?

And Dustin, of the 9 that preceed us how many of them have poor illegal immigrants coming across their borders by the millions?

[RandFan]

Any society with poverty is bad. However it's even worse when that society has the means to fix the poverty but does not. A society that has very rich people and very poor people has the ability to bridge the gap. The fact that it does not says a lot for the morality of that society.

Secondly learning from history. This sparks rebellion and revolution for the very same reason. A society with huge gaps between the rich and poor historically speaking is very prone to revolution to fix the problems of disenfranchisement. You need to go back and read your own link. The United States is rated 10th in HDI (Human Development Index).

The problems of poverty are complex. Thanks to FDR's New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) and Johnson's Great Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society) America has been waging a war on poverty. We have found that poverty is not such an easy thing to solve. It's not simply a matter of throwing money at it. The problems are deep and systemic especially as a result of racism and other complex social problems. Add to that fact America has a very large influx of poor illegal immigrants and you have a very difficult problem to solve. Illegal immigrants are willing to work for much less than other workers and are often paid off the books. I could go on but you know what? Saying that society has the means to fix poverty without understanding what the hell you are even talking about is just ignorance. It's stupidity. High-school idealism. Grow up and go to school and learn something.

Oh, and BTW, if Mexico, whose workers are paid a fraction of America's hasn't sparked a revolution what in the sam hell makes you think that's going to happen here?

Sheesh, talk about learning from history. Learn something Dustin, anything of substance. Don't just read and spout brain dead socialist propaganda.

[pipelineaudio]

Digging thru my mic locker here: Lets see...

Some American mics, lots of nice german mics

oooh look my measurment mics are danish, cool cool, ahh some nice japanese mics, even some throwaway chinese cheapies, but hmmm...no mics from anywhere with "stan " at the end of them

now how come some stupid illiterate americans make 6 micron condensers and yet the superior khazakstanies have no representation here...sheesh I even have ukranian ones

[Dave1001]

Digging thru my mic locker here: Lets see...

Some American mics, lots of nice german mics

oooh look my measurment mics are danish, cool cool, ahh some nice japanese mics, even some throwaway chinese cheapies, but hmmm...no mics from anywhere with "stan " at the end of them

now how come some stupid illiterate americans make 6 micron condensers and yet the superior khazakstanies have no representation here...sheesh I even have ukranian ones

My first thought is that as an oil/natural gas rich country, manufacturing mics probably wouldn't be their comparative economic advantage. But I think I've also read that those resources are for the most part still untapped.

[CFLarsen]

It is nonsensical to ask me to justify my right to have an opinion about what is important.

Who are you to dictate what constitutes a "high opinion"?

:rolleyes:

[Marc L]

OK. Who here on this forum has a pretty low opinion of himself or herself? Hands?;)

Mememememememe!!!!

I'm so low, when I was born, my parents asked if it was too late for an abortion... ;)

Marc

[marksman]

While net migration rates are an intresting metric to use, I do not think they are any more accurate than any other metric. Migration only means you are more attractive than your immediate neighbors.

Here's the listing of the CIA World Factbook's 2006 net migration estimates, arranged from highest influx to highest exodus.

Is Liberia really the best country in the world? I doubt it.

Country Net Migration rate
(per 1,000 – 2006 estimate)
Liberia 27.39
Cayman Islands 17.78
Kuwait 15.66
Qatar 14.12
Bosnia and Herzegovina 13.01
San Marino 10.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 10.54
British Virgin Islands 9.22
Singapore 9.12
Luxembourg 8.75
Northern Mariana Islands 8.26
Burundi 8.22
Monaco 7.68
Anguilla 6.9
Andorra 6.47
Jordan 6.26
Botswana 6.07
Canada 5.85
Isle of Man 5.3
Hong Kong 4.89
Ireland 4.87
Liechtenstein 4.77
Macau 4.56
Mayotte 4.48
French Guiana 4.01
Australia 3.85
Guernsey 3.82
New Zealand 3.63
Angola 3.55
Portugal 3.4
Brunei 3.31
United States 3.18
Switzerland 3.12
French Polynesia 2.85
West Bank 2.8
Jersey 2.74
Netherlands 2.72
Denmark 2.52
Bermuda 2.4
Greece 2.34
Belarus 2.3
Germany 2.18
United Kingdom 2.18
Italy 2.06
Malta 2.05
Austria 1.94
Palau 1.85
Iceland 1.74
Norway 1.73
Sweden 1.66
Croatia 1.58
European Union 1.5
Gaza Strip 1.48
Gambia, The 1.29
Belgium 1.22
Russia 1.03
Spain 0.99
Czech Republic 0.97
Slovenia 0.88
Hungary 0.86
Finland 0.84
Bahrain 0.82
Benin 0.67
France 0.66
United Arab Emirates 0.66
Costa Rica 0.49
Faroe Islands 0.47
Namibia 0.47
Afghanistan 0.42
Cyprus 0.42
Argentina 0.4
Oman 0.35
Slovakia 0.3
Nigeria 0.27
Congo, Dem. Republic of the 0.23
Sierra Leone 0.23
Aruba 0
Belize 0
Bhutan 0
Burkina Faso 0
Burma 0
Cambodia 0
Cameroon 0
Central African Republic 0
Chile 0
Comoros 0
Cote d'Ivoire 0
Djibouti 0
East Timor 0
Equatorial Guinea 0
Eritrea 0
Ethiopia 0
Gibraltar 0
Guam 0
Guinea 0
Guinea-Bissau 0
Indonesia 0
Iraq 0
Israel 0
Japan 0
Kenya 0
Kiribati 0
Korea, North 0
Korea, South 0
Laos 0
Lebanon 0
Libya 0
Madagascar 0
Malawi 0
Malaysia 0
Maldives 0
Mauritania 0
Mongolia 0
Montserrat 0
Mozambique 0
Nauru 0
Nepal 0
New Caledonia 0
Papua New Guinea 0
Reunion 0
Rwanda 0
Saint Helena 0
Senegal 0
Solomon Islands 0
Somalia 0
Swaziland 0
Syria 0
Taiwan 0
Thailand 0
Togo 0
Tonga 0
Turkey 0
Tuvalu 0
Vanuatu 0
Venezuela 0
Yemen 0
Zambia 0
Zimbabwe 0
Sudan -0.02
Brazil -0.03
Martinique -0.03
India -0.07
Paraguay -0.08
Chad -0.11
Ghana -0.11
Romania -0.13
Guadeloupe -0.15
South Africa -0.16
Egypt -0.21
Moldova -0.23
Uruguay -0.25
Colombia -0.3
Barbados -0.31
Algeria -0.35
China -0.39
Mauritius -0.4
Netherlands Antilles -0.4
Panama -0.4
Vietnam -0.42
Ukraine -0.43
Poland -0.46
Iran -0.48
Tunisia -0.5
Pakistan -0.59
Niger -0.61
Macedonia -0.65
Bangladesh -0.68
Lesotho -0.68
Lithuania -0.71
Turkmenistan -0.75
Morocco -0.87
Peru -1.01
Puerto Rico -1.14
Nicaragua -1.17
Bolivia -1.22
Sri Lanka -1.23
Haiti -1.31
Honduras -1.39
Uganda -1.4
Philippines -1.48
Uzbekistan -1.5
Cuba -1.57
Saint Lucia -1.73
Guatemala -1.94
Bahamas, The -2.17
Latvia -2.26
Sao Tome and Principe -2.32
Tajikistan -2.48
Kyrgyzstan -2.5
Gabon -2.65
Dominican Republic -2.79
Fiji -2.94
Tanzania -3.05
Ecuador -3.11
Estonia -3.2
Kazakhstan -3.33
El Salvador -3.61
Congo, Republic of the -3.62
Bulgaria -4.01
Mexico -4.32
Azerbaijan -4.38
Georgia -4.54
Albania -4.67
Saint Kitts and Nevis -4.7
Saudi Arabia -4.94
Saint Pierre and Miquelon -4.98
Seychelles -5.4
Armenia -5.72
Marshall Islands -5.78
Antigua and Barbuda -6.08
Jamaica -6.27
Mali -6.6
Guyana -7.49
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines -7.59
Greenland -8.37
Virgin Islands -8.73
Suriname -8.76
Dominica -9.3
Trinidad and Tobago -11.07
Samoa -11.76
Cape Verde -11.91
Grenada -12.59
Micronesia, Fed'd States of -21.03
American Samoa -21.11

[Francesca R]

^ Isle of Man ? ?This is clearly cherry pickingLooks more like hair-splitting to me. Both literacy rates are very high.

[Darth Rotor]

While net migration rates are an intresting metric to use, I do not think they are any more accurate than any other metric. Migration only means you are more attractive than your immediate neighbors.

Here's the listing of the CIA World Factbook's 2006 net migration estimates, arranged from highest influx to highest exodus.

Is Liberia really the best country in the world? I doubt it.

Country Net Migration rate
(per 1,000 – 2006 estimate)

Why are you using rate as a comparative metric? Do such stats scale evenly when the orders of magnitude change?

DR

[Dave1001]

While net migration rates are an intresting metric to use, I do not think they are any more accurate than any other metric. Migration only means you are more attractive than your immediate neighbors.

Here's the listing of the CIA World Factbook's 2006 net migration estimates, arranged from highest influx to highest exodus.

Is Liberia really the best country in the world? I doubt it.


Interesting, looks like that metric, which I suspect was posited in this thread by an American in an attempt to be self-serving, backfired a bit.:p

[AmateurScientist]

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

AS

[marksman]

Why are you using rate as a comparative metric? Do such stats scale evenly when the orders of magnitude change?
Who knows? That's all I could find.

I actually think a better scale would be to take a net average migration rate over the last five years. The problem with using one year as a snapshot, is it gets skewed by refugee numbers.

The reason Liberia tops the list is that Liberia recently ended a massive civil war and so most of the immigrants are really refugees returning home. If you looked at Liberian migration rates in years past, they would have been near the bottom of the list.

But net migration rates are dependent on too many factors other than the attractiveness of the destination. It depends also on proximity to places that comparatively suck. France has low migration, not merely because it sucks, but also because it is surrounded by nations on relatively the same economic footing as it. Why is Cypriot migration low despite it being the centerpiece of Greek-Turk fighting? It's an island with no place to run to! Why do both North and South Korea have 0 migration? Because North Korea doesn't let anybody in or out and because South Korea has strict immigration laws. That doesn't make them equivalent.

[Francesca R]

France has low migration, not merely because it sucks, but also because it is surrounded by nations on relatively the same economic footing as it. France used to have mass immigration, as evidenced by it's muslim population which is higher than most in western Europe. It's low today because of anti-immigration laws enacted in the 1990s by interior minister Pasqua. Not because "it sucks".

[marksman]

My francophilia was an attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio
Digging thru my mic locker here: Lets see...

Some American mics, lots of nice german mics

oooh look my measurment mics are danish, cool cool, ahh some nice japanese mics, even some throwaway chinese cheapies, but hmmm...no mics from anywhere with "stan " at the end of them

now how come some stupid illiterate americans make 6 micron condensers and yet the superior khazakstanies have no representation here...sheesh I even have ukranian ones
My first thought is that as an oil/natural gas rich country, manufacturing mics probably wouldn't be their comparative economic advantage. But I think I've also read that those resources are for the most part still untapped.

Ever see a Russian micrometer?

Who do you think has been providing Kazakhstan with it's oil and gas technology for the past century?

Yeah.........no wonder they need technological help..............

[Bob Klase]

Becuase we have some of the smartest smart people. But on average we're a bunch of morons.

You seem like an average guy.

[Bob Klase]

I will admit it's not a good thing because people can make political hay out of it.

So you know it's bad. Conversation over.

People make political hay over funding stem cell research. People make political hay over not funding stem cell research.

Your logical conclusions: Funding stem cell research is bad. Not funding stem cell research is bad. Conversation over?

[Francesca R]

Indeed. And does this mean that the political sun always shines?

[Tony]

People make political hay over funding stem cell research. People make political hay over not funding stem cell research.

Your logical conclusions: Funding stem cell research is bad. Not funding stem cell research is bad. Conversation over?

Those are his logical conclusions, not mine. I never said it was bad because people make political hay out of it, he did.

[Ziggurat]

We also happen rank..

42nd place for infant mortality rate.

Infant mortality rates aren't calculated the same way for all countries. Many cases of premature births which are reported as infant deaths in the US would get classified as miscarriages in other countries.

Suck up more energy than any other country

Pollute the atmosphere more than any other country.

Both of which are a function of having the largest economy in the world. The obvious solution? Become poor!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Did you know that out of 57 HIGH ranked nations we were ranked 10th (AHEAD of vaunted Denmark)?

And?

Did you stop to think for even one moment and maybe check the figures or did you just copy and paste the other BS figures from the propaganda site you found?

Which website is the "BS propaganda website" again?


Why are we 10th Dustin if we are doing so bad?

We're 10th in that specific figure that measures many figures. However it doesn't change the facts I posted.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You need to go back and read your own link. The United States is rated 10th in HDI (Human Development Index).

Which doesn't negate the split between the rich and the poor in this country.


The problems of poverty are complex. Thanks to FDR's New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) and Johnson's Great Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society) America has been waging a war on poverty.

And doing it incorrectly.

We have found that poverty is not such an easy thing to solve.

Maybe if we were doing it correctly it would be a lot easier.

It's not simply a matter of throwing money at it.

Strawman. Never said it was.

The problems are deep and systemic especially as a result of racism and other complex social problems.

The extent of racism in America today is miniscule at best and growing ever smaller. Has little to do with poverty in modern America.


Add to that fact America has a very large influx of poor illegal immigrants and you have a very difficult problem to solve. Illegal immigrants are willing to work for much less than other workers and are often paid off the books.

All could be taken care of.

I could go on but you know what? Saying that society has the means to fix poverty without understanding what the hell you are even talking about is just ignorance. It's stupidity. High-school idealism. Grow up and go to school and learn something.

The only one who doesn't know what "the hell they are talking about" would be you. You like to argue for the sake of arguing without even knowing what you're even arguing about. What's stupidity is claiming America has been doing it's best and that another route to fixing poverty isn't in order.


Oh, and BTW, if Mexico, whose workers are paid a fraction of America's hasn't sparked a revolution what in the sam hell makes you think that's going to happen here?

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


Secondly. Mexicans won't spark a large revolution today when they can easily come to America to work.

:rolleyes:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You seem like an average guy.


This isn't contributing to the thread.

Don't act like a troll.

Thanks

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Both of which are a function of having the largest economy in the world. The obvious solution? Become poor!


The obvious solution is to find alternative and clean fuels.

[slingblade]

The extent of racism in America today is miniscule at best and growing ever smaller. Has little to do with poverty in modern America.

That entire claim is misinformed and dead wrong.

[pipelineaudio]

yeah america has racist laws on the books even

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That entire claim is misinformed and dead wrong.


I live in America and racism is very rare here.

[slingblade]

I live in America and racism is very rare here.

No, it's not.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, it's not.


:rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

I live in America and racism is very rare here.
Precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a cracker.

[Art Vandelay]

And Dustin, of the 9 that preceed us how many of them have poor illegal immigrants coming across their borders by the millions?Being a nitpicking bastard, I can't help but mention that it's "precede".

Interesting, looks like that metric, which I suspect was posited in this thread by an American in an attempt to be self-serving, backfired a bit.:pFirst of all, you misunderstood the point, which was that it partially explains why the US appears to be doing to so poorly. Secondly it's not the exact same metric. And third, the US is still well above the median.

A society that has very rich people and very poor people has the ability to bridge the gap. That displays an appaling ignorance of economics. There seems to be this idea among liberals that poverty is about money. It's not. Money is just part of the issue.

And doing it incorrectly.So, then, it's not merely a matter of will, as you claim. It's also a matter of skill.

Maybe if we were doing it correctly it would be a lot easier.And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

n. Never said it was./quote]You certainly implied it.

[quote]All could be taken care of.So.. we can solve poverty by getting rid of the poor people?

The only one who doesn't know what "the hell they are talking about" would be you. You like to argue for the sake of arguing without even knowing what you're even arguing about.So.. you're just going to post insults rather than counter other people's arguments?

What's stupidity is claiming America has been doing it's best and that another route to fixing poverty isn't in order. Now who's attacking strawmen?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Precisely the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a cracker.

Is this a joke? If it's not then I will have to notify a moderator.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is this a joke? If it's not then I will have to notify a moderator.
Yes, Dustin, run your uppity honky butt to the mods.

[The Atheist]

Ok, let's have a look at the argument here - on HDI, there is 3.5% spread over the top 20 countries - an irrelevant amount.

The median is some 25% lower.

Looks like an argument about nothing, based on little or no relevant data, and with no point whatsoever.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That displays an appaling ignorance of economics. There seems to be this idea among liberals that poverty is about money. It's not. Money is just part of the issue.

People with less money are poor. Those with more money are rich. This does not take much economics to understand.

So, then, it's not merely a matter of will, as you claim. It's also a matter of skill.

It's both.


So.. we can solve poverty by getting rid of the poor people?

Not just any poor people. Illegal citizens who should not be here in the first place.

So.. you're just going to post insults rather than counter other people's arguments?

Read who it was who started the insults. Not me. I respond to insults with insults. I respond to actuall arguments with actuall arguments.

Now who's attacking strawmen?

Not me.

[The Atheist]

Yes, Dustin, run your uppity honky butt to the mods.Watch who you're calling honky, goat-man!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, Dustin, run your uppity honky butt to the mods.


Grow up and learn how to engage in a debate properly.


Until then you're wasting my time with your sheer ignorance.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Watch who you're calling honky, goat-man!
My humble apologies for slandering your noble race.

Tosser.

[The Atheist]

My humble apologies for slandering your noble race.

Tosser.Ha! I'm no honky, even my doctor told me I was a mongrel! If I had any more bits in me, I'd be able to speak ArabEnGerMaltEgyPorToNorSwahIndian!

[slingblade]

Looks like an argument about nothing, based on little or no relevant data, and with no point whatsoever.

Welcome to Dustin's Little World of Whiteness.

[Ziggurat]

The obvious solution is to find alternative and clean fuels.

There are none which can meet our demands within the next few decades. Farther out, we need a breakthrough, and the only way to get a breakthrough is heavy research. But only countries with strong economies (and hence, which use lots of resources) can afford to invest heavily in research, particularly if that country is a democracy.

In other words, there is no near-term solution other than becoming poor, and that would preclude any possibility of a long-term solution. So your point about us polluting the most is irrelevant. You've got no point.

[Marc L]

And doing it incorrectly.



I may have missed the post, but could you either point me to the explanation, or give the explanation of how you feel we should be correcting poverty?

Marc

[luchog]

There are none which can meet our demands within the next few decades.

Not exclusively, no. But there are a number which are already technically feasibly, somewhat scalable, and economically competitive once scaled up a bit; and when used in conjunction could easily replace our dependence on fossil fuels.

[RandFan]

And? "And"? "AND"? {sheesh}

Which website is the "BS propaganda website" again?The one you got your numbers from. It doesn't wash. You obviously didn't do any mental math.


We're 10th in that specific figure that measures many figures. However it doesn't change the facts I posted.Demonstrate your "facts"?

[RandFan]

Which doesn't negate the split between the rich and the poor in this country. Go back and read your own site Dustin. It isn't JUST for rich people.

And doing it incorrectly.Perhaps, perhaps not. This is just your opinion.

Maybe if we were doing it correctly it would be a lot easier. What is "doing it correctly"?

Strawman. Never said it was. That's a fair cop. I'm sorry, I'll withdraw it. What is your solution?

The extent of racism in America today is miniscule at best and growing ever smaller. Has little to do with poverty in modern America. I'm sure those social scientists who have been trying to find ways to solve the problems caused by racism will be so happy to hear about it.

All could be taken care of. ? Really? Says who? This is just an assertion. Clearly you believe it but why should anyone else? What should be done about it? How do you "take care" of it?

The only one who doesn't know what "the hell they are talking about" would be you. You like to argue for the sake of arguing without even knowing what you're even arguing about. What's stupidity is claiming America has been doing it's best and that another route to fixing poverty isn't in order. I'm not the one spouting stupid idealistic propaganda without any solutions and any proof that what you are saying is even correct.

Secondly. Mexicans won't spark a large revolution today when they can easily come to America to work.Ok, Dustin, let's think this through for a minute.

Your premise: Poor Mexians come to America for oportunity.

Read that again. If America is ranked 10th in YOUR site for human development and if people come from all over the world just because it is better than were they come from then why the hell would people revolt?

Your not thinking this through Dustin. Yes, we have problem but in relative terms, by YOUR site with YOUR numbers we are ranked 10th out of 150 nations.

If you have any intelectual honesty you'll admit that we have a few things going for us. Please go back and read your own link and try to figure out why the other numbers you post are BS? One more favor, please tell us where exactly you got your numbers? If you really did get them all from the link you provided then tell us which pages for each number and how you came up with those numbers? Did you get help from any another site?

[RandFan]

Being a nitpicking bastard, I can't help but mention that it's "precede". It doesn't help anything, doesn't further any argument or point, doesn't clarify anything. I think it's appropriate to point out mistakes especially when someone makes the same one repeatedly or if it is particularly egregious but this doesn't seem to meet this criteria. Then again that's just me. You do what you have to do. I make mistakes. Lot's of them. If you want to score a gold star at my expense then have at it. PM me if you are feeling down and I'll throw in some extras gaffes just for you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There are none which can meet our demands within the next few decades. Farther out, we need a breakthrough, and the only way to get a breakthrough is heavy research. But only countries with strong economies (and hence, which use lots of resources) can afford to invest heavily in research, particularly if that country is a democracy.

In other words, there is no near-term solution other than becoming poor, and that would preclude any possibility of a long-term solution. So your point about us polluting the most is irrelevant. You've got no point.


We can switch to many different alternative fuels depending on the situation while still using fossil fuels as a base for the next few decades and decrease our greenhouse gas output dramatically.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I may have missed the post, but could you either point me to the explanation, or give the explanation of how you feel we should be correcting poverty?

Marc


Firstly we need to spend less as a country on frivolous persuits such as pointless wars or fighting drug use. If done correctly we could save hundreds of billions a year which could be dedicated to more deserving things such as social welfare, healthcare or improved education.

You have to look at the reasons why people are poor which can include..

-Lack of will to work and make money.
-Lack of experience to get a job that makes enough money.
-Health circumstances. Including mental or physical.
-Addiction to various drugs.
Etc.

All of these things can be fixed in society. Even lack of will to an extent with proper education and social training.

Creating job training centers for free for people.
Providing national healthcare for all citizens.
Providing drug centers to help addicts.
Improving education.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"And"? "AND"? {sheesh}

The one you got your numbers from. It doesn't wash. You obviously didn't do any mental math.


Demonstrate your "facts"?


Why don't you demonstrate your facts? I've posted credible sources.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Your premise: Poor Mexians come to America for oportunity.

Read that again. If America is ranked 10th in YOUR site for human development and if people come from all over the world just because it is better than were they come from then why the hell would people revolt?

Think of various social/economic systems as pressure cookers. When people are oppressed socially or economically pressure builds up. If there is a way to release that pressure then it will prevent an explosion.

Using mexico as the example. Mexico has holes in it at our border allowing mexicans to flow over our border thus releasing economic pressures in that country. It does not fix it but relives the pressure that can result in an uprising or revolution. (Not good for either country)

However the pressure is still very high in mexico where social unrest is rampant and a revolution is looming in the future.


If you have any intelectual honesty you'll admit that we have a few things going for us. Please go back and read your own link and try to figure out why the other numbers you post are BS? One more favor, please tell us where exactly you got your numbers? If you really did get them all from the link you provided then tell us which pages for each number and how you came up with those numbers? Did you get help from any another site?

I never said America never had a "few things going for it". Clearly America is a great country but my point is we're not "#1" and we need to fix a lot of things.

[RandFan]

Why don't you demonstrate your facts? I've posted credible sources. Hold on here. This isn't right. You posted some numbers that I can't verify from your sources. How can I prove a negative? Demonstrate that your numbers come from your source.

[RandFan]

Think of various social/economic systems as pressure cookers. When people are oppressed socially or economically pressure builds up. If there is a way to release that pressure then it will prevent an explosion.

Using mexico as the example. Mexico has holes in it at our border allowing mexicans to flow over our border thus releasing economic pressures in that country. It does not fix it but relives the pressure that can result in an uprising or revolution. (Not good for either country)

However the pressure is still very high in mexico where social unrest is rampant and a revolution is looming in the future.I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that there is no pressure builing in the United States and that is why people are comming here. Poor people were not anxious to get into China, France or Russia just before the revolutions in those nations, agreed?

I never said America never had a "few things going for it". Clearly America is a great country but my point is we're not "#1" and we need to fix a lot of things.Ok, but then get rid of the revolution rhetoric. We are no where NEAR a revolution. In truth, we are #10 and we have poor immigrants streaming into our nation. We are also a nation of independent states that are to a large extent responsible for the welfare of their people. It's really not an easy problem to solve and there is some very good arguments that there is only so much that we can do. Many of the nations that exceed us in a number of ways are not nations of many ethnicities with a large influx of immigrants. The reason I react so strong to statements like yours is that it demonstrates an ignorance of the very real problems that the United States faces.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do better. We can. My point is that the problem is complex and we live in a dynamic Democracy that can't simply solve problems overnight.

Idealistic propaganda never solves anything.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hold on here. This isn't right. You posted some numbers that I can't verify from your sources. How can I prove a negative? Demonstrate that your numbers come from your source.


42nd place for infant mortality rate.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

43rd in unemployment rates.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

24th in most violent countries when it comes to murder rates.

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


92nd when it comes to income equality.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html

48th in life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html


Suck up more energy than any other country.


#1 in electricity consumption.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2042rank.html

#1 in natural gas consumption.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2181rank.html


Pollute the atmosphere more than any other country.

The U.S. is #1 in co2 emissions responsible for 24.3 % of the worlds co2 output yet make up only about 5% of the worlds population.

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

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that there is no pressure builing in the United States and that is why people are comming here. Poor people were not anxious to get into China, France or Russia just before the revolutions in those nations, agreed?

Ok, but then get rid of the revolution rhetoric. We are no where NEAR a revolution. In truth, we are #10 and we have poor immigrants streaming into our nation. We are also a nation of independent states that are to a large extent responsible for the welfare of their people. It's really not an easy problem to solve and there is some very good arguments that there is only so much that we can do. Many of the nations that exceed us in a number of ways are not nations of many ethnicities with a large influx of immigrants. The reason I react so strong to statements like yours is that it demonstrates an ignorance of the very real problems that the United States faces.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do better. We can. My point is that the problem is complex and we live in a dynamic Democracy that can't simply solve problems overnight.

Idealistic propaganda never solves anything.


I never disagreed with what you're saying here.

[RandFan]

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html

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

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incomestats.html

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

#1 in electricity consumption.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2042rank.html

#1 in natural gas consumption.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2181rank.html

The U.S. is #1 in co2 emissions responsible for 24.3 % of the worlds co2 output yet make up only about 5% of the worlds population.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

From what I can tell these figures directly contradict the figures in the link from the OP. If that is the case which figures do we accept?

[RandFan]

I never disagreed with what you're saying here.Fair enough then. Thanks.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

From what I can tell these figures directly contradict the figures in the link from the OP. If that is the case which figures do we accept?


How so?

[RandFan]

How so?Have you looked at them?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Have you looked at them?


Yes I did. The ranks I posted are the ranks provided in the sources.

[RandFan]

Yes I did. The ranks I posted are the ranks provided in the sources.Hold on, let me get this straight, you posted a link in the OP.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf

Have you reconciled the data and conclusions from THAT link with the others?

The data and conclusions from Human development indicators (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf) that you posted in the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2071695#post2071695) do not seem to match the data and conclusions from the other links that you just posted.

[Francesca R]

In other words, there is no near-term solution other than becoming poor, and that would preclude any possibility of a long-term solution. So your point about us polluting the most is irrelevant. You've got no point.A bit simplistic. It is not established fact that the cost of reducing pollution makes a nation "poor". And a definition of poor (= lacking . . .) is more appropriately relative than absolute. What are the likely alternatives?

Rather—it sounds like an excuse offered by those who either:

1—don't believe pollution is a problem
2—secretly suspect it will be a huge problem, but can easily fool themselves about object permanence ("Out of sight, out of mind"),
3—gain comfort from erecting a larger problem (the idea that pollution-reduction makes for poverty) in front of the pollution problem, ("I’d love to do something about this, but my hands are tied")
4—have a high discount-rate that they apply to the well being of future generations ("It's somebody else's problem, it won't affect me and I therefore don't care")

If estimates about climate change become wider consensus, then there will likely be a critical point at which the incentives of all of the above shift in favour of action. But by then it is likely that the costs are greater than today, and the extent to which preventative measures reduce wealth and income may be much larger, such that it then better validates your claim than the costs today would validate it. From today's starting point, that would be a pareto-inefficient outcome compared to taking action now.

But accepting your analysis for a second . . . the cost of reducing pollution is always and everywhere higher than the cost of allowing pollution to let rip, so let's let it rip?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hold on, let me get this straight, you posted a link in the OP.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf

Have you reconciled the data and conclusions from THAT link with the others?

The data and conclusions from Human development indicators (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf) that you posted in the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2071695#post2071695) do not seem to match the data and conclusions from the other links that you just posted.


That undp.org link was not for all of the claims I made. Just one. I.E. the literacy rank.

[RandFan]

That undp.org link was not for all of the claims I made. Just one. I.E. the literacy rank. I understand that. I'm asking if you realize that the numbers from the different sources don't reconcile?

[Ziggurat]

Not exclusively, no. But there are a number which are already technically feasibly, somewhat scalable, and economically competitive once scaled up a bit; and when used in conjunction could easily replace our dependence on fossil fuels.

No, there really aren't. The ONLY scaleable alternative fuel within our current technological reach is nuclear. Everything else (and I mean EVERYTHING else) we can do with current technology can and will only account for a small fraction of our energy use.

[Ziggurat]

A bit simplistic. It is not established fact that the cost of reducing pollution makes a nation "poor". And a definition of poor (= lacking . . .) is more appropriately relative than absolute. What are the likely alternatives?

Sorry, but that's not acceptable to me. I'm not OK with being the richest nation on the planet if that means everyone is living by 15th century standards. Absolute measures matter to me quite a bit.

And let's clarify a point: Dustin was talking about using up resources and creating emissions. Well, carbon dioxide is an emission. But it is, properly, not really a pollutant. You can reduce pollution quite a bit. But using energy on any large scale requires emissions. And the emissions scale with energy useage, and there is little that we are currently capable of doing which can change that. Economic activity likewise depends upon energy useage. Don't use much energy, and you cannot have much economic activity. It really IS that simple.

But accepting your analysis for a second . . . the cost of reducing pollution is always and everywhere higher than the cost of allowing pollution to let rip, so let's let it rip?

That's a strawman - I never made any such claim. Sometimes, reducing pollution saves money rather directly - for example, when you find a way to do something more efficiently (example: fluorescent lights compared to incandecent). In such cases, that's very obviously the correct choice. My point was not that we cannot and should not try to reduce emissions. My point is that as long as we're the largest economy by a big margin, we're guaranteed to be the largest consumer of resources and creater of emissions. If THAT is what you're interested in changing (and that was Dustin's complaint), the ONLY way to do it is to stop being the biggest economy.

But you can count me out of that particular solution.

[Ziggurat]

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1446342

There is no uniform system for determining the difference between infant mortality and miscarriage or non-viable birth. Premature births get counted as infant mortalities much more frequently in the US than they do in many other countries. The ranking is therefore essentially meaningless when comparing developed nations.

The U.S. is #1 in co2 emissions responsible for 24.3 % of the worlds co2 output yet make up only about 5% of the worlds population.

Well, we also produce around 21.4% of the economic activity of the world, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy
And yet, you're not complaining that we're shouldering a disproportionate burden in relation to our population. Hmm...

[Francesca R]

Sorry, but that's not acceptable to me. I'm not OK with being the richest nation on the planet if that means everyone is living by 15th century standards. Absolute measures matter to me quite a bit.What are you talking about re: "richest nation on the planet"? You're not (quite) the richest in GDP per capita, whether measured as PPP or market FX rates. And by "alternatives" and "relative" I am not speaking of comparisons with other countries anyway, but comparing your GDP per head with the cost of pollution reduction embedded versus without it.

And let's clarify a point: Dustin was talking about using up resources and creating emissions. Well, carbon dioxide is an emission. But it is, properly, not really a pollutant. You can reduce pollution quite a bit. But using energy on any large scale requires emissions. And the emissions scale with energy useage, and there is little that we are currently capable of doing which can change that. Economic activity likewise depends upon energy useage. Don't use much energy, and you cannot have much economic activity. It really IS that simple.It's not a 1:1 relationship as you yourself show with your example of the technologocal evolution of lighting drastically reducing the heat:light ratio. Are you advocating only pursuing energy conservation or pollution reduction if market forces push us in that direction? It's well known that market forces do not care about externalities. This is not a strawman. It is a question.

My point was not that we cannot and should not try to reduce emissions. My point is that as long as we're the largest economy by a big margin, we're guaranteed to be the largest consumer of resources and creater of emissions.Being the largest creator of emissions doesn't logically imply not trying to reduce those emissions. So why don't you want to?

[Ziggurat]

What are you talking about re: "richest nation on the planet"? You're not (quite) the richest in GDP per capita, whether measured as PPP or market FX rates.

We're the richest large nation. Everyone above us is tiny countries, whose success cannot be replicated on large scales.

It's not a 1:1 relationship as you yourself show with your example of the technologocal evolution of lighting drastically reducing the heat:light ratio. Are you advocating only pursuing energy conservation or pollution reduction if market forces push us in that direction? It's well known that market forces do not care about externalities. This is not a strawman. It is a question.

I'm saying market forces provide the most effective push, and that non-market attempts require centralized planning, which I don't happen to have much faith in because of its abysmal track record.

Being the largest creator of emissions doesn't logically imply not trying to reduce those emissions. So why don't you want to?

Who said anything about me not wanting to reduce emissions? Your previous question was valid, but this one IS a strawman. Sure, I'd like to reduce emissions. I explicitly said that my position doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't. But think about it logically: let's suppose we unlock the secret to significant emission reductions without crippling the economy: you don't honestly think whatever that technology is won't get used globally, do you? Of course it will. Which means that everyone's (or at least, the other big players) emissions will go down. That would be a good thing, to be sure. But we'd still be left being the biggest source of emissions, precisely because any method to seriously reduce our emissions is also going to work for other people. And that was my whole point: criticising us on the basis of being the biggest emitter is THE SAME THING as criticizing us for being the largest economy. There is NO available mechanism or technology to stop being the biggest emitter and remain the biggest economy, and even if there were, it would be stupid and counterproductive to use it that way rather than trying to reduce everyone's emissions (which, again, would leave us on top).

[Marc L]

Firstly we need to spend less as a country on frivolous persuits such as pointless wars or fighting drug use. If done correctly we could save hundreds of billions a year

I agree with everything up to this point.

which could be dedicated to more deserving things such as social welfare, healthcare or improved education.

I'm undecided on whether or not putting the government in charge of these things would necessarily be a good idea. My experience being in government programs (ie, welfare) is not good. I know anecdotal evidence isn't the best, and I'm sure that there are people whose lives have improved through welfare. In my own case, however, it wasn't until I got off of welfare that I saw any improvement in my life.

You have to look at the reasons why people are poor which can include..

-Lack of will to work and make money.
-Lack of experience to get a job that makes enough money.
-Health circumstances. Including mental or physical.
-Addiction to various drugs.
Etc.

All of these things can be fixed in society. Even lack of will to an extent with proper education and social training.

Creating job training centers for free for people.
Providing national healthcare for all citizens.
Providing drug centers to help addicts.
Improving education.

I am not a sociologist (or any kind of -ist, for that matter), so I can't comment with any authority on your idea. I will say it looks to me like you're over simplifying. It also looks like you're not taking into account how bureacracies "work". I'm not going to say much beyond that, because, as I said, I'm not qualified to really pick it apart. Anyone else who knows more than me feel free.

Marc

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

That undp.org link was not for all of the claims I made. Just one. I.E. the literacy rank.Ummm. Maybe I'm missing something, but that report doesn't list a literacy rate for the US. It just says ".."* which means "data not available."

*Data not available because:
Many high-income countries, having attained high levels of literacy, no longer collect literacy statistics in national population censuses or household surveys and thus are not included in the UNESCO data. In calculating the HDI, a literacy rate of 99.0% is applied for these countries. p. 215 of the report

[Francesca R]

I'm saying market forces provide the most effective push, and that non-market attempts require centralized planning, which I don't happen to have much faith in because of its abysmal track record.But market forces will never reduce emissions unless the financial return net of the costs is greater than not doing. Governments can rig incentives so that this is the case, such that it is rendered in the self-interest of companies to reduce emissions. The European emissions trading scheme (badly assembled I will concede since the carbon permits were handed out for free) is one of the better methods conceived so far to rig the incentives. Would you prefer no such initiatives? And is this just to prevent your economy suffering any short term costs when others can do so instead (the free-rider hazard)?

Companies have no track record of reducing emissions voluntarily if this eats into profits. They are legally obliged not to do so unless compelled by financial returns. Shareholders could take legal action against them if they did. Eventually it might become clear to corporations that the cost of no action exceeds the cost of action, but only after they have externalised a potentially lethal amount of negative effects onto society.

If you don't like the track record of governments then why not agitate for better governments? Nobody else is going to do what governments can. Nobody else can do it.

Who said anything about me not wanting to reduce emissions? [. . .] Sure, I'd like to reduce emissions. I explicitly said that my position doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't.Apologies I misread your prior post :)

But think about it logically: let's suppose we unlock the secret to significant emission reductions without crippling the economy: you don't honestly think whatever that technology is won't get used globally, do you? Of course it will. Which means that everyone's (or at least, the other big players) emissions will go down. That would be a good thing, to be sure. But we'd still be left being the biggest source of emissions, precisely because any method to seriously reduce our emissions is also going to work for other people. And that was my whole point: criticising us on the basis of being the biggest emitter is THE SAME THING as criticizing us for being the largest economy.I'm not criticising you for being the biggest emitter. Before your prior post where I missed the "not" in "My point was not . . ." I understood your view to be that there was no viable way to reduce emissions because it would make you poor. I'm happy if that was not meant.

[Ziggurat]

But market forces will never reduce emissions unless the financial return net of the costs is greater than not doing. Governments can rig incentives so that this is the case, such that it is rendered in the self-interest of companies to reduce emissions. The European emissions trading scheme (badly assembled I will concede since the carbon permits were handed out for free) is one of the better methods conceived so far to rig the incentives. Would you prefer no such initiatives?

I'm not categorically opposed to government creating additional incentives (though as stated, I'm wary of them being done poorly), no.

Companies have no track record of reducing emissions voluntarily if this eats into profits.

Sure. And they have a much BETTER track record than government at reducing emissions when doing so is profitable (as it is when driven by efficiency increases, for example).

If you don't like the track record of governments then why not agitate for better governments?

Because my problem with government is largely a problem inherent to centralized planning: decision makers in government are never in a position to evaluate the massive amounts of relevant data. The emissions trading schemes are noteworthy precisely because they leave significant amounts of decision making to large numbers of independent non-governmental actors, each of whom has access to and can process a piece of the relevant information, and who communicate that information to each other via price. But even there, as you mentioned, decisions still have to get made by governments, and they can still screwed up those decisions.

I'm not criticising you for being the biggest emitter.

OK. But Dustin was. And I called him on it.

[RandFan]

Ummm. Maybe I'm missing something, but that report doesn't list a literacy rate for the US. It just says ".."* which means "data not available."

*Data not available because: Bump, I'd like an answer from Dustin.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I understand that. I'm asking if you realize that the numbers from the different sources don't reconcile?


Which?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ummm. Maybe I'm missing something, but that report doesn't list a literacy rate for the US. It just says ".."* which means "data not available."

*Data not available because:


I'm pretty sure that the report from the CIA is about 7 years old.

[RandFan]

Which? What? Who? Where? What? Who? What? What?

{sigh} Ok, I get it Dustin. You are going to play a game. Fine. I've been asking the same question from my first post in this thread and you continue to ignore the descrepency. I'm going to answer you not because I think you are sincere but to keep such nonsense froms standing.

According to your link the US is 10th in HDI, right? And HDI is based on employment, life expectancy, and income.

42nd place for infant mortality rate.
43rd in unemployment rates.
48th in life expectancy.
92nd when it comes to income equality. HDI is based in large part on ALL of THESE variables and not many others.

Ok, here's the question, if YOUR link is correct and and the US is 10th in HDI (we are now 8th BTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)) how do you reconcile these different results.

Oh, wait, let me guess your answer.

Dustin: "What numbers?"

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure that the report from the CIA is about 7 years old.I'm dying to know something, why did you post the link to the HDI? It doesn't prove what you claim it did about literacy and directly disputes your other contentions.

Dustin: "What link?"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What? Who? Where? What? Who? What? What?

{sigh} Ok, I get it Dustin. You are going to play a game. Fine. I've been asking the same question from my first post in this thread and you continue to ignore the descrepency. I'm going to answer you not because I think you are sincere but to keep such nonsense froms standing.

According to your link the US is 10th in HDI, right? And HDI is based on employment, life expectancy, and income.

HDI is based in large part on ALL of THESE variables and not many others.

Ok, here's the question, if YOUR link is correct and and the US is 10th in HDI (we are now 8th BTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)) how do you reconcile these different results.

Oh, wait, let me guess your answer.

Dustin: "What numbers?"



According to wikipedia what determines HDI is..


A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) at birth.
Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy) rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_enrolment_ratio) (with one-third weight).
A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) (PPP) in USD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar).

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


Where is infant mortality, unemployment and Income inequality listed?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I'm pretty sure that the report from the CIA is about 7 years old.
:confused: That's nice, but I didn't ask you about any CIA report. You said you got the literacy figures from the undp.org report (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf). I asked how that was possible since the report doesn't seem to give literacy figures for the US. So, how did you determine that the US is "55th place in it literacy rates" from that report?

[RandFan]

Where is infant mortality, unemployment and Income inequality listed? Dustin, this is a UN released study. It isn't about measuring wealthy people. Please read the text from YOUR link.

The human development index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate and the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools; and a decent standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) US dollars. (emphasis mine)

Ok, let's take this slowly.

The human development index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development

1. A long and healthy life.
2. Knowledge as measured by the adult literacy rate
3. A decent standard of living.

Is there anything that you don't understand about that?

The US is #8.

If this is true how is it that our unemployment is so bad and infant mortality rate so high? Sure, it's theorecticly possible but doesn't it strike you as odd that the UN would be so oblique in their measuring of human development? Is that really what the UN is known for?

You are not using critical thinking Dustin. You are taking the numbers at face value and bells and whistles aren't going off in your head. According to the UN we are ranked 8th in the world by the UN for human development and they are not just looking at rich people.

[RandFan]

:confused: That's nice, but I didn't ask you about any CIA report. You said you got the literacy figures from the undp.org report (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf). I asked how that was possible since the report doesn't seem to give literacy figures for the US. So, how did you determine that the US is "55th place in it literacy rates" from that report? I seriously doubt that you will get an answer.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If this is true how is it that our unemployment is so bad and infant mortality rate so high? Sure, it's theorecticly possible but doesn't it strike you as odd that the UN would be so oblique in their measuring of human development? Is that really what the UN is known for?

We're not arguing HDI. We are only arguing the specific stats I posted. That's it.


You are not using critical thinking Dustin. You are taking the numbers at face value and bells and whistles aren't going off in your head. According to the UN we are ranked 8th in the world by the UN for human development and they are not just looking at rich people.


So?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

:confused: That's nice, but I didn't ask you about any CIA report. You said you got the literacy figures from the undp.org report (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_HDI.pdf). I asked how that was possible since the report doesn't seem to give literacy figures for the US. So, how did you determine that the US is "55th place in it literacy rates" from that report?


I didn't. The folks at wikipedia did. They must have computed other measurements with those measurements.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I didn't. The folks at wikipedia did.So you didn't get the literacy figures from the undp.org report, you got them from "the folks at Wikipedia." And didn't cite that as your source. They must have computed other measurements with those measurements.Except that there are no literacy measurements for the US in the undp.org report.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I seriously doubt that you will get an answer.Well the answer is that they must have computed other measurements with those measurements. ;)

"And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." Groucho, Animal Crackers

[RandFan]

We're not arguing HDI. We are only arguing the specific stats I posted. That's it. Really? Then why post the link to HDI? And why is there a discrepancy?

[Soapy Sam]

I'm curious. Why was Kazakhstan highlighted in the OP?

Practically everyone I know in Kazakhstan is not only literate, but literate in at least two and often three languages (Russian, Kazakh and English).

[Francesca R]

Borat? The character in question (of a movie highly successful in the US and Britain) is a lecherous racist Kazakh. Arguable not the type of national branding that is in demand. My guess is that this motivated the OP.

("Crocodile Dundee" however, was welcomed by most Australians for its effects on national image)

[Soapy Sam]

Borat? The character in question (of a movie highly successful in the US and Britain) is a lecherous racist Kazakh. Arguable not the type of national branding that is in demand. My guess is that this motivated the OP.

("Crocodile Dundee" however, was welcomed by most Australians for its effects on national image)

Borat was my own guess, also.

The OP gives the impression that it is insulting to believe Americans might be in any particular inferior to Kazakhs. It would indeed be regrettable, if all the poster "knows" of Kazakhstan is gleaned from Borat.
I find it sad that the west's view of an entire nation can be seriously influenced by a single bad comedian. I wonder, given the disastrous results of our "intelligence" on Iraq, perhaps we relied on comics there too?