March Unemployment Rate: 4.7% - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-11-2006, 01:06 AM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

continue to drink the Kool-Aid; the administration is nervous that no one else is anymore. it's much easier to regurgitate what the military and the administration tells you and quote misleading, out-of-context statistics.

STING, reality has bodyslammed you, continuously, on this issue. from WMDs to the danger SH presented to the wording of 1441 to Abu Ghraib to the reality on the ground to the strength of the insurgency to the brewing civil war.

but you're tenacity is commendable.

again: start another thread.
Given the declassifed documents from the regime itself that are point towards terror links, the existence of WMD programs that were in breach of UN resolutions, renewed dealings with Niger to reactivate uranium procurement, the vast sums of ilicit money flowing to the regime from Oil for Food and the political situation before 2003 with the rise of the Saddam Fedayeen I don't see how it is wrong to defend the removal of Saddam.

This administration is deficient, it has not been able to adequately enunciate the case for war and has failed to highlight what we know now, post-bellum, about the type of threat Saddam Hussein posed (it is not a simple, no-WMD stockpiles - no problem). Removing Saddam has removed a persistenct threat and has resulted in less people dying than if he was allowed to stay in power. It should have been done in 1991 sparing the world a decade of mass death and troops in SA.

Numbers of casualties in Iraq, attacks on coalition troops and civilians are important. Political developments in the country are also very important. It would be very true to say that when casualties are low with a downwards trend then it becomes more useful to focus on the delays in the political process to show a country on the very of all out Balkanisation.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 01:35 AM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


nbc, that comment demonstrates to me that you don't know about a) analyzing comparative statistics and b) how HDI is calculated.

Contrary to what you may think, size does not matter.
Actually it does matter and Alan Greenspan in fact has stated this very point. The United States does not have the highest per capita GDP in the world. Luxembourg, Ireland, and Norway all have higher per capita GDPs. In addition countries that , have favorable trading conditions, and abundent natural resources relative to population size, benefit in ways that a large country like the United States will not. Canada is dependent on the United States for its higher standard of living with 40% of its GDP coming from exports to the United States. In addition, many of these smaller countries with higher standards of living are also heavily dependent to a lesser degree on exports to the United States.

We should all remember that these rankings have changed over the years with countries going up and down relative to each other.

Here are the top 10 countries every 5 years since 1975:


1975

1. Switzerland
2. Denmark
3. Canada
4. Norway
5. United States
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. Iceland
9. Japan
10. France


1980

1. Switzerland
2. Norway
3. United States
4. Canada
5. Iceland
6. Japan
7. Denmark
8. Netherlands
9. Sweden
10. France


1985

1. Canada
2. United States
3. Norway
4. Switzerland
5. Iceland
6. Japan
7. Netherlands
8. Denmark
9. Sweden
10. France


1990

1. Canada
2. United States
3. Iceland
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Switzerland
7. Netherlands
8. France
9. Finland
10. Belgium


1995

1. Norway
2. Canada
3. Australia
4. United States
5. Belgium
6. Sweden
7. Netherlands
8. Japan
9. France
10. United Kingdom


2000

1. Australia
2. Sweden
3. Norway
4. Belgium
5. United Kingdom
6. Canada
7. Iceland
8. Switzerland
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

11. United States


2005

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Luxembourg
5. Canada
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Ireland
9. Belgium
10. United States



To all you Reagan bashers, note the United States HDI ranking in 1985 and 1990 right after the first and second Reagan administrations!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 01:55 AM   #123
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:05 AM
No more posts focusing on Iraq, please. I'm willing to let the occasional one-line side jab slide, but there are way too many posts in here fully devoted to things that have nothing to do with the thread topic.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 08:57 AM   #124
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:05 AM
STING, you have still said NOTHING to justify the US's current 10th place standing on HDI.

Also, GDP is #1, per capita GDP is #4 (as I stated earlier).

If I were American, I would find the comparatively lower measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, poverty etc. absolutely unacceptable given GDP. As a non-American, I'll just call it as I see it, mediocre. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Btw, if you want to get into Canada, natural resources, NAFTA and the US's typical pattern of FUCK OFF foreign policy, start another thread.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 09:06 AM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:05 PM
What is the per-capita government spending on health within the USA relative to those with socialised healthcare systems?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 09:24 AM   #126
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:05 AM
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=27348

USA Spends More Per Capita on Health Care Than Other Nations, Study Finds

Article Date: 13 Jul 2005 - 10:00am (PDT)

Quote:
The United States spends more on health care per capita than other industrialized nations but does not receive more services, according to a study published on Tuesday in the July/August issue of... Health Affairs, the Los Angeles Times reports. For the study -- led by Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health -- researchers analyzed the health care costs of 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...hp?newsid=8800

USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured

Main Category: Nursing News
Article Date: 28 May 2004

Quote:
The U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003. Streamlining administrative overhead to Canadian levels would save approximately $286.0 billion in 2003, $6,940 for each of the 41.2 million Americans who were uninsured as of 2001. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 10:02 AM   #127
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Given the declassifed documents from the regime itself that are point towards terror links, the existence of WMD programs that were in breach of UN resolutions, renewed dealings with Niger to reactivate uranium procurement, the vast sums of ilicit money flowing to the regime from Oil for Food and the political situation before 2003 with the rise of the Saddam Fedayeen I don't see how it is wrong to defend the removal of Saddam.

This administration is deficient, it has not been able to adequately enunciate the case for war and has failed to highlight what we know now, post-bellum, about the type of threat Saddam Hussein posed (it is not a simple, no-WMD stockpiles - no problem). Removing Saddam has removed a persistenct threat and has resulted in less people dying than if he was allowed to stay in power. It should have been done in 1991 sparing the world a decade of mass death and troops in SA.

if anyone wants to start another thread on this, i'm happy to participate. i think this gets at what the current situation is: there's a case to be made for the removal of SH, but the manner in which it has been done by this administration has virtually guaranteed failure.

i'm willing to start it if we can discuss things in a civil manner, as A_W has done above, and if we can get away from the cut-and-paste carpetbombing of meaningless numbers and exclamation points that has been said a million-and-one times and does little more than turn people off from discussion because everyone has heard it before, a milllion times, by the same poster.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 01:26 PM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i'm willing to start it if we can discuss things in a civil manner, as A_W has done above, and if we can get away from the cut-and-paste carpetbombing of meaningless numbers and exclamation points that has been said a million-and-one times and does little more than turn people off from discussion because everyone has heard it before, a milllion times, by the same poster.
What turns people off are meaningless personal attacks on other members of the forum, not the simple expression of ones OPINION on a topic.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 01:29 PM   #129
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


What turns people off are meaningless personal attacks on other members of the forum, not the simple expression of ones OPINION on a topic.


what's personal?

i've said nothing about you as a person, and everything about your "discussion" style, which isn't condusive to discussion at all and a big reason why so many of the frequent FYM posters stay away whenever you enter.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:00 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
STING, you have still said NOTHING to justify the US's current 10th place standing on HDI.

Also, GDP is #1, per capita GDP is #4 (as I stated earlier).

If I were American, I would find the comparatively lower measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, poverty etc. absolutely unacceptable given GDP. As a non-American, I'll just call it as I see it, mediocre. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Btw, if you want to get into Canada, natural resources, NAFTA and the US's typical pattern of FUCK OFF foreign policy, start another thread.
I think you bring out some interesting points with your post on Health Care. The United States spends more per person on Health Care than any country in the world, but because of wastes and the oversized bureaucracy, Americans do not receive the level of Health Care that they could. The problems don't stem from a lack of funding as many democrats would claim, but from failure to reform the system in order to reduce waste.

Provided the United States is able to reform its health care system, this could result in a higher HDI rank relative to other countries.

I have said plenty to justify why it is not abnormal or mediocre, for the United States to be at #10 on the HDI. Alan Greenspan, one of the greatest Economist of are times has said the same thing.

No one would ever describe Ireland's Standard of Living as mediocre because they have the 2nd highest Per Capita GDP in the world, but only the 8th highest standard of living. I challenge you to find a single source on Ireland that would express that Ireland's standard of living is mediocre because they only rank 8th in standard of living in the world, while their GDP per capita is 2nd.

The GDP per Capita chart never exactly matches the HDI chart. There are reasons why smaller countries have an easier time charting high on the HDI chart. As I have shown above these rankings change every year, and this years ranking for 2006 could have the USA per-capita GDP rank and HDI rank more closely aligned than it was last year.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:13 PM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what's personal?

i've said nothing about you as a person, and everything about your "discussion" style, which isn't condusive to discussion at all and a big reason why so many of the frequent FYM posters stay away whenever you enter.
Talking about another persons discussion style is personal. Your talking about something that person does and not a political topic. The current thread has just as many post from different members of the forum as the average thread over the past month. It has one of the highest post totals of any thread over the past month.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:20 PM   #132
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Provided the United States is able to reform its health care system, this could result in a higher HDI rank relative to other countries.
There you have it...finally.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Alan Greenspan, one of the greatest Economist of are times has said the same thing.
As the keeper of the most recent bull market cycle (18 years plus or minus some hiccups) there are many fat cats who owe him a great deal of thanks. His retirement was well-timed. As a sidenote I'm not sure history will remember him as the greatest economist of our time.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

No one would ever describe Ireland's Standard of Living as mediocre because they have the 2nd highest Per Capita GDP in the world, but only the 8th highest standard of living.
I haven't said anyone's standard of living is mediocre. I've maintained that a large gap in HDI and GDP is mediocre.

If I were Irish I'd sure be questioning it.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:29 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


There you have it...finally.



As the keeper of the most recent bull market cycle (18 years plus or minus some hiccups) there are many fat cats who owe him a great deal of thanks. His retirement was well-timed. As a sidenote I'm not sure history will remember him as the greatest economist of our time.




I haven't said anyone's standard of living is mediocre. I've maintained that a large gap in HDI and GDP is mediocre.

If I were Irish I'd sure be questioning it.
So what is a large gap in HDI and GDP per capita, a medium gap, and a small gap?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:36 PM   #134
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Anecdotally I would say that for any country whose per capita GDP ranks higher than HDI, that means health and education are lacking...the bigger the gap, the more reform needed in health and education to close the gap.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 04-11-2006, 02:37 PM   #135
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Talking about another persons discussion style is personal. Your talking about something that person does and not a political topic. The current thread has just as many post from different members of the forum as the average thread over the past month. It has one of the highest post totals of any thread over the past month.


half the posts in this thread are by you and one other poster -- an involved discussion this is not, and it demonstrates what i was talking about earlier.

but this is idiotic, and proves my point.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com