The United States in #1....(just check out all of these facts!!!)

[Danospano]

Among the top 20 industrialized nations, the United States is #1 in?.:
o Millionaires
o Billionaires
o Military spending
o Firearm deaths
o Beef production
o Per capita energy use
o Carbon dioxide emissions (more than Australia, Brazil, Canda, France, India, Indonesia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom combined).
o Total and per capita municipal waste (720 kilograms per person per year).
o Hazardous waste produced (by a factor of more than 20x our nearest competitor, Germany).
o Oil consumption
o Natural gas consumption
o The least amount of tax revenue generated (as a % of gross domestic product).
oThe least amount of federal and state government expenditure (as a percentage of GDP).
o Budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP).
o Daily per capita consumption of calories.
o Lowest voter turnout.
o Number of political parties represented in the lower or single house.
o Recorded rapes (by a factor of almost 3x our nearest competitor?Canada).
o Births to mothers under the age of 20 (again, more than twice as many as Canada, and nearly twice as many as #2 New Zealand).
o Number of international human rights treaties not signed.
o Among countries in the United Nations with a legally constituted government to not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
o Number of known execution of child offenders.
o Likelihood of children under the age of 15 to commit suicide with a gun.
o Likelihood of children under the age of 15 to die from gunfire.
o Lowest 8th grade math scores.
o Becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group in the population are children

 

[z edge]

Among the top 20 industrialized nations, the United States is #1 in?.:
o Millionaires
o Billionaires
o Military spending

o Carbon dioxide emissions (more than Australia, Brazil, Canda, France, India, Indonesia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom combined).

how is this measured??

o Recorded rapes (by a factor of almost 3x our nearest competitor?Canada).
o Births to mothers under the age of 20 (again, more than twice as many as Canada, and nearly twice as many as #2 New Zealand).

are these 2 related?

o Number of international human rights treaties not signed.
o Among countries in the United Nations with a legally constituted government to not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am not familiar with these

o Likelihood of children under the age of 15 to die from gunfire.

this just probably hasn't caught on elsewhere yet, God forbid.

o Becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group in the population are children

I don't get this one, our children are supposed to be rich??

 

[Lemonite]

Don't forget the Largest Number of 40 Oz Prime Rib Cut Steaks Consumed.

L.Unplugged

 

[McGlinn]

Alot of your points are attriutable to the size of the US. We have 250 million people.

Canada has 30 million.

What is the purpose of your post?

Mick

 

[U2002revolution!]

....America's pretty good if ya ask me

 

[Anoosh Vs. God]

where is your list of references?

you should mention that you are only referring to first world countries----that is, if these 'facts' have any basis.

 

[Salome]

Alot of your points are attriutable to the size of the US. We have 250 million people.

I was thinking the same thing

 

[Angela Harlem]

Apart from the population factor, Im wondering how this was calculated too.
If it is per capita etc, then some of these categories cannot be compared. Like the NZ birth rates. I bet you would find a certain percentage of those are Maori girls who have a whole different set of socio-economic factors to be worrying about. America has different gun laws to many others. I dont think figures like this really do reflect poorly, or well on any given country. Westernised, or industrialised, you cannot compare many countries. You may have more gas emissions, but we have the biggest hole in the Ozone.
!

Yay score one for Aus!!!

 

[speedracer]

Among the top 20 industrialized nations, the United States is #1 in?.:

Some of these are very legitimate concerns, but for brevity's sake (and also to appear as a cantankerous crank) I'll only address the ones I disagree with.

o Millionaires
o Billionaires
o Military spending

Nothing wrong with any of these.

o Beef production

Ditto.

o Per capita energy use
o Carbon dioxide emissions (more than Australia, Brazil, Canda, France, India, Indonesia, Germany, Italy, Mexico, and the United Kingdom combined).
o Oil consumption

Also consider that the US is geographically much less dense than other industrialized nations. Therefore, we have to drive around a lot more than people in other countries.

o Likelihood of children under the age of 15 to commit suicide with a gun.

The number of these is most likely so small as to be statistically insignificant.

o Lowest 8th grade math scores.

The US still has the finest universities in the world. It's true.

o Becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group in the population are children

Kids don't work.

Rich, career-driven people tend not to have kids or to have kids later in life. What's your point?

 

[pax]

To balance this thread a bit, I want to mention that I think the child poverty statistics refers to just that--children living in poverty. As in, their families are living in poverty.

A stunning number of families in this nation live below, at, or near the poverty line, and research has been done into the living conditions of the working poor, which are sometimes worse than the conditions of those on public assistance.

That said, I must admit that some of these factors are no doubt attributable to the size of the USA--unless they have been adjusted to percentages.

 

[dream wanderer]

From ABC news ....

Fewer babies died in the first year of life, and fewer teenage girls had babies. Smoking dropped among eighth- and 10th-graders. More preschoolers ate a healthy diet.
Those are the conclusions from an annual report released today that offers an overview of the most recent data available on the health, economics and education of some 70 million children living in the United States. Compiled by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, "America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being" draws from research conducted across the federal government. (Read the report at http://childstats.gov.)


Officials celebrated the successes but noted there was no improvement on many measures of well-being.

The best news might be a substantial drop in infant mortality. In 1999, the report said, seven of every 1,000 babies under age 1 died. That was down from 7.2 in 1998 after declining throughout the 1990s.

The rate fell again in 2000, said a separate report also being released today, to 6.9 deaths per 1,000 babies.

"It's a triumph of science and health performance," said Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Alexander attributed the reduction to clinical improvements in treatment of respiratory distress syndrome and a reduction in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, achieved largely through a campaign to put babies to sleep on their backs.

At the same time, births among girls ages 15-17 dropped from 29 per 1,000 in 1999 to 27 per 1,000 in 2000.

Other positive trends include:

More children were covered by health insurance, up from 87 percent in 1999 to 88 percent in 2000. Officials credited the relatively new State Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers children in working poor families.

Fewer eighth- and 10th-graders smoked, though smoking rates for high school seniors were statistically unchanged. Last year, 5.5 percent of eighth-graders smoked, down from 7.4 percent in 2000; among 10th-graders, 12 percent smoked, down from 14 percent.

More children were read to every day by a family member, 58 percent last year, up from 54 percent in 1999.

More youngsters ages 2 to 5 had a good diet ? 27 percent in 1998, up from 21 percent in 1996.

Numerous measures did not change: In 2000, 16 percent of children lived in poverty, 76 percent of toddlers got the recommended immunizations and 87 percent of young adults finished high school. Drug and alcohol use among junior high and high school students held steady.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson urged Americans "to rededicate our efforts as a nation, and as individuals, to protect children, provide them opportunity and good examples, and build foundations that will last their lifetimes."

In a special feature this year, the report found that in 2001, 19 percent of children had at least one parent born outside the United States, up from 14 percent in 1994.


Copyright 2002 The Associated Press.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

To balance this thread a bit, I want to mention that I think the child poverty statistics refers to just that--children living in poverty. As in, their families are living in poverty.

A stunning number of families in this nation live below, at, or near the poverty line, and research has been done into the living conditions of the working poor, which are sometimes worse than the conditions of those on public assistance.

That said, I must admit that some of these factors are no doubt attributable to the size of the USA--unless they have been adjusted to percentages.

However, I believe that the U.S. has among the richest poor in the world, that many of the poor have their own cars, refrigerators, and color televisions.

Certainly, there are those living in absolute squalor, but poverty seems to be defined by the living condititions compared to America's middle class, rather than the poor throughout the rest of the world.

Seriously, if the measuring stick was the same for us and other nations (and if we adjusted for population differences) would the number of Americans at/below the poverty line still be "stunning" compared to say, India and China?


That said, I do believe that if you're right about the conditions of the working poor being worse than those on assistance, then the argument that assistance is a disincentive to work seems even more valid.

 

[dream wanderer]

QUEZON CITY, Philippines, August 24, 2001 - Pollution in Asia has worsened since last year and is directly responsible for the death of thousands in Beijing, Jakarta, Seoul, Bangkok and Manila. This is according to the World Bank and the Stockholm Development Institute (SDI), which is currently implementing an Atmospheric Environment Program in Asia with the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA).

SDI revealed that sulfur dioxide, ammonia and nitrogen oxides have been rising steadily over the past few decades and ground level ozone concentration has increased. Air pollution in the continent has now surpassed the combined emissions in Europe and North America.

Already, the adverse impacts, felt in Europe over the century, are being experienced. The World Bank said in its 2000 Annual Review that in Manila alone, more than 4,000 Filipinos die because of air pollution. The mortality figure is the third highest for a city in the East Asian region after Beijing and Jakarta. Bangkok and Seoul were ranked 4th and 5th.

Beside the deaths, 90,000 Filipinos in Manila also suffer from severe chronic bronchitis, costing the government seven percent of its gross domestic product in terms of health costs, the World Bank said, citing statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), which did pollution and health studies in 126 countries last year.

However, the air pollution death figures in other parts of the world are higher, Bank said, noting that yearly, over 40,000 die in India, 6,400 in Mexico City, over 5,000 deaths in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

As rapid urbanization associated with growth in industry and transportation systems spread in Asia, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have sky-rocketed. The pollutants come from fossil fuel combustion used by energy, industry and transportation sectors all over the Asia-Pacific region. It is aggravated by the use of low quality fuel, inefficient methods of energy production and use, poor condition of vehicles and traffic congestion, SDI said.

SDI added that pollutants from neighboring countries know no political boundaries as they can travel thousands of kilometers. Thus, the so-called "transboundary" pollution problem cannot be tackled by individual countries successfully. There is a need for regional intergovernmental cooperation.

Air pollution in the Asian region has worsened in the past two years resulting to two dangerous effects to health-premature mortality and excess cases of bronchitis, both caused by exposure to high levels of fine particulate matter. The deaths, caused by fine particulate matter in the atmosphere, far exceed those caused by sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone and lead, World Bank said in expressing alarm over the worsening phenomenon.

The damage to human health caused not only by air emissions but also solid waste and effluents is the highest among all the costs if urban environmental degradation. Health costs in major Asian cities now reach 15 to 18 percent of urban income, the Bank said.

As cities in developing countries are indeed becoming unhealthy places to live in, people have to contend not only with dangerous air fumes but also solid waste and effluent pollution. These are direct factors behind water-related diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid.

.

I think its safe to say its nasty all over....


dream wanderer

 

[hiphop]

SDI revealed that sulfur dioxide, ammonia and nitrogen oxides have been rising steadily over the past few decades and ground level ozone concentration has increased. Air pollution in the continent has now surpassed the combined emissions in Europe and North America.

Already, the adverse impacts, felt in Europe over the century, are being experienced. The World Bank said in its 2000 Annual Review that in Manila alone, more than 4,000 Filipinos die because of air pollution. The mortality figure is the third highest for a city in the East Asian region after Beijing and Jakarta. Bangkok and Seoul were ranked 4th and 5th.

Beside the deaths, 90,000 Filipinos in Manila also suffer from severe chronic bronchitis, costing the government seven percent of its gross domestic product in terms of health costs, the World Bank said, citing statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), which did pollution and health studies in 126 countries last year.

However, the air pollution death figures in other parts of the world are higher, Bank said, noting that yearly, over 40,000 die in India, 6,400 in Mexico City, over 5,000 deaths in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

As rapid urbanization associated with growth in industry and transportation systems spread in Asia, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have sky-rocketed. The pollutants come from fossil fuel combustion used by energy, industry and transportation sectors all over the Asia-Pacific region. It is aggravated by the use of low quality fuel, inefficient methods of energy production and use, poor condition of vehicles and traffic congestion, SDI said.

As cities in developing countries are indeed becoming unhealthy places to live in, people have to contend not only with dangerous air fumes but also solid waste and effluent pollution. These are direct factors behind water-related diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and typhoid.

.

I think its safe to say its nasty all over....


dream wanderer

Who has written this article?

It would be typical for this journalist, - like for many (trying to lick the a**** of the elite, that doesn?t care a shit about them, hehe) - to tell only half of the story (apart from not researching properly anymore, those bastards, they are too lazy!).

It is very cynical (but such a cruel cynicism) of the World Bank to blah blah about pollution, but to forget to mention that it was THEM who gave out credits to build up the big part of this polluting industry. Why did they do this you may ask? Because capital, as it was decided, has to stay in the flow. Bigger profits, you know, and you can?t park all of it, you need to reinvest. So, let?s give the developing countries low interests first, and increase them later.

The real fact behind this is that "capitalism" has, for the last twenty years or so, successfully changed its strategy; putting the production in cheaper places throughout the world, therefore cutting jobs of AMERICANS (be sure that capitalism gives a damn about the middle class - if you don?t believe me, you?re just naive), to lower production costs. Yeah, and it?s beautiful, we can do everything we fucking want there: low quality fuel, for example? No laws against that there...

And then, the article doesn?t mention that it?s not mainly the Chinese who are wearing Nike or Benetton, or the Koreans who drive the cars they produced, or Thailand using the computers they built. Mainly the consumers of all that products are Europeans and Americans. Needless to say that WE also have the financial control.

z edge, I think your post shows how much a nation can be inhibited by its own culture. First, you try to seem cool by popping off one sentence per 3 points. But then, there are nearly no arguments

(I would go as far as saying zero intellectual output - except of your valid assumption, speedracer - your post goes a little into the same direction - , that U.S. universities are amongst the best of the world - no wonder, they?re also the most expensive ones, so thank your parents more than twice when you are allowed to go to college),

but just throwing fiddlesticks, like "how is this measured?" or "are these two related?", or "I am not familiar with these".
Well, if you?re not familiar with these or about measuring methods, educate yourself!

And live up to your nick, or at least try to give the impression that you?re trying to.

 

[dream wanderer]

Sorry...I accidently edited out the author's name. He is Michael A. Bergwayan...and you can find a copy of the article (and a lot of other things) at www.earthvision.net.


dream wanderer

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

...but just throwing fiddlesticks, like "how is this measured?" or "are these two related?", or "I am not familiar with these".
Well, if you?re not familiar with these or about measuring methods, educate yourself!

One way to educate yourself is to ask questions, like "how is this measured?".

Who has written this article?

See, you asked a question, and someone answered, and you were educated.

(sorry, I'm cranky this afternoon)

 

[z edge]

z edge, I think your post shows how much a nation can be inhibited by its own culture.

Yes you are right. I am the epitome of american ignorrance/arrogance. If you want to know everything about me then just watch the movie American Pie I or II. Thats all there is, just that loud, arrogant, self-absorbed american or "ugly american" thats me and my culture. Ahh yes, thank you for noticing, as I tried soooo hard to get your attention and it has finally worked.

First, you try to seem cool by popping off one sentence per 3 points. But then, there are nearly no arguments

ah yes cool, I do try desperately to attain this measure of ones worth. I mean if you are not cool, then what else is there?

but just throwing fiddlesticks, like "how is this measured?" or "are these two related?", or "I am not familiar with these".
Well, if you?re not familiar with these or about measuring methods, educate yourself!

Oh gosh, you've got me again *claps hands for you* "!YaY!"

But you see hippoh, I just can't win can I? Out of respect for Dannospano's feelings, I did not question any of the validity of the facts he stated (he stated "check out the facts" in the title) even though he did not even state where he got this information. While I may not agree with it, it is hard to even accept it without the source, but since there has been controversey form some of his posts regarding the source(s) I assume that is the reason he did not say where this came from.

SO I try to be nice and I'm not being arguementative and I am attacked for not arguing? Sweetheart, do I need your permission to post from now on?

And as far as educating myself, you see I am such a busy little boy! While I am busy 6 days a week making bombs for Uncle Sam, my evenings are filled with getting my lavish home ready for my new swimming pool, so I can only post occasionly when I check in.

And really, we all know I don't care about what goes on outside my country except for my bombs

And live up to your nick, or at least try to give the impression that you?re trying to.

But I still love you very much
with all of my

Z-

 

[U2Bama]

You forgot one!

Danospano:

You forgot one! We were #1 (Gold medal!) in women's bobsledding in the Olympics this year! The "brake," Vonetta Flowers, was from my town!

Also I think that Hughes girl won something skating.

Add those to your list!!!! PLEASE!!!!!

~U2Alabama

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'm still curious to find out where these facts came from, to see if they clarify their points a little more. like some people mentioned, a lot of these things may be comparing numbers of one country to another. of course we'll have higher everything, we're more populated than canada.

 

[Danospano]

I'm not sure about the source of these statistics. I agree that some were striking due to the mere size of the United States. Others were frightening.

Nevertheless, I posted it to cause a discussion concerning the darker side of America. Mainly because we so many patriotic, American never does wrong, believers.

 

[bau2fan]

i can't say it is very surprising. I sometimes wonder if people pay enought attention to these problems, but i guess this shows it.

 

[Danospano]

The source: "Stupid White Men", by none other than Michael Moore. Chapter's Two and Eight will supply more information on this topic.

 

[Danospano]

Here are more specific sources for the information listed above:

1)www.worldgame.org
2)Center for Defense Information: "The Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense," By Christopher Hellman,
3)The World Bank's report, "Meeting the Challenge: Mural Energy and Development for Two Billion People Report", 2000.
4)Council for a Livable World, "Fiscal Year 2001 Military Budget at a Glance," www.clw.org.
5)US Vital Statistics----US Census Bureau Population Report Table #247
6)US National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics #311.
7)Children Defense Fund, "The State of America's Children Yearbook 2000"
8) UN Human Development Report 2000
9) US Vital Statistics, Tables #1356, 1361, 1390, 1398
10)Energy Information Administration, "Official Energy Statistics from the US Government's"
11)Amnesty International Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, 6/1/01
12)Patrick Moynihan, "Family and Nation". 1986, p. 96.

 

[U2Bama]

You could also list an Olympics site, since it would list the different sports in which U.S. athletes won the Gold (#1). I think it might be good since you want a composite listing of things in which the U.S. is #1!

~U2Alabama

 

[Danospano]

I'm not interested in sports statistics, (well actually, they're not that bad), but thanks for the pointer.

 

[kariatari]

I really don't understand why people are shocked and angered by these statistics. Any entry-level class in World Politics, Sociology, or Economics would tell you the same exact thing...Americans are the largest consumers of the world's resources. There's no getting around it. You can use the population argument to justify the statistics if you want, but that won't hold up because countries like India and China have populations of 1 billion+.

And America might have (some of) the finest universities in the world, but I would say that the US K-12 educational system (which is where 8th grade scores factor in) is one of the easiest in the world.

 

[typhoon]

o Becoming the first society in history in which the poorest group in the population are children

He might mean that we'll be the first generation in a while whose children will be less wealthy than us (or something along those lines).

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I really don't understand why people are shocked and angered by these statistics. Any entry-level class in World Politics, Sociology, or Economics would tell you the same exact thing...Americans are the largest consumers of the world's resources. There's no getting around it. You can use the population argument to justify the statistics if you want, but that won't hold up because countries like India and China have populations of 1 billion+.

But what about PRODUCTION? If we're also the largest producers in the world, doesn't that offset our consumption just a wee bit?

It certainly seems that we lead the world in production. From the CIA's "World Factbook 2001":

The Gross World Product in 2000 was an estimated $43.6 trillion. The United States was responsible for $10.0 trillion, or 23%. The world's population (July 2001 estimate) is about 6,157 million people - a little over 6 billion. The population of the United States is 278 million, or 4.5%.

Therefore, 4.5% of the world's humans (those in the greedy United States) is responsible for the production of 23% of the world's wealth.

Let us look at these stats in a country-by-country comparison. For brevity, let's compare the United States to the other G8 countries, China, India, and Brazil. (As a reminder, the G8 includes the following countries: the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, and Russia.)


From the same source, a comparison of Gross Domestic Products (2000 estimate, in billions of U.S. dollars):

$9,963 - United States
$4,500 - China
$3,150 - Japan
$2,200 - India
$1,936 - Germany
$1,448 - France
$1,360 - United Kingdom
$1,273 - Italy
$1,130 - Brazil
$1,120 - Russia
$ 775 - Canada


Now, let's normalize for population, and consider per capita GDP:

$36,200 - United States
$24,900 - Japan
$24,800 - Canada
$24,400 - France
$23,400 - Germany
$22,800 - United Kingdom
$22,100 - Italy
$ 7,700 - Russia
$ 6,500 - Brazil
$ 3,600 - China
$ 2,200 - India


We purchase more certainly, but we also PRODUCE MORE. Such a correlation between consumption and production should make a lot of sense to any student of economics:

- We consume more because we have more money.
- We have more money because we produce more wealth.

The ONLY way that one will not come to that conclusion is if you assume that we greedy Americans STEAL from other countries. That notion is, by and large, CRAP.


...all of this leads to another unspoken question: why us?

More specifically, why does the United States and Japan have such productive economies (particularly when you normalize for population? Why doesn't Europe or China?

Is it the abundance of natural resources? Well, no: Japan is a small, rocky archipelago and it's doing far better (per capita) than its large neighbor to the west and is able to just outpace all of Europe. Is it the long-established government? Again, no: the U.K.'s government has been around far longer than the American and Japanese governments.

Could it be... economic freedom?

I think so: I think economic freedom (capitalism, the only "-ism" that occurs on its own) is why we're doing so well: competition, economic rewards for offering the best product at the lowest price. The gulf between the United States and the Third World is NOT an unequal distribution of wealth or resources: it's an unequal distribution of economic freedom and the social structures necessary to maintain it (most notably, the rule of law).


At any rate, I believe I've thoroughly discredited the notion - implied or outright stated - that the United States is nothing more than a giant, bloated consumer of goods. We are also a great producer of goods, feeding much of the rest of the world, serving as one of this planet's great breadbaskets.

Isn't it telling that Michael Moore's uncredited list fails to mention this?

Isn't it also telling what stats DANOSPANO seems focused on?

 

[hiphop]

Yes you are right. I am the epitome of american ignorrance/arrogance. If you want to know everything about me then just watch the movie American Pie I or II. Thats all there is, just that loud, arrogant, self-absorbed american or "ugly american" thats me and my culture. Ahh yes, thank you for noticing, as I tried soooo hard to get your attention and it has finally worked.



ah yes cool, I do try desperately to attain this measure of ones worth. I mean if you are not cool, then what else is there?



Oh gosh, you've got me again *claps hands for you* "!YaY!"

But you see hippoh, I just can't win can I? Out of respect for Dannospano's feelings, I did not question any of the validity of the facts he stated (he stated "check out the facts" in the title) even though he did not even state where he got this information. While I may not agree with it, it is hard to even accept it without the source, but since there has been controversey form some of his posts regarding the source(s) I assume that is the reason he did not say where this came from.

SO I try to be nice and I'm not being arguementative and I am attacked for not arguing? Sweetheart, do I need your permission to post from now on?

And as far as educating myself, you see I am such a busy little boy! While I am busy 6 days a week making bombs for Uncle Sam, my evenings are filled with getting my lavish home ready for my new swimming pool, so I can only post occasionly when I check in.

And really, we all know I don't care about what goes on outside my country except for my bombs



But I still love you very much
with all of my

Z-

LMAO!!! I love you too, honey.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

More specifically, why does the United States and Japan have such productive economies (particularly when you normalize for population? Why doesn't Europe or China?

China has the fastest growing economy in the world, in fact it's expected to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world within the next ten to twenty years.

At any rate, I believe I've thoroughly discredited the notion - implied or outright stated - that the United States is nothing more than a giant, bloated consumer of goods. We are also a great producer of goods, feeding much of the rest of the world, serving as one of this planet's great breadbaskets.

For the US to serve as "one of this planet's great breadbaskets" it would have to export a significant amount of what it produces, correct? And yet the United States imports far more than it exports, which is what the accumulated external debt of the US is $2.3 trillion [1] (compare that to the external debt of all developing countries added together - $2.5 trillion [2]. Also compare the $20 billion annually the US pays to service that debt to the $300 billion developing countries pay.)

If the US is the richest country in the world (and I don't dispute that it is) then why does it owe so much money?

Sources:
[1]IMF handbook of International Financial Statistics, November 2001
[2]The Economist, Febuary 2002