I have suggestions for resolving the impending funding crises in social security, medicare/medicaid, and the federal budget in general.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid: all people who oppose these programs on ideological grounds (those who vote republican in general elections, probably about half of the voting population) should refrain from accepting benefits from the programs. They should instead pay their own way. This would immediately reduce expenditures of these programs by about half, generating a surplus in available funds. It would also allow these people to stop living life as hypocrites. These individuals would be allowed to stop paying taxes, because I am sure they will sorely need the money.
General federal government spending: All states that have elected conservative representatives and senators should forgo all federal funding for infrastructure repair/maintenance, education, health care, and disaster relief. Representatives of such states should be forbidden from introducing "pork" into otherwise responsible bills. These states should agree to live up to the rhetoric of their elected officials and cut themselves loose entirely from the tyranny of the federal government. Again, any other policy is hypocritical. If all of the conservative states would do this, we would probably be able to reduce the federal deficit in record time.
Come on, step up! All I'm suggesting is that you live according to your convictions!
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Paradox of Thrift
How about this conservative idea of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in each year in revenues? Do you think this is a good idea? The argument is that the government should behave just like an individual, or a family, in limiting its expenses to no more than its income. Seems like a good idea if you don't think about it too much.
There is an economic phenomenon known as the Paradox of Thrift, attributable (I think) to John Maynard Keynes. The paradox is that saving by persons and families, in order to improve their individual financial situations, hurts the economy as a whole by reducing consumption, which comprises 60% of GDP. Decreased consumption decreases business income, so businesses contract, laying off employees. This decreases incomes of individuals, which decreases consumption even more. The paradox: what's good for the individual, when done on a mass scale, is bad for the economy as a whole.
We are in this situation now (mid 2011). There is high unemployment; people are spending less; businesses are producing less, and not hiring; decreased personal and business incomes means decreased tax revenues for the government. This seems to require cutting government spending, which is demanded by conservatives. But this will only make this situation WORSE by destroying public jobs and providing less government stimulus to the economy. This will contribute to the downward spiral of jobs, spending, production, tax revenues, and so on. Cutting government spending in a recession is the worst thing that we can do. We need the opposite--to increase government spending to stimulate the economy, to increase money flow, to prod consumer demand, to in turn prod business production.
If we want to see a major recession/depression/economic meltdown, let's do what the conservatives want, and cut spending to the bone. Further, let's set it in stone by with a balanced budget amendment, which will deprive government of one of its main tools (fiscal expansion) for combatting recession.
There is an economic phenomenon known as the Paradox of Thrift, attributable (I think) to John Maynard Keynes. The paradox is that saving by persons and families, in order to improve their individual financial situations, hurts the economy as a whole by reducing consumption, which comprises 60% of GDP. Decreased consumption decreases business income, so businesses contract, laying off employees. This decreases incomes of individuals, which decreases consumption even more. The paradox: what's good for the individual, when done on a mass scale, is bad for the economy as a whole.
We are in this situation now (mid 2011). There is high unemployment; people are spending less; businesses are producing less, and not hiring; decreased personal and business incomes means decreased tax revenues for the government. This seems to require cutting government spending, which is demanded by conservatives. But this will only make this situation WORSE by destroying public jobs and providing less government stimulus to the economy. This will contribute to the downward spiral of jobs, spending, production, tax revenues, and so on. Cutting government spending in a recession is the worst thing that we can do. We need the opposite--to increase government spending to stimulate the economy, to increase money flow, to prod consumer demand, to in turn prod business production.
If we want to see a major recession/depression/economic meltdown, let's do what the conservatives want, and cut spending to the bone. Further, let's set it in stone by with a balanced budget amendment, which will deprive government of one of its main tools (fiscal expansion) for combatting recession.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Ranking America
Morals/Ethics/Values/Culture
According to a study by the journal International Family Planning Perspectives, in 1999 (the year the study was published), the United States ranked twenty-fourth in terms of abortion rates. Vietnam ranked first.
According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, the United States ranks first both in the total number of civilian firearms and in per capita ownership of small firearms.
According to the most recent data available from the OECD, 8.1% of 15-year-old Americans smoke at least once a week. This makes the United States rank twenty-fifth out of the twenty-five participating OECD countries. Austria ranks first, at 27.1%.
According to a 2009 survey by Gallup, 65% of Americans say that religion is very important in their daily lives which makes the United States rank eighty-fifth out of one-hundred-and-fourteen countries ranked in that category. Bangladesh and Niger tied for first, at greater than 99%.
According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (as reported at nationmaster.com), in 2002 the United States ranked nineteenth in terms of per capita plastic surgery procedures. Switzerland ranked first.
According to the Canada Council for the Arts, in 2003 the American government distributed the equivalent of 44¢ (Canadian) per capita in public arts grants, which made the United States rank thirteenth out of thirteen countries in that category. Sweden ranked first, distributing $28.38 (Canadian) per capita in arts grants.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College, the United States has a prison occupancy rate of 108%, which makes it rank ninety-second in that category. Grenada ranks first, with a prison occupancy rate of 374.5%.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, as of March 2010 there are 2,297,400 prisoners in the United States, which makes the United States rank first in that category out of two hundred eighteen ranked countries.
According to data gathered between 1998 and 2000 and published in the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime, there are 805.21 assaults for every 100,000 Americans, a rate that makes the United States rank sixth in that category. Swaziland ranks first, with 1356.84 recorded assaults per 100,000 people.
According to the Pew Global Attitude Project’s 2003 report, Views of a Changing World, 55% of Americans completely agree with the statement, “religion is a personal matter and should be kept separate from government.” The United States is tied for twenty-fifth (out of forty-one countries) with Russia and Uzbekistan in this category. Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) ranks first, with 84% of respondents believing in the separation of church and state.
According to UNESCO (as reported in wikipedia.org), the United States ranks second out of 77 countries in terms of book titles published per year. The United Kingdom ranks first.
According to the OECD, as of June 2009 there were 26.7 broadband internet subscriptions in the United States for every 100 Americans, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of thirty OECD member nations. Then Netherlands ranks first, at 38.1 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
According to the OECD, in 2008 the U.S. ranked 10th out of 25 countries in teenage girls who are reported victims of bullies. The U.S. ranks tenth with 10.4 percent. Turkey ranked first with 23.3 percent of reported cases.
According to the Food and Agriculture Oranization of the United Nations, in 2003 the United States ranked eighteenth in terms of per capita alcohol consumption. Ireland ranked first.
According to the World Resources Institute in 2005 the United States experienced 43,443 deaths due to road accidents. That is enough to make the United States rank third out of seventy four countries ranked in that category. China ranks first with 98,738 deaths due to road accidents.
According to the World Health Organization, in 2002, 5.4 out of every 100,000 Americans were killed by violence, a rate that makes the United States rank ninety-ninth in that category. Colombia ranked first, with 72.4 out of every 100,000 Colombians killed by violence.
According to Amnesty International, in 2008 there were at least 111 people sentenced to death in the United States, which made the United States rank eighth in that category. China ranked first, with at least 7003 people sentenced to death.
According to the most recent data made available to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, the United States has a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people, which makes the United States tied for fifty-second with Argentina out of one hundred thirty-eight ranked countries. Honduras ranks first, with a homicide rate of 60.9 per 100,000.
Science/Education
According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution.
According to the OECD 10.0% of the government expenditure in the United States is spent on education, which makes the United States rank eighth out of twenty-eight ranked nations in that category. Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spends $10,821 per student on secondary education, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.
According to the OECD (as reported in NationMaster), the United States ranks fifteenth of twenty-seven member nations in terms of reading literacy. Finland ranks first.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, American students scored 502 in the science component of the 2009 PISA assessment. That was enough for the United States to rank twenty-third out of sixty-five ranked economies. China-Shanghai ranked first with a score of 575.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, the United States ranks thirty-fifth in terms of the mean score for mathematics. Taiwan ranks first.
According to the United Nations, there are 4,605 professional researchers in the United States for
every 1,000,000 population, which makes the United States rank eighth in that category. Tonga ranks first, with 45,454 researchers per 1,000,000 population.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in 2003, fifteen year old students in the United States had an average literacy score of 495 out of 1000, which made the United States rank eighteenth out of forty nations. Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.
According to the OECD, between 2003 and 2006, American students declined by nine points in their PISA mathematics performance scores, which made the United States rank thirty-fourth out of thirty nine countries in that category. Indonesia ranked first, with an increase of 31 points in the PISA score. For the OECD as a whole, there was a decline of two points between 2003 and 2006. The worst performing country was France, with a decline of fifteen points.
According to the most recent data available from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the top teacher salary for primary teachers in the United States in 1999 was $48,782, making the U.S. rank fifth in that category. South Korea ranked first, with a top teacher salary of $69,818. The OECD mean salary in that category was $36,145.
Economic
According to the World Bank, 44.9% of the total land area in the United States is agricultural land, which makes the United States rank eighty-third in that category. Burundi ranks first, with 89.4% of its land used as agricultural land.
According to OICA, in 2007 the United States ranked fourth in terms of the number of automobiles manufactured, with 3,924,268 cars made that year. Japan ranked first with 9,944,637 cars made.
According to the report Doing Business 2011, the United States ranks fifth in terms of the ease of doing business in a country. Here are the top ten countries in this ranking:
1.Singapore
2.Hong Kong
3.New Zealand
4.United Kingdom
5.United States
6.Denmark
7.Canada
8.Norway
9.Ireland
10.Australia
According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 the United States spent the equivalent of 2.62% of the gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development. That was enough to make the United States rank fourth out of forty-one nations. Israel ranked first, at 4.48%.
According to the OECD, the United States has a poverty rate of around 17%, which makes the United States rank third out of thirty OECD member nations in that category. Mexico ranks first, with a poverty rate of around 18.5%. The median poverty rate for OECD member nations is around 11%.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2002 the United States produced 12.24% of the world’s fertilizer, making it rank second in that category. China ranked first, producing 21.62% of the world’s fertilizer.
According to data from FAOstat in 2009, the United States produced 373,440 tonnes of tobacco, or 7.7% of the world’s tobacco supply. That is enough for the United States to rank third in that category. China ranked first, producing 3,001,725 tonnes, or 62.3% of the world total.
According to the World Bank, Americans in 2008 paid $ 0.56 per liter at the gas pumps making the United States rank one hundred and forty-eighth of one hundred and sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Eritrea ranked first, paying $2.53 per liter at the gas pumps.
According to the latest data available from CIA World Factbook, the United States has a public debt of 58.9% of the total GDP. This is enough to make the United States rank thirty-sixth in that category. Zimbabwe ranks first with a public debt of 241.6% of their total GDP.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $1,735,282,000 worth of iron and steel bars, rods, angles, and shapes, enough to make the United States rank tenth in that category. Germany ranks first, exporting $5,333,026,000 worth of iron and steel.
According to the British Geological Survey, in 2006 the United States produced 242,000 kilograms of gold from gold mines, or 10.5% of the world’s total, enough to make the United States rank fourth in that category. South Africa ranked first, producing 272,128 kilograms, or 11.8% of the world total. Together, the top five gold producing countries–South Africa, China, Australia, the United States, and Russia–accounted for 50.5% of the world’s total.
According to the World Steel Association, in 2008 the United States produced 91.5 million metric tonnes of steel, a decline of 6.8% from 2007. In both years, the United States ranked third in that category. China ranked first, producing 502 million metric tonnes of steel in 2008, up 2.6% from the previous year. Globally, there was a decline of 1.2% in total steel production from 2007 to 2008.
According to the United Nations Development Programme, between 2000 and 2005 there were 244 patents granted in the United States for every 1,000,000 people. That makes the United States rank third in that category. South Korea ranks first, with 1113 patents per million people.
According to data from The World Bank, the United States has 820 motor vehicles per every 1,000 people, which is enough to make the United States rank third in that category. The Netherlands Antilles ranks first with 1,214 motor vehicles per 1,000 people.
According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 Americans worked an average of 1797 hours for the year, which makes the United States rank eleventh out of thirty four nations in that category. Korea ranked first, with an average of 2357 hours worked. The OECD average was 1777 hours.
According to the International Trade Centre, the United States imported 4.4 billion dollars worth of gold in 2009, which makes the United States rank second in that category. India ranks first with 10.9 billion dollars worth of gold imported.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has family income distribution Gini Index score of 45.0, which makes the United States rank forty-third out of one hundred and thirty four countries in that category. Namibia ranks first, with a Gini index score of 70.7. The higher the Gini Index score, the greater the degree of income inequality. Sweden has the lowest score, at 23.0
According to worldwide-tax.com, the top federal individual income tax rate in the United States is 35%, which makes the United States tied for twenty-eighth with several other countries out of sixty-two ranked countries. Denmark ranks first, with a top income tax rate of 59%.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States has an innovation index score of 9.50, which makes the United States tied for third with Finland in that category. Japan ranks first, with a score of 10.00.
According to the OECD, in 2006 the United States ranked 26th out of 30 member nations in terms of tax ratio as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
According to the OECD, in 2009, the United States had a long-term unemployment rate of 16.3%. This is enough to make the United States rank twenty-third out of the thirty-four participating OECD countries in that category. Slovakia ranks first with a long-term unemployment rate of 50.9%.
According to the OECD, 12% of American workers were union members in 2004, which made the United States rank twenty-seventh out of thirty OECD member nations. Sweden ranked first, with 77.3% of workers as union members.
According to the OECD, the U.S. has a productivity rate of $57.40 per hour worked, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $74.00 per hour worked.
According to the OECD, the average American spends 24% of her or his day in leisure activities, which makes the United States rank twelfth out of eighteen OECD nations in that category. Belgium ranks first, at 27.7%, and Mexico ranks last, at 15.8%. The OECD average is 24.1%.
Health/Lifestyle
According to a presentation to the IFPE Congress in Vienna, Austria on April 18, 2009, on the results of World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey, 19% of Americans experience a clinical anxiety disorder in a given twelve-month period, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Health Organization, 54.5% of all healthcare expenditures in the United States in 2007 were privately paid, which makes the United States rank forty-sixth out of one hundred ninety-one ranked countries ranked in that category. Guinea ranked first, with 89.0% of all healthcare expenditures being paid privately.
According to UNICEF, the United States has an under-5 mortality rate of 8 per 1,000 live births, which makes the United States tied for one-hundred-and-fifty-first in that category with Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and the United Arab Emirates. Sierra Leone ranks first, with an under-5 mortality rate of 262 per 1,000 live births.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks third in total numbers of mobile cellular phones. China ranks first.
According to the World Health Organization’s World Health Statistics, 2008, the United States has a cancer mortality rate of 134 per 100,000 population, which makes it tied for eighty-ninth (with Congo, Italy, and Luxembourg) in that category. Mongolia ranks first, with a cancer mortality rate of 306 per 100,000 population. Kiribati has the lowest rate, at 52 per 100,000.
According to the OECD in 2008 the U.S. ranks second out of 33 countries in out of pocket health expenses. The average per person out of pocket health expense in the U.S. is $912. Switzerland ranked first with a cost of $1424 (U.S. dollars) per person.
According to data gathered in 2005 by the World Health Organization, annual per capita health care costs in the United States are $6350, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Health Organization, the United States has an obesity rate of 5.6% among children under 5, which made the United States rank 20th out of 92 ranked nations in that category. Albania ranked first, with a childhood obesity rate of 22.4%.
According to the CIA’s World Factbook, the United States has 6.26 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, which makes the United States rank one hundred and eightieth out of 224 countries in terms of infant mortality rates. Angola ranks first, with 180.21 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births.
According to the 2009 OECD Factbook, the United States has a suicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000 persons, which makes the United States rank twentieth out of twenty-seven ranked nations in that category. Hungary ranks first, with a suicide rate of 22.6 per 100,000 persons.
According to the United Nations, 11.6% of Americans have a probability of not living to the age of sixty, a rate that makes the United States rank twenty-seventh out of fifty-one ranked countries in the likelihood of living to age sixty. Iceland ranks first, with only a 5.9% chance of not living to age sixty.
Environment
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2005 there were 54,312,000 hectares of protected land (national parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves) in the United States, 13.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Resources Institute, the United States has renewable water resources in the amount of 10,333 cubic meters per person, which is enough to make the United States rank fifty-sixth in that category. Iceland ranks first, with 582,192 cubic meters of per capita renewable water. For the world as a whole, there is 8,549 cubic meters of renewable water per person.
According to the World Health Organization, in 2008, 94% of rural Americans had access to improved drinking water sources, which makes the United States rank sixty-fourth in the world in that category. More than twenty countries tied for first, each with 100% access to improved drinking water sources.
According to the World Resources Institute, there are 38,152,300 hectares of arid land in the United States, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of the fifty-four nations with arid land. Australia ranks first, with 301,090,000 hectares of arid land.
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2003 the United States emitted 19.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, which made the United States rank seventh in that category. Qatar ranked first, emitting 44.4 tonnes per person.
According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2009 the United States emitted 5,424.53 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide from the consumption of energy, which is enough to make the United States rank second in that category. China ranks first, emitting 7706.83 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States ranks third among all countries in terms of the size of its carbon footprint. The United Arab Emirates ranks first.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States has consumption footprint of 9.42 global hectares per person, which makes the United States rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, at 9.46 global hectares per person.
According to data gathered between 2000 and 2010 by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2007 the United States withdrew 15.53% of its total renewable freshwater resources, which makes the United States rank sixtieth in that category. Kuwait ranks first, withdrawing 2075% of its total renewable freshwater resources in 2002.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the United States withdraws an estimated 478.40 cubic kilometers of groundwater each year, which makes the United States rank third in the world in that category. India ranks first, withdrawing an estimated 761.00 cubic kilometers per year.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the total ecological footprint of the United States is 9.4 global hectares per capita, which makes it rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, with an ecological footprint of 9.5 global hectares per capita.
According to the OECD, the Americans generated 450 kilograms per person of household waste in 2005, which makes the United States tied for seventh (with Australia) in that category. Denmark ranks first, at 620 kilograms per capita.
Military
According to the World Bank, 1.0% of the total workforce of the United States is in the armed forces, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with several other countries in that category. North Korea ranks first, with 10.6% of its workforce in the armed forces.
According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2005 the United States spent 4.1% of their GPD on military expenditures, enough to make the United States rank twenty-fourth out of the 174 countries that were ranked in that category. Oman ranks first, spending 11.4% of their GPD on military expenditures.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005, the United States accounted for 47% of the world’s total arms and ammunition exports, making it rank first in that category. The second biggest arms exporting country, France, accounted for only 7% of the total.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $469,113,000 worth of explosives and pyrotechnics (fireworks), or 24.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the United States ranks first in terms of military spending.
Government
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy , 2008, the United States has a political participation score of 7.22, which makes it tied for seventeenth in that category with South Africa and South Korea. Norway and Sweden are tied for first, with a political participation score of 10.
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 16.8% of federally elected officials in the United States are women, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with Turkmenistan in that category. Rwanda ranks first, at 56.3%.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a civil liberties score of 8.53 out of a possible score of 10.00. This makes the United States tied for forty-sixth in democracy with Italy, South Africa, France, and Hungary. Several countries tied for first with a score of 10.00, including Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay. The United States has the lowest civil liberties of any fully democratic country.
According to the Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a democracy score of 8.18 (out of 10 possible points), which makes the United States rank seventeenth out of one hundred sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Norway ranks first, with a score of 9.80.
According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, the United States has a freedom from corruption score of 75, which makes the United States rank nineteenth out of one hundred seventy-nine ranked countries. New Zealand ranks first, with a score of 94.
Energy
According to British Petroleum, the United States ranks first in proven coal deposits, with 27% of the world’s total known deposits. Combined, the United States, Russia, China, India, and Australia have more than three-quarters of the world’s proven coal reserves.
According to the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the United States consumed 13,515 kilowatt hours of electricity per capita, which makes the United States rank tenth in that category. Iceland ranked first, consuming 31,306 kilowatt hours per capita. The world average was 2659 kilowatt hours per capita.
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2001 the United States ranked fifth in electricity consumption per capita. Iceland ranked first.
According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States consumed the equivalent of 187.5 million tonnes of oil, or 29.5% of the world’s total nuclear energy consumption, enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the CIA Worldfact Book, in 2009 the United States used about 18.69 million barrels of gasoline per day. That’s enough for the U.S. rank first in that category.
According to a survey conducted by World Public Opinion, 66% of Americans believe the government should force utilities to use more wind and solar energy, even at the risk of greater cost to consumers. This rate makes the United States rank sixteenth out of twenty-four countries in this category. South Korea ranks first, with 96% of Koreans favoring such a policy. Russia ranks last, at 36%. The world average is 69%.
According to the International Energy Agency’s Key World Energy Statistics, 2008, the United States produces 2128 terrawatt hours of electricity from coal or peat, which means that it ranks second in that category. China ranks first, producing 2301 terrawatt hours from coal or peat. The entire global production from peat or coal is 8674 terrawatt hours. Between them, the United States and China account for 56% of the electricity produced from these sources.
According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States generated 22% of the world’s electricity, making it rank first in that category. China, which ranked second, generated 15% of the world total.
According to a 2005 report by the World Resources Institute, 26.2% of all energy use in the United States goes toward industrial use, which makes the United States tied for sixty-fifth with India in that category. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first, at 86.1%.
According to BP, the United States decreased its energy consumption by 1.0% from 2005 to 2006, a rate of change that made it rank fifty-eighth in that category. Denmark ranked first, with an increase of 12.7%.
According to British Petroleum, in 2009 the United States had an oil refinery capacity of 17,688,000 barrels per day, or 19.5% of the world’s total oil refinery capacity. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks thirteenth in terms of proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia ranks first.
According to the International Energy Agency, in 2007 the United States had net energy imports equivalent to 713.97 million tons of oil, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first. According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first.
According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the United States, or 23.5% of the world’s total operating nuclear reactors. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
Demographics
According to the 2009 United Nations Human Development Report, immigrants make up 13.0% of the total population of the United States, which makes the United States rank thirty-eighth in that category. Qatar ranks first, with immigrants comprising 80.5% of the total population.
Satisfaction
According to the Happy Planet Index, the United States has a life satisfaction score of 7.9 (out of a possible 10), which makes the United States tied for seventh in that category with Australia and Sweden. Costa Rica ranks first, with a score of 8.5.
According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 89% of people in the United States are satisfied with their family life, which makes the United States tied for ninth with Spain, out of fifty-three countries surveyed. India ranks first with 96% of people satisfied with their family life.
According to a 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 36% of Americans are satisfied with the direction that the United States is headed. That makes the United States rank seventh out of twenty five countries included in the survey. China ranks first, with 87% of Chinese satisfied with the direction their country is headed.
According to a study by the journal International Family Planning Perspectives, in 1999 (the year the study was published), the United States ranked twenty-fourth in terms of abortion rates. Vietnam ranked first.
According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, the United States ranks first both in the total number of civilian firearms and in per capita ownership of small firearms.
According to the most recent data available from the OECD, 8.1% of 15-year-old Americans smoke at least once a week. This makes the United States rank twenty-fifth out of the twenty-five participating OECD countries. Austria ranks first, at 27.1%.
According to a 2009 survey by Gallup, 65% of Americans say that religion is very important in their daily lives which makes the United States rank eighty-fifth out of one-hundred-and-fourteen countries ranked in that category. Bangladesh and Niger tied for first, at greater than 99%.
According to the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (as reported at nationmaster.com), in 2002 the United States ranked nineteenth in terms of per capita plastic surgery procedures. Switzerland ranked first.
According to the Canada Council for the Arts, in 2003 the American government distributed the equivalent of 44¢ (Canadian) per capita in public arts grants, which made the United States rank thirteenth out of thirteen countries in that category. Sweden ranked first, distributing $28.38 (Canadian) per capita in arts grants.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College, the United States has a prison occupancy rate of 108%, which makes it rank ninety-second in that category. Grenada ranks first, with a prison occupancy rate of 374.5%.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, as of March 2010 there are 2,297,400 prisoners in the United States, which makes the United States rank first in that category out of two hundred eighteen ranked countries.
According to data gathered between 1998 and 2000 and published in the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime, there are 805.21 assaults for every 100,000 Americans, a rate that makes the United States rank sixth in that category. Swaziland ranks first, with 1356.84 recorded assaults per 100,000 people.
According to the Pew Global Attitude Project’s 2003 report, Views of a Changing World, 55% of Americans completely agree with the statement, “religion is a personal matter and should be kept separate from government.” The United States is tied for twenty-fifth (out of forty-one countries) with Russia and Uzbekistan in this category. Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) ranks first, with 84% of respondents believing in the separation of church and state.
According to UNESCO (as reported in wikipedia.org), the United States ranks second out of 77 countries in terms of book titles published per year. The United Kingdom ranks first.
According to the OECD, as of June 2009 there were 26.7 broadband internet subscriptions in the United States for every 100 Americans, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of thirty OECD member nations. Then Netherlands ranks first, at 38.1 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
According to the OECD, in 2008 the U.S. ranked 10th out of 25 countries in teenage girls who are reported victims of bullies. The U.S. ranks tenth with 10.4 percent. Turkey ranked first with 23.3 percent of reported cases.
According to the Food and Agriculture Oranization of the United Nations, in 2003 the United States ranked eighteenth in terms of per capita alcohol consumption. Ireland ranked first.
According to the World Resources Institute in 2005 the United States experienced 43,443 deaths due to road accidents. That is enough to make the United States rank third out of seventy four countries ranked in that category. China ranks first with 98,738 deaths due to road accidents.
According to the World Health Organization, in 2002, 5.4 out of every 100,000 Americans were killed by violence, a rate that makes the United States rank ninety-ninth in that category. Colombia ranked first, with 72.4 out of every 100,000 Colombians killed by violence.
According to Amnesty International, in 2008 there were at least 111 people sentenced to death in the United States, which made the United States rank eighth in that category. China ranked first, with at least 7003 people sentenced to death.
According to the most recent data made available to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, the United States has a homicide rate of 5.2 per 100,000 people, which makes the United States tied for fifty-second with Argentina out of one hundred thirty-eight ranked countries. Honduras ranks first, with a homicide rate of 60.9 per 100,000.
Science/Education
According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution.
According to the OECD 10.0% of the government expenditure in the United States is spent on education, which makes the United States rank eighth out of twenty-eight ranked nations in that category. Mexico ranks first with 15.1%.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spends $10,821 per student on secondary education, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $18,144.
According to the OECD (as reported in NationMaster), the United States ranks fifteenth of twenty-seven member nations in terms of reading literacy. Finland ranks first.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, American students scored 502 in the science component of the 2009 PISA assessment. That was enough for the United States to rank twenty-third out of sixty-five ranked economies. China-Shanghai ranked first with a score of 575.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment, the United States ranks thirty-fifth in terms of the mean score for mathematics. Taiwan ranks first.
According to the United Nations, there are 4,605 professional researchers in the United States for
every 1,000,000 population, which makes the United States rank eighth in that category. Tonga ranks first, with 45,454 researchers per 1,000,000 population.
According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in 2003, fifteen year old students in the United States had an average literacy score of 495 out of 1000, which made the United States rank eighteenth out of forty nations. Finland ranked first, with an average score of 543.
According to the OECD, between 2003 and 2006, American students declined by nine points in their PISA mathematics performance scores, which made the United States rank thirty-fourth out of thirty nine countries in that category. Indonesia ranked first, with an increase of 31 points in the PISA score. For the OECD as a whole, there was a decline of two points between 2003 and 2006. The worst performing country was France, with a decline of fifteen points.
According to the most recent data available from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the top teacher salary for primary teachers in the United States in 1999 was $48,782, making the U.S. rank fifth in that category. South Korea ranked first, with a top teacher salary of $69,818. The OECD mean salary in that category was $36,145.
Economic
According to the World Bank, 44.9% of the total land area in the United States is agricultural land, which makes the United States rank eighty-third in that category. Burundi ranks first, with 89.4% of its land used as agricultural land.
According to OICA, in 2007 the United States ranked fourth in terms of the number of automobiles manufactured, with 3,924,268 cars made that year. Japan ranked first with 9,944,637 cars made.
According to the report Doing Business 2011, the United States ranks fifth in terms of the ease of doing business in a country. Here are the top ten countries in this ranking:
1.Singapore
2.Hong Kong
3.New Zealand
4.United Kingdom
5.United States
6.Denmark
7.Canada
8.Norway
9.Ireland
10.Australia
According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 the United States spent the equivalent of 2.62% of the gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development. That was enough to make the United States rank fourth out of forty-one nations. Israel ranked first, at 4.48%.
According to the OECD, the United States has a poverty rate of around 17%, which makes the United States rank third out of thirty OECD member nations in that category. Mexico ranks first, with a poverty rate of around 18.5%. The median poverty rate for OECD member nations is around 11%.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2002 the United States produced 12.24% of the world’s fertilizer, making it rank second in that category. China ranked first, producing 21.62% of the world’s fertilizer.
According to data from FAOstat in 2009, the United States produced 373,440 tonnes of tobacco, or 7.7% of the world’s tobacco supply. That is enough for the United States to rank third in that category. China ranked first, producing 3,001,725 tonnes, or 62.3% of the world total.
According to the World Bank, Americans in 2008 paid $ 0.56 per liter at the gas pumps making the United States rank one hundred and forty-eighth of one hundred and sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Eritrea ranked first, paying $2.53 per liter at the gas pumps.
According to the latest data available from CIA World Factbook, the United States has a public debt of 58.9% of the total GDP. This is enough to make the United States rank thirty-sixth in that category. Zimbabwe ranks first with a public debt of 241.6% of their total GDP.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $1,735,282,000 worth of iron and steel bars, rods, angles, and shapes, enough to make the United States rank tenth in that category. Germany ranks first, exporting $5,333,026,000 worth of iron and steel.
According to the British Geological Survey, in 2006 the United States produced 242,000 kilograms of gold from gold mines, or 10.5% of the world’s total, enough to make the United States rank fourth in that category. South Africa ranked first, producing 272,128 kilograms, or 11.8% of the world total. Together, the top five gold producing countries–South Africa, China, Australia, the United States, and Russia–accounted for 50.5% of the world’s total.
According to the World Steel Association, in 2008 the United States produced 91.5 million metric tonnes of steel, a decline of 6.8% from 2007. In both years, the United States ranked third in that category. China ranked first, producing 502 million metric tonnes of steel in 2008, up 2.6% from the previous year. Globally, there was a decline of 1.2% in total steel production from 2007 to 2008.
According to the United Nations Development Programme, between 2000 and 2005 there were 244 patents granted in the United States for every 1,000,000 people. That makes the United States rank third in that category. South Korea ranks first, with 1113 patents per million people.
According to data from The World Bank, the United States has 820 motor vehicles per every 1,000 people, which is enough to make the United States rank third in that category. The Netherlands Antilles ranks first with 1,214 motor vehicles per 1,000 people.
According to the OECD Factbook 2008, in 2006 Americans worked an average of 1797 hours for the year, which makes the United States rank eleventh out of thirty four nations in that category. Korea ranked first, with an average of 2357 hours worked. The OECD average was 1777 hours.
According to the International Trade Centre, the United States imported 4.4 billion dollars worth of gold in 2009, which makes the United States rank second in that category. India ranks first with 10.9 billion dollars worth of gold imported.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has family income distribution Gini Index score of 45.0, which makes the United States rank forty-third out of one hundred and thirty four countries in that category. Namibia ranks first, with a Gini index score of 70.7. The higher the Gini Index score, the greater the degree of income inequality. Sweden has the lowest score, at 23.0
According to worldwide-tax.com, the top federal individual income tax rate in the United States is 35%, which makes the United States tied for twenty-eighth with several other countries out of sixty-two ranked countries. Denmark ranks first, with a top income tax rate of 59%.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the United States has an innovation index score of 9.50, which makes the United States tied for third with Finland in that category. Japan ranks first, with a score of 10.00.
According to the OECD, in 2006 the United States ranked 26th out of 30 member nations in terms of tax ratio as percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).
According to the OECD, in 2009, the United States had a long-term unemployment rate of 16.3%. This is enough to make the United States rank twenty-third out of the thirty-four participating OECD countries in that category. Slovakia ranks first with a long-term unemployment rate of 50.9%.
According to the OECD, 12% of American workers were union members in 2004, which made the United States rank twenty-seventh out of thirty OECD member nations. Sweden ranked first, with 77.3% of workers as union members.
According to the OECD, the U.S. has a productivity rate of $57.40 per hour worked, which makes the United States rank fourth in that category. Luxembourg ranks first, at $74.00 per hour worked.
According to the OECD, the average American spends 24% of her or his day in leisure activities, which makes the United States rank twelfth out of eighteen OECD nations in that category. Belgium ranks first, at 27.7%, and Mexico ranks last, at 15.8%. The OECD average is 24.1%.
Health/Lifestyle
According to a presentation to the IFPE Congress in Vienna, Austria on April 18, 2009, on the results of World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey, 19% of Americans experience a clinical anxiety disorder in a given twelve-month period, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Health Organization, 54.5% of all healthcare expenditures in the United States in 2007 were privately paid, which makes the United States rank forty-sixth out of one hundred ninety-one ranked countries ranked in that category. Guinea ranked first, with 89.0% of all healthcare expenditures being paid privately.
According to UNICEF, the United States has an under-5 mortality rate of 8 per 1,000 live births, which makes the United States tied for one-hundred-and-fifty-first in that category with Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and the United Arab Emirates. Sierra Leone ranks first, with an under-5 mortality rate of 262 per 1,000 live births.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks third in total numbers of mobile cellular phones. China ranks first.
According to the World Health Organization’s World Health Statistics, 2008, the United States has a cancer mortality rate of 134 per 100,000 population, which makes it tied for eighty-ninth (with Congo, Italy, and Luxembourg) in that category. Mongolia ranks first, with a cancer mortality rate of 306 per 100,000 population. Kiribati has the lowest rate, at 52 per 100,000.
According to the OECD in 2008 the U.S. ranks second out of 33 countries in out of pocket health expenses. The average per person out of pocket health expense in the U.S. is $912. Switzerland ranked first with a cost of $1424 (U.S. dollars) per person.
According to data gathered in 2005 by the World Health Organization, annual per capita health care costs in the United States are $6350, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Health Organization, the United States has an obesity rate of 5.6% among children under 5, which made the United States rank 20th out of 92 ranked nations in that category. Albania ranked first, with a childhood obesity rate of 22.4%.
According to the CIA’s World Factbook, the United States has 6.26 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, which makes the United States rank one hundred and eightieth out of 224 countries in terms of infant mortality rates. Angola ranks first, with 180.21 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births.
According to the 2009 OECD Factbook, the United States has a suicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000 persons, which makes the United States rank twentieth out of twenty-seven ranked nations in that category. Hungary ranks first, with a suicide rate of 22.6 per 100,000 persons.
According to the United Nations, 11.6% of Americans have a probability of not living to the age of sixty, a rate that makes the United States rank twenty-seventh out of fifty-one ranked countries in the likelihood of living to age sixty. Iceland ranks first, with only a 5.9% chance of not living to age sixty.
Environment
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2005 there were 54,312,000 hectares of protected land (national parks, wilderness areas, and nature reserves) in the United States, 13.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the World Resources Institute, the United States has renewable water resources in the amount of 10,333 cubic meters per person, which is enough to make the United States rank fifty-sixth in that category. Iceland ranks first, with 582,192 cubic meters of per capita renewable water. For the world as a whole, there is 8,549 cubic meters of renewable water per person.
According to the World Health Organization, in 2008, 94% of rural Americans had access to improved drinking water sources, which makes the United States rank sixty-fourth in the world in that category. More than twenty countries tied for first, each with 100% access to improved drinking water sources.
According to the World Resources Institute, there are 38,152,300 hectares of arid land in the United States, which makes the United States rank fifteenth out of the fifty-four nations with arid land. Australia ranks first, with 301,090,000 hectares of arid land.
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2003 the United States emitted 19.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, which made the United States rank seventh in that category. Qatar ranked first, emitting 44.4 tonnes per person.
According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2009 the United States emitted 5,424.53 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide from the consumption of energy, which is enough to make the United States rank second in that category. China ranks first, emitting 7706.83 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States ranks third among all countries in terms of the size of its carbon footprint. The United Arab Emirates ranks first.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the United States has consumption footprint of 9.42 global hectares per person, which makes the United States rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, at 9.46 global hectares per person.
According to data gathered between 2000 and 2010 by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2007 the United States withdrew 15.53% of its total renewable freshwater resources, which makes the United States rank sixtieth in that category. Kuwait ranks first, withdrawing 2075% of its total renewable freshwater resources in 2002.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the United States withdraws an estimated 478.40 cubic kilometers of groundwater each year, which makes the United States rank third in the world in that category. India ranks first, withdrawing an estimated 761.00 cubic kilometers per year.
According to the Global Footprint Network, the total ecological footprint of the United States is 9.4 global hectares per capita, which makes it rank second in that category. The United Arab Emirates ranks first, with an ecological footprint of 9.5 global hectares per capita.
According to the OECD, the Americans generated 450 kilograms per person of household waste in 2005, which makes the United States tied for seventh (with Australia) in that category. Denmark ranks first, at 620 kilograms per capita.
Military
According to the World Bank, 1.0% of the total workforce of the United States is in the armed forces, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with several other countries in that category. North Korea ranks first, with 10.6% of its workforce in the armed forces.
According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2005 the United States spent 4.1% of their GPD on military expenditures, enough to make the United States rank twenty-fourth out of the 174 countries that were ranked in that category. Oman ranks first, spending 11.4% of their GPD on military expenditures.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005, the United States accounted for 47% of the world’s total arms and ammunition exports, making it rank first in that category. The second biggest arms exporting country, France, accounted for only 7% of the total.
According to the International Trade Centre, in 2005 the United States exported $469,113,000 worth of explosives and pyrotechnics (fireworks), or 24.7% of the world’s total. That was enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the United States ranks first in terms of military spending.
Government
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy , 2008, the United States has a political participation score of 7.22, which makes it tied for seventeenth in that category with South Africa and South Korea. Norway and Sweden are tied for first, with a political participation score of 10.
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 16.8% of federally elected officials in the United States are women, which makes the United States tied for seventieth with Turkmenistan in that category. Rwanda ranks first, at 56.3%.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a civil liberties score of 8.53 out of a possible score of 10.00. This makes the United States tied for forty-sixth in democracy with Italy, South Africa, France, and Hungary. Several countries tied for first with a score of 10.00, including Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Uruguay. The United States has the lowest civil liberties of any fully democratic country.
According to the Democracy Index 2010, the United States has a democracy score of 8.18 (out of 10 possible points), which makes the United States rank seventeenth out of one hundred sixty-seven countries ranked in that category. Norway ranks first, with a score of 9.80.
According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, the United States has a freedom from corruption score of 75, which makes the United States rank nineteenth out of one hundred seventy-nine ranked countries. New Zealand ranks first, with a score of 94.
Energy
According to British Petroleum, the United States ranks first in proven coal deposits, with 27% of the world’s total known deposits. Combined, the United States, Russia, China, India, and Australia have more than three-quarters of the world’s proven coal reserves.
According to the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the United States consumed 13,515 kilowatt hours of electricity per capita, which makes the United States rank tenth in that category. Iceland ranked first, consuming 31,306 kilowatt hours per capita. The world average was 2659 kilowatt hours per capita.
According to the World Resources Institute, in 2001 the United States ranked fifth in electricity consumption per capita. Iceland ranked first.
According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States consumed the equivalent of 187.5 million tonnes of oil, or 29.5% of the world’s total nuclear energy consumption, enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the CIA Worldfact Book, in 2009 the United States used about 18.69 million barrels of gasoline per day. That’s enough for the U.S. rank first in that category.
According to a survey conducted by World Public Opinion, 66% of Americans believe the government should force utilities to use more wind and solar energy, even at the risk of greater cost to consumers. This rate makes the United States rank sixteenth out of twenty-four countries in this category. South Korea ranks first, with 96% of Koreans favoring such a policy. Russia ranks last, at 36%. The world average is 69%.
According to the International Energy Agency’s Key World Energy Statistics, 2008, the United States produces 2128 terrawatt hours of electricity from coal or peat, which means that it ranks second in that category. China ranks first, producing 2301 terrawatt hours from coal or peat. The entire global production from peat or coal is 8674 terrawatt hours. Between them, the United States and China account for 56% of the electricity produced from these sources.
According to British Petroleum, in 2006 the United States generated 22% of the world’s electricity, making it rank first in that category. China, which ranked second, generated 15% of the world total.
According to a 2005 report by the World Resources Institute, 26.2% of all energy use in the United States goes toward industrial use, which makes the United States tied for sixty-fifth with India in that category. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first, at 86.1%.
According to BP, the United States decreased its energy consumption by 1.0% from 2005 to 2006, a rate of change that made it rank fifty-eighth in that category. Denmark ranked first, with an increase of 12.7%.
According to British Petroleum, in 2009 the United States had an oil refinery capacity of 17,688,000 barrels per day, or 19.5% of the world’s total oil refinery capacity. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States ranks thirteenth in terms of proven oil reserves. Saudi Arabia ranks first.
According to the International Energy Agency, in 2007 the United States had net energy imports equivalent to 713.97 million tons of oil, which makes the United States rank first in that category.
According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first. According to siteatlas.com, the United States ranks sixteenth in terms of natural gas consumption per capita. Trinidad and Tobago ranks first.
According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the United States, or 23.5% of the world’s total operating nuclear reactors. That is enough to make the United States rank first in that category.
Demographics
According to the 2009 United Nations Human Development Report, immigrants make up 13.0% of the total population of the United States, which makes the United States rank thirty-eighth in that category. Qatar ranks first, with immigrants comprising 80.5% of the total population.
Satisfaction
According to the Happy Planet Index, the United States has a life satisfaction score of 7.9 (out of a possible 10), which makes the United States tied for seventh in that category with Australia and Sweden. Costa Rica ranks first, with a score of 8.5.
According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 89% of people in the United States are satisfied with their family life, which makes the United States tied for ninth with Spain, out of fifty-three countries surveyed. India ranks first with 96% of people satisfied with their family life.
According to a 2009 Pew Global Attitudes survey, 36% of Americans are satisfied with the direction that the United States is headed. That makes the United States rank seventh out of twenty five countries included in the survey. China ranks first, with 87% of Chinese satisfied with the direction their country is headed.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Conservative Agenda
We should be able to take as a given that a viable political movement or party should have as its ultimate goal the betterment of the human race, or at least that part of the human race that lives within the physical area in which the movement is operating. The nature of the betterment should be made clear by the movement. The policies and strategies of the movement should be clearly articulated and it should be explained how they lead to the betterment desired by the movement. It is unclear to me that the conservative movement, largely identifiable with the Republican party, has as its ultimate goal the betterment of the lives of US citizens; or that it has any clear ultimate goal whatsoever.
There is agreement among leading conservatives as to policy. Here is what we hear them say:
1) Cut taxes, particularly income, capital gains, and estate;
2) Reduce the size of the federal government by elimination of public education, health care, and social security, thereby enabling large spending cuts. In particular, get rid of that ObamaCare!
3) "Grow" the economy;
4) De-regulate business and finance, allowing laissez-faire capitalism to operate unfettered;
5) Eliminate organized labor;
6) Maintain a strong military;
7) Make life difficult for any one who is not white, of european (preferably northern european) descent, and protestant (preferably evangelically so).
Conservatives, are there ANY I'VE MISSED HERE? FILL ME IN.
It is not clear that these policies are mutually consistent. It is also not clear that they will better the lives of US citizens. One at a time, here's where the policies seem to me to lead.
1) Cuts in income, capital gains, and estate taxes. This policy will ease the tax burden on the wealthy, while doing little to nothing for the citizen of "ordinary" income (say less than $250,000/year). The justification offered for cutting these taxes is that the wealthy will then be able to invest more money in economic capital, leading to economic growth. Economic growth will lead to overall larger tax revenues (despite the tax cuts for the rich). Economic growth will also result in lower rates of unemployment. This is the philosophy of "trickle down", or "supply-side" economics, by which investments by the wealthy lead to increased supply of goods and increased employment, leading to increased demand for goods, leading to further increases in employment, and so on. According to the conservatives, a rising tide (growing economy) will lift all boats. This sounds very good, and even seems to make some sense. The problem is that we have tried it several times, and have demonstrated that it does NOT work. We tried it in the closing decades of the 19th centurey and opening decades of the 20th century (the age of the robber barons, in which income/wealth disparity in the United States was about as extreme as it is now). The result was the 1929 stock market crash and the great depression. We tried it under Reagan in the 1980s. The result was economic downturn and huge budget deficits (because tax cuts to the rich did not result in economic growth, increased tax revenues, and more jobs). We tried it under George W Bush between 2000 and 2008. The result was the housing bubble and the Great Panic of 2007-2008. The economy has never bounced back from that, and unemployment is high. We have ample evidence that lowering taxes on high incomes, huge income/wealth disparity, unregulated capitalism DO NOT WORK. What prevents it from working is human nature (which can be summed up in a simple profane phrase: "Hooray for me, and f--- you". This phrase, by the way, also explains why communism does not work in practice, even though it, too, sounds very good in the ideal). Without the United States government (the taxpayers) to bail out the financial industry and some manufacturing firms, we would today have NO ECONOMY. This is where the conservative policy of tax cuts lead us.
Economic growth is based on DEMAND, not SUPPLY. Demand must come first. The bulk of demand comes from the bulk of the population--the 99% of us that make less than $250,000 per year, not from the people in the top 1% of income. Tax cuts might work to spur demand if they were awarded to this 99%. More money in the hands of the vast majority of Americans will make demand effective, and will quite naturally lead to scale-up in production. But the rich will not spend it. They pretty much have all the amenities. Ordinary citizens have both NEEDS and WANTS. The rich have only WANTS.
We might include in tax cuts the 401k retirement accounts, essentially tax-free retirement savings accounts offered to employees by businesses. Their purpose is to transfer the responsibility of saving for retirement to the worker (part of the personal responsibility crusade). Unfortunately, ordinary people do not have the skills required to adequately manage such an investment account, and do not have enough money to fund such an account. There is no extra money after funding the day-to-day expenses of living. 401ks have been a failure for the ordinary person in the US. The rich, of course, have benefited from them because they can store a lot of money in them tax free. This is essentially, then, a tax cut for the rich.
Now here's a question to which the answer is not at all clear: For what reason would a person making a modest income vote for a conservative who advocates tax cuts for the rich? In what way will this benefit him or her? People are supposed to vote their self-interest. If a policy does not benefit YOU, indeed will probably hurt YOU, why would you vote to support it? Why is Joe the plumber a conservative? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
2) Reduce the size of government by eliminating programs requiring huge spending. Perhaps the true purpose of the tax cut policy is to create a situation (huge deficits) in which elimination of medicare and social security can be justified. "We just aren't producing the tax revenues necessary to sustain these programs." (Never mind that we aren't producing the revenues because of the huge tax cuts that you, the conservative, insist on.) But how will eliminating these programs improve life in America? Social Security is a New Deal (Democratic) program. Medicare is a Great Society (Democratic) program. Both have the clear, humanitarian objective to better the lives of people in the US. But they are very costly. They are supported by tax revenues. The only way to sustain them in the face of the retirement of the baby-boomer generation is to generate more tax revenue. The conservative solution is to NOT sustain them. How will this better our lives? We will have a lot of old people who can't work and who will therefore have NO INCOME WHATSOEVER (because social security will be gone). We will have a lot of old people with substantial medical needs, but who will be unable to pay for care for these needs. What is good or desirable about that? How will anyone who is not extremely wealthy benefit from that? Why would such people vote for a conservative who espouses that?
And education. I admit that public education in the US is abyssmal. Many teachers are ignorant of their own subjects. Infrastructure is decaying. Money is not available to fund up-to-date teaching accessories (computers for example). Creationism is replacing evolution in biology programs in the schools. Pay for teachers is poor. It is nearly impossible to fire poor teachers. Poor teaching results in poor learning. Kids get turned off in the school system somewhere between 4th and 9th grades. I've read arguments that education should be privatized because competition will force out bad teaching. This seems to make sense. There are indeed a few private education firms that are successful (Sylvan Learning is one). But it's a matter of scale. These programs would have to be developed in all areas of the country sufficient to handle all K-12 kids. This development would have to take place before the public system was dismantled, otherwise and educational gap would penalize our kids more than they are already penalized by decrepit teaching and decaying infrastructure and creationism. An alternative is to fix the problems with the public system. Drop the excessive requirements for educational certification. Increase the requirements for some knowledge of your field. Drop tenure. Fire poor teachers, reward good ones. Look for teachers who can ENGAGE students. This seems doable to me.
But here's a problem with the concept of downsizing government: if we make government as small and unobtrusive as the conservatives seem to want it, who is going to bail out the financial system/economy when the next bubble bursts? Big business wants NO regulation--but they sure want bailouts.
3) All politicians demand that we "grow the economy". Capitalism cannot survive without growth. Growth is necessary to provide jobs for an ever-growing work force. Growth is necessary to pay the interest on money that is loaned into existence. Without growth, capitalism dies. We can kind of see that happening now. But how can we grow the economy if we cut taxes? Goal 3 is inconsistent with Goal 1. We have ample evidence that cutting taxes for the rich results in economic slowdown, even depression.
4) Deregulate everything. This means allow big business and big finance to do whatever they want; that the market will reward "good" and penalize "not good." The Arabs want to run the Port Authority of New York? Fine, if there's profit in it for us. The banks want to issue sub-prime mortgages, and sell them to us in the form of asset-backed securities? Fine, there's money to be made, and after all there's no risk to the banks--they've sold it all to us! The natural gas industry wants to frack? Great, go to it (never mind the ground-water contamination, landscape destruction, and conceivably earthquakes that it might cause--these are just externalities that won't show up on the balance sheet). Big oil wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Sure, anything to boost domestic production of oil. Never mind that it will only provide enough oil to run our cars for a few weeks. Shale oil development in the Green River basin in Wyoming/Utah? Sure, let's wreck that too! It will provide a lot more bucks for Exxon-Mobil executives. How about geothermal power plants in Yellowstone? Question: what will it provide for those of us who earn less than $250,000/year--that is, the typical US citizen? General Motors wants to close down all US plants and open new plants in Mexico, Singapore, and India? The market demands that they minimize their labor costs. The market is god.
5) Eliminate organized labor.
6) Maintain a strong military. My favorite. We really need this, considering that the total of the 20 next largest militaries is smaller than ours. What if they were to band together and come after us? We spend (a guess) over 500 billion/year on our military. God forbid we cut into that at all. The world is a dangerous place (largely, now, thanks to us!). We need to be ready to defend our shores (against people in rowboats from Cuba; against people walking over from Mexico). We need to be able to intervene all over the world wherever it is in our best interests to do so. We need to be able to make preemptive military strikes against those who may (get that: may) threaten us. What do we really need this military for? My guess: the time is coming when all of remaining oil in the world will be in Saudi Arabia. We need to be able to move in and take that over.
How about we arbitrarily decide to cut the military budget in half? What could we do with that $250 billion that we just freed up?
7) Make life difficult for non-whites (oh, and gay people too--can't forget them). This is an insidious conservative policy. They will probably deny it. But look at SB1070 in Arizona. Nikki Haley (rabid conservative) in South Carolina just signed an anti-immigrant bill. Is not there a similar bill in Georgia? We are now seeing a cutback in a wonderful program, early voting, that expands the number of people who are able to vote. By eliminating this, we are once again making it more difficult for people to vote. Who will be impacted by this? People who work long days and have a hard time getting to the polls. Ordinary people, many of whom do not make much money. Many of whom are black. Many of whom are brown. Many of whom are red. We don't like these people. We don't want them voting in our country. They are not up to snuff. We white people are better than they are. The single most convincing fact that conservatives have an anti-brown/black/red agenda is that the entire tier of southern states switched their allegiance from the democratic to the republican party after the Civil Rights act became law.
Interestingly, many brown and black people fill jobs that we white Americans consider ourselves too good for. Our economy depends crucially on them showing up to work each day. Yet we don't want them to vote? How does that improve lives in America. What will be the ultimate consequence of continuing to abuse these people?
Following a conservative agenda will result in a wrecked economy, a socially-abandoned populace, and a huge sub-population of really pissed off non-whites. We will have a country in which "praying for rain" (Rick Perry, governor of Texas) is accepted as a government policy step.
Conservatives out there, I welcome your comments on this missive. Tell me where I've gone wrong. Make your agenda make sense to me. Explain to me how it will better the lot of ordinary citizens in our country.
I have recently read a book called "The Great Risk Shift" by Jacob Hacker. I highly recommend it. Based on my reading of this book, I think I now understand, the motivation for what Hacker calls the personal responsibility crusade. It is based in disgust with the entitlement mentality that, according to conservatives, government support programs create. It is also based in the desire to eliminate so-called moral hazard. The doctrine of moral hazard maintains that people who are protected from the consequences of risky behavior engage to a greater extent in risky behavior precisely because they now have protection. Government bail-out of the too-big-to-fail banks creates moral hazard, because now banks know they can go back to risky behavior because the government will bail them out if they get in trouble again. Generous expense accounts create moral hazard. It is argued by conservatives that government protection programs such as unemployment insurance create moral hazard by rewarding people for becoming unemployed. I have to admit that I understand these arguments, and to some extent sympathize with them. However, the great advantage of the government-funded protection programs is that they diversify risk. People can live with some degree of security knowing that in certain tough circumstances some help will be available from the government--i.e., from the entirety of the tax-paying public in the United States.
To eliminate the entitlement lifestyle, conservatives advocate making each individual responsible for his own fall-back accounts: retirement savings accounts (401ks), health savings accounts, disability savings accounts, unemployment buffer accounts, child-education accounts, and so on. First, the ordinary person cannot fund a series of such accounts at a level that will be sufficient if a job loss, a health crisis, a work injury, occurs. Second, such accounts are subject to the vagaries of the stock market. What would have happened to peoples' individual safety accounts in 2008 when the stock market crashed? The proposal that individuals take personal responsibility for their own fall-back accounts sounds good. Establishing such accounts, all tax-free of course, would work fine for a family with income of a million dollars a year or so. But a family of four with a total after-tax income of $75,000/year could not possibly divert enough money to these accounts to provide the fall-back needed. The individual accounts concentrate risk in the hands of individuals. When an emergency hits, you are on your own: i.e., you are personally responsible.
There is agreement among leading conservatives as to policy. Here is what we hear them say:
1) Cut taxes, particularly income, capital gains, and estate;
2) Reduce the size of the federal government by elimination of public education, health care, and social security, thereby enabling large spending cuts. In particular, get rid of that ObamaCare!
3) "Grow" the economy;
4) De-regulate business and finance, allowing laissez-faire capitalism to operate unfettered;
5) Eliminate organized labor;
6) Maintain a strong military;
7) Make life difficult for any one who is not white, of european (preferably northern european) descent, and protestant (preferably evangelically so).
Conservatives, are there ANY I'VE MISSED HERE? FILL ME IN.
It is not clear that these policies are mutually consistent. It is also not clear that they will better the lives of US citizens. One at a time, here's where the policies seem to me to lead.
1) Cuts in income, capital gains, and estate taxes. This policy will ease the tax burden on the wealthy, while doing little to nothing for the citizen of "ordinary" income (say less than $250,000/year). The justification offered for cutting these taxes is that the wealthy will then be able to invest more money in economic capital, leading to economic growth. Economic growth will lead to overall larger tax revenues (despite the tax cuts for the rich). Economic growth will also result in lower rates of unemployment. This is the philosophy of "trickle down", or "supply-side" economics, by which investments by the wealthy lead to increased supply of goods and increased employment, leading to increased demand for goods, leading to further increases in employment, and so on. According to the conservatives, a rising tide (growing economy) will lift all boats. This sounds very good, and even seems to make some sense. The problem is that we have tried it several times, and have demonstrated that it does NOT work. We tried it in the closing decades of the 19th centurey and opening decades of the 20th century (the age of the robber barons, in which income/wealth disparity in the United States was about as extreme as it is now). The result was the 1929 stock market crash and the great depression. We tried it under Reagan in the 1980s. The result was economic downturn and huge budget deficits (because tax cuts to the rich did not result in economic growth, increased tax revenues, and more jobs). We tried it under George W Bush between 2000 and 2008. The result was the housing bubble and the Great Panic of 2007-2008. The economy has never bounced back from that, and unemployment is high. We have ample evidence that lowering taxes on high incomes, huge income/wealth disparity, unregulated capitalism DO NOT WORK. What prevents it from working is human nature (which can be summed up in a simple profane phrase: "Hooray for me, and f--- you". This phrase, by the way, also explains why communism does not work in practice, even though it, too, sounds very good in the ideal). Without the United States government (the taxpayers) to bail out the financial industry and some manufacturing firms, we would today have NO ECONOMY. This is where the conservative policy of tax cuts lead us.
Economic growth is based on DEMAND, not SUPPLY. Demand must come first. The bulk of demand comes from the bulk of the population--the 99% of us that make less than $250,000 per year, not from the people in the top 1% of income. Tax cuts might work to spur demand if they were awarded to this 99%. More money in the hands of the vast majority of Americans will make demand effective, and will quite naturally lead to scale-up in production. But the rich will not spend it. They pretty much have all the amenities. Ordinary citizens have both NEEDS and WANTS. The rich have only WANTS.
We might include in tax cuts the 401k retirement accounts, essentially tax-free retirement savings accounts offered to employees by businesses. Their purpose is to transfer the responsibility of saving for retirement to the worker (part of the personal responsibility crusade). Unfortunately, ordinary people do not have the skills required to adequately manage such an investment account, and do not have enough money to fund such an account. There is no extra money after funding the day-to-day expenses of living. 401ks have been a failure for the ordinary person in the US. The rich, of course, have benefited from them because they can store a lot of money in them tax free. This is essentially, then, a tax cut for the rich.
Now here's a question to which the answer is not at all clear: For what reason would a person making a modest income vote for a conservative who advocates tax cuts for the rich? In what way will this benefit him or her? People are supposed to vote their self-interest. If a policy does not benefit YOU, indeed will probably hurt YOU, why would you vote to support it? Why is Joe the plumber a conservative? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
2) Reduce the size of government by eliminating programs requiring huge spending. Perhaps the true purpose of the tax cut policy is to create a situation (huge deficits) in which elimination of medicare and social security can be justified. "We just aren't producing the tax revenues necessary to sustain these programs." (Never mind that we aren't producing the revenues because of the huge tax cuts that you, the conservative, insist on.) But how will eliminating these programs improve life in America? Social Security is a New Deal (Democratic) program. Medicare is a Great Society (Democratic) program. Both have the clear, humanitarian objective to better the lives of people in the US. But they are very costly. They are supported by tax revenues. The only way to sustain them in the face of the retirement of the baby-boomer generation is to generate more tax revenue. The conservative solution is to NOT sustain them. How will this better our lives? We will have a lot of old people who can't work and who will therefore have NO INCOME WHATSOEVER (because social security will be gone). We will have a lot of old people with substantial medical needs, but who will be unable to pay for care for these needs. What is good or desirable about that? How will anyone who is not extremely wealthy benefit from that? Why would such people vote for a conservative who espouses that?
And education. I admit that public education in the US is abyssmal. Many teachers are ignorant of their own subjects. Infrastructure is decaying. Money is not available to fund up-to-date teaching accessories (computers for example). Creationism is replacing evolution in biology programs in the schools. Pay for teachers is poor. It is nearly impossible to fire poor teachers. Poor teaching results in poor learning. Kids get turned off in the school system somewhere between 4th and 9th grades. I've read arguments that education should be privatized because competition will force out bad teaching. This seems to make sense. There are indeed a few private education firms that are successful (Sylvan Learning is one). But it's a matter of scale. These programs would have to be developed in all areas of the country sufficient to handle all K-12 kids. This development would have to take place before the public system was dismantled, otherwise and educational gap would penalize our kids more than they are already penalized by decrepit teaching and decaying infrastructure and creationism. An alternative is to fix the problems with the public system. Drop the excessive requirements for educational certification. Increase the requirements for some knowledge of your field. Drop tenure. Fire poor teachers, reward good ones. Look for teachers who can ENGAGE students. This seems doable to me.
But here's a problem with the concept of downsizing government: if we make government as small and unobtrusive as the conservatives seem to want it, who is going to bail out the financial system/economy when the next bubble bursts? Big business wants NO regulation--but they sure want bailouts.
3) All politicians demand that we "grow the economy". Capitalism cannot survive without growth. Growth is necessary to provide jobs for an ever-growing work force. Growth is necessary to pay the interest on money that is loaned into existence. Without growth, capitalism dies. We can kind of see that happening now. But how can we grow the economy if we cut taxes? Goal 3 is inconsistent with Goal 1. We have ample evidence that cutting taxes for the rich results in economic slowdown, even depression.
4) Deregulate everything. This means allow big business and big finance to do whatever they want; that the market will reward "good" and penalize "not good." The Arabs want to run the Port Authority of New York? Fine, if there's profit in it for us. The banks want to issue sub-prime mortgages, and sell them to us in the form of asset-backed securities? Fine, there's money to be made, and after all there's no risk to the banks--they've sold it all to us! The natural gas industry wants to frack? Great, go to it (never mind the ground-water contamination, landscape destruction, and conceivably earthquakes that it might cause--these are just externalities that won't show up on the balance sheet). Big oil wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Sure, anything to boost domestic production of oil. Never mind that it will only provide enough oil to run our cars for a few weeks. Shale oil development in the Green River basin in Wyoming/Utah? Sure, let's wreck that too! It will provide a lot more bucks for Exxon-Mobil executives. How about geothermal power plants in Yellowstone? Question: what will it provide for those of us who earn less than $250,000/year--that is, the typical US citizen? General Motors wants to close down all US plants and open new plants in Mexico, Singapore, and India? The market demands that they minimize their labor costs. The market is god.
5) Eliminate organized labor.
6) Maintain a strong military. My favorite. We really need this, considering that the total of the 20 next largest militaries is smaller than ours. What if they were to band together and come after us? We spend (a guess) over 500 billion/year on our military. God forbid we cut into that at all. The world is a dangerous place (largely, now, thanks to us!). We need to be ready to defend our shores (against people in rowboats from Cuba; against people walking over from Mexico). We need to be able to intervene all over the world wherever it is in our best interests to do so. We need to be able to make preemptive military strikes against those who may (get that: may) threaten us. What do we really need this military for? My guess: the time is coming when all of remaining oil in the world will be in Saudi Arabia. We need to be able to move in and take that over.
How about we arbitrarily decide to cut the military budget in half? What could we do with that $250 billion that we just freed up?
7) Make life difficult for non-whites (oh, and gay people too--can't forget them). This is an insidious conservative policy. They will probably deny it. But look at SB1070 in Arizona. Nikki Haley (rabid conservative) in South Carolina just signed an anti-immigrant bill. Is not there a similar bill in Georgia? We are now seeing a cutback in a wonderful program, early voting, that expands the number of people who are able to vote. By eliminating this, we are once again making it more difficult for people to vote. Who will be impacted by this? People who work long days and have a hard time getting to the polls. Ordinary people, many of whom do not make much money. Many of whom are black. Many of whom are brown. Many of whom are red. We don't like these people. We don't want them voting in our country. They are not up to snuff. We white people are better than they are. The single most convincing fact that conservatives have an anti-brown/black/red agenda is that the entire tier of southern states switched their allegiance from the democratic to the republican party after the Civil Rights act became law.
Interestingly, many brown and black people fill jobs that we white Americans consider ourselves too good for. Our economy depends crucially on them showing up to work each day. Yet we don't want them to vote? How does that improve lives in America. What will be the ultimate consequence of continuing to abuse these people?
Following a conservative agenda will result in a wrecked economy, a socially-abandoned populace, and a huge sub-population of really pissed off non-whites. We will have a country in which "praying for rain" (Rick Perry, governor of Texas) is accepted as a government policy step.
Conservatives out there, I welcome your comments on this missive. Tell me where I've gone wrong. Make your agenda make sense to me. Explain to me how it will better the lot of ordinary citizens in our country.
I have recently read a book called "The Great Risk Shift" by Jacob Hacker. I highly recommend it. Based on my reading of this book, I think I now understand, the motivation for what Hacker calls the personal responsibility crusade. It is based in disgust with the entitlement mentality that, according to conservatives, government support programs create. It is also based in the desire to eliminate so-called moral hazard. The doctrine of moral hazard maintains that people who are protected from the consequences of risky behavior engage to a greater extent in risky behavior precisely because they now have protection. Government bail-out of the too-big-to-fail banks creates moral hazard, because now banks know they can go back to risky behavior because the government will bail them out if they get in trouble again. Generous expense accounts create moral hazard. It is argued by conservatives that government protection programs such as unemployment insurance create moral hazard by rewarding people for becoming unemployed. I have to admit that I understand these arguments, and to some extent sympathize with them. However, the great advantage of the government-funded protection programs is that they diversify risk. People can live with some degree of security knowing that in certain tough circumstances some help will be available from the government--i.e., from the entirety of the tax-paying public in the United States.
To eliminate the entitlement lifestyle, conservatives advocate making each individual responsible for his own fall-back accounts: retirement savings accounts (401ks), health savings accounts, disability savings accounts, unemployment buffer accounts, child-education accounts, and so on. First, the ordinary person cannot fund a series of such accounts at a level that will be sufficient if a job loss, a health crisis, a work injury, occurs. Second, such accounts are subject to the vagaries of the stock market. What would have happened to peoples' individual safety accounts in 2008 when the stock market crashed? The proposal that individuals take personal responsibility for their own fall-back accounts sounds good. Establishing such accounts, all tax-free of course, would work fine for a family with income of a million dollars a year or so. But a family of four with a total after-tax income of $75,000/year could not possibly divert enough money to these accounts to provide the fall-back needed. The individual accounts concentrate risk in the hands of individuals. When an emergency hits, you are on your own: i.e., you are personally responsible.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Tornados
"Unprecedented", "once-in-a-hundred-years", "biblical" weather events lately, I'm assuming you've noticed. A mile-wide (!) tornado cut a huge path thru Alabama, including Tuscaloosa, killing lots of people. A half-mile wide tornado destroyed Joplin Missouri this past week (May 26 or 27) with 150 people still unaccounted for. More tornados thus far this year than I can believe.
So I am watching CNN this AM, while the anchor sets up the main weather man, Reynolds Wolf, with the question, "Reynolds, why are we seeing all of these tornados?" I dared to think, OK, here we go, he's going to mention climate change! Instead, what did Reynolds say? He said that due to vastly improved technology, we are able to detect and observe many more tornados than used to be possible. Is he suggesting that without technology, we might have missed the mile-wide tornado that killed all of those people in Alabama? But then a commercial came on, and now I think I understand; the sponsor of the CNN news program is the American natural gas industry! The pieces fall into place.
So I am watching CNN this AM, while the anchor sets up the main weather man, Reynolds Wolf, with the question, "Reynolds, why are we seeing all of these tornados?" I dared to think, OK, here we go, he's going to mention climate change! Instead, what did Reynolds say? He said that due to vastly improved technology, we are able to detect and observe many more tornados than used to be possible. Is he suggesting that without technology, we might have missed the mile-wide tornado that killed all of those people in Alabama? But then a commercial came on, and now I think I understand; the sponsor of the CNN news program is the American natural gas industry! The pieces fall into place.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Water Thoughts
Cathryn and I live in Arizona, in the Sonoran Desert. just north of the border with Mexico, at an elevation of about 3300 feet. Our most precious resource is water, which will be hard to come by if the grid goes down. We have been working hard to set up a water harvesting system. I have put gutters on the long side of our Spanish tile roof, and plan to put gutters also on the opposite side. We have on order two 625-gallon water storage tanks, for which I am building platforms. I am told that about 10 minutes of one of our monsoon storms will fill this sized tank to the brim.
Here are some interesting facts about water, taken from "When All Hell Breaks Loose" by Cody Lundin.
-Of the 1700 million square miles of water on the earth, all 326 million trillion gallons of it, less than 0.5% is potable.
-98% of the planet's water is ocean.
-2% of earth's water is fresh but locked up in glaciers.
-0.36% of earth's water is found underground.
-0.036% of earth's water is found in lakes and rivers.
-Each day, the sun evaporates 1 trillion tons of water.
-The human brain is 75% water.
-Human blood is 83% water.
-Human bones are 25% water.
-One inch of rain falling on 1 acre of land provides 27,154 gallons of water.
-Groundwater can take a human lifetime to traverse 1 mile.
-Over 90% of the world's fresh water supply is in Antarctica.
-One drip per second from a leaky faucet can waste 2000 gallons of water per year.
-If all plumbing fixtures in the US were replaced with water-conserving fixtures we could save 3 to 8 billion gallons of water per day.
-The average toilet uses 5 to 7 gallons per flush.
-The average bath uses 36 gallons of water; a shower uses 5 gallons per minute.
-An average American residence uses 107,000 gallons of water per year.
-The United States uses about 346,000 billion gallons of freshwater every day in irrigation, industry, fire fighting, and street cleaning.
-Americans use 5 times more water than Europeans.
-2/3 of the water used in an American home is used in the bathroom.
-Less than 1% of the water treated by public water systems is used for drinking and cooking.
-Water expands by about 1/10 of its volume when it freezes.
-Drinking adequate amounts of water can decrease the risk of colon cancer, bladder cancer, and breast cancer.
-Drinking adequate water can significantly reduce joint and back pain.
-Adequate hydration can prevent and alleviate headaches.
-95% of a tomato is water.
-More than 1.1 billion people do not have regular access to clean water.
-1 billion people must walk 3 or more hours to obtain drinking water.
-In Mexico, 15% of the population must haul or carry water.
-Nearly 2% of US homes have no running water.
-More than 2 billion people do not have a safe supply of water.
-At least 400 million people live in regions with severe water shortages.
-There are more than 70,000 known water pollutants.
-Worldwide, water-born diseases cause about 15 million deaths per year.
Here are some interesting facts about water, taken from "When All Hell Breaks Loose" by Cody Lundin.
-Of the 1700 million square miles of water on the earth, all 326 million trillion gallons of it, less than 0.5% is potable.
-98% of the planet's water is ocean.
-2% of earth's water is fresh but locked up in glaciers.
-0.36% of earth's water is found underground.
-0.036% of earth's water is found in lakes and rivers.
-Each day, the sun evaporates 1 trillion tons of water.
-The human brain is 75% water.
-Human blood is 83% water.
-Human bones are 25% water.
-One inch of rain falling on 1 acre of land provides 27,154 gallons of water.
-Groundwater can take a human lifetime to traverse 1 mile.
-Over 90% of the world's fresh water supply is in Antarctica.
-One drip per second from a leaky faucet can waste 2000 gallons of water per year.
-If all plumbing fixtures in the US were replaced with water-conserving fixtures we could save 3 to 8 billion gallons of water per day.
-The average toilet uses 5 to 7 gallons per flush.
-The average bath uses 36 gallons of water; a shower uses 5 gallons per minute.
-An average American residence uses 107,000 gallons of water per year.
-The United States uses about 346,000 billion gallons of freshwater every day in irrigation, industry, fire fighting, and street cleaning.
-Americans use 5 times more water than Europeans.
-2/3 of the water used in an American home is used in the bathroom.
-Less than 1% of the water treated by public water systems is used for drinking and cooking.
-Water expands by about 1/10 of its volume when it freezes.
-Drinking adequate amounts of water can decrease the risk of colon cancer, bladder cancer, and breast cancer.
-Drinking adequate water can significantly reduce joint and back pain.
-Adequate hydration can prevent and alleviate headaches.
-95% of a tomato is water.
-More than 1.1 billion people do not have regular access to clean water.
-1 billion people must walk 3 or more hours to obtain drinking water.
-In Mexico, 15% of the population must haul or carry water.
-Nearly 2% of US homes have no running water.
-More than 2 billion people do not have a safe supply of water.
-At least 400 million people live in regions with severe water shortages.
-There are more than 70,000 known water pollutants.
-Worldwide, water-born diseases cause about 15 million deaths per year.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
"Radiation" from Japan
We hear on the news about the dangers of radioactivity (or "radiation") from the damaged nuclear power plants in Japan. You hear reports about "radiation" detected in the US, and ascribed to the Japanese situation. I find these reports largely un-credible.
Some facts about "nuclear radiation".
1) We must distinguish the radiation from the source of the radiation. The source is an atom the nucleus of which contains either too many neutrons for the number of protons, or too many protons for the number of neutrons. Such nuclei are unstable, and will decay in a measurable, predictable way to produce stable nuclei along with "radiation". It is unstable atoms like these that are found in the reactor fuel, in solid (not gas, not liquid), non-volatile form, atoms of uranium, plutonium, or thorium, and their fission products, such as iodine-131.
2) The radiation produced when an unstable nucleus decays can be one of several types:
a) Neutrons (these usually go right thru you harmlessly). We get hit with a lot of these every day.
b) Alpha particles (these are nuclei of the element helium. They usually have small penetrating power, and as soon as they pick up a couple of electrons they become harmless helium atoms.)
c) Beta particles (these are electrons. They can penetrate further than alpha's, and can produce a little more damage.)
d) Positrons (these are electrons, but with a positive charge. Can cause similar damage to that caused by electrons. Ever heard of positron emission tomography (PET)? This is a medical technique in which you are injected with a source of positrons, which are emitted and produce a 3-D image of tissue, tumor, or something like that, usually in the brain). Of course, positrons are very helpful in this context, but in any other context they are horribly, unspeakably dreadful (please forgive my somewhat cynical sense of humor).
e) Gamma photons (these are very high energy light, and are the most damaging form of nuclear radiation). These can rupture chemical bonds and eject electrons from atoms.
3) When radiation is emitted from a sample containing source atoms, it is emitted IN ALL DIRECTIONS in pretty much a uniform way. So most of the radiation produced by a source outside your body does not come toward you!
4) Unless you have a source present, you cannot have radiation present.
5) We cannot detect "radiation from Japan" here in the US. The radiation itself would have long since been absorbed, scattered, dissipated before it could reach here. To detect radiation from Japan here, we would have to have a source from Japan here. That means we would have to have some of the fuel material or fission products from a Japanese reactor here. If we detect radiation here, how do we know that it's source came from Japan?????(unless, of course the source atom is stamped with "Made in Japan"). How do we know what unstable nuclei are in the source without detailed study??? How can we report this on the news unless we know for sure (unless...hmmm...we want to scare the s--- out of people about nuclear energy; but what responsible journalist would want to do this (whoops--sense of humor again).)
6) We hear a lot about "radioactive water" in Japan. First, all water is to a small extent radioactive, because one of the isotopes of hydrogen is unstable (hydrogen-3, or tritium, is unstable--too many neutrons--and produces radiation. Small amounts of ordinary hydrogen are converted to tritium by water via absorption of neutrons). So, we should all immediately STOP drinking water. It is very bad for us. STOP, STOP, STOP. Drink vodka instead. In Japan, of course, they're talking about "high" radioactivity levels in the water. Is the water the source of the radiation? Almost certainly not. Instead, water used to cool the core dissolves small amounts of the solid core material, or picks up small particles produced in the hydrogen explosions. The radiation is coming from the dissolved or suspended reactor material, NOT from the water itself. So the water is not somehow mysteriously radioactive! It has simply dissolved some source material.
7) Even if this "radioactive water" is dumped into the Pacific Ocean, how long do you think it would take the source atoms to reach the west coast of the US? Don't forget, they have to make their way through, what, 2500 linear miles of Pacific Ocean, and are just as likely to move down, up, or back toward Japan as they are to move toward us. Movement of atoms through liquids is painfully slow (test this by adding a drop of liquid food coloring to a glass of water and then measure the time required for the color to distribute uniformly). Do you think it's reasonable for people in California to claim, 3 or 4 days after the earthquake, that they are detecting "radiation" (meaning source atoms) from Japan? This is the kind of panic reaction that we will see big time as soon as people realize the implications of peak oil, or watch their homes being eaten up by rising sea levels.
Please view news reports about "radiation" from Japan detected in the US with many grains of salt (containing no radioactive iodine!)
Some facts about "nuclear radiation".
1) We must distinguish the radiation from the source of the radiation. The source is an atom the nucleus of which contains either too many neutrons for the number of protons, or too many protons for the number of neutrons. Such nuclei are unstable, and will decay in a measurable, predictable way to produce stable nuclei along with "radiation". It is unstable atoms like these that are found in the reactor fuel, in solid (not gas, not liquid), non-volatile form, atoms of uranium, plutonium, or thorium, and their fission products, such as iodine-131.
2) The radiation produced when an unstable nucleus decays can be one of several types:
a) Neutrons (these usually go right thru you harmlessly). We get hit with a lot of these every day.
b) Alpha particles (these are nuclei of the element helium. They usually have small penetrating power, and as soon as they pick up a couple of electrons they become harmless helium atoms.)
c) Beta particles (these are electrons. They can penetrate further than alpha's, and can produce a little more damage.)
d) Positrons (these are electrons, but with a positive charge. Can cause similar damage to that caused by electrons. Ever heard of positron emission tomography (PET)? This is a medical technique in which you are injected with a source of positrons, which are emitted and produce a 3-D image of tissue, tumor, or something like that, usually in the brain). Of course, positrons are very helpful in this context, but in any other context they are horribly, unspeakably dreadful (please forgive my somewhat cynical sense of humor).
e) Gamma photons (these are very high energy light, and are the most damaging form of nuclear radiation). These can rupture chemical bonds and eject electrons from atoms.
3) When radiation is emitted from a sample containing source atoms, it is emitted IN ALL DIRECTIONS in pretty much a uniform way. So most of the radiation produced by a source outside your body does not come toward you!
4) Unless you have a source present, you cannot have radiation present.
5) We cannot detect "radiation from Japan" here in the US. The radiation itself would have long since been absorbed, scattered, dissipated before it could reach here. To detect radiation from Japan here, we would have to have a source from Japan here. That means we would have to have some of the fuel material or fission products from a Japanese reactor here. If we detect radiation here, how do we know that it's source came from Japan?????(unless, of course the source atom is stamped with "Made in Japan"). How do we know what unstable nuclei are in the source without detailed study??? How can we report this on the news unless we know for sure (unless...hmmm...we want to scare the s--- out of people about nuclear energy; but what responsible journalist would want to do this (whoops--sense of humor again).)
6) We hear a lot about "radioactive water" in Japan. First, all water is to a small extent radioactive, because one of the isotopes of hydrogen is unstable (hydrogen-3, or tritium, is unstable--too many neutrons--and produces radiation. Small amounts of ordinary hydrogen are converted to tritium by water via absorption of neutrons). So, we should all immediately STOP drinking water. It is very bad for us. STOP, STOP, STOP. Drink vodka instead. In Japan, of course, they're talking about "high" radioactivity levels in the water. Is the water the source of the radiation? Almost certainly not. Instead, water used to cool the core dissolves small amounts of the solid core material, or picks up small particles produced in the hydrogen explosions. The radiation is coming from the dissolved or suspended reactor material, NOT from the water itself. So the water is not somehow mysteriously radioactive! It has simply dissolved some source material.
7) Even if this "radioactive water" is dumped into the Pacific Ocean, how long do you think it would take the source atoms to reach the west coast of the US? Don't forget, they have to make their way through, what, 2500 linear miles of Pacific Ocean, and are just as likely to move down, up, or back toward Japan as they are to move toward us. Movement of atoms through liquids is painfully slow (test this by adding a drop of liquid food coloring to a glass of water and then measure the time required for the color to distribute uniformly). Do you think it's reasonable for people in California to claim, 3 or 4 days after the earthquake, that they are detecting "radiation" (meaning source atoms) from Japan? This is the kind of panic reaction that we will see big time as soon as people realize the implications of peak oil, or watch their homes being eaten up by rising sea levels.
Please view news reports about "radiation" from Japan detected in the US with many grains of salt (containing no radioactive iodine!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)