And... what does that have to do with alcohol, again? Very interesting way to segue into energy consumption.Q.U. wrote:And no, other countries can't say that they get drunk less. But few countries can say that they waste more money then the USA. Compare oil and energy consumption per person in USA to those of other countries. Most countries simply cannot afford to be that spoiled.RuffDraft wrote:Seriously, tho, are you implying that no other countries get as drunk as Americans?
But it's not something that bothers me, seeing as I don't believe in this whole Global Warming scare. And yet I understand your point about excess. So I'll ignore this one and change the subject.
Except that many industries in Norway are owned by the government. GDP includes all services, public and private. About three quarters of all Norwegian savings are controlled by the State; the State's holdings amount to about 40 percent of the total values of the companies listed in the Oslo Stock Exchange. And so, GDP BY ITSELF does not indicate how much the average citizen of a country earns and gets to keep, "after taxes". That's what I'm trying to tell you. Norway is essentially a welfare state, where it assumes ownership of certain highly-profitable industries (such as oil) and uses those profits to augment its taxes and fund their expenditures. So, because of the lower population, GDP per capita seems high. That's what I'm saying.Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:The reason GDP per capita for Norway is higher than the US is because of the relative difference between population and GDP. It doesn't mean that the average Norwegian is richer, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they have a higher standard of living. It's a ratio between the population and GDP. Find me a graph that shows the percentage of Norway's population that meets your alleged standards of wealth and compare it to a similar graph of the US's population and I'll consider your argument.
That's exactly what it means, lol. The average Norwegian is richer than the average American. You take the wealth of the whole nation, divide it by the number of people, and you get the average wealth of a person. Sure there are richer and poorer, like everywhere. but in terms of average Norway is richer. Get over it. And yes, it's because they have fewer people. But think about it this way, an average Norwegian produces and generates more GDP for his country than an average American does for his, doesn't he?
Absolutely not. A non-profit, non-government organization that receives most (if not all) of their funding from individual people is still a private-sector charity; getting funding from the general public does not make it a public-sector organization. And a non-profit organization that uses its funds for a specific purpose (as in the one above) and donates its money to a private school so they can take on more students does not make the school a public school.Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:But suppose that the 60% that could donated a proportional amount relative to their economic standing towards education of those that could not? We've already seen Americans helping other Americans less fortunate than themselves. Let's say everyone donated an extra of 10% of their income to those (private) schools so that the poorer population could either attend free or attend at a reduced cost, relative to their economic standing. Base it off the amount of taxes that we got in 2009 and cut it in half (assume the average amount in taxes paid equates to about 20-25%), and calculate how much it would cost for those 40% you mentioned to go to these same private schools. Then, based on a steep curve, figure out how much it would take for those 40% to afford reduced tuition.
My plan is fairly sound, wouldn't you say? It just needs to be able to be put to practice without government intervention.
You know, once you rip money off of tax payers and pump them into a school to allow enrolment free of charge, then that's pretty much what a public school is. So you kinda shot yourself in the leg with this one.
And the expression is "shot yourself in the foot."
Well then you obviously don't know the story of New York and Utah.Q.U. wrote:Really, I strongly believe that it doesn't matter who runs the schools, private investors or government selected bodies, if you pump enough money into them they will become more efficient.
Of all states, New York spends the most money per student on education, at roughly $16,000 (as of 2007). Utah spends the least money per student on education, at just over $5800. And yet their scores are nearly identicial, despite a more than $10K difference.
Part of the problem is the teacher's unions and Tenure, but that's a different discussion entirely.
From what I can tell, China used to subsidize consumer costs for gasoline (meaning gas prices were artificially lower). As of February, they no longer did that, and gas prices went up to roughly 33% above the average price in the US. And seeing as they import more than 5 million barrels per month, I seriously doubt that it would be less expensive for China and more profitable for the American oil companies. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise?Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:Also, I find it hard to believe that oil companies would simply double gas prices out of spite and expect to make double--or even the same--profits. If Americans could hold out an extra month or two, gas prices would go back down.
They couldn't. You seem to forget that oil is one of them most sought natural resources around. Americans want to increase the taxes for selling oil in their country? It becomes more profitable to sell to China who is willing to pay a tiny bit less, but still more than the taxes would take. Oil companies go sell elsewhere. They are profit oriented, it's simple really.
...sigh... that tired old rumor. The left loves it as a talking point. If only it were true.Q.U. wrote:It's one of the reasons why your country went all berserk on Iraq, simply to get their hands on more secured oil production sites. If their troops control the oil fields in Iraq then those who produce oil there are kinda forced to sell it to USA regardless of the taxes and profits.
As I explained above, you misunderstood what I was saying. But I'm not judging; I probably should have made myself clearer.Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:Once again, I feel like I'm being tag-teamed. Isn't there anyone on here who thinks I'm at least making sense?
All you spout in your last 2 comments is nonsense, so no. I would agree with you in many things, as I did, but not when you make no sense or show off plain disregard to the realities of our world.
::blink:: First I've heard that. What is your citation?Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:@BR: Fine, Norway is a hell of a lot better than the United States right now. But seeing as that's true, why was it not your first choice when you decided you wanted to get out of the US? Was the plane ticket too expensive? (lol)
I think mostly because Norway doesn't allow you to stay in for more than 6 months unless you get enrolled into a school, or get a job for which you first need a permission as a foreigner. It's why Norway never joined EU, cause then people could go in there and work freely, and they don't really want to give away all their social care money and jobs to lazy foreigners.
Which means they aren't very rich at all, are they? How in the world does one get rich if the practice of getting wealth is punished in this manner?Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:I suppose the two weeks I spent in Norway in 2008 didn't let me see much of the whole country... but I did notice their insane taxes; nearly 20% in sales tax for one.
And that's how they can afford public school that are better than your private schools, etc. Last time I heard, the richest people in Norway pay 90% income tax.
Also, it's not 90%. While I don't fully understand it, what I gather from my research, cumulatively it would probably be about 60-70%; as of 2010 there was a 28% flat tax for Income (ordinary and corporate, although they seem like separate taxes), and they have VATs of 25% general, 14% for foodstuffs, and 8% for transportation.
@BR: Persuade =/= coerce. Also, persuading someone to do something is not the same as informing them of a problem and offering a solution that relies on public support. It's like saying "your local Public Broadcast Station is hosting a telethon to raise money for the United Cancer Foundion. All proceeds will go directly towards getting cancer patients the treatment they need at no cost to them." And if no one watched PBS, they wouldn't know this was going on. And along the same lines, if I had never met you, I wouldn't even know what Crohn's was, and I wouldn't be helping anyone with their medical costs or offering them a place to stay.
And as for "How can you count on charity," that question seems at odds with your character; you, who consistently says people can work together indefinitely for a common goal, are asking me how you can count on people to be charitable. I mean, it just seems odd that you question human charity with the ideologies you advocate.
Wasn't there a case in Canada of someone posing as a Cancer patient for two years to get attention, and by the time it was revealed that she did not have cancer, she had received thousands of dollars from the public? This is proof of both human greed and human charity.
And I made no claim that insinuated that the rich suffer more than anyone else by being forced to part with a higher percentage of their income proportional to their financial standing; it seems like we're simply punishing those with more money for having more money--which, no matter how you look at it, it is simply not fair. Imagine if you brought 10 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made you give one to her, and another kid brought 100 bags of Skittles to school and the teacher made him give her 30. One or both of you is going to feel confused and/or gypped.
Still working on my missing chunk of text to Valhallen. Kinda going back and forth between personal interests, work, friends, and my cat. Personal life at its best.