Rest of World IS Fucked Up, We Know Best - USA! USA! USA!

[AZDuck]

(From German magazine Der Spiegel discussing how inadequate national spending on infrastructure is threatening the country's future)

High speed rail lines in United States:

Entrepreneurship?

USA among the lowest in developed world, but still ahead of the evil Canadians.
Who knew the Danes were so entrepreneurial?

At least our cops are good shots

 

[AZDuck]

I like Damoan's WTFs almost as much as I like BATTLEFIELD COMMISSIONS!

 

[dnc]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

 

[HuskyJW]

Just another horrible day to be an American

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Love it or LEAVE it

 

[SpoonieLuv]

 

[AZDuck]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates.

Per capita health spending / life expectancy, then overall spending as percentage of GDP. We spend a shit-ton more on health care, on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world and we have some of the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world. Infant mortality in the US approaches developing country levels. Measuring these things by percentage or raw total changes nothing.

We spend very little as a percentage of GDP relative to our peers on transportation. China (a developing country similar in size to the mainland USA) has built an entire high speed network in the last 20 or so years while we have yet to build our first high speed line, even in regions like the Northeast or Midwest (Chicago hub) or California where the population and distances are ideal for the mode.

Other developed countries are about as good or better at birthing small businesses as we are despite their high taxes and socialism. Of course, health care and education aren't costs that a small businessman in Copenhagen needs to concern himself with, so there is that.

Looking at police shootings: a "raw number graph": There are about 90 million Germans, 70 million Brits, and 25 million Aussies. 401 police shootings (the lower number, Honda would use the 768 because he's ideological like that) per 330 million Americans dwarf the figures in the other countries no matter how you slice the data.

Put another way:

1.215 police shootings per million people in USA
0.24 police shootings per million people in AUS
0.06 police shootings per million people in GER
0.029 police shootings per million people in GBR

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand your quibble with raw numbers and percentages. Looking at any of the above topics using one or the other does not reveal another outcome. If you can illustrate with an example, I'd appreciate it.

 

[RaceBannon]

Is Hondo on vacation?

 

[dnc]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates.

Per capita health spending / life expectancy, then overall spending as percentage of GDP. We spend a shit-ton more on health care, on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world and we have some of the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world. Infant mortality in the US approaches developing country levels. Measuring these things by percentage or raw total changes nothing.

We spend very little as a percentage of GDP relative to our peers on transportation. China (a developing country similar in size to the mainland USA) has built an entire high speed network in the last 20 or so years while we have yet to build our first high speed line, even in regions like the Northeast or Midwest (Chicago hub) or California where the population and distances are ideal for the mode.

Other developed countries are about as good or better at birthing small businesses as we are despite their high taxes and socialism. Of course, health care and education aren't costs that a small businessman in Copenhagen needs to concern himself with, so there is that.

Looking at police shootings: a "raw number graph": There are about 90 million Germans, 70 million Brits, and 25 million Aussies. 401 police shootings (the lower number, Honda would use the 768 because he's ideological like that) per 330 million Americans dwarf the figures in the other countries no matter how you slice the data.

Put another way:

1.215 police shootings per million people in USA
0.24 police shootings per million people in AUS
0.06 police shootings per million people in GER
0.029 police shootings per million people in GBR

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand your quibble with raw numbers and percentages. Looking at any of the above topics using one or the other does not reveal another outcome. If you can illustrate with an example, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not arguing it changes the problem any, like I said there are some big problems illustrated here. But on one hand you say "Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates" yet you readily admit the chart at the bottom isn't using homicide rate, it's using raw numbers. And the raw numbers make the gap (which is drastic) look more drastic than it is. But of course, if we used raw numbers on the percentage of GDP used for infrastructure it would make the US look considerably better than it does in the graph you used.

I'm not arguing with your conclusions, I'm just arguing with the way the data is presented. There's inherent bias in the presentation. And yes, I'm aware everybody does it. I've made the same poont to d2d but he does these poasts so often I mostly just ignore them. Since you were a fresh Grantland wannabe, I thought I'd poont out the inherent probrem in your presentation.

 

[dnc]

Is Hondo on his knees?

 

[PurpleJ]

MOVE to Canada

 

[AZDuck]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates.

Per capita health spending / life expectancy, then overall spending as percentage of GDP. We spend a shit-ton more on health care, on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world and we have some of the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world. Infant mortality in the US approaches developing country levels. Measuring these things by percentage or raw total changes nothing.

We spend very little as a percentage of GDP relative to our peers on transportation. China (a developing country similar in size to the mainland USA) has built an entire high speed network in the last 20 or so years while we have yet to build our first high speed line, even in regions like the Northeast or Midwest (Chicago hub) or California where the population and distances are ideal for the mode.

Other developed countries are about as good or better at birthing small businesses as we are despite their high taxes and socialism. Of course, health care and education aren't costs that a small businessman in Copenhagen needs to concern himself with, so there is that.

Looking at police shootings: a "raw number graph": There are about 90 million Germans, 70 million Brits, and 25 million Aussies. 401 police shootings (the lower number, Honda would use the 768 because he's ideological like that) per 330 million Americans dwarf the figures in the other countries no matter how you slice the data.

Put another way:

1.215 police shootings per million people in USA
0.24 police shootings per million people in AUS
0.06 police shootings per million people in GER
0.029 police shootings per million people in GBR

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand your quibble with raw numbers and percentages. Looking at any of the above topics using one or the other does not reveal another outcome. If you can illustrate with an example, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not arguing it changes the problem any, like I said there are some big problems illustrated here. But on one hand you say "Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates" yet you readily admit the chart at the bottom isn't using homicide rate, it's using raw numbers. And the raw numbers make the gap (which is drastic) look more drastic than it is. But of course, if we used raw numbers on the percentage of GDP used for infrastructure it would make the US look considerably better than it does in the graph you used.

I'm not arguing with your conclusions, I'm just arguing with the way the data is presented. There's inherent bias in the presentation. And yes, I'm aware everybody does it. I've made the same poont to d2d but he does these poasts so often I mostly just ignore them. Since you were a fresh Grantland wannabe, I thought I'd poont out the inherent probrem in your presentation.

Well, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick graphics, but I chose based on some issues where the US is a major outlier from the rest of the world (and not in a good way):

- Gun violence,
- Healthcare spending/outcome and system of provision
- Infrastructure/transportation and high-speed rail

(I've lived in Japan and Italy for two years and I'm a convert, I just need to get to Germany to have the Axis trifecta)

- Social democracies can do capitalism,
- US police shoot and kill citizens far more than any other developed country on earth (edited because Iraqi police)

Nobody is copying us on those topics. Nobody. (except the Iraqi cops)

At the end of the day, most white Americans are just slobs whose grandparents couldn't make it in (England/Germany/Ireland/Italy/Poland/whatever) and most ethnic types came over here later because whitey built a good system with a relatively clean slate thanks to smallpox blankies (Hi @Swaye !) Or, because they were chained up in a boat.

We can learn from the world around us.

 

[HFNY]

So @AZDuck, what are your solutions considering the USA has an insurance mandate now (ACA)?

1. Lower health care spending by shrinking Medicare / Medicaid as a percentage of Federal Spending and use that money on infrastructure?

2. Instituting a Fat Tax for people on Medicare and Medicaid to make them healthier?

3. Repealing the 2nd Amendment? If not, what do reforms do you propose that would fall within the rights of the 2nd Amendment?

4. Neutral (neither raising or lowering) tax reform should be part of any conversation since tax reform would increase revenues going forward with a simpler code / less distortions.

 

[AZDuck]

So @AZDuck, what are your solutions considering the USA has an insurance mandate now (ACA)?

1. Lower health care spending by shrinking Medicare / Medicaid as a percentage of Federal Spending and use that money on infrastructure?

2. Instituting a Fat Tax for people on Medicare and Medicaid to make them healthier?

3. Repealing the 2nd Amendment? If not, what do reforms do you propose that would fall within the rights of the 2nd Amendment?

4. Neutral (neither raising or lowering) tax reform should be part of any conversation since tax reform would increase revenues going forward with a simpler code / less distortions.

1. Some variation of single payer. Medicare is actually way more efficient in terms of admin costs than private insurance. If we get similar outcomes to OECD countries (~12% of GDP spending on health) we have plenty for bullet trains and autobahns

2. No.

3. I think regulation and the 2nd amendment can be friends. EDIT: I mentioned some - serious license standards and training, serial number registration in the other thread.

4. I think tax reform would be a great idea, the US taxes at the lower bound of the developed countries (about 28% of GDP if I remember right) but gets very poor results from much of its government spending. I have my own thoughts on that which involve a directorial executive branch like Switzerland and a parliamentary House leaving the Senate as first-past-the-poast, but with allocations to mitigate for population differences among the States. It'll never happen. I'm gonna buy a boat and sail around the world and shit when I'm done playing army.

 

[Swaye]

Awesomed for FREE PUB, smallpox blankies, slobs and chained up in a boat.

In other news, I understood none of your graphs because I am mostly dumb.

 

[HFNY]

And despite all of the data where we are not excelling, I'd still rather live in the USA rather than anywhere else. After living in the USA, it would be hard to live in other countries that tax the hell out of you and throw up even more red-tape.

In the USA, you have the best chance to be great and stage a kick-ass presser while bribes and kickbacks are too much of the norm in other countries.

And let's be honest, if Russia or China decided to invade some other nice places to live (Switzerland, Norway, Great Britain), who are they going to call? Where does the mentality in the below movie exist in places you'd like to live besides the USA? Maybe Australia or the UK? New Zealand? We know the Frenchies would roll-over and the Germans would put up a fight but they haven't won a substantial war since 1872.

 

[dnc]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates.

Per capita health spending / life expectancy, then overall spending as percentage of GDP. We spend a shit-ton more on health care, on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world and we have some of the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world. Infant mortality in the US approaches developing country levels. Measuring these things by percentage or raw total changes nothing.

We spend very little as a percentage of GDP relative to our peers on transportation. China (a developing country similar in size to the mainland USA) has built an entire high speed network in the last 20 or so years while we have yet to build our first high speed line, even in regions like the Northeast or Midwest (Chicago hub) or California where the population and distances are ideal for the mode.

Other developed countries are about as good or better at birthing small businesses as we are despite their high taxes and socialism. Of course, health care and education aren't costs that a small businessman in Copenhagen needs to concern himself with, so there is that.

Looking at police shootings: a "raw number graph": There are about 90 million Germans, 70 million Brits, and 25 million Aussies. 401 police shootings (the lower number, Honda would use the 768 because he's ideological like that) per 330 million Americans dwarf the figures in the other countries no matter how you slice the data.

Put another way:

1.215 police shootings per million people in USA
0.24 police shootings per million people in AUS
0.06 police shootings per million people in GER
0.029 police shootings per million people in GBR

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand your quibble with raw numbers and percentages. Looking at any of the above topics using one or the other does not reveal another outcome. If you can illustrate with an example, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not arguing it changes the problem any, like I said there are some big problems illustrated here. But on one hand you say "Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates" yet you readily admit the chart at the bottom isn't using homicide rate, it's using raw numbers. And the raw numbers make the gap (which is drastic) look more drastic than it is. But of course, if we used raw numbers on the percentage of GDP used for infrastructure it would make the US look considerably better than it does in the graph you used.

I'm not arguing with your conclusions, I'm just arguing with the way the data is presented. There's inherent bias in the presentation. And yes, I'm aware everybody does it. I've made the same poont to d2d but he does these poasts so often I mostly just ignore them. Since you were a fresh Grantland wannabe, I thought I'd poont out the inherent probrem in your presentation.

Well, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick graphics, but I chose based on some issues where the US is a major outlier from the rest of the world (and not in a good way):

- Gun violence,
- Healthcare spending/outcome and system of provision
- Infrastructure/transportation and high-speed rail

(I've lived in Japan and Italy for two years and I'm a convert, I just need to get to Germany to have the Axis trifecta)

- Social democracies can do capitalism,
- US police shoot and kill citizens far more than any other developed country on earth (edited because Iraqi police)

Nobody is copying us on those topics. Nobody. (except the Iraqi cops)

At the end of the day, most white Americans are just slobs whose grandparents couldn't make it in (England/Germany/Ireland/Italy/Poland/whatever) and most ethnic types came over here later because whitey built a good system with a relatively clean slate thanks to smallpox blankies (Hi @Swaye !) Or, because they were chained up in a boat.

We can learn from the world around us.

No disagreement there. But I also think we have to acknowledge different dynamics at play in the US than many other places. Just because a solution works in one context doesn't mean it works in all contexts. The US is pretty unique geographically, racially, historically etc. And much of the world can spend more on all that other stuff because we've kept them safe enough they don't have to spend on military to the same degree.

 

[AZDuck]

And despite all of the data where we are not excelling, I'd still rather live in the USA rather than anywhere else. After living in the USA, it would be hard to live in other countries that tax the hell out of you and throw up even more red-tape.

In the USA, you have the best chance to be great and stage a kick-ass presser while bribes and kickbacks are too much of the norm in other countries.

And let's be honest, if Russia or China decided to invade some other nice places to live (Switzerland, Norway, Great Britain), who are they going to call? Where does the mentality in the below movie exist in places you'd like to live besides the USA? Maybe Australia or the UK? New Zealand? We know the Frenchies would roll-over and the Germans would put up a fight but they haven't won a substantial war since 1872.

Living in Italy was pretty bad-ass, but I never tried to start a business there. Living in Japan is awesome, but gaijin will always be outsiders there, and their society has its own very peculiar norms and rules that we just don't understand.

I think I wouldn't mind Denmark except for the cold or Switzerland.

Living in America is great, but it could be better, too.

I'm part of the War Corps, and yes, we are the only significant power-projection military in the world. Things get interesting in about 50 years when the Chinese will have similar capabilities

 

[AZDuck]

I like how when it's something you want a lot of we go by percentages since the US is bigger so percentages make the US look worse by comparison, but when it's something you want few of we go by raw totals since the US is bigger so the totals make the US look worse by comparison.

There are definitely plenty of issues with the US that these numbers sort of illustrate, but the AuburnDawg moving goalpoasts do nothing to add to the credibility of the arguments.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates.

Per capita health spending / life expectancy, then overall spending as percentage of GDP. We spend a shit-ton more on health care, on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world and we have some of the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world. Infant mortality in the US approaches developing country levels. Measuring these things by percentage or raw total changes nothing.

We spend very little as a percentage of GDP relative to our peers on transportation. China (a developing country similar in size to the mainland USA) has built an entire high speed network in the last 20 or so years while we have yet to build our first high speed line, even in regions like the Northeast or Midwest (Chicago hub) or California where the population and distances are ideal for the mode.

Other developed countries are about as good or better at birthing small businesses as we are despite their high taxes and socialism. Of course, health care and education aren't costs that a small businessman in Copenhagen needs to concern himself with, so there is that.

Looking at police shootings: a "raw number graph": There are about 90 million Germans, 70 million Brits, and 25 million Aussies. 401 police shootings (the lower number, Honda would use the 768 because he's ideological like that) per 330 million Americans dwarf the figures in the other countries no matter how you slice the data.

Put another way:

1.215 police shootings per million people in USA
0.24 police shootings per million people in AUS
0.06 police shootings per million people in GER
0.029 police shootings per million people in GBR

Maybe I'm dense but I don't understand your quibble with raw numbers and percentages. Looking at any of the above topics using one or the other does not reveal another outcome. If you can illustrate with an example, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not arguing it changes the problem any, like I said there are some big problems illustrated here. But on one hand you say "Homicides per 100,000 is the universally accepted means of determining homicide rates" yet you readily admit the chart at the bottom isn't using homicide rate, it's using raw numbers. And the raw numbers make the gap (which is drastic) look more drastic than it is. But of course, if we used raw numbers on the percentage of GDP used for infrastructure it would make the US look considerably better than it does in the graph you used.

I'm not arguing with your conclusions, I'm just arguing with the way the data is presented. There's inherent bias in the presentation. And yes, I'm aware everybody does it. I've made the same poont to d2d but he does these poasts so often I mostly just ignore them. Since you were a fresh Grantland wannabe, I thought I'd poont out the inherent probrem in your presentation.

Well, I wasn't trying to cherry-pick graphics, but I chose based on some issues where the US is a major outlier from the rest of the world (and not in a good way):

- Gun violence,
- Healthcare spending/outcome and system of provision
- Infrastructure/transportation and high-speed rail

(I've lived in Japan and Italy for two years and I'm a convert, I just need to get to Germany to have the Axis trifecta)

- Social democracies can do capitalism,
- US police shoot and kill citizens far more than any other developed country on earth (edited because Iraqi police)

Nobody is copying us on those topics. Nobody. (except the Iraqi cops)

At the end of the day, most white Americans are just slobs whose grandparents couldn't make it in (England/Germany/Ireland/Italy/Poland/whatever) and most ethnic types came over here later because whitey built a good system with a relatively clean slate thanks to smallpox blankies (Hi @Swaye !) Or, because they were chained up in a boat.

We can learn from the world around us.

No disagreement there. But I also think we have to acknowledge different dynamics at play in the US than many other places. Just because a solution works in one context doesn't mean it works in all contexts. The US is pretty unique geographically, racially, historically etc. And much of the world can spend more on all that other stuff because we've kept them safe enough they don't have to spend on military to the same degree.

I think there's some truth here. But part of that is why I picked these topics, precisely because the US *such* an outlier.

We also do some most things right - our military is still the best. We have some of the highest worker productivity in the world and our colleges and universities are still the best on the planet, and they drive an incredible R&D economy that Europe is only just now starting to emulate. (Japan is already awesome at this)

The difference is - they've been studying at Harvard, Yale and Berkeley and they (and the Japanese and Chinese) are modelling their colleges on ours.

 

[AZDuck]

Where does the mentality in the below movie exist in places you'd like to live besides the USA? Maybe Australia or the UK? New Zealand?

Never, ever forget how much Finland kicks ass.