The employment numbers were taken off wiki and aren't likely to be subjected to research bias as your numbers are.

Ska, I have to agree with Richard on this; these are cold hard facts, there's no room for interpretation (the worst you can do is round incorrectly). Besides, why would anyone mess with these numbers? Which way (increase or decrease) you should "nudge" them depends on the point you're tying to make. An infographic from an article titled "Don't Buy the Spin: How Cutting the Pentagon's Budget Could Boost the Economy" may have a point, it may even be fully correct, but it has no sensible claim to objectivity and therefore needs to cite its sources.

---

Health care ...
wait, what do you need good health for anyways? If you kids get sick, you better pay for their health you ****ing communist!

Are you using "communist" literally, or as a generic insult? Because I would consider a proper healthcare system (where everyone pays (through insurance premiums) and "the system" pays for whoever happens to need it) pretty socialistic. A communist (or rather, a person living in a country with socialist or communist policies) will actually have health care insurance and not need to pay a huge bill...

---

Oh you so sure about that? Way I see it, the Western World as a whole has 99% shared interests, that's why we refer to it with that term. To make clear that it's mostly common goals on both shores of the atlantic on a geopolitical level, despite some superficial (and rather minor) differences.

Our interests largely coincide, of course (which makes extensive collaboration practical). But there are certainly issues where opinions differ. Maybe not as much as with (extreme example) North Korean opinions, but still relatively much.
Some of those differences are internal matters (such as healthcare), but some of those go across borders. For instance, when the interests of big corporations and individual consumers clash (and we assume a perfect balance is infeasible), which side should the law favour? American legislation seems to favour big business (such as the film industry), while European legislation tries to protect consumers first and foremost.
Currently, when the USA tries to get their way (such as in the MegaUpload fiasco), it's pretty common for them to get away with it (MU has been offline for month already; even if they lose the legal battle in the end, effectively it will still be a victory because the site is still destroyed...). But, this seems to be changing already. I believe that if ACTA had been proposed five or ten years earlier, it would've been ratified in Europe, simply because the USA expected us to do so.

The Netherlands is part of NATO. The Netherlands has an export oriented economy. AFAIK, the Netherlands take part in that counter-piracy mission off the Somali coast. So does Germany. And France. And most other NATO countries, too.

I was only calling it hypocrite to mention fighting a war for "some noble democratic sentiment"; not meaning to imply the Netherlands is any different. The way I see it, going to war is (or, at least, should be...) the very last resort to any situation. For that very reason, I think it's incredibly unlikely that there even exists a single example of a country going to war for "some noble democratic sentiment" in all of human history; it's just not something you do if you don't have a very important reason to do it.

that looked interesting RvW but it is way to long to read u should think about making ur posts shorter

So Russia actually has more tanks than the U.S.
But the one and most important factor those uneducated Americans are the supreme rulers of the world is because of ..... let's hear it?

Military technological advancements.

nazi germany had technological advancements once. where is it now?

Haters gonna hate. America bashing is cool, having pride in one's country (despite it's faults, which I think most will acknowledge) isn't.

And Myhand, I live in the biggest "Communist" country in the world, and there isn't anything like free health care, or even free education. I would classify Norway, Sweden, and the other Scandanavian states as Socialist rather than Communist.

Also, am I correct in believing that the citizens of socialist-leaning states, such as the aforementioned Scandanavians, and even good portions of the EU, pay up to 40-50% of the monthly income in taxes? Don't feel like looking up sources, but the majority of European expats I have talked to constantly bemoan the massive taxes they are forced to pay every month.

@RvW and TexasJohn: 看到这一新的无知的表现，那当我的轻蔑上升到了不屑一答的地步

@RvW

Are you using "communist" literally, or as a generic insult? Because I would consider a proper healthcare system (where everyone pays (through insurance premiums) and "the system" pays for whoever happens to need it) pretty socialistic. A communist (or rather, a person living in a country with socialist or communist policies) will actually have health care insurance and not need to pay a huge bill...

Paying through insurance premiums is not socialistic because it leaves the poor to fend for themselves, since the system doesn't pay for the people. In countries like the US, where the medical system is a private sector held in the fist of the insurance companies, the system is not out for the benefit of the population but are out for the almighty dollar.

Another thing in countries with socialized medical systems, (like the one I live in), there is no insurance whatsoever, healthcare is free in the sense it is payed through taxes only.

Watch the film Sicko by filmmaker Michael Moore.

Just wanted to clear up the medical issue presented by RvW.

Myhand, LiLei says "English only please! Let's show how great our education is!"

In short, I dunna read Chinese. My gf says you were expressing your contempt for me. Fair play. Not really bothered. You aren't Taiwanese, by any chance, are you?

I said something like: "Seeing this fresh display of ignorance, my contempt rose too high for an answer"

And no, I am not Chinese.

Aruns clearly been flicking through the QI book of general ignorance.

that looked interesting RvW but it is way to long to read u should think about making ur posts shorter

Priceless!

TexasJohn:

Also, am I correct in believing that the citizens of socialist-leaning states, such as the aforementioned Scandinavians, and even good portions of the EU, pay up to 40-50% of the monthly income in taxes?

Can't speak for the Nordic Region, but in the Netherlands the system works approximately as follows. Your income below Y euro (don't know the exact number of the top of my head) is taxed at 30% (if memory serves), your income between Y euro and Z euro is taxed at 40% (or thereabouts) and everything over Z euro is taxed at 55% (that number I'm reasonably sure about). [Just to be clear, if you go from Z euro to Z+1 euro for instance, only that extra euro is taxed at the higher rate, you won't suddenly have you net income decrease because you went over the limit.]
After that initial calculation, you tax is reduced by a fixed amount (we used to have a 0% tax for income below X, but the new system is more favourable to people with lower incomes, giving less benefit to high incomes). And of course there's a whole load of exceptions, special cases, tricks, loopholes and complications, but I don't know them too well myself and even if I did..., let's just say I already know Ryan's response. ;)

For completeness' sake, our VAT is (for nearly all products, of course there's exceptions...) 19%.

You might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIT_in_World_Barry_Kent.png

---

Zilmorph:

Paying through insurance premiums is not socialistic because it leaves the poor to fend for themselves, since the system doesn't pay for the people.

Ehm, yes it is; people who have no expenses themselves help pay for the (high) expenses of the few unlucky people who have them by paying a relatively low amount.

In countries like the US, where the medical system is a private sector held in the fist of the insurance companies, the system is not out for the benefit of the population but are out for the almighty dollar.

I'm talking about the situation where everyone has a healthcare insurance (either because they know it's a good idea, or because required to by law). And I'm talking about insurance companies with a healthy (not an obsessive) desire for making a profit. By the way, I know for a fact such situations exist (the Netherlands for one).

Another thing in countries with socialized medical systems, (like the one I live in), there is no insurance whatsoever, healthcare is free in the sense it is payed through taxes only.

Meh, minor difference. What does it matter whether the government tells you "you have to pay taxes and we'll use (part of) those taxes to pay for healthcare" or the government telling you "you have to have healthcare insurance, which will pay for healthcare"? It's just the difference between the money going through the government or through private companies. If you take your current situation and privatise the paying-for-healthcare branch of government, you'll have the situation I'm talking about. Personally, for most sectors, I'm in favour of privatisation; it sure seems like companies work more efficiently than government.

Watch the film Sicko by filmmaker Michael Moore.

Ehm no, I will not; last time I watched anything by him he had a point, but his "documentary" was not about making that point, it was nearly-exclusively about "look how interesting/awesome/cool I am" with just enough "point" to get people to watch his egotrip.

RvW why do you try so hard to appear smart? Who indoctrinated you with all this neoliberal nonsense? Did you fall for it all by yourself?

Meh, minor difference. What does it matter whether the government tells you "you have to pay taxes and we'll use (part of) those taxes to pay for healthcare" or the government telling you "you have to have healthcare insurance, which will pay for healthcare"? It's just the difference between the money going through the government or through private companies.

If you can`t make out a difference, you should reflect upon your shortsightness. The tax load is never distributed equally among the population. Lower income normally (should) get taxed significantly lower than higher income. Leading to a situation, where if you have a low income you have lower taxes, thus the state paying for your health insurance provides you with a better healthcare than you could afford in an uncontrolled market. That leads to more social stability and equality.
The situation as it is in the USA for example, where there is no population wide cover of an affordable and adequate healthcare system paid by the state, leads to exploitation of the already weak. The private companies natural behaviour of abusing their power for profit, or even only the "healthy" pursuit of profit, especially in such sensitive areas as medical treatment forces the precariat into poverty or even more final destinations, like death.

And I'm talking about insurance companies with a healthy (not an obsessive) desire for making a profit.

The only thing restricting companies from making an obsessive and not an healthy profit is either governmental/juridical control (works best) or public opinion (is the last resort in highly capitalistic societies, doesnt always work well and works only if severe damage has be done already). There never was, is no and never will be a healthy selfristriction in private companies when it comes to profit.


I understand that you must be very young, with such an urge to radiate your onedimensonal knowledge about whatever, but having to look at your posting spree all the time without commenting on the halftruths and wrong perceptions, makes my head ache.

The tax load is never distributed equally among the population.

I said "minor difference", not "no difference". From personal experience, my healthcare insurance is just a fraction of my taxes, so adjusting for income wouldn't make that much of a difference on the whole (it would probably decrease (not cancel out) the benefit of increased efficiency in corporations).
Besides, if you really want to make sure the lower incomes pay less than the higher incomes, you can always invent some benefits (is that the word - when the government gives you some money to help out) programme. By the way, we actually have that too.

The situation as it is in the USA for example

Find one post where I defend the "current" (as in: before Obamacare) USA healthcare system... (I cannot comment on how things will work out once the reforms have fully completed; that would require much more knowledge of how well the insurance market in the USA works.)

The only thing restricting companies from making an obsessive and not an healthy profit is either governmental/juridical control (works best) or public opinion (is the last resort in highly capitalistic societies, doesnt always work well and works only if severe damage has be done already).

Ehm, I think you missed one: competition by other companies (you know, pretty much the whole reason why privatisation works...).

There never was, is no and never will be a healthy selfristriction in private companies when it comes to profit.

My reasoning relies on competition, not self-restriction (which doesn't work when there's a monopoly of course, in that case you indeed need legal safeguards).

I said "minor difference", not "no difference".

I expected you are the kind of guy that is happy when he can argue, so I also expect you to use any of Schoppenhauers "Kunstgriffe" if it helps you distract from the point made.

From my personal experience ...

who cares about your personal experience? Is your personal experience in any way representative? How many people do you represent? One billion? or just one, namely yourself?

Besides, if you really want to make sure the lower incomes pay less than the higher incomes, you can always invent some benefits (is that the word - when the government gives you some money to help out) programme.

Yes, you can. You can use benefit programs adjusted to income levels and then you can rename it ...into taxation. Thats arguing about whether to serve cream or sugar to the coffee, not if you serve coffee or go sking instead.

The situation as it is in the USA for example

Find one post where I defend the "current" (as in: before Obamacare) USA healthcare system... (I cannot comment on how things will work out once the reforms have fully completed; that would require much more knowledge of how well the insurance market in the USA works.)

Which parts of the words "for example" dont you understand? Do you translate "for example" into "as you said before" in dutch?

Ehm, I think you missed one: competition by other companies (you know, pretty much the whole reason why privatisation works...).

Ehm, I think I didnt miss that, but ehm, I think you missed that in reality competition by other companies does only exist if there is some form of external control as jurdical/governmental or public. (you know, pretty much of the reasons why privatisation doesnt work and leads to oligopols [but not the only one]), but what was i thinking, expecting from you to understand something that gets more complicated, than what is taught in highschool.

My reasoning relies on competition, not self-restriction (which doesn't work when there's a monopoly of course, in that case you indeed need legal safeguards).

A monopoly is rare, oligopols are the rule. The Energy sector and the health care sector are among the most vulnerable to this in any society that has them privatized. They dominate state and country politics, corrupt politicians, scientists and press and make the whole system highly expensive and inefficient. The BKA (Bundeskriminalamt) calls the german health care system highly corrupt and controlled by an organized crime and the USA fights wars directly for the Energylobby. But yeah go on and preach the salvation of privatization you read about in the newspaper. It sounded so logical to you didnt it? Also you felt so smart in being able to understand it, right?
Please inform yourself about failed privatization all over the globe before you continue you bugging me again with your superficial attempt to show insight into socioeconomical interconnections.
Also, research when and why industry or service sectors have actually been nationalized. Maybe , ehm, there has been a logical transparent reason for all this? (you know as in improving the lifes of the states citizens, not the rich)

myhandisonfire,
You disagree with me; no problem, you are fully entitled to. However, if you feel the need to consider

but what was i thinking, expecting from you to understand something that gets more complicated, than what is taught in highschool
(..)
But yeah go on and preach the salvation of privatization you read about in the newspaper. It sounded so logical to you didnt it? Also you felt so smart in being able to understand it, right?
(..)
Please inform yourself (..) before you continue you bugging me again with your superficial attempt to show insight into socioeconomical interconnections.

a valid way to have a discussion, then you'll have to find someone else to do it with.

I never asked for an discussion, all i felt was the strong urge to disagree. If that keeps you from posting in the future, i am okay with it

Well, the 'strong urge to disagree' AND the urge to insult...

Nice comeback there RvW, myhandisonfire and Richard Sharpe.

I feel insulted by ignorance and impertinence Richard, sadly you would rarely recognize either one.