Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted April 19, 2004 It's a pain in the ass being socially liberal and expecting people to have some common sense, I tell ya. PERSONALLY, I say we put intentionally bad directions on products (i.e, "hair dryers are GREAT when used while taking a shower"). Would thin out some of the idiots, at the very least. -=Mike This has a commercial tie-in with the DARWIN AWARDS written all over it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted April 19, 2004 As someone who's had vast experinces with hospitals In Canada both personally and with Family I can say... It's a mixed bag. I've been treated VERY well every time I needed something, and I've needed a great deal. They've been professional and very quick. I've had numerous CAT scans, MRI's, ECG's, etc, and I've never had to wait a huge amount of time, I've had surgery too and I've had to come into the emergency room and I was treated promptly. However, my Great Aunt was backlisted and had to wait a very long time before she could get into the hospital and ended up much worse off for it. My grandfather has had several serious heart attacks, prostate cancer, and some other problems and I've been amazed by how awesome the hospitals have been to him. He didn't have a long wait for his Cancer surgery and he had his pace maker(S) inserted and fixed quickly. It's a very mixed bag but I don't think the problems we have is with the actual idea behind it but behind how it's operated. And of course AMerica has better equipment, training, staff...they hire away every Canadian doctor worth a damn, not to mention that they're the richest country in the world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 And why do you think we're rich? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Tax cuts, of course. Kodos: Tax cuts for some, abortions for none! ::crowd boos:: Kodos: Okay.. Abortions for some.. miniature American flags for others! ::crowd cheers, flags already in hand:: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Little off topic, but...Is America really THE richest country on earth? I always thought some Middle-Eastern oil-rich nation would hold that distinction...though for some reason Japan comes to mind as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 ... I really don't have a witty comeback for this one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 I do. The answer to your question is no, the United States currently is not the richest nation on the Earth. That distinction belongs to Luxembourg, which has a Gross National Product of $36,400 U.S. dollars, according to www.aneki.com The United States is in second place, with a Gross National Product of $36,200 U.S. dollars. I'm searching through the World Banks online records right now, trying to verify this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Tax cuts, of course. Kodos: Tax cuts for some, abortions for none! ::crowd boos:: Kodos: Okay.. Abortions for some.. miniature American flags for others! ::crowd cheers, flags already in hand:: Tax cuts kill people. They spoil the rainforests. They suck up the oil in the world. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 the United States currently is not the richest nation on the Earth. That distinction belongs to Luxembourg, which has a Gross National Product of $36,400 U.S. dollars, according to www.aneki.com The United States is in second place, with a Gross National Product of $36,200 U.S. dollars What complete ignorant bullshit. Do you even understand the difference between GNP and GDP? You're talking about the first and the page you linked to is talking about the second. Not only that, the page you linked to is talking quite specifically about GDP per capita, which has absolutely nothing to do with a nation's overall wealth per se. You've just proven that you haven't so much as the faintest comprehension of some of the most elementary economic terms extant. Congratulations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 That does seem correct BX - The CIA Factbook tells the same story, though the numbers I'm getting are $48,900 for Luxembourg, and $36,300 for the US. However, the same said Factbook also informs me that the US has a purchasing power parity of $10.45 trillion, which I'm assuming roughly means that the US has almost 11 trillion dollars which they could spend; this number is so much higher then the numbers for anyone else, it's not even funny. Luxembourg has a paltry $21.94 billion in comparison. I didn't realize the sums being dealt with were that large, to be honest; I thought it was potentially possible that some small nation out in the Middle East could have been the richest, what with oil and all...but I thought very, very wrong. So what have we learned? If you're gonna make dumb comments, make ones so dumb that even Marney can't find the words to describe exactly how dumb they were. Oh, and having just read Marney's latest post after posting this, I decided to edit in this question: What exactly is the difference between GDP and GNP? I know I should have probably picked this up in a class somewhere, but off the top of my head, I really can't think of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 the United States currently is not the richest nation on the Earth. That distinction belongs to Luxembourg, which has a Gross National Product of $36,400 U.S. dollars, according to www.aneki.com The United States is in second place, with a Gross National Product of $36,200 U.S. dollars What complete ignorant bullshit. Do you even understand the difference between GNP and GDP? You're talking about the first and the page you linked to is talking about the second. Not only that, the page you linked to is talking quite specifically about GDP per capita, which has absolutely nothing to do with a nation's overall wealth per se. You've just proven that you haven't so much as the faintest comprehension of some of the most elementary economic terms extant. Congratulations. You go, girl. I knew you had it in you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 Yeah, as someone who has had family spend alot of time in hospitals, and an aunt that worked in one for 35 years, I can assure that our healthcare system sucks donkeyballs right now. At least in Ontario. In terms of surgery anyways. We are better than the US when it comes to prescription medication and innoculations. That's because your gov't forces our pharmaceutical companies to sell their drugs at a loss up there. We have to make up the difference down here. -=Mike You know, Canada does have it's own pharmaceutical companies that do pretty well. At least I hope they do, because otherwise Eugene Melnyck has no business owning the Senators... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 the US has a purchasing power parity of $10.45 trillion, which I'm assuming roughly means that the US has almost 11 trillion dollars which they could spend Not exactly, but it's a much better indicator of national wealth than GDP or GNP per capita. The figure you cited isn't "our PPP" but an approximation of our 2002 GDP given in terms of PPP. (PPP has to do with long-term changes in currency exchange rates and purchase values; in context, it's a method of measurement to ensure that dollar estimates reflect the actual value of a currency - what it can buy - and not the official, but often artificial, conversion rates.) I didn't realize the sums being dealt with were that large, to be honest; I thought it was potentially possible that some small nation out in the Middle East could have been the richest, what with oil and all...but I thought very, very wrong. Yep. What exactly is the difference between GDP and GNP? GDP is basically everything spent by anyone (government & private citizens), plus the value of earned capital, inventory change, and total exports, with imports subtracted from the result. GNP adds to that all earned income in foreign countries and subtracts foreigners' earnings within the country. It's pretty complicated but that's the simplest way to think about it. So what have we learned? If you're gonna make dumb comments, make ones so dumb that even Marney can't find the words to describe exactly how dumb they were. I've been seeing a lot of these lately in other folders too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted April 20, 2004 ... I really don't have a witty comeback for this one. Wait...is this ME that Marney doesn't have a comeback for or someone else....? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 I do believe it was me...and since Marney didn't correct me when I referenced the comment, I'll assume I was right. A further question...is PPP the best estimate of a countries wealth that one can get, then? Or do they actually have the numbers so that they can say "The United States has exactly (X) dollars"? I can't fathom counting all that money, though I suppose there'd have to be records of it being created and circulated (what with banks and mints and such). Further, if we could give an exact dollar amount for nations, would that be useless? I suppose it'd be a neat statistic, in a trivial sort of way, but if PPP is essentially a measurement of money's actual value, then doesn't that mean that the dollars don't really matter, just the value? Sorry, but now I'm just curious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted April 20, 2004 okay good, i was worried for a second Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted April 20, 2004 A further question...is PPP the best estimate of a countries wealth that one can get, then? No, because PPP only measures the direct comparison between tradable goods in two different nations. It can't account for non-tradable or non-identical goods. Besides that, PPP isn't used for measuring total wealth; it's used for measuring the value of currency the United States currently is not the richest nation on the Earth. That distinction belongs to Luxembourg, which has a Gross National Product of $36,400 U.S. dollars, according to www.aneki.com The United States is in second place, with a Gross National Product of $36,200 U.S. dollars ...Not only that, the page you linked to is talking quite specifically about GDP per capita... Damn, and here I thought I controlled half of America's total GNP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
