Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates in t

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

In Edward Bellamy's now-class Utopian novel Looking Backward he proposed a solution to the question…

If the sales clerk and the doctor both make the same wage, why would anyone want to waste all that time studying to be a doctor when they can go become a salesman with a high school education?

His solution was to have the low-skilled workers work more hours per week than the highly skilled ones. Simply put, if you were a shoe salesman, you probably worked from 9-5 while your brother the doctor worked from 9-noon.

The theory was that the higher-educated positions would have more people to fill them because people would want the extra free time and there'd be plenty of people who hated school enough to take lower education jobs.

There's more to it than that (education's free, educational testing's mandatory and nominally can't be appealed ("You are forever a shoe salesman"), everyone earns the same amount of money, etc.) but there's a proposed solution for you.

[Josh_Kablack]

I just found out today that both Starbucks and Microsoft (and presumably some other companies) reward employee volunteerism at charities by providing incentive donations to those charities based on the volunteer hours worked by the employee. And in both cases, the hourly matching grant is MORE THAN THEY PAY MANY OF THEIR OWN WORKERS. Can someone here explain that sort of capitalism to me?

[Username17]

I believe you're looking for "Andrew Carnegie". The idea is that once you've stolen enough money that you're the big dog, you do eerything you can to keep the little dogs from rising up and eating you.

And that includes giving away big piles of money to charitable causes. Not big enough to impact your overall profits, but big enough to force people to notice you doing it.

But hey, you live in Pittsburg, you should know this story.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Yes, Josh: in polls, people believe that a company is better because their employees commit more of their own time to volunteering. Yes. A company is better because they require their employees to work unpaid hours. That's capitalism for you.

More so than the company committing its profits to charity.

Right. Not paying your employees to work is good? I don't understand this.

-Crissa

(How do I know this? I was an operator for the survey when it was comitted )

[RandomCasualty]

1169868900[/unixtime]
But on the other side, a more egalitarian society allows people who would otherwise be stuck working to feed themselves in a hand-to-mouth existence down in the coal mines to go to school and learn about physics and possibly contribute to the study of chemistry. This is known to be a real effect, we can watch it happen, it's measurable.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. Public education and standardized pay rates for every job are entirely different concepts.

Public education is good no matter how you look at it, because it gives talented people a chance to rise up in the ranks. Without public education, you're just creating a quasi-caste system where poor people stay poor because they can't afford to get educated and do other stuff. That's bad.

I'm not arguing against public education... but you can have public education in a capitalistic system. What I'm arguing against is having standardized pay and equal division of all resources regardless of whether you're Einstein or some loser working at McDonalds for a career. That's basically the prime concept of socialism and it never ever made any sense to me.

You can have public education and still let talented people have really expensive cars and mansions as incentives. They're not mutually exclusive and there's really no reason to believe that public education under a socialist system has to be any better than public education under a capitalist system.

I have yet to see a single good reason to have equal division of wealth.

[RandomCasualty]

1169923775[/unixtime]]His solution was to have the low-skilled workers work more hours per week than the highly skilled ones. Simply put, if you were a shoe salesman, you probably worked from 9-5 while your brother the doctor worked from 9-noon.

The theory was that the higher-educated positions would have more people to fill them because people would want the extra free time and there'd be plenty of people who hated school enough to take lower education jobs.

The problem is that that quite simply doesn't work. You really don't have enough doctors to fill those lax hours, because not everybody is talented enough to be a doctor. You will on the other hand have lots of low wage workers, because almost anyone can do that work.

Having your doctors work fewer hours isn't feasable. Because it would require a huge percentage of your population to be doctors, either that or your standards for being a doctor become really low to fill the ranks and you've got a lot of inept doctors out there.

[Username17]

The problem is that that quite simply doesn't work. You really don't have enough doctors to fill those lax hours, because not everybody is talented enough to be a doctor.

Doesn't work?

Need I remind you that Cuba is a real country? They've been under blockade by the most powerful nation on Earth for over forty years, and they have an excess of doctors, who are respected throughout the world.

They export doctors all over the world as part of a medical diplomacy campaign. Seriously, you actually can have more doctors than you need, you just have to prioritize medical training as a society in a manner that the US doesn't do.

Personally, I find it very hard to get into medical school in the US. I have a 36Q on my MCAT, which is better than 95% of the people attempting to become doctors in the US. But there are so few slots in the US compared to the qualified applicants that they seriously pick qualified applicants at random.

That's bullshit. And it in no way shows that we couldn't have an excess of doctors if we were willing to do it. Cuba does it and they can't even free themselves from a naval blockade.

-Username17

[Catharz]

1170009729[/unixtime]]But there are so few slots in the US compared to the qualified applicants that they seriously pick qualified applicants at random.

Nepotism keeps it from being totally random

[RandomCasualty]

1170009729[/unixtime]]
That's bullshit. And it in no way shows that we couldn't have an excess of doctors if we were willing to do it. Cuba does it and they can't even free themselves from a naval blockade.

OK, so lets assume we could have an excess of doctors. Could we also have an excess of lawyers, engineers, computer programmers, architects, research scientists and every other well educated job out there?

Not to mention you're going to need a huge excess of teachers (and teachers with relevant experience in the field) to teach all these people. I just don't think there are enough smart people in the world to fill all those jobs.

Not to mention, your whole society principle is based on laziness. The more you study now, the less you'll have to work later. While this actually may not be a bad society to live in, cause working 3 hours a day is a big motivator for a lazy person like myself, but it probably isn't going to get much done in the long haul. I mean when you've got your cancer researchers only doing 3 hour shifts, how long do you think it'll take them to come up with any kind of cure. Half the time is probably going to be spend explaining to the next shift what they were trying to do in those three hours.

Not to mention that whether that actually find a cure or sit on their thumbs, they get paid the same amount.

Such a society would actually be great for the worker, but terrible for those who actually want work to get done.

[Endovior]

1169874729[/unixtime]]

I'd point out that the only reason that Soviet Russia accomplished all that is because Stalin starved off it's populace in his zeal to industrialize. Yeah, if you pull all the peasants off the farms and stick them in factories, production will go up. Everyone will starve to death, but more guns will be produced.

What part of "Life Expectency Increased" did you not understand?

Stalin killed a lot of people. A whole lot of people. And a lot of the people he killed were for no damn reason. I'm not going to defend that, because I don't like the guy, I don't support those policies, and I don't think that even helped. And yet, despite the large number of people shot, the people starved to death, the people deported to ice flows in Yakut... less people died over all.

People starve all the time. Some of them right here in the United States. And when Stalin took over, there was not enough food being made to feed everyone. When he was done, there was. Because the socialist distribution system and industrial production system are more efficient and produce more.

Firstly, where in hell are you getting those statistics from? Because everyone knows that the official Soviet statistics are 100% bullshit. This was NOT an efficient distribution system; actually, it was quite the opposite of an efficient distribution system. The food was 'distributed' to various government-run stores where you could 'buy' them either with food stamps of various sorts or the official government-issued money, either of which was fairly worthless, because odds are that in going to get it you wait in line for hours in the snow, and if you're lucky, they didn't run out before you got one. The distribution of capital goods was worse; simply because of quota systems. In an attempt to meet the quotas, factory managers would typically rules-lawyer the system. For example; with bolts, when the quotas were based off quantity produced, the smallest possible bolts were produced; and when the quotas were dependent upon weight, the largest possible bolts were produced. Either set of bolts was typically useless to the next factory, who needed neither tiny nor gargantuan bolts in the making of household appliances, and so in practice, the only factories that got much done were the ones that did most everything themselves. Self-sufficient production is not at all efficient; the point of having dozens of factories is so each can have workers and machines dedicated to making a single part, and others dedicated to putting them together; rather then one factory where the equipment needs to be swapped around daily and the workers do a different job each day (requiring many sets of equipment and resulting in workers who have a little skill at everything, but proficiency with little).

Also, I am wary of your 'societal priorities'. Yeah, it's possible to get a whole bunch of doctors if you're willing to actively conscript them. But in our country, people have the freedom to choose what they want to do; and many of the people with the potential to be doctors would rather be biologists or chemists for example. And just because you force 1000 people to become doctors doesn't mean they're any good.

[Username17]

Firstly, where in hell are you getting those statistics from?

The United Nations. The trustworthiness of Soviet reporting is essentially unimportant in this discussion and is simply a "poisoning the well" argument.

Yes. I hate Stalin too. That doesn't change the fact that the life expectency of women went from 30 to 74 inside of two generations. Nor does it change the fact that the life expectency today is lower than it was when the Soviet Union was still a Union.

Also, I am wary of your 'societal priorities'. Yeah, it's possible to get a whole bunch of doctors if you're willing to actively conscript them. But in our country, people have the freedom to choose what they want to do; and many of the people with the potential to be doctors would rather be biologists or chemists for example. And just because you force 1000 people to become doctors doesn't mean they're any good.

Who said anything about forcing people to become doctors? In the United States, they turn qualified people away! You can be dedicated, qualified, and motivated to become a doctor and not become one because there isn't enough slots to train the doctors that we need, let alone the number of doctors that we want.

Yes, people can choose to not become doctors, but people don't have the opportunity to choose to become doctors.

-Username17

[User3]

I know I'm gonna regret this because I'm so fucking shy, but what the hell, here goes.

Can someone please explain what leftists actually think to RC? This is getting painful. Who in the fucking fuck ever said socialism = equal pay for everyone? Marx? I must've skipped that page. Socialists desire freedom from the imperatives of capital (and hopefully from things like patriarchy). I couldn't give a shit if doctors make twice the money I do for serving beer or whatever (on this topic, a good lefty might say we'd like to reward effort and sacrifice).

RC's observations on human nature are absolutely horrible. I'm cringing repeatedly here. "Human nature" is not what you fucking observe down at the god damn mall. You are looking through a lens dripping with bourgeois ideology (tacit assumptions). What I choose to do with my free time after BEING A SLAVE FOR HALF THE FUCKING DAY is not the same thing I'd choose to do if I were free. Human beings did not make it to the capitalist stage of society by being lazy. We are obviously NOT lazy by nature. I'd also like to point out that because culture is such a huge part of us, figuring out what the actual DNA-based nature is, is pretty much impossible.

Another thing you repeat incessantly is how stupid everyone is. The system needs people to be extremely passive idiots, otherwise such an unfair system could not be sustained (enough demand for worthless shit could not be artificially created, for example). Public education has a big hand in this. Why do you think minorities in the US score lower on standardized tests than whites? Because they're genetically inferior? No, because THE FUCKING SYSTEM MAKES PEOPLE STUPIDER ON PURPOSE. Why do you think half of what you do in school is useless? Useless work you have to do is the best, because it requires real obedience to authority, I mean, anybody would do work if it actually had merit. Worthless work really proves that you're passive. Why do you think the "smart" kids are treated so much better, and in most cases segregated from, the others? 20% become abstract (that's important) problem solvers, and the other 80% become passive idiots. If the entire capitalist west had Frank's DNA, 80% of them would still be doing shit work, get it? It's a god damn system, low wage jobs didn't spring into being because people are dumb, people got pushed into them because they are necessary jobs.

Humans being competitive by nature is also something you've been repeating for years which is total horse shit. Read some anthropology or something. Ugh. The only real competitive desires I've felt are leftover macho bullshit that I'm trying to throw away. That's it. I have never desired to compete with another human for food. Even when I was a die hard anarcho-capitalist dumbshit, I knew I was lying to myself. I only wanted to compete with other men who I hated for being corporatist or statist or something. It's all a fucking crock. Humans cooperate. Mod Edit: Gratuitous insults deleted.

In any case, I'd much rather be free and poor with shit health care than be a god damn slave to capital and patriarchy (which includes Franky if he's some kind of state socialist who desires the same corporate top-down style of organization just with free food, but I really have no idea what he's advocating at this point).

Anonymous Coward

[Crissa]

Currently, we have unemployed people sitting on lots of degrees. We have too many teachers, professors, biologists, aerospace engineers and archetects.

And yet at the same time we have too few teachers employed because many teachers cannot afford to take a job that doesn't pay. Ironic, yes?

Heck, I personally know several master or double baccalaureates that are unemployed because our capitalistic system doesn't find their knowledge important enough to employ.

Capitalism requires a waste amount. Real people sitting on their damn thumbs, hoping they get the next job. Starving or flipping burgers even though they've done all the work to learn their trade.

How is that vaguely 'better' than a few lazy scientists?

Why did everyone ignore my point that education and experience have less corrolation with your income than parents' income or your friends' income?

-Crissa

(My numbers come from US employment statistics... Of course, these statistics aren't made anymore. They last published in 2002)

[Nihlin]

1170116379[/unixtime]]I know I'm gonna regret this because I'm so fvcking shy, but what the hell, here goes...

Logic and empirical evidence haven't worked yet to communicate those concepts, so your noble attempt probably won't, either, but I dare say that it was a good read.

[Endovior]

1170102720[/unixtime]]

Firstly, where in hell are you getting those statistics from?

The United Nations. The trustworthiness of Soviet reporting is essentially unimportant in this discussion and is simply a "poisoning the well" argument.

Yes. I hate Stalin too. That doesn't change the fact that the life expectency of women went from 30 to 74 inside of two generations. Nor does it change the fact that the life expectency today is lower than it was when the Soviet Union was still a Union.

Also, I am wary of your 'societal priorities'. Yeah, it's possible to get a whole bunch of doctors if you're willing to actively conscript them. But in our country, people have the freedom to choose what they want to do; and many of the people with the potential to be doctors would rather be biologists or chemists for example. And just because you force 1000 people to become doctors doesn't mean they're any good.

Who said anything about forcing people to become doctors? In the United States, they turn qualified people away! You can be dedicated, qualified, and motivated to become a doctor and not become one because there isn't enough slots to train the doctors that we need, let alone the number of doctors that we want.

Yes, people can choose to not become doctors, but people don't have the opportunity to choose to become doctors.

-Username17

Regarding the statistics... link? (I'd suspect that the UN doesn't have anything better then the blatantly forged Soviet stats anyways, but it never hurts to look)

Regarding Cuba... it's socialism, so it's slave labor regardless; a given student may not be 'forced' to become a doctor, but at the very least it's probably a matter of 'do so or live on the streets'. If this is such a great system, why the hell do you think so many Cubans defect to the US all the time?

Regarding the US... I'd be interested to see some proof of this alleged random selection. In any event, medical institutions only have so much space available, so if given person A who wants to be a doctor can't because they won't admit him... that's hardly their fault, they can only accept so many. Also note that socializing medicine will NOT fix any alleged problem with the system; if you doubt me, just look at England. Doctors leave England all the time, often right out of medical school, to practice in the US, because England's socialized medicine screws doctors over. (Perhaps the aforementioned student should consider studying abroad?)

[Crissa]

As a number of Cubans don't defect - a large majority of them - you'd think maybe you should say that Mexico's system is broken, as we get more attempts (per population) from that country.

And this was true when Cuba did or did not attempt to stop people from fleeing the island - though when they don't attempt to, we complain they're dumping criminals on us (true, criminals are a portion of those leaving a country), or allowing many to die on the water - also true. Less people die when prevented from doing hazardous things, like transit across the open ocean.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Its one of those egads moments.

blatantly forged Soviet stats

Considering the stats are pretty consistent with everything the rest of history has told us about those policies, especially, say, oh, the institution of those policies in western nations.

Also considering the people going around claiming the stats were forged were basically those ideologically, and rather unethically, opposed to the policies in question.

And considering all the other massive achievements of the nation that proved to be entirely true (space race, arms race, industrialization)

Well. Draw your own conclusions. But draw them again because you were probably wrong the first time.

it's socialism, so it's slave labor regardless

I think someone may have had their precious bodily fluids compromised by the communist spies.

Its probably me because I'm fairly certain socialists infact do not hate freedom and love slavery.

Indeed I had rather thought there was somewhat of a history to the contrary.

Also note that socializing medicine will NOT fix any alleged problem with the system; if you doubt me, just look at England.

Oddly again I had thought that even the tiniest actual comparison of the data and a teeny knowledge of the history of health care would quickly show that, oh I don't know...

The US has the most expensive and pretty much the worst health care system in the western world, and the countries with the cheapest and best, get this, are the ones with the most socialist health care systems!

And that, if I recall, the UK is an excellent example of a successful socialist system under attack from privatization policies and the like that is falling apart even as private health grows rich from parasitic feeding on its corpse and society as a whole.

Maybe you should go double check the whole socialist policies don't fix healthcare thing, while you're at it let me know if the sun has come out at night time as well.

[Zherog]

AC - I think you say "fuck" more than Frank. Nice to have you around.

[Username17]

Regarding Cuba... it's socialism, so it's slave labor regardless

Wow. Just wow. So Fire Departments are slave labor? Medicare Doctors are slaves? Librarians are slaves? What the hell are you talking about?

If this is such a great system, why the hell do you think so many Cubans defect to the US all the time?

Uh... define "so many."

In 2005, 36,261 Cubans immigrated to the United States. That's total, because the US government makes all Cuban immigrants legal by fiat. That's out of a population of 11.4 million people.

By contrast, in 2005 161,445 Mexicans immigrated legally - with an estimated ~500,000 illegal immigrants. That's out of a population of 107.5 million people.

So Cuba is sending in .3% of its population. And Mexico is sending in .6% of its population. And that's with the United States actively encouraging Cuban immigrants and granting them all citizenship as a way to pressure Castro. And with the United States building fences in the desert and having vigilante brute squads patrolling the Mexican border to discourage Mexicans from making the journey.

How "great" a system is it in Cuba? Well, not very. Cuba rates 52nd in the world in terms of life expectency, real income, and quality of life (the Human Development Index). But holy shit, they've been under blockade for my entire life. Contrasted with an adjacent nation that is not under US blockade: Haiti rates 170th on the same measure. The United States itself, the richest and most powerful nation on Earth... comes in 8th on the HDI.

There are only 4 countries in the world who think that blockade should be maintained:

Israel
The United States
The Marshall Islands
Palau

But Palau and the Marshall Islands are former US military outposts with a combined population of less than 80,000 people - their votes in the UN are fairly suspect.

---

Basically, Cuba is a poor backwater. It has always been a poor backwater. And it is under military blockade from the most powerful nation on the planet. And yet... it is competitive in several areas with the United States. That's absurd. There is no way that a small island nation under blockade should be able to do that - the only way that it is possible is because they have Socialist setups in their economy. Setups which are far far more efficient than anything Capitalism is capable of.

-Username17

[Cielingcat]

And Israel only thinks that blockade should be maintained because they're a US ally. Being a Middle Eastern country, they don't have any actual concern over what Cuba does.

[Judging__Eagle]

Interesting points all around.

Frank's forum kung-fu is a good read no matter the topic of discussion.

Also.

AC, register an account here and/or post more often. You write more betterer than most people here.


As for Cuba's situation; well yes, it's always been pretty grim.

The only next step for the US intervening in Cuba's existence as a socialist nation would be either shelling the island for shits and giggles or making a second invasion attempt with actual marines and not poorly trained Cuban Ex-pats.

So, you've got a nation that is strangled by a juggernaut that is still able to maintain itself and train lots of proffesionals that are recognized at an international level.

[Endovior]

I continue to note the lack of links.

I also note that you continue to claim that socialism is an efficient system, yet ignore examples of it's inefficiency.

Regarding statistics: Most people, nowadays, believe the official US govt. statistics currently released, because they seem consistent and the data behind them is widely available and the system used to gather them is reasonably transparent. By contrast, most Russians, under Soviet rule, disbelieved the official Soviet statistics, because they were wildly discordant with observed reality and were presented without any link whatsoever to the methods used to obtain them. Incidentally, the people going around claiming the statistics were forged included the Soviet government itself, which admitted on several occasions that the prior regime had lied (but this new bit of propaganda is true!)

Regarding health care: PEOPLE might like the UK's socialist system, but DOCTORS don't; hence the leaving of country. I can dig up the article I'm referring to if you insist.

Regarding immigration: I believe that there should be free immigration; both Cubans and Mexicans have a number of very good reasons to leave their country, but there are more Mexicans, and it's easier for them to cross the border then it is for Cubans to cross the Gulf of Mexico. Also note that the Cuban government discourages it's people from leaving, as the American government discourages Mexicans from entering. Incidentally, free immigration, as a policy, works much better for Capitalist nations then Socialist ones: under Capitalism, immigrants come in and take the low-paying jobs most people don't want; while under Socialism, immigrants come in and take up social services, draining the economy.

[Judging__Eagle]

As good as all of this all is, neither side can claim that they've been very responsible with regards to their nations ecology.

The environmental damage done in the soviet union will take centuries to repair itself, almost all of which was done by a nation trying to squeeze as much from it's natural resources as possible.

So, the hidden costs of totalitarian socialistm have been pretty dire indeed.

It's something that's been nagging at me while reading this all.

Of course, the americans aren't any better, but they at least try to paint a veneer of being considerate with bandaids performed to limit ecological damage.

On the other hand, a lot of the problems that are caused ecologically could be solved if americans didn't want to live in the desert and strangle every source of fresh water into quenching their own thirst (I'm looking at you California and Nevada).

The abuses that large mineral and fuel extraction corps inflict on 'public' lands that they effectively ruin permenantely via questionable oil/natural gas extraction methods (like, pumping the water table dry in order for natural gas and oil to rise, causing droughts and ruined wells for miles and miles around; the water is pumped into the air and 'atomised' so that it disipates as quickly as possible, instead of being placed into holding tanks to be replaced later) or strip mining (yes, even after 'returning' the earth back in place, the damage is almost permanent; riverbeds that are cut will remain so for decades while the plant and animal life that used to exist there probably will never return).


So, neither group is blameless in leaving a world worth inheriting.

[Cielingcat]

A quick note. In 1990, the USSR was 26th on the Human Development Index. Now, in 2006, the Russian Federation is 65th.

[Username17]

1170228197[/unixtime]]I continue to note the lack of links.

Sorry, I'm mostly working from print sources. Still, it's not really that hard to get the same stuff online, so let's start.
Human Development Index

Damn. That doesn't support my figures. Because the online version is the new report on 2006, where Cuba has moved up two places. So it is 50th overall, not 52nd. My bad. Of course, that doesn't hurt my overall argument, but it is interesting to look at the new figures.

Russia's Life Expectancy Dropped under Capitalism.

Indeed the data here is a little more specific than the data I was tossing about. I mean, I was fvcking rounding off to the nearest year, and these jokers have it to the decimal place. Men's life expectancy dropped from 63.8 years in 1990 to 57.5 years in 1995.

"The recent increase in mortality is real and not due to problems in data collection."
-London School of Hygine and Tropical Medicine.

Life Expectancy Doubled for Women in the USSR

The number of women in higher education as a percentage of the total has risen from 28 percent in 1927, to 43 percent in 1960, to 49 percent in 1970. The only other countries where women are over 40 percent of the total in higher education are Finland, the USA and France. There have been improvements in pre-school care for children - in 1960 there were 500,000 places but by 1971 this had risen to over five million, even though parents still have to pay 20 percent of the cost of the upkeep of children at pre-school institutions. The transformation of Russia from a semi-feudal country where 99 percent of agricultural power was animals, to one of the two most powerful industrialised nations in the world, has seen a doubling of the life expectancy for women from 30 to 74 years and a reduction in child mortality of 90 percent.

Seriously, these figures are not in dispute. They are real demographic data that is available everywhere.

I also note that you continue to claim that socialism is an efficient system, yet ignore examples of it's inefficiency.

No, I don't. You also haven't given any. I've just seen "Socialism is Slavery!" and "Noone gets paid anything different for success under Socialism!" and "People who don't become doctors are forced to starve in the street!" - and none of these things are true. I can't argue whether that would be efficient or not, because that's not part of Socialism at all. That's just weird Capitalist scare tactics.

Now, here's an example of a real objection to a real Communist regime:

The environmental damage done in the soviet union will take centuries to repair itself, almost all of which was done by a nation trying to squeeze as much from it's natural resources as possible.

See! That's how you argue against specific Communist regimes. You talk about something wrong that they actually did instead of harping on made up stuff that people can laugh off.

The environmental record of the Soviet Union is attrocious. They polluted their own back yard so badly that the people of the former Soviet territories give birth to more women than men. That's... fvcked up. You see, about 51% of all fetuses are male (Y chromosomes are smaller than Xs and thus Male Sperm is a little bit faster than female sperm), and Males are a little less resistant to toxins than females (which is why women tend to live longer in industrialized societies). So if your women are giving birth to more women than men, that means that they are being exposed to enough environmental toxins to terminate a statistically significant portion of pregnancies (enough that you can notice the statistical difference where it is eassier to terminate the males than the females). That's... horrifying.

It's not necessarily a direct result of Socialism, however. Norway has some environmental tragedies to answer for, but nothing on the order of what comes out of the USA or USSR. Heck, out of 18 industrialized countries that Ratified Kyoto, Norway is one.
Mostly, I think you're looking at the basic tragic fact that if you don't have opposition, that you don't make good environmental policy. An ongoing dialogue is essential to preserving the future.

Regarding statistics: Most people, nowadays, believe the official US govt. statistics currently released

Oh bullshit. If the US government told you that the sun was shining, you'd pack an umbrella. Need I remind you of the following:

"The case, it's a slam dunk."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"
"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question."

Please, don't fvcking talk to me about the credibility of the United States Executive Branch. Hell, these are the people who invented the "Security Officer" (replacement for the Public Information Officer), a position appointed by the department of homeland security whose sole purpose is to prevent "proprietary" and "classified" information from getting out during major incidents.

-Username17