Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Stunt
LOL...
"The Supreme nature of the USA is not a feeling, it's the truth."
Wow, even americans on this forum are in agreement with my previous statement. I think i can officially say that Americans suffer from a widespread superior complex and are fooled by their own patriotism that other non-Americans are inferior. This complex was confirmed by both RabidMongoose and IAteYourMother.
The only two facts brought up by Americans displaying how "supreme" the US is the higher standard of living, and the lower crime rates.
Lets investigate:
SOL:
UNHDI says US has 16% below poverty line, Canada has 12%.
You may have more extremely rich people, but taking averages is useless in the real world. Fact is you have 4% more of your population in poverty...not a better standard of living if you ask me.
Crime: This is just too obvious as Kibbo has pointed out and COW refuses to address....i will leave for now...i have work to do
WTF??? I mean superiority as in being the world's hyperpower. As in the world economy has a huge stake in our economy. As in our army is the most powerful in the world. As in we give enough financial aid to many countries such that we have political control over much of the world. That's what I mean. That's the cold hard truth. I'm not saying that the USA could blow up the world and survive. I'm not just talking about SOL, although the US does have a high SOL. And your link also shows the US' GDP per capita as $35, 750. I believe Canada's is $29,480. So while we may have just 4% more in poverty, the average income is greater. Furthermore, your facts are from 2001-2002, a bit outdated. And just for fun and laughs, lets look at the economics, shall we?? US' GDP is $10,300 billion. Canada's is $700 billion. Furthermore, according to your statistics, Canada's unemployment rate is higher. But of course, standard of living can be still high without a job, right?
I guess you concede all of my other points.
You said standard of living, not average percent GDP. Less poverty = higher standard of living...you can't beat around the bush with low unemployment and gdp numbers. All you just proved is that the gap in the US between the rich and poor is staggering, be proud of the McJobs. Even with the larger unemployment, the number of poor is lower...that's really something to brag about...:roll:
How odd that my numbers are from 2001-2002 when they are from the 2004 UN index...yes that's right...the numbers are up to date unless specified otherwise, which they are not. :roll:
The GDP however IS noted as out of date, unlike the poverty numbers...which if you are pleading that the poverty numbers are 01-02, your standard of living has dropped, as outlined in the most current election.
The GDP of Canada is now pushing $1 trillion american dollars...I expect this trend to continue as the greenback continues to take a $hit.
No wonder Rabid wants you to "give it up", you are dragging him down with your horribly wrong assumptions. I suggest a little research on your part...as you seem surprisingly uninformed on basic economic terms like SOL. Thanks for coming out though.
Um... Hmm... Sigh. Enough. Time to bring out the good 'ol flamethrower, just for Stunt. I hope none of you other Canadians take too much offense, as you will obviously take some.
First, the GDP per capita directly links to the SOL, especially since people with more money/ money influx are more wealthy and enjoy a better standard of living. Now, the poverty line difference between the US and Canada isn't staggering my stupid Canadian enemy. It is 4%. Jesus fvcking Christ, the gap between the rich and poor is staggering, especially because we can conclude all that about the US especially when Canada only has 4% less and lives in Paradise. *sarcasm* Assumptions, anyone?? Obviously, while this may mean that for some people the SOL is low, it doesn't rule out the fact that all other Canadians live in marginally better sh1tholes. Neither can we conclude that. SOL isn't based totally on the poverty line, but rather, includes a number of factors, a large part of it being GDP per capita I believe. I'm talking about overall SOL here.
Now learn to fvcking read. First, the "assumptions" I make are based on the document you linked, unless you're talking about the other things I addressed which you really don't answer. Second, in that PDF document, there are numbers. I believe that it's standard for most people to be able to read those. Well, anyhow, those numbers, when they resemble something called a year, yes that right, you read correctly, a year, especially when they look like this: 2002. Those numbers are right under the bolded titles under each column. Now, as I'm reading this, I see this under the poverty numbers: Under poverty index, no date, under Probability of birth... I see 2000-2005, after that 2002, then 2000, then 1995-2002, then 1900-2002, then 1990-2001. If all those columns are up to 2002 with one exception, and yes, this is the fvcing 2004 UN link you gave me, then why would the poverty index be up to date? And yes, that's right, is it really that odd to see numbers from 2 years back on a big index like this?? :roll NO. It's quite common.
Your next claim that "The GDP however IS noted as out of date, unlike the poverty numbers...which if you are pleading that the poverty numbers are 01-02, your standard of living has dropped, as outlined in the most current election" makes absolutely NO sense. I'm thinking I already answered most of this, but why does the election reify this idea that our SOL has dropped?
Your next claim is that the GDP of Canada is pushing 1 trillion US dollars, which I DO NOT deny.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publica.../factbook/geos/ca.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publica.../factbook/geos/us.html
What this has to do with anything escapes me. The US' GDP is 11 trillion US dollars.... case in point. Furthermore, these are the most up-to-date complete statistics, so if we compare GDP per capita, then we find that it's comparing $37,800 to $29,800. I think that this more than compensates for the 4% poverty gap.
Well... I guess I have no choice but to agree with Rabid. You are deluded, stupid, and ignorant. Not only are my "assumptions" not assumptions, but just analysis based upon the data you linked me, which was your research btw. I hope my research will also help establish your stupidity. You seem to be suprisingly uninformed on basic terms such as "How not to be a moron: the nationalistic Canadian's guide." Thanks for nothing.
Oh, and BTW, those McJobs, kind of sad how it gives a higher salary than what you guys have up north...