Every nation on Earth, except one, drills when it finds a major oil field.

Every nation on Earth, except one, mines when they find a valuable resource.

One nation instead of funding efforts of above inside it's borders, funds those outside it's borders.

One nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

One nation, and only one nation, has a dual citizenship program in place.

One nation, and only one nation, gives rights to illegal aliens equal to citizens.

One nation, and only one nation, stops agriculture based upon the probability a fish is in pain.

One nation, and only one nation, leads in lawsuits well above all others combined.

One nation, and only one nation, has no effective policy regarding nuclear waste.

Can you name that nation?

Also, are you sure the US and European countries retain the same statistics regarding what is defined as "unemployment?"

"One nation, and only one nation, has a dual citizenship program in place.
https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual-citizenship.html

One nation, and only one nation, gives rights to illegal aliens equal to citizens.
they can vote?

One nation, and only one nation, stops agriculture based upon the probability a fish is in pain.
europe,china,india? many places view animals to be devine creatures

One nation, and only one nation, has no effective policy regarding nuclear waste."
japan,any 3rd world country

johnny smokes crack and he dont care

these are very general  and skewed views at best

It just astonishes me that after the financial crisis (blatantly caused by de regulation/unregulation), the right wing still stands behind deregulation and points the finger at ridiculous things like dual citizenship. Wake the eff up.

>>>Every nation on Earth, except one, drills when it finds a major oil field.<<<

Nope.  Norway does too: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014465947_apeunorwayoildrilling.html

And they were the first one I tried.

Here's the Kiwis blocking oil exploration: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5297054/Greenpeace-Oil-explorations-political-hot-potato

This isn't the sort of news story that generally gets translated outside of the local tongue though, so it's difficult to find much outside the Anglosphere.  If you're more fluent than I am, I'm certain you could find quite a few more rejections of your theory.

>>>Every nation on Earth, except one, mines when they find a valuable resource.<<<

Just as comically false.  Here's France blocking a mine in French Guinea: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0205-french_guiana.html (which is really quite impressive given that colonial territories tend to be free-for-alls).  And here's India blocking a mine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/24/vedanta-mining-industry-india .  We could go on and on and on and on, but why bother.

>>>One nation instead of funding efforts of above inside it's borders, funds those outside it's borders.<<<

I'd really like to know exactly what "efforts of above" means other than sending them freedom bombs via airmail.

PS: Plenty of countries spend *a lot* of money assisting with relief efforts throughout the world.  We're hardly the only one.  And really, dumping money into the infrastructure of countries that are your de facto colonies isn't really an "effort of above".

>>>One nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.<<<

Would that one nation happen to be Japan?  Because they have the highest corporate tax rate in the world...

For what it's worth, nobody actually pays the actual rate anyways.  We have more tax shelters than anybody else.  The average rate comes out closer to about 25% which is roughly comparable to the corporate tax rate of most other countries (and a lot less than the Japanese rate): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

>>>One nation, and only one nation, has a dual citizenship program in place.<<<

Then it must be quite difficult for anybody to have dual citizenship, what if all these other countries won't allow them to have a dual citizenship.  PS: A lot of the countries that allow dual citizenship have much less restrictive rules about it than the United States does.  I recall talking about the matter in high school with a dual-citizenship Filipino who wanted to join the Army.  She managed to work the issues out but I guess it was a major hassle.  A German-American friend of mine is trying to decide right now whether his German citizenship is worth spending some time in the Wehrmacth (they still have mandatory conscription you know).

>>>One nation, and only one nation, gives rights to illegal aliens equal to citizens.<<<

Really?  Because last I checked they weren't eligible for Social Security and Medicare (though the vast majority pay FICA taxes).  By and large they have very limited access to the university system (though some states like California allow financial aid and resident tuition for longtime undocumented residents).  And to be honest... I don't think anybody who's gonna book it if you shout "La Migra!" has "rights... equal to citizens".  Who are you kidding?

>>>One nation, and only one nation, stops agriculture based upon the probability a fish is in pain.<<<

By "probability a fish is in pain" you mean the salmon runs in California are going to be pushed to extinction.

I don't know what you prefer.  We can waste our water turning the desert of the southwestern San Joaquin into marginal farmland or we can enjoy delicious salmon that we caught down at the creek earlier in the day.  I guess fishing and hunting are things that are less important than profits.  Shoot, the people making the profits can always afford to fly up to Canada to go fishing anyways!

PS: This is really only an issue that an arid region would have to deal with and the vast majority of those are run by tin-pot dictators so little concerns about the quality of life for the locals aren't a big deal.  You don't see this sort of issue in most of Europe because they don't have this problem.

>>>One nation, and only one nation, leads in lawsuits well above all others combined.<<<

Isn't that the whole idea of laissez-faire?  Keep a light hand on the economy and allow lawyers and judges to resolve disputes between conflicting parties?  I thought our court system was supposed to be one of the things that made us 'freer'.

>>>One nation, and only one nation, has no effective policy regarding nuclear waste.<<<

In Russia they just dump it in lakes and pray that drought years don't cause the lakes to dry up followed by windstorms that blow radioactive waste all over the oblast... sucks for Chelyabinsk.

>>>Can you name that nation?<<<

Is it Dinotopia?

> SavingHawaii wrote:

>>>Can you name that nation?<<<

Is it Dinotopia?

LOL...well said

Listen to the silence being emitted by Einstein.

Criticism on unions .... tsk tsk . Believe it or not they do fight for "workers " rights for decent wage. But then again most greedy companys want cheap unskilled amigo labor for cents not dollar's.

> Timmyville wrote:

> It just astonishes me that after the financial crisis (blatantly caused by de regulation/unregulation), the right wing still stands behind deregulation and points the finger at ridiculous things like dual citizenship. Wake the eff up.

Actually, I did mean to touch on this.

Now, personally, I think both sides are oversimplifying the issue.  The economics we're talking about is much more complicated than a general "regulations good/bad" debate.  Regulations as a whole have different economic objectives (ranging from prevention of externalities to preventing asymmetric information).  Unless you're getting into the nitty gritty details of each industry and the specific regulations and economic circumstances surrounding that industry, using any one case as an example of regulations as a whole being good or bad is meaningless.

As is the question of determining whether a nation has more or less regulations than another nation.  Nations will always have asymmetric levels of regulation among industries, having preferences for some industries over others.  So if one nation, for example, has tons of regulations on nuclear power, does it mean they have higher regulations against business as a whole?  No.  Alternatively, it's possible that the nation could simply be attempting to discourage that particular industry.

Oh, right, side note: Trying to determine the regulations levels in the US relative to other nations is a terrible comparison anyway due to federalism issues.  Federal regulations are overlapped by state-level regulations, which are wide and varied.  A business which would be a pain in the ass to develop in, for example, Massachusetts, may be much easier to produce an run without regulation interference in, say, Texas.

As an example of my overall point, let's talk about the financial crisis.  I can actually point to two very good examples of regulations which contributed to the financial crisis... scenarios in which, if the industry was left to its own devices, would have been avoided.

1: The Community Reinvestment Act (thanks, dpenguins)

The bill was simple, and had what would be considered a good intent.  The bill required that local banks approve a certain number of home loans in the place where the bank is located.  So if there's a Bank of America in a poor neighborhood, more than likely, the bank's data would advise against lending in that particular region, instead using the deposits in that region to lend projects in other, more affluent parts of the country.  The result, though?  Banks would be required by law to make home loans from which they are less likely to receive a return.  Among home mortgage seekers, these are probably the most likely candidates for defaults.

2: Credit Rating Agencies

This is a particularly interesting story.  Federal regulations required that banks that wish to bundle home mortgages in order to sell securities on those loans must first present the security package to a credit rating agency.  The rating agency is required to review the mortgages within the security, and give the security a credit rating.  The security can't be sold unless it gets a good rating from a credit rating agency.  What's the result?  There's only about 5 federally recognized credit rating agencies in the country.  These agencies will be interacting with the same banks over and over again, rating new securities the bank provides for review.

So what happened in the industry?  Credit Rating Agencies get paid based on the number of ratings given, so they have an interest in encouraging more credit ratings coming their way.  The banks, however, only get a return on investment with a good rating.  Thus, it's in the interest of the bank to send their securities to the rating agency which is most likely to give a positive rating.  With that in mind, it's also in the interests of the credit rating agencies to give more good ratings to encourage more business.

The result?  The credit rating agencies, due to their regulation-sanctioned hold on this industry, were able to give a ton more A-ratings than normally, and were encouraged to do so by banker incentives.  The securities other people were buying into, with the supposed A rating, were simply junk securities given a false positive because regulation established a false credibility in the credit rating agencies.

Do either of these mean, necessarily, that regulations as a whole are bad?  No.  But they do mean that when regulations are created, it's easy to forget about the unintended consequences of regulation.  Especially in example #2, regulations shift the incentives for businesses and consumers to something they wouldn't otherwise do.  Unless you look at the full spectrum of incentives and possible business actions, the regulations created can easily screw up incentives, creating problems such as those mentioned above.  It doesn't even necessarily mean the solution to any particular situation is an increase or decrease in regulation, but by tinkering and reforming the way regulations shape in that particular industry.

first step mod of ic. next president of zimbobwe! presenting zarf! nay sayer of all and holder of truths!

> Timmyville wrote:

> Fair enough, I buy that. I don't know that I really MEAN "regulate everything" when I say I'm pro regulation. I just know that in this case, the housing disaster would not have been permitted in most other nations due to regulation.

So I suppose an amended statement would be "More regulations, so long as they're in the best interest of the majority and NOT the rich."

How do you determine what is in the "best interest of the majority?"  Both the examples I mentioned above could easily be framed as a "best interest of the majority" situation.  In fact, that's generally how most regulations are sold, regardless of their unintended consequences (hence why we call them "unintended" consequences).