Uninformed or Misinformed

With the expansion of the social media and internet use, along with the “24 hour news cycle”, one would expect that we would be increasingly better informed but I am afraid that is not the case. All this technology makes it possible to disseminate false information very quickly and only through a lot of searches of various sources and a lot of analysis can one get to the truths.

The difference between being uninformed and misinformed is that the 60% of Republicans in one of the Carolinas not knowing that Hawaii is a state is an example of being uninformed. 60% of all Republicans believing President Obama to be a Muslim is being misinformed. Which is more dangerous? I believe it is the latter. It is very difficult, though not impossible to manipulate the access to information but so easy to manipulate misinformation to advance specific agendas.

When the new Speaker of the House was asked about the notion being spread and believed by his followers that the President is not a citizen, he replied by saying he can’t influence what people think. That’s a joke because influencing what people think is what politicians excel at. He could have and should have just said that the President was born in Hawaii and is indeed a citizen and the legitimate leader of our country.

Assault on Unions

In recent days I’ve come to think more about unions. I’ve been involved in a dialog on education hosted by Studentsfirst, an organization to reform education where much of the discussion revolved around the evils of teacher’s tenure and unions that support it. It turns out that the movement is applauded by the new Republican Governors along with organizations interested in privatizing education. My suspicion that this organization was a cover for an attempt to break up the public sector unions was supported by the recent events including those by the Governor of Wisconsin.

I have no direct experience with unions and have issues with some of their practices as I have come to understand them. Whenever it comes to economics and politics, I try to think of them in terms of Free Market Capitalism and who is selling and buying what and how are they trying to gain an advantage. So here is my attempt to try to understand the role of unions today and the consequence of eliminating them.

I tend to think of the market not as a single place but as several markets where in one are traded goods and services, capital in another and labor in the third. The basic premise is that everyone coming to the market is looking for the best deal they can get. The sellers want to get the highest price, the buyers (yes, we consumers are driven by the same self interest as the merchants) the lowest. So there are negotiations going on between the buyers and sellers and both are trying to influence policy. The role of government is to provide the currency and regulations so that the market can function without collapsing upon itself and in the quest of self interest the general good is coincidentally served. Each participant in the market is trying to convince the government, through lobbies, bribes etc., to pass laws that give them some advantage or avoid passage of laws that advantage their opponents.

In the market for labor, the buyers are the makers, miners and growers, the more affluent private individuals, the providers of services and the largest one by far, the government, federal, state and municipal. The sellers of labor are individuals who cover a wide range of skills and prices, from the maids in a homes or hotels, waitresses in restaurants, workers in factories, teachers in schools, lawyers and doctors who do not have a private practice, managers and CEOs of public companies and multi-million dollar athletes and entertainers. Over time there are shifts in the degree of advantage to buyer or seller depending on the changes in demand, however in almost all circumstances the buyer, business and government, have the edge over an individual worker. The buyers are in a stronger negotiation position because in the larger enterprises, private or public, they have HR staffs of professionals who study labor markets with skills to sell the enterprise for the best price to potential employees. They also have trade organizations and business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or in the case of very large organizations, sufficient mass to influence politicians to enact legislation that favors buyers or more likely not pass any legislation favoring the sellers of labor. Unlike buyers, the individual seller of labor, the worker, does not have the clout to influence policy. Furthermore, in a standoff, the buyer has more resources to outlast the individual seller. (After all one needs to eat)

During the middle part of the industrial revolution, the buyers of labor had such a strong advantage and wielded it so ruthlessly that workers started to organize so as to be able to negotiate as a group and by virtue of organizing they were also able to start influencing policy. Gradually, through unions, their influence with government started to pay off and laws eliminating child labor and improving working conditions and safety started to come into being. Over the years union participation declined substantially (from 35+% to less than 7%). Laws were already in place to protect workers and the economy was growing creating adequate competition for labor that businesses’ advantage was felt less by many workers. Another reason for their demise is that unions had become very large and powerful and “power corrupts”. There was and still is, a strong effort on the part of the business along with its supporters, the Republicans, to discredit unions now focused on the public sector unions. Though factory worker participation has declined there are still unions representing entertainers, athletes, and writers among others, but they don’t have much mass.

The only unions remaining with enough membership to influence policy are the public sector unions representing government workers; teachers, police, firemen etc. These are the only things that stand in the way of all political influence going to the buyers of labor. In the last election, 7 of the top 10 campaign contributors supported the Republican Party candidates and the remaining 3, supporting the Democratic Party were public sector unions. So it is thought that eliminating unions is not an issue of collective bargaining and shifting the playing field between buyers and sellers of labor to the advantage of the buyer but more broadly to weaken the Democratic Party and turn the reigns of government over to the Conservatives.

There is a saying “when it rains lemons, make lemonade”. The political right, representing business interests, is using this recent economic downturn to further the advantage of their important constituency. There are exaggerated financial crises being exploited by the recently elected Republican Governors. Last Sunday Fareed Zakaria, host of a CNN show was interviewing Jamie Diamond, the CEO of Merrill Lynch-Chase. When asked about the risks brought about by the fiscal crises in the regional government, he responded saying that states have the ability to deal with the situation. He cited the example of California where he said the deficit is 1% of the States GDP and all it would take to mitigate the crisis is to raise the taxes by that small amount. The municipalities, however, have fewer options. These Conservative governors chose to respond to the “crises” not only by cutting back on benefits public employees have gained over the years but eliminate unions altogether. There is a concerted effort underway to totally eliminate, not only the ability of their employees to bargain collectively, but to argue their case for policies. This is evidenced by recent events in Wyoming, rhetoric from Governor Christy of New Jersey and the support an organization like studentsfirst is gaining from conservative governors and the business community. The public sector workers are vilified by the right, accused of being lazy, incompetent and overpaid.

Beside the normal desire to gain an advantage in seller/buyer competition, businesses feel that to compete in the global economy, the cost of labor represented by wages and benefits must fall. They fear that the public sector workers, who they argue cost more than the private sector workers (no evidence of this) through negotiations will maintain their standards and creating a “benchmark”, an expectation, for wages and benefits that the private sector will then need to meet. The obstacle to lowering the bar are the unions and their political supporters the Democrats. Somewhat as the campaign to vilify the Africans to justify slavery by plantation owners, businesses and their minions are vilifying the public sector workers. They are promoting the idea that somehow someone working for a living and living relatively comfortably is a bad thing for our society. I am afraid the idea is developing traction among the uninformed.

I believe with global competition in place, the demand for labor indeed has, and there is a reasonable probability for a period of time it will continue to decline and along with it the advantage of the buyers of labor, large now, will grow even larger. We are becoming more and more a Country with a dual social structure. You can see this even in the way businesses target their consumers. Fading is the store that catered to the middle class. They are being replaced by the Wall-Marts, for the poor and Neiman Marcus the wealthy. On TV you see more adds for BMW, Cadillac and Mercedes and the low-end Chevy and Ford. We are faced with a social problem caused by the widening gap between the haves and have-nots and the disappearance of the middle class. This gap is bringing with it a deterioration of our moral fiber and various forms of mental and physical illnesses. During this decline, depriving labor from bargaining collectively and arguing their case for policy will hasten and ensure the growing divide and all the accompanying ills.

Catalog of Postings

Following is a list of postings prewented chronologically:

Apr 28, 2010 – Human Need to Tell a Story
May 4 - The Left Hand of God
May 7 - If a tree Falls in the Forest
May 17 - Islam Misunderstood
Jun 7 - Islam Misunderstood-Some Consequences
Aug 5 - Free Market Capitalism – A thumbnail Sketch
Aug 13 - Illegal Immigration
Aug 19 - Patriotism
Aug 21 - Taxes, Stimulus & the Broken Window Fallacy
Aug 27 - Education
Sep 5 - Terrorism
Sept 6 - Obama’s Religiosity
Sept 13 - Islamophobia Continued
Oct 15 - Optimism for America’s Future
Oct 21 - House of Worship
Oct 30 - Businessmen as Politicians
Nov 1 - Fear
Nov 7 - Globalization, Free Markets and the Plight of the US Middle Class
Nov 9 - Efficiency and Unemployment
Nov 15 - Parenting
Nov 22 - Slavery – Free Markets Unfettered
Nov 28 - Cycles in Nature, Politics and Religion
Dec 7 - “Poor Can’t Create Jobs”
Dec 15 - “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”
Jan 5 - Role of Government
Jan 22 - Ingenuity in the Workplace
Jan 25 - Loss of Manufacturing Jobs
Jan 29 - Our President a Socialist?
Jan 31 - Our Constitution as Scripture
Feb 9 - Statistics
Feb 14 - Education Revisited

Education Revisited

I have gotten involved in a dialog on a blog, “studentsfirtst.org”, sponsored by an organization founded by Michelle Rhee a former head of Washington DC’s school department. Its goal is to improve education with a focus on charter schools and elimination of tenure. It has gained the support of conservative governors, proponents of privatized education and opponents of unions. Following and responding to several postings on this blog, I have thought a lot about education recently. In my previous posting on “Education” I spoke about the need to ensure that all children are educated so that we can put the best of all of our players onto the very competitive global ball field. I feel this is still the case.

Much of the discussion is centered on improving education by two primary means. One is to get rid of poor teachers by eliminating tenure and unions. The other is to allow parents a greater say in education and provide them with the ability to choose the school their children will attend. I have an issue with the first because I believe that not unions but lazy administrators or better yet, lazy voters, are the problem with “bad” teachers and as a corollary to this, I am not sure that the suggested metrics for evaluating teachers are valid and effective ones don’t exist. There have been studies referenced that indicate that 90% of the problems with education reside outside the classroom so if there is validity to these studies, eliminating bad teachers only addresses 10% of the problem. (That’s not to say it shouldn’t be done).

The second point is the one I have the greatest issue with. I agree that parental involvement is key to a child’s education. But my feeling is that the reason our K-12 education is slipping is not because of unions protecting “bad” teachers but a decline in parenting brought about by the economic and social changes in the last few decades. Following is a quote from a book I am reading , “Ownership Solution by Jeff Gates Published in 1998, which I received as a gift when I sold/transferred 30% of ownership to the employees. The gist of the book from what I can glean from only the first couple of dozen pages is that current Capitalism is a closed loop system within which the rich get richer and poor get poorer. This is not sustainable long term. If not corrected, the system to collapse. The author suggests expanded ownership as a way to preserve Capitalism. (but that’s another posting) However in the book he makes a point that supports my concern about the decline in parenting ability. Following is a quote from the book:

“Laura Tyson, former chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, contends that, from 1978 through 1991, the inflation adjusted median income showed no change, despite and increase in hours worked. The lower the level of skills, the worse the impact. The average adjusted earnings for non-supervisory American workers was the same in 1993 as in 1959, when Eisenhower was president. For those with only a high-school education, entry-level wages fell 39% from 1973 to 1993.Despite the long-heralded promise of labor-saving advances, the average American’s paid work year increased by 163 hours between 1970 and 1993, equivalent to adding an extra month of toil for no additional income. This is the first recorded economic boom in which real wages of the median worker fell.

The impact of this dramatic shift continues to ripple through American society. For the first time in history, the United States has a generation destined to experience a standard of living lower than that of their parents. As two-income families become the norm, a nationwide “parenting deficit” (my emphasis) undermines the family and tears at the core of the social fabric. An entire generation is growing up in conditions where family stability and failure are now commonplace. ” Crime continues to skyrocket while armed security guards emerged as the fastest growing segment of Americas highly touted “service Sector”.”

From what I understand, Miss Rhee’s project proposes funds be provided to parents who want to choose to send kids to private or public “charter” schools. My fear is that the kids of parents who are sufficiently concerned with their kids education to study advantages of different schools and select alternatives are probably sufficiently involved with their kids anyway and they will be OK under most circumstances (I know there are exceptions in the poorest neighborhoods where often it is dangerous for kids to go to school). The funds that will be directed to these schools and parents will take away from the kids of parents who haven’t the time, energy or skill to help with the kid’s education.

What I have been trying to propose is that we review the entire method of teaching and while continuing to provide education for the kids with talented parents, focus on a system wherein kids education is less and not more reliant on contribution from the parents. I heave read a number of articles and books where it is stated that kids of more affluent parents have an advantage because of the amount of time parents spend interacting with them. Though it is very difficult for single parent household or ones where both parents have to work, parents do, through heroic effort, still provide good parenting. I feel their effort is not adequately recognized or appreciated.

Part of the solution, along with improving teacher quality might be expending the school time, hours and weeks. For parents who are sufficiently interactive with the children this may not be an advantage so the system could allow parents to opt out of the extended school day and year. The act of opting out suggests that they do have the time. The curriculum could be structured so that the core study is done during times comparable to what we have now and other “softer subjects” could be taught during the extended times. Parents who, because of many different circumstances cannot properly interact with their kids will welcome the opportunity for them to spend more time in school. Of course, reversing the “parenting deficit” trend Jeff Gates speaks of would be the “root cause” solution. But I am afraid that that will take several decades and we don’t have the time if we intend to maintain our World leadership role.

As a subscriber to “The Economist”, a conservative British weekly publication (Sarah Palin, after not naming any publications she reads during the Katie Couric interview later listed a few including The Economist.) I get an annual booklet entitled “Pocket World in Figures, a compilation of international statistics. We often hear qualitative statements and slogans, which arouse emotions but have no basis in fact. The booklet contains 250 pages containing 229 tables of statistics and a summary of 68 countries and regions. I have selected a number of statistics based on what I consider may be ones that we are generally uninformed about, ones that are important or ones I find just plain interesting. As to countries, I list the top few in a category and if they do not appear there then data relative to our country, Russia which under the Soviet regime was our existential enemy; China in many peoples minds has replaced Russia as the existential threat; Japan was the economic threat toward the end of last century; Indonesia is the largest predominantly Muslim country and Islam is portrayed by the extreme right as the next existential threat; Sweden because conservatives often cite it as an example of socialism, Brazil is large and up and coming; Cuba, one of the last communist states and next door neighbor; and France just because we like to pick on it.
Note: If I don’t list a country and value in a category it is because it is of the chart.
I apologize for the length but hope you find it interesting

Countries: the largest in ‘000 sq km; 1 Russia – 17,075, 2 Canada – 9,971, 3 China – 9561, 4 United states – 9373, 5 Brazil –8512, 16 Indonesia – 1,904, 48 France – 544, 55, Sweden – 450, 60 listed

Largest Populations in millions; 1 China – 1.336.3, 2 India – 1,186.2, 3 United States – 308.8, 4 Indonesia – 234.3, 5 Brazil – 194.2, 9 Russia – 141.8, 10 Japan – 127.9, 21 France – 61.9, 66 listed

Biggest economies GDP in $bn (2008); 1 United States – 14,093; 2 Japan – 4,911; 3 China – 4,327; 4 Germany – 3,649; 5 France – 2,857; 8 Russia – 1,679; 10 Brazil – 1,575; 22 Sweden – 479; 46 listed

Highest GDP per head; 1 Luxembourg – 109,900; 2 Bermuda – 100,190; 3 Norway – 94,760; 4 Qatar – 88,900; 14 Sweden – 51,950; 20 United States –46,350; 22 France – 44,510; 29 Japan – 38,460; 70 listed

City Living - Quality of Living Index (New York is 100) based on 39 factors including political stability and natural environment; 1 Vienna, Austria, 2 Zurich, Switzerland, 3 Geneva, Switzerland, 4 Auckland, New Zealand, 4 Vancouver, Canada, 20 Stockholm, Sweden, 31 Honolulu, US, 31 listed

Quality of Life – Human development index. Developed by the UN it includes adult literacy, life expectancy, income levels; 1 Norway – 97.1; 2 Australia – 97; 3 Iceland – 96.9; 4 Canada – 96.6; 5 Ireland – 96.5; 7 Sweden – 96.3; 8 France - 96.1; 9 Japan - 96.0;
13 United States – 95.6; 49 Cuba – 86.3; 60 listed

Asylum applications in industrialized countries ‘000; 1 United States – 49.0; 2 Canada – 36.9; 3 France – 35.4; 4 United Kingdom – 31.3; 6 Sweden – 24.4; 18 listed

Economic freedom index. Ranks countries on basis of how government intervention can restrict economic relations. Published by the Heritage Foundation; 1 Hong Kong - 89.7; 2 Singapore – 86.1; 3 Australia – 82.6; 4 New Zealand – 82.1; 5 Ireland – 81.3; 8 United States – 78.0; 19 Japan – 72.9; 21 Sweden – 72.4; 38 listed

Government debt as % of GDP 2009; 1 Japan – 189.3; 2 Italy – 123.6; 3 Iceland – 117.6; 4 Greece – 114.9; 7 France 84.5; 8 United States – 83.9; 20 Sweden – 52.7; 29 listed

Government Spending as % of GDP 2009; 1 Denmark – 57.7; 2 Finland – 56.2; 2 Sweden – 56.2; 4 Iceland – 55.9; 5 France – 55.5; 24 Japan – 41.6; 25 United States – 41.5; 29 listed

Tax Revenue as % of GDP 2009; 1 Denmark – 48.3; 2 Sweden – 47.1; 3 Belgium – 44.3; 4 Italy – 43.2; 5 France – 43.1; 26 listed

Tax Wedge as % of total labor cost, 2009. (gap between labor cost and net take-home pay)l 1 Hungary – 43.7; 2 France – 41.7; 2 Greece – 41.7; 4 Belgium – 38.8; 5 Sweden – 37.5; 17 Japan – 23.7; 25 United States – 13.7

Aid - Largest Bilateral and multilateral donors % of GDP 2008; 1 Saudi Arabia – 1.19; 2 Sweden - 0.99; 3 Norway - 0.88; 4 Denmark - 0.82; 14 France - 0.38; 22 Japan – 0.20; 24 United States – 0.19

Largest industrial output $bn 2008; 1 United States – 3,073; 2 China – 2104; 3 Japan – 1282; 6 Russia – 625; 8 France – 584; 10 Brazil – 440; 16 Indonesia – 246; 21 Sweden – 134; 43 listed

Largest Manufacturing Output $bn 2008; 1 China – 1850; 2 United States – 1,831; 3 Japan 1,011; 4 Germany – 855; 7 France – 341; 8 Russia – 293; 9 Brazil – 281; 15; Indonesia – 140; 22 Sweden 93; 39 listed

Largest service output $bn 2008; 1 United States – 10,562; 2 Japan – 3,036; 3 Germany – 2,517; 4 France – 2,215; 6 China – 1,734; 9 Brazil – 1,029; 10 Russia – 970; 15 Sweden – 338; 50 listed

Largest Agricultural output $bn 2008; 1 China – 489; 2 India – 202; 3 United States – 183; 4 Brazil – 106; 5 Russia – 84; 6 Indonesia – 74; 8 Japan – 63; 9 France – 57

Energy – Largest Producer (all sources hydro, oil, coal, nuc etc.) million tons oil equivalent;
1 China – 1,814; 2 United States – 1.665; 3 Russia – 1231; 4 Saudi Arabia – 551; 8; Indonesia – 331; 13 Brazil – 216; 23 France – 135; 29 Japan – 90; 30 listed

Global Competitiveness - Overall based on 246 criterion; 1 Singapore; 2 Hong Kong; 3 United States; 4 Switzerland; 6 Sweden; 18 China; 24 France; 27 Japan; 38 Brazil; 44 listed

Global Competitiveness - government efficiency – public finance, fiscal policy, institutional and social frameworks, business legislation; 1 Hong Kong; 2 Singapore; 3 Switzerland; 4 Australia; 13 Sweden; 24 Franc; 27 Japan; 35 Indonesia; 38 Brazil; 44 listed

Global Competitiveness – Infrastructure; 1 United States; 2 Sweden; 3 Switzerland; 4 Canada; 13 Japan; 14 France; 31 China; 38 Russia

Business Environment – Hindrances to and opportunities to conduct of business; 1 Singapore – 8.7; 2 Switzerland – 8.44; 3 Finland – 8.43; 4 Canada 8.4; 4 Hong Kong 8.4; 8 Sweden – 8.2; 13 United States - 8.01; 19 France - 7.73; 26 Japan – 7.35; 40 Brazil – 6.62; 46 China – 6.36; 46 listed

Innovation Index – adoption of new technology and interaction between business and the science community; 1 United States - 5.77; 2 Switzerland – 5.56; 3 Finland – 5.53; 4 Japan – 5.51; 5 Sweden – 5.39; 18 France - 4.5; 24 listed

Technological readiness index – Ability of economy to adapt new technologies; 1 Sweden – 6.15; 2 Netherlands – 6.02; 3 Switzerland – 6.01; 4 Denmark – 5.92; 13 United States – 5.61; 23 France – 5.23; 24 listed

Total Expenditure on R&D as a % of GDP 2007; 1 Israel – 4.68; 2 Sweden – 3.64; 3 Finland – 3.47; 4 Japan – 3.40; 5 South Korea – 3.01; 7 United States – 2.67; 14 France – 2.08; 23 China – 1.4; 24 listed

Highest car ownership number of cars per 1000 of population; 1 Iceland – 669; 2 Luxembourg – 664; 3 New Zealand – 656; 4 Italy – 609; 12 France – 496; 19 Sweden - 468; 23 Japan – 446; 47 Russia – 193; 50 listed

Car Production – ‘000, 2008; 1 Japan – 10,108; 2 China – 6,712; 3 Germany –5,527; 4 South Korea – 3,804; 5 United States – 3,750; 6 Brazil – 2,427; 7 France – 2,145; 12 Russia – 1,309; 25 Indonesia – 314; 29 Sweden – 252; 40 listed

Largest tourist receipts, $m, 2008; 1 United States – 110,090; 2 Spain – 61,826;
3 France – 55,595; 4 Italy – 27,956; 5 China – 40,843; 20 Sweden – 12,490; 22 Russia – 11,943; 24 listed

Education – Highest tertiary enrolment. (post secondary school), % of relevant age group;
1 Cuba – 122; 2 South Korea; 96; 3 Finland – 94; 4 Greece – 91; 5 Slovenia – 85; 6 United States – 82; 13 Russia – 75; 13 Sweden – 75; 20 listed

Life Expectancy, years; Japan – 83.7; Hong Kong – 82.8; 3 Andorra – 82.5; 3 Switzerland – 82.5; 5 Iceland – 82.3; 7 France – 81.9; 8 Sweden 81.6; 32 United States – 79.9; 40 Cuba 79.1; 48 listed

Women who use modern methods of contraception (excluding rhythm); 1 China, 2 Norway, 3 United Kingdom, 7 France, 17 Cuba, 17 listed

Lowest infant mortality – number of deaths per 1000 live births; 1 Bermuda – 2.5; 2 Iceland – 2.8; 3 Sweden – 2.9; 4 Singapore – 3.0; 5 Japan – 3.1; 12 France – 3.8; 22 listed

Highest health spending – as % of GDP; 1 United States – 15.7; 2 Burundi – 13.9; 3 Timor – Leste – 13.6; 4 France – 11.0; 7 Cuba – 10.6; 23 Sweden – 9.3; 30 listed

Lowest population per doctor; 1 Cuba – 156; 2 Greece – 187; 3 Belarus – 205; 4 Georgia – 220, 5 Russia – 232; 17 France – 268; 17 listed

Most hospital beds, beds per 1000 of population; 1 Japan – 14.0; 2 Belarus – 11.2; 3 Russia – 9.7; 4 Ukraine – 8.7; 15 France – 7.2

Highest cost of living – US is 100; 1 France – 150; 2 Japan – 146; 3 Norway – 144; 4 Denmark – 138; 22 Sweden – 104; 24 United States 100; 25 Listed

Telephones – telephone lines per 100* people; 1 Bermuda – 89; 2 British Virgin Islands – 82.9; 13 Sweden – 57.8; 14 France – 56.4; 23 United States – 49.6; 38 listed

Mobile phones subscribers per 100* people; 1 United Arab Emirates – 208.7; 2 Estonia – 188.2; 3 Bahrain – 185.8; 13 Russia - 142.8; 33 Sweden – 118.3; 58 listed

Computers per 100* people; 1 Israel – 122; Switzerland 96.2; 3 Canada – 94.2; 4 Netherlands – 91.2; 5 Sweden – 88.1; 6 United States – 80.6; 12 Japan – 67.6; 14 France – 65.2; 44 Russia – 14.3; 50 listed

Broadband Subscribers per 100* people; 1 Sweden 41.1; 2 Denmark – 36.9; 3 Netherlands – 35.3; 4 Switzerland – 33.7; 9 France – 28.4; 14 United States 24.1; 17 Japan 23.6; 40 listed

* I believe there was a typo and it should have been per 1000 as was with other data

Beer Drinkers – retail sales in liters per head of population; 1 Czech Republic – 82.2; 2 Venezuela – 74.4; 3 Russia – 73.0; 4 Poland – 71.5; 11 United States – 61.0; 22 listed

Wine Drinkers; 1 Portugal 28.8; 2 Switzerland – 28.4; 3 France – 27.7; 4 Italy – 27.1; 13 Sweden – 18.1; 21 listed

Alcohol drinkers; 1 Finland – 99.8; 2 Australia – 99.7; 3 Czech Republic – 98.3; 4 Russia – 97.2; 15 United States – 73.2; 20 Sweden – 66.3

Robberies per 100,000 of population; 1 Belgium – 1,837; 2 Spain – 1,067; 3 Maldives – 196; 4 Chile – 180; 5 Russia – 173; 6 France – 172; 8 United States – 142; 11 Sweden –97; 20 listed

Prisoners per 100,000 of population; 1 United States – 753; 2 Russia – 660; 3 Rwanda – 593; 4 Virgin Islands (US) 561; 5 Cuba – 531; 24 listed