"You are not looking at the the right things. Where the R&D spending takes place does not matter at all in the discussion we are having." - so give me some figures, how much profit is pushed into new R&D in the US compared to government spending on R&D in the EU?

because while something like 66% of pharmecutical profits go to the US market ( Japan and Europe being behind at much smaller precentages, and the rest of the world having something like 12% of the profits - i can't find the firuges i had yesterday for profits)

You keep saying it doesn't matter where the money is spent, but i am talking about how much money IS spent. IT is not like Europeans get cheap drugs from America - they are patented and the US companies make huge profits as a result - for 20 years until the patent expires and even then those companies have an advantage creating a generic version. But that is private industry making a profit NOT public individuals paying in Europe getting an advantage which the US public misses out on.

We both spend money on the same drugs from the same compnaies, do they charge europeans any less because it is sometimes paid by government run medical institutions?

You can't claim private investment into drug discovery is the best way to develop new drgus AND claim that it means private consumers in the US hard done by because there are no price controls...

Sorry, i'm getting lost - rereading what you said- you basically imply the US members of the public pay most of the money which goes into the US companies as profit and Europeans (because of price controls) pay less for their drugs.

There are price controls in public hospitals but that usually limits what drugs are available. All i can find is about the system in the UK "the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) is the mechanism which... [is used] to ensure that the NHS* has access to good quality branded medicines at reasonable prices."

*National Health Service

So in the UK the public are all represented in drug purchases as one customer. Which is a perfectly valid purchasing strategy, that doesn't mean the country is getting a free ride by spending less and thus reducing the profits of pharmacuetical companies...

oh and would you rather take this to another thread?

The Cold War is just in reprieve. Putin would love to see it crank back up - witness the Soviet Georgia saber rattling during the last US elections, and the insistence that the US NOT put a missile defense system in current allies/ex-Soviet block Republics. Anyone that thinks that particular history could not repeat itself doesn't study history....or games of Diplomacy! lol

The Russian president is trying to regain his countries place as a world power, on the back of rising gas revenues and european dependance on russia as a source of heating fuel.

Of course Putin is pushing a nationalist cause when he knows he can push Russia's weight around - The invasion of Georgia was an opportunity to establish militrary presence in new pro-Russian states in the same unilateral way the NATO entered yugoslavia and recently recognised Kosovo.

These two examples are opposite both examples of the powers that be trying to get their own way, where militrary power is flexed if diplomacy fails.

That's right : Kosovo is the historical center of Serbia, it was invade with imigrants and they wanted to be independent : that is like Paris suburbs becoming a new independant muslim state because of the important muslim imigrant that live there. Or that is like Texas and California becoming new independant spanish speaking countries due to imigration rate.

That would not justify a genocide yet.

OK....point made - the Cold War is not over.

"That's right : Kosovo is the historical center of Serbia..." And the way we resolve national boundrary disputes depends on the sovereign nation whose soil is sits.

What that nation is invaded and it's sovereignty lost then this is instead decided by the invader - Russia in South Ossetia/ NATO or the US in Kosovo.

India as divided up by the British Empire into Islamic Pakistan and Hindu India in 1949, Ireland as divided up in 1921 by the treaty between Britian and the new Irish free state.

There is no international rule, no rigth or wrong, just the power to make your decisions meaningful and Russia has proved it will continue to be a power in it's region of influence - but this is not a continuation of the Cold war by any means. Russia and the US are not at war, they trade with each other and with the rest of the world. They both seek to extend their influence just like every other nation on the planet...

I am fed up with the whole "America saved your ass during WW2" thing. As if America would go at war in order save some foreigners. I bet some Americans think the war in Iraq is to save the poor oppressed irakian or to prevent an invasion of USA.

well first and foremost our entrance to war is to protect ourselves. Iraq might be different. even we don;t think its totally out of protection. but other than that we think past wars have been for our protection first and foremost. maybe helping out other countries just by beating mutual enemies.

I am from europe and have a pretty socialistic political view even for europeans. I also think US foreign policy is despicable.
I have been to the US once, being vegas. I was surprised at how many americans agree with me and i had some good political discussions.
Then again, i guess vegas might not at all be representative for the US as a whole. Not many people were born and raised there, but they all moved there in search of their personal fortune. I think that makes them much more progressive than conservative by nature on average.

I would say for the interests of some Americans

i would agree the foreign policies are getting bad. Obama not inviting the Prime Minister of Israel to dinner was considered an outrage.

What do other countries think of Obama

When i was a kid and started playing computer games. I immeadiately noticed how different it is from how you should rule a country in real world. Ethics is not an issue in games. Sid meiers civ series shows it nicely: Every player who wants to rule the world simply tries to keep his citizens happy enough so they don't revolt, and focusses on military. In real world, i think it should be the other way around, you make enough military so you don't get invaded, and your goal should be to get happiness as high as possible.

Unfortunately, when i grew older, it seemed more and more to me that the world leaders are playing computer games. :(

In holland, we think Obama seems a lot better than bush of course, because bush was a complete idiot. (that is not only my socialist view, but the view of the mayority)
Many have their doubts though of it makes a real difference, democracy is a fake in the US. (also in europe, but to a lesser extend. Until we are really a union with a president, then democracy will be just as fake here as well. Bigger power centres = bigger corruption)

With that, i mean, countries are no longer run by democratically chosen leaders. They are run by multinationals with strong lobby groups. The bigger the centres of power, the more efficient the multinationals can influence politics, and the less efficient democracy can influence decision making.

i believe democracy is just fake right now. Our Senate and House are horrid right now in my book.

DJEcc24 - You believe our Democracy is fake because we have a bunch of doushe bags in the Senate and House? Well...then exercise your right to vote them out in November, just as a bunch of them were voted in two years ago. No...our Democracy is alive an well. Sadly, the majority of the American people have the intellect of a pimple and worth rather watch American Idol than research the people they will vote for.

But in November 2010, there will be a minor revolution in America, and the government will be overturned without a shot being fired. If that's not Democracy, I don't know what is. But again...you fault the system of government when you really ought to fault all the dumbasses that vote...and and increasing number of them vote simply for whatever assmunch will promise them more of the treasury in return for nothing. (Yes...I'm talking socialism and welfare. Contribute little to nothing while expecting the producers to hand over their "ill gotten" wealth...)

european deomcracy is in a very different state to that of american democracy.

multinationals have much less influence in Europe because people aren't don't usually object to big government intervention/regulation compared with the US.

The EU is not a democracy it is a collection of sovereign states pooling some of that sovereignty. Thus they are agreeing to transfer their sovereignty to a central pool directed by un-elected officials (appointed EU commisioners) but it is not fake because it is not claiming to be a democracy - though public knowledge of this fact seems to be lacking.

The elected EU parliment has the power to review any executive decisions/legislation passed to it by the council/commision but some european citizens are opposed to unifying our political systems and want independant nation states (nationalism...) so push against any move toward democratic institutions - perhaps prefering the binging laws/treaties which govern how we pool our sovereignty to be less restirctive on future national governments...

US democracy on the other hand seems to suffer from having only two parties, you can either be a democrat or a republican with little representation of any views inbetween (or more extreme on either side)

There is no way for the moderates in each party to work together to side-line the extremists. and large industry lobbing effectively means that the government of the people for the people is actually for the corporations (whose sole motivation is for profits - which may mean selling addictive substances and denying the health effects they cause, or pushing oil consumption up to a high level of importance for national security, i don't know)

Most Europeans really like Obama, some even gave him a nobel prize!

@krellin wish i could vote. but i'm not old enough yet ;) and no i don't think itsj sut because of that. but that is the most annoying part right now

"Sadly, the majority of the American people have the intellect of a pimple and worth rather watch American Idol than research the people they will vote for." - so you must believe that democracy can't work in a society of stupid people, so they are allowing themselves to be screwed over by politicians.


"increasing number of them vote simply for whatever assmunch will promise them more of the treasury in return for nothing" - actually this seems to be a very intelligent/lazy thing to do. If your ascertian is correct then these voters are paying attension and choosing the things which they think will give them the greatest benifit!

Of course this is how a democracy is SUPPOSED to work. The people decide how they want the country to work and the majority gets their way. So really you are insulting them because you disagree with them, and think their ideas are wrong (which you can't possibly prove) That doesn't mean democracy in America is fake, it just means you're not getting your way, so you've decided the people aren't doing it right.

Uh well. Here in Texas you have a couple of brands of Americans:

You've got the hicks. Many of them live in the country, or were born there, but others live in the city but are somehow still hicks. These hicks generally do not understand anything relating to a foreign country. They also do not seem to understand why anything that is not American exists. When they speak of foreign countries (which most often is because they're talking about a war, like the Korean War), they speak of them as abstract things, things they have no real understanding of. Certainly places devoid of discernible or significant culture. I exaggerate, but only somewhat.

Then you have your dumbass suburban types. They go from place to place in their comfortable lives, not aware of less fortunate people etc. They are generally the kinds of Americans you hear about that can't find Iran on a blank map. They just don't care about anything outside their area. They are better informed, just because they spend a long time on the internet, and may even have political opinions, but in general these are secondary to them; they do not care about issues that affect us all. As such, when they meet an international person, they will probably unknowingly belittle them, asking about insulting things. Say the person is Vietnamese, they might ask if in Vietnam they shit in holes. Not in as many words obviously. And these are the more tactless of this ignorant suburban class.

In the more multicultural areas of the states, like where I'm from (Sugar Land, TX), this is less common, but there is still this general ignorance of the wider world, which is paradoxical given that 50% of the people are immigrants. It's like, to them, there is the US, the home country, and nothing else. They are little better.

Then there is everyone else. They are immigrants, your average joe who happens not to be a hick, worldly liberal types, or just intellectual types who happen to enjoy watching PBS or travel shows. These people are usually quite nice, and make up a large share of us Americans.

One can only hope that last class of people is how the world sees us. Alas, I think we are usually seen as hicks.

To Chris. You mentioned Toronto as a multicultural place, and I agree that it is (loved visiting). However I think when you said that Canada is more multicultural than the US, you may have been thinking of only some of the US. Many many places have large communities of non-black non-Latino non-white people. You have Desis everywhere, Asians everywhere, Persians, Palestinians, Hungarians, Africans, whatever. There are a lot of them, you just have to be in the right places.

(By that I mean San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Austin, New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta, DC, NYC, Boston, Philly, St. Louis, Chicago, and some others)

Desis?

"I am fed up with the whole "America saved your ass during WW2" thing. As if America would go at war in order save some foreigners. I bet some Americans think the war in Iraq is to save the poor oppressed irakian or to prevent an invasion of USA. "

I'd argue that America also saved your bacon all the way up through the fall of the Soviet empire in the late 80s, but I'm a lazy American.

US actually came in very late in WW2. To the point where arguably in the European theater they only made an impact on DDay. Then again just about all of the allies have. In fact only the Canadians had completed their objective that day. They even lost less casualties than the COLONY of New Zealand during the first WW. The only real impact in the WW2 was against Japan.

And If it was true I would argue that we should not be grateful because you did that for your benefit.

During the american revolution on contrary, France helped the USA against its own interest. So when I see a stiker "give back France to Germany" on Amazon, I see how dumb some american are.

It wasn't against their own interests; they thought they were going to gain a trade partner. We just screwed them over by getting back on good terms with england as soon as the war finished. They took a gamble, and they lost, sadly it happens all the time in the world. Not to mention that the French and the British were pretty much *always* at each other's throats from the 16th century through the 19th. The only thing that made them start to get along was a) Napoleon's defeat and the general decline of France's military strength, and b) WWI which came along just after the turn of the century.

Yes but France was ruined because of the that war, and that is a reason of the first french revolution in 1789. Ok France wanted to screw England but mainly France went at war because the public opinion liked the values of the American revolution.

most countries fought for their own interests... So what if America is one of them?

WW2 left us with 5 'winners', 5 nuclear powers, the 5 permanent security council members. (and if you can't name them and are American then really you don't know much about the international order) WW2 left America in a much stronger position so for whatever saving it did, helping defeat nazi germany allowed them prevent Soviets taking the rest of europe (so they could still trade with us) allowed them extend loans to europe to rebuild (so we could have economies with enough money to buy their goods) and overall helped America just as much as it did Europe. (ignoring the propoganda victory of joining and making them look good)

It was in their interest, and you can't really expect any country to act in any other way. (though obviously they were more successful and managed to achieve what was in their interest better than most... )

Perhaps this is to be admired, perhaps the war in Europe would have gone differently if they hadn't interferred, but they didn't come and help when Poland was invaded, they didn't come and help when France fell, they didn't come and help when the Luftwaffe was bombing london. They only came and helped when the Japanese attacked them.

So don't pretend it wasn't in their own interest (and everyone else acts like that too)