Quote :

"Kris: I took econ 101. Never once did I hear that "raising taxes causes crime". In fact, never once did I hear anything about crime, mainly because it has nothing to do with the subject matter that ECON 101 covers."

If you did then I suspect you must not have been paying attention. Black market activity increases as it becomes a more viable alternative to legal market activity. High taxes, in addition to excessive regulation, promote black market activity. This is really just common sense.

---

Quote :

"Kris: Now please, don't just give me a link to google,"

I didn't give you a link to google, I gave you a link to D.H. Hill's journal databases that have plenty of entries on black market activity rising in direct correlation with tax rates.

I'm sorry you have no purpose in life knowing there are far too many reasons your Communist utopia will never come into existence -- ever. But I'm not going to do your homework for you out of pity.

---

Quote :

"scottncst8: TGD: I promise you, the economic minister of France isn't sitting around hoping that the limitation on work hours per week is somehow decreasing his unemployment."

oh I don't doubt that at all, b/c the economic minister (or finance minister, or whatever) should hopefully have some vague clue about economics.

But you guys were debating what the French people want, "France is a democracy", etc. And at the end of the day the work week debate is no different there than what gets advanced by labor unions here: it's a finite-amount-of-work fallacy pushed to "create jobs".

[Edited on December 16, 2005 at 10:39 AM. Reason : ---]

12/16/2005 10:38:14 AM

you could argue the French were more economically efficient to allow their elderly to just die in the heatwave rather than hang around consuming their nation's resources.

anyway if these ignorant eurofuckers are implying they'd rather live in Mississippi than Spain I say more power to them.

12/16/2005 10:44:21 AM

Quote :

" The mean summer temperatures in Paris are very close to those of Detroit, Chicago and Denver"

Yet this was not "mean summer temperatures", this was a heatwave.

Quote :

" Black market activity increases as it becomes a more viable alternative to legal market activity. High taxes, in addition to excessive regulation, promote black market activity."

Notice we aren't talking about SALES TAXES or TARIFFS. I know full well that those can foster illegal activity. What we are talking about is INCOME TAXES, which have never been proven to foster illegal activity.

Quote :

"I didn't give you a link to google, I gave you a link to D.H. Hill's journal databases that have plenty of entries on black market activity rising in direct correlation with tax rates."

Care to show them?

Quote :

"But I'm not going to do your homework for you out of pity."

You're too busy making outrageous and unsupported claims.

12/16/2005 1:28:11 PM

Quote :

"Kris: Notice we aren't talking about SALES TAXES or TARIFFS. I know full well that those can foster illegal activity. What we are talking about is INCOME TAXES, which have never been proven to foster illegal activity."

Like I said, you obviously weren't paying attention in Econ 101. Or real life for that matter.

---

Quote :

"Kris: Care to show them?"

Did you just misunderstand the part where I said:

Quote :

"Kris: I'm sorry you have no purpose in life knowing there are far too many reasons your Communist utopia will never come into existence -- ever. But I'm not going to do your homework for you out of pity."

?

---

Quote :

"Kris: You're too busy making outrageous and unsupported claims."

[no], you've just been intellectually gang-raped so many times by so many people on this board over the past 3-4 years that I have no desire at all whatsoever to waste my time and energy refuting your stupidity. It's like you perpetually pointing out the sky is purple, and then demanding I go find studies proving otherwise when I tell you it's blue.

You're just as bad as MathFreak -- with the main difference being MathFreak at least tries to feign intelligence.

[Edited on December 16, 2005 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ---]

12/16/2005 1:42:24 PM

Quote :

"Notice we aren't talking about SALES TAXES or TARIFFS. I know full well that those can foster illegal activity. What we are talking about is INCOME TAXES, which have never been proven to foster illegal activity."

Because higher income taxes have never made it more appealing to lie on your taxes or hide income.

12/16/2005 2:59:55 PM

Lonesnark has totally kicked the collective arses of everyone in this thread.

Seriously.

You people should stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.

12/16/2005 3:21:27 PM

Quote :

"Like I said, you obviously weren't paying attention in Econ 101. Or real life for that matter."

What a cop out.

Quote :

"Did you just misunderstand the part where I said"

No, I'm just not letting you off with that crap.

Here's my claim: "The moon doesn't exist"
Here, http://www.google.com you can find the sources.

Quote :

"you've just been intellectually gang-raped so many times by so many people on this board over the past 3-4 years that I have no desire at all whatsoever to waste my time and energy refuting your stupidity"

Ouch

You know words can hurt just as much as starvation. Really now, play nice

Quote :

"Because higher income taxes have never made it more appealing to lie on your taxes or hide income."

Now prove that this increases crime. Banks making more money isn't going to cause the number of bank robberies to go up.

Quote :

"Lonesnark has totally kicked the collective arses of everyone in this thread."

You should find another cheerleader and go have lesbian sex in a bathroom somewhere.

12/16/2005 3:37:43 PM

Quote :

"Now prove that this increases crime."

Lying on your taxes would be a crime

12/16/2005 3:43:30 PM

Quote :

"You should find another cheerleader and go have lesbian sex in a bathroom somewhere."

Another?

I am not sure what you are referring to.

But I would love to have sex with a cheerleader.

Please pass the info along.

By the way.... Lonesnark has totally kicked everyone's collective arse in this thead.

Everyone else should stop pretending they have a counterargument.

Someone might. I'm not saying its impossible to argue against him.

Its just clear that no one so far is able to.

12/16/2005 3:45:37 PM

12/16/2005 4:10:25 PM

Quote :

"Lying on your taxes would be a crime"

Now prove a correlation between lying on your taxes and tax rate.

Quote :

"Another? I am not sure what you are referring to."

You must not watch the news if that joke went over your head. Hell you must not even read the paper or watch any tv it was plastered everywhere for weeks.

12/16/2005 4:45:50 PM

Actually there is quite a correlation between marginal tax rates and "activities that reduce an individual's tax burden", such as lying on tax returns, increasing charitable giving, and investing in different tax preferential instruments. If it makes you feel any better there is almost no response to the marginal tax rate until i think about 200,000 dollars, and after that the response skyrockets. A good readable article would be Feldstein's "The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act" in the June 1995 Journal of Political Economy.

12/16/2005 9:01:11 PM

^^ Easy. (I'm away and only have time for a quick post, so I choose to respond to Kris for "old times sake"

Ok, What percentage of tax payers currently lie on their federal income tax returns? More than zero?
Now, in a hypothetical, reduce the marginal tax rate to zero and eliminate the concept of an "income tax return." Ok, what percentage of citizens at this point are lying on their tax returns? Zero? "Not applicable, no such thing as an 'income tax return' exists"? Either way, the answer is not a number greater than zero.

It is purely hypothetical, to be sure. But I do have historical evident.
In the year 1912 exactly ZERO United States citizens were arrested and charged with federal income tax evasion. Just a few years later the tax rate was increased from "Zero" to "a percentage greater than zero" and, low and behold, we suddenly had people breaking the law by lying on their federal income tax returns!
Now, perhaps it is merely a correlation, but if you have a stupid request to prove what should be common sense (that people respond to both incentives and disincentives) then you will get a rediculous answer. Just pointing that out.

[Edited on December 17, 2005 at 2:18 AM. Reason : ,.,]

12/17/2005 2:15:08 AM

this thread was over when LoneSnark (who I might not agree w/ on many other points), said this:

Quote :

"Any society that doesn't nightly have people rioting in the street is a resounding success."

seriously, what the fuck does it matter? We're both successful. Our lifestyles are different. France could be doing better, taking clues from Sweden or the UK, etc. Most of you anti-europe people (and i really see, like, one in this thread) only want to hate on them b/c of the Iraq War thing. If not for that, you wouldnt give 2 shits

I'm totally lost on this tax evasion talk, where did that come in?

[Edited on December 18, 2005 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2005 11:21:31 AM

Kris decided to tangent the thread towards communist philosophy.

Of course, I probably should have included a proviso or two. Such as "Any society that doesn't nightly have people rioting in the streets, nor people vanishing in the middle of the night, is a resounding success.

12/18/2005 8:40:01 PM

so when can we stop doing business with China?

12/18/2005 8:47:34 PM

Quote :

"Add this to the fact that France is obviously NOT overwealmed. It may have a GDP 2/3 that of the US, but it is obviously far richer than Africa which, I think we can agree, should be the default example of a country "overwealmed.""

Africa, a country? This is the first Soap Box thread I have ever read, and there are some really dumb people here it seems.

12/18/2005 9:05:32 PM

well, would it sound more rational to compare Burkina Faso to France?

12/18/2005 9:09:09 PM

Merely generalizing. Perhaps I should have tried Zimbabwe?

12/18/2005 11:10:56 PM

Where would Norway rank?

12/20/2005 12:30:03 AM

now they would rank just below all states, they used to be ahead of us but theyve dropped behind in the last couple of years

12/20/2005 12:35:14 AM

So right around even with North Carolina then?

Really, those numbers don't make Europe look that bad, especially when you consider that t3h l00t is more evenly devided over there.

I mean, West Virginia is a pretty nice place...

12/20/2005 12:40:18 AM

^not at all, I dont think anyone is claiming europe is a shithole

Their GDP per capita is fantastic, its the gdp growth that is somewhat troubling especially in France and Germany.

The more interesting part of this study was where they showed what percentage of the population fell below the US poverty line. It was 40% in Sweden and greater than 50% in some countries.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2005 12:52:02 AM

^That's relative to the cost of living in action.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:22 AM. Reason : a]

12/20/2005 1:22:40 AM

Having read a lot of articles about the topic and having been both in the US and many European contries I feel there are a lot of factors forgotten or not taken into account when comparing and passing judgement.

1. All the European countries are very different and their performance in different areas vary greatly. So it is not fair to make sweeping generalizations.

2. It is unfair to use Germany in the comparisons as they have had very special problems to deal with. Like the reunification.

3. The statistics regarding below poverty line is misleading. I can remember the exact number now but if one compares the 5-10% of people who earn the least in Sweden and the US, the American counterparts are way below. And this fits better with what one actually observes in each country. One does not see the same poverty and depravity, slums etc in Sweden as in the US.


There are a lot of factors that need to be taken into account before one can say whether the American economic model works better than the European. I remember reading an article in the Economist which basically argued that Europe was doing no worse than the US in economic growth and development if you take following factors into account:

1. The American population increase much more rapidly than the European leading to higher growth numbers for the economy. But that doesn't mean that the growth per capita is that high.

2. Over the last 20-30 years work hours in the US has increased while it has decreased in Europe. Economic output per hour worked is in fact similar in the US and Europe.

3. America is running much higher deficits which over of course will stimulate the economy more, but that can not go on for ever.

Coming from Norway I also feel inclined to say that high taxes and good welfare system does not hinder development. If it did, how come the Nordic countries are among the richest in the world, when we have the highest tax pressure, minimum wage etc? Norway e.g. has the same GDP as the USA with PPP adjustments. Before one starts pointing at the fact that Sweden and Finland has lower. Remeber, that final took a huge hit from the collapse of the Soviet Union. They have a lot of catch up to do. But now and for many years they have had a high economic growth rate despite generous welfare system.

Having said all this, I do still believe that a more free market economy like the American does lead to slightly better economic development than the European model. However at what price? At almost all indicators not having to do with material wealth Europe is doing better: Health care, Education, Life expectancy, crime, leasure etc. And not just a little better, a lot better! The difference is much bigger than the difference in economy. E.g. prison population, homocides etc are double digit times higher in the US than in most european countries.

1/5/2006 10:17:40 AM

I just want to point out that comparing the United States to Nordic countries is a rather goofy exercise. They have smaller populations and few if any minorities. Size makes a difference since smaller nations have much more nimble economies and require less hierarchy and bureaucracy to function. Large minority populations can cause ethnic tensions, especially if the minorities come from poorer nations that have large cultural differences with the "mainstream".

For that matter, this entire exercise is silly considering the various circumstances. Reunification, massive illegal immigration, just to name a few.

1/5/2006 4:20:26 PM

Quote :

"Coming from Norway I also feel inclined to say that high taxes and good welfare system does not hinder development. If it did, how come the Nordic countries are among the richest in the world, when we have the highest tax pressure, minimum wage etc?"

Well, as for Norway, the answer is simple. OIL
As for Finland and Sweden if you truely analyze the situation you will see that in many respects their economies are more free than America's. Their income taxes may be relatively high, but regulation is relatively low AND corporate taxes are much lower. etc. etc.

I recommend you check out the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom (just search google) for the real scoop, because the reality is that the United States is the 9th freest economy on the planet. I have no idea where Europeans got the idea that America was the land of "cowboy capitalism" because some European countries are less regulated, such as the United Kingdom with a score of 1.74.

Finland is only slightly less free with a score of 1.85 verse the US score of 1.84.

1/5/2006 6:52:25 PM

Quote :

" I just want to point out that comparing the United States to Nordic countries is a rather goofy exercise. They have smaller populations and few if any minorities. Size makes a difference since smaller nations have much more nimble economies and require less hierarchy and bureaucracy to function. "

I know that obviously there are problems in comparing, but still the point remains that the nordic countries have shown that it is possible to have a prosperous country even with high tax pressure. That small size should be an advantage is rubish though. Have you heard about economics of scale? A lot of government functions will require the same amount of people in both a small and a large country but it will be a less burden to a large one because it spreads the expense on a much larger population. Anyway if what you say is true then wal-mart would not have made sense

Quote :

" Large minority populations can cause ethnic tensions, especially if the minorities come from poorer nations that have large cultural differences with the "mainstream". "

Nordic countries also have large minority populations. And I would claim this population is much more culturally different than the minorities in the US. Besides the US has a long tradition of integrating immigrants. And should be able to deal with more easily than the nordics.

1/7/2006 12:00:30 PM

Quote :

" Well, as for Norway, the answer is simple. OIL "

No it is not. Norway was a rich country before oil was discovered, and still would be without it. If oil was all that matter why are not Saudi Arabia, Iran etc among the richest countries in the world? They are far down the list. As anybody should know it is not richness of natural resources that makes the big difference. Almost all the countries who have lots of it are poor and most of the rich countries have little of it.

Quote :

" As for Finland and Sweden if you truely analyze the situation you will see that in many respects their economies are more free than America's. Their income taxes may be relatively high, but regulation is relatively low AND corporate taxes are much lower. etc. etc. "

For the record Norway was also very high up on the competitiveness list. This does not have that much to do with lack of regulations and corporate taxes. I don't know where you got that from. The reason why the nordic countries are considered good to do business in is because of transparency in goverment, well functional burecracy, little red tape, rule of law, technologically advanced and a highly educated workforce. Still you don't get away from the fact that the tax pressure in nordic countries is far far higher than in the US, higher than in most European countries too. And my point is that despite this all countries manage to have good economic progress.

Quote :

" I recommend you check out the 2006 Index of Economic Freedom (just search google) for the real scoop, because the reality is that the United States is the 9th freest economy on the planet. I have no idea where Europeans got the idea that America was the land of "cowboy capitalism" because some European countries are less regulated, such as the United Kingdom with a score of 1.74. Finland is only slightly less free with a score of 1.85 verse the US score of 1.84. "

I think there are lots of reasons why the US has gotten the label "cowboy capitalism". There are other countries that have that label now like Russia, but that doesn't mean they are considered economically free, because of red tape. Not rule of law etc. The problem is that in the US you allow companies to get away with too much. That is not nesesarily the same as freedom. Fireing people at a whim, letting businesses store sensible personal data etc. The period when US companies dominated Norwegian oil sector was years of chaos. Lots of accidents and explotation of people.

I am not saying this to bash America. I like America in a lot of ways. I just say it because I am tired of Americans always thinking the American way is the best, and everybody should adopt it. The US also has things to learn from other countries.

1/7/2006 12:21:17 PM

Quote :

"it is not. Norway was a rich country before oil was discovered, and still would be without it."

True, but being [capitalist + large reserves of oil] would make you far richer than you would otherwise be if you were just [capitalist].

Quote :

"I am not saying this to bash America. I like America in a lot of ways. I just say it because I am tired of Americans always thinking the American way is the best, and everybody should adopt it. The US also has things to learn from other countries."

I couldn't agree more, and I said as much. America needs a LOT of overhaul, without a doubt. Yes, our labor market is a little more loose, but that is about it. Our corporate tax rate is twice that of Sweden in some states. Old decrepid power plants are subsidized financially, while newer cleaner plants are forced to meet impossible standards and end up paying fines every year. Even when regulations are not down-right perverse, they are contradictory, silly, or simply stupid.

The European countries you name are not better off because of high tax rates, or even in spite of them (no one has ever demonstrated that high personal income tax rates do anything more than encourage tax fraud), they are better off because they are better governed and understand the need to encourage corporations through sound and measured regulation, not stamp them into the dirt like America has sometimes done and France does routinely (India holds the official record, of course). Sometimes it seems like America's bureaucrat's won't be happen until everyone is either in prison or sitting quietly on their hands doing nothing because starting a business and doing something good for the world would simply mean more paperwork for them.

If anyone is wealthy dispite their government it is the United States. Only here to we see corporate CEOs being led away to prison for shit most of us would never think was illegal. Just a few years ago, a company head was put in prison, for a whole year, for being hired by the state of Alaska to build a road. We have business owners in jail for the crime of accepting a contract to work for the state of California. I could go on, but you get the idea. This kind of shit is detrimental to confidence and trust in a free economy. But like you said, we like you are industrious and clever and will always find a way to move on with our lives.

I just needed to vent, thanks for listening. Back to the subject, many of the things that are wrong with America are doubly wrong with some EU countries. Not all, not even most, like I said some are far better governed than America, but France and Germany are two examples of relatively poor governance.

[Edited on January 7, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/7/2006 10:41:14 PM

i got into an argument over this with a friend whose currently in grad school at Campbell for his MBA. apparently there are a ton of different sources on this issue...he claimed that Sweden isnt anywhere near as free as us, citing some crazy figure about 90% of their work force working in government owned businesses or something. that seems silly, from all ive seen and heard, they just manage their taxes and budget differently. i commend them on taking care of the citizenry while maintaining an ethical, successful capitalist system. same goes for norway and finland, oil or no oil.

france and germany? well, they spend a lot more on defense stuff and EU projects than scandinavia, that might have something to do with their mismanagement in comparison.

then again, his black/white views of all gov. intervention being in line with some grand marxist/leninist sceme lead me to believe something is in the water down at buies creek...

1/8/2006 1:14:27 AM

Quote :

"then again, his black/white views of all gov. intervention..."

were you referring to me or someone else? If it was me, then you misunderstood. I have no problem with gov. intervention, 9 out of 10 times intervention was a great idea, the problem is that the intervention was done by congress which is so politicized that most of the time they fuck it up so badly we would have been better off if they had just left it alone.

Yes, wise intervention can make things better, but they insist on making things worse.

Perhaps it is a marxist conspiracy to discredit regulated capitalism, but I suspect it is all a case of good intentions gone awy.

1/8/2006 12:46:49 PM

^no, not at all. i was talking about my friend in grad school at Campbell. Their worship of certain economists and damnation of others leaves something to be desired.

ha, didnt realize you were from that area.

[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2006 4:46:03 PM

Quote :

" The European countries you name are not better off because of high tax rates, or even in spite of them (no one has ever demonstrated that high personal income tax rates do anything more than encourage tax fraud) "

True, I don't believe high taxes create economic growth. Maybe I was misunderstood. All I tried to say is that high taxes does not make it impossible to have good economic progress.

Quote :

"France and Germany are two examples of relatively poor governance. "

Yeah although I never understood what their problem really consists of. When I read articles in the Economis or Time magazin the always mention things like inflexible labour market and high tax rate. But this can't be the whole explenation most nordic countries have this too and seem to do well despite it (although corporate tax might be lower). I also thought that firing and hiring was just as problematic in nordic countries as germany. Besides why did Germany do so well economically before the reunification? Was their governance better then? Or labour laws more lax?

1/8/2006 5:40:05 PM

Quote :

" i got into an argument over this with a friend whose currently in grad school at Campbell for his MBA. apparently there are a ton of different sources on this issue...he claimed that Sweden isnt anywhere near as free as us, citing some crazy figure about 90% of their work force working in government owned businesses or something. "

90%!! that is ridiculous. That is certainly not true. It is not much different from the US in that respect. With regards to freedom I must say I felt less free when living in America. Not with regards to economical freedom but personal freedom. There is so many things forbidden over there.

Quote :

" france and germany? well, they spend a lot more on defense stuff and EU projects than scandinavia, that might have something to do with their mismanagement in comparison. "

Not to be picky but the opposite is true. I think it is easy to think this because Germany and France are bigger countries. But e.g. Norway is second only to the US in per capita spending on defence. Germany is quite low. Per capita contribution to EU is also highest I believe (from what I remember reading).

Btw LoneShark, with regards to high taxes and crime. I do believe that countries with high taxes indirectly will have lower crime, because welfare states even out the wealth distribution in a country. I believe there was a study that showed that bad wealth distribution had a high statistical correlation with high crime rate.

1/8/2006 5:57:24 PM

someone needs to call campbell's business school and fire all the professors, then. i knew that figure was full of shit.

1/8/2006 6:43:38 PM

here i'll highlight the important parts

Quote :

"someone needs to call campbell's business school and fire all the professors, then. i knew that figure was full of shit"

[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 8:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2006 8:16:20 PM

Quote :

"Btw LoneShark, with regards to high taxes and crime. I do believe that countries with high taxes indirectly will have lower crime, because welfare states even out the wealth distribution in a country. I believe there was a study that showed that bad wealth distribution had a high statistical correlation with high crime rate."

The crime I was referring to was tax evasion.

Nevertheless, you are mistaken. Crime victimization serveys demonstrate that wealth distribution is correlative with differing types of crime across countries. To be specific, in America with relatively low wealth redistribution we do have a higher violent crime rate but our overall crime rate is actually lower than most European countries. Specifically, crimes against property are far less common in America than in Europe. Which is counter-intuitive, I do admit. I suspect this is because crime prevalence is more directly influenced by cultural aspects than governmental policies.

Quote :

"Yeah although I never understood what their problem really consists of. When I read articles in the Economis or Time magazin the always mention things like inflexible labour market and high tax rate. But this can't be the whole explenation most nordic countries have this too and seem to do well despite it (although corporate tax might be lower)"

You got it right on the head of the nail. The nordic labor markets are strick and earnings are heavily taxed, but corporations are largely given free reign. Companies feel safe in nordic countries because they feel they know ahead of time what the rules are going to be. For example, in France the ruling party is often monkeying around with the rules of the labor market, often to the detriment of corporate flexibility. As such fewer companies locate in France which drives up unemployment, further depresses the economy, and emboldens the ruling class to monkey even more. Oversimplification, to be sure, but it gets the point across.

Another example arises when the time comes for a company to cease existing. In America this is much publicized, but we wisely allow them (with few exceptions) to fold, both freeing up capital and labor for more productive activity. Nordic countries, too, allow this necessary aspect of capitalism to take place (see "Other People's Money" at BlockBuster) in order to get rid of the old structures to make way for new ones. For example, if you look at Forbes' 10 largest American companies 40 years ago and compare it to today's list, only one company remains on the list. Most of them are not even in the top 100 anymore and some don't even exist anymore.

However, in France and Germany this "changing of the corporate blood" almost never happens. Companies are almost always bailed out by the government and new companies almost never survive their first couple years. Doing the same analysis of Forbes' largest companies by country and you see that most of the top 10 have not moved from that lofty position.

France and Germany developes so quickly pre-1980s because this aspect of capitalism was not as important then as it is today. 30+ years ago it was the accumulation of capital goods which drove economic growth in Europe, not the advent and application of new technology as in the nordic and english economies of today.

[Edited on January 9, 2006 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/9/2006 1:06:22 AM

Quote :

"No it is not. Norway was a rich country before oil was discovered, and still would be without it. If oil was all that matter why are not Saudi Arabia, Iran etc among the richest countries in the world? They are far down the list. As anybody should know it is not richness of natural resources that makes the big difference. Almost all the countries who have lots of it are poor and most of the rich countries have little of it"

This is not entirely true. Norway was not in the same leauge as the US until the discovery of oil. The way Norway has invested their oil revenue deserves a lot of credit. Saudi Arabia invested in giagantic pallaces where Norway invested in a national equity fund.

Below is percent of US GDP


[Edited on January 11, 2006 at 5:57 PM. Reason : image]

1/11/2006 5:56:37 PM

Wow, where did you get that graph? That information would be excellent to have for other countries, too

1/11/2006 6:13:28 PM