• Two thirds of Americans think their expenditures on defense are too high, whereas only 60% of Europeans think their own defense expenditures are too high.
• Three fourths of those surveyed in almost every country believe that immigration constitutes a “serious threat” to national security
• Three fourths of those surveyed in almost every country have a “mostly favourable” opinion of the UN, and about two thirds in every country believe NATO is “still essential” to security
• 60% of Europeans and 70% of Americans believe that Europeans and Americans share similar values.
• “In light of Iraq”, two thirds of Americans believe the US and Europe should work in closer partnership, while two thirds of Europeans believe Europe should “take a more independent approach” to foreign and diplomatic affairs.
• Excluding Germany, about two thirds of Europeans support military intervention to stop a civil war, while a small majority of Germans and Americans would be opposed to such intervention. And while over 80% of Europeans (including Germans) support deploying peacekeeping troops after a civil war, only two thirds of Americans do. This suggests that a significant percentage of Americans who supported the Iraq invasion would oppose using those same troops to keep the peace in another country, which must take some mental gymnastics to reconcile.
• Excluding Germany, a small majority of Europeans and Americans would support military intervention to remove a government that abuses human rights.
• A majority of those in Poland, Portugal and Turkey are opposed to continued presence of their country’s troops in Afghanistan, while Slovakians would object to their country sending troops. A small majority of other Europeans, and nearly three fourths of Americans, support their country’s continued presence in Afghanistan.
• A majority of those in Italy, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia are opposed to continued presence of their country’s troops in Iraq, while the people of France, Germany, Spain and Turkey overwhelmingly support their leaders’ decision not to send troops or (in Spain’s case) to withdraw troops. Continued presence of troops in Iraq is supported only in the UK (52%), Netherlands (59%) and the US (59%).
• Participation in an international peacekeeping and reconstruction force in Iraq under UN command would be supported by those in every country except Turkey and Poland. However, if the force was under US control, only four European countries (UK, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal) would approve of their country’s participation.
• By an overwhelming majority in Europe, and by a 2:1 margin in the US, people agree that military action in Iraq has increased, rather than decreased, the threat of terrorism.
• About two thirds of the people of all countries surveyed except Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey (which would be opposed) would support UN-approved intervention to establish peace in an African nation. Only a slim majority of Americans would support such intervention without UN approval, while all other countries would be opposed,

Except for their opinion of Israel and the US, Europeans and Americans have surprisingly similar opinions of the “institutions and people” of the rest of the world, and both Europeans’ and Americans’ opinions of each other rank second only to their opinion of themselves. Only the Spaniards (mean score 42%) and Turks (28%) had majority unfavourable opinions of Americans.

Contrast this largely favourable opinion of America’s institutions and people with their approval ratings for Bush:

The weighted overall European approval rating for Bush is 16%.

I thought this was interesting: Here’s the proportion of people in each country that believe military intervention would be warranted to ensure the supply of oil to their country. What are we to make of this?

On the pivotal question of the wisdom of invading Iraq, the consensus is overwhelmingly that it was unwise, with the difference between countries being one of degree only. The question was “Was the war in Iraq worth the loss in human life and other costs”. Percentage saying yes:

This next chart tells an interesting story about each country’s history and culture: Might versus right. Note the strong divergence between Spain and neighbouring Portugal.

Contrast the last chart with this one, which shows a roughly 50-50 split of opinion in each country, with little difference between countries. The question is “Do you agree that providing economic aid to raise living standards in countries where terrorists are recruited is the most appropriate way to fight terrorism?”:

I’m not sure what to make of this either. It suggests we have a lot of education to do, anyway.

Finally, here are the issues that voters in each area consider most important in deciding which party to support in their next election:

There is little difference among European nations in answers to this question, including those nations that have a much longer history dealing with terrorism than the US. To me this suggests that Europeans have moved on to issues that they can really control, while many Americans continue to be victimized by the fear-mongering of the politicians and mainstream media.

Make of it what you will, I thought it was an interesting exercise in gauging The Wisdom of Crowds.

Addendum 8pm: A final question in the survey asked people to place themselves on a political spectrum from extreme left to extreme right (in the US, the wording was “extremely liberal to extremely conservative”), using a  seven point scale, with 4 being centrist/moderate. From left to right, here are the average country self-assessments, and the index of polarization (percentage rating themselves 1, 2, 6 or 7). Overall, and in almost every country, the curve was almost perfectly normally distributed (i.e. a bell curve), with most people calling themselves moderates, and about an equal number of left-of-centre and right-of-centre respondents:

1. Freebies and cheapies with strings attached: If you’re offered something for ‘zero dollars’ or an unbelievably low price “with the purchase of…”, you’ll probably find that the price of the product or service you have to purchase to get the ‘deal’ is inflated accordingly, so you’re not getting a deal at all.
2. Gift certificates that expire: A new trend is to put expiry dates on gift cards and certificates. Don’t buy them.
3. Overpriced ‘extended warranties’, ’service contracts’ and similar product insurance: These add-ons are priced to make a profit for the vendor, and usually cost much more than they’re worth. Consumer Reports only recommends buying reasonably priced warranties for goods with historically high after-warranty repair costs, like laptop computers and lawn tractors.
4. Credit card insurance: Insurance that pays off your credit cards if you die, become disabled or unemployed is usually priced much higher than regular insurance for the same eventualities. And credit card theft insurance is also a rip-off, since your liability in these cases is usually zero, and rarely more than $50.
5. Disposition fees: Car leases, mutual fund purchases, mortgage loans and some other agreements now have flat rate or contingent costs that you pay when you sell or at the end of the contract period, or for early termination of an agreement, hidden in the small print. Most notorious are exorbitant back-end per-kilometre charges if you exceed a ridiculously low mileage limit during your car’s lease term.
6. Loss leaders: The items in the flyer are only priced so low because the average shopper ends up buying other items, unneeded or at prices higher than competitors’, once they arrive. And lots of loss leaders mysteriously go out of stock almost immediately after the start of the sale period. Make a list and stick to it.
7. Zero percent financing: The actual cost of financing is always built into the price, the service charges, and/or the interest rate you pay if you’re late making even one payment. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
8. Items “sold separately”: If the price is low, there are likely other items that you need to go with it that are overpriced to compensate. Before you buy, make a list of all the ‘extras’ you need, comparison-shop for them as a package, and avoid the temptation to add to the list impulsively.
9. Automatic renewals: After a free ‘trial’ period, or at the end of an annual subscription period, many products and services now automatically renew, and charge your credit card, unless you specifically act well in advance of the renewal date to cancel.
10. Unneeded extras: Once you’re sold on a major purchase, or when you’re at the checkout, with impatient people lined up behind you, the clerk starts asking you if you’d like A, B, and C to go with your new purchase. They know you’ll make decisions too quickly, and they’ll word the extras in glowing terms. If the “extras” are actually essentials, you’ve been had (see scam #8), so cancel the deal and rethink your options. If they aren’t, they’re probably overpriced and you’re better off without them.

A bunch of interesting news and links from the past week or so:

Project Censored list — Project Censored lists the top events of 2003-04 that went unreported in the media. Leading the list are the accelerating gap between rich and poor, and Ashcroft’s corporatist agenda.

US doctors and pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills — Members of right-wing religious groups are now arguing that the birth control pill is a form of abortion and urging their members to refuse to dispense it, and arguing that any employment action stemming from this refusal constitutes an infringement on their religious freedoms. So far twelve US states have passed laws protecting their ‘right’ to refuse to provide birth control pills to women, many of whom already have little or no access to abortion services.

Leading economist refutes benefits of outsourcing and offshoring — Paul Samuelson, the economist whose textbooks in the subject most of us studied in university, has refuted what he calls “the popular polemical wisdom” that the benefits of outsourcing exceed its costs. Because of historical distortions in the market, he says, outsourcing and offshoring can bring about large net disadvantage to first-world countries, and most notably to their workers and the environment.

Monsanto unleashes another monster — I reported recently that Colombian cocaine growers have now developed a coca plant that is resistant to Roundup, the Monsanto weedkiller that has been aerial sprayed in massive quantities by the US across much of Colombia in an attempt to eradicate the crop, devastating natural vegetation and helping to ruin that country’s agricultural economy in the process. Now Monsanto, which makes its money by selling patented seeds resistant to the poisons it manufactures, wants to sell a new patented grass, also resistant to Roundup, to golf courses. The move is opposed not only by environmentalists, but by the US Forestry Service and Bureau of Land Management as well. Genes from test batches of the new grass have been found as much as thirteen miles from the test area (as far as the test looked for it), raising fears that the new patented grass will proliferate across the country, supplanting natural grasses and transferring its DNA to new weed species that will be similarly weed-resistant.

TiVo, Replay agree to limits — In a sad acknowledgement of the strength of the entertainment media oligopoly, the makers of personal video recorders have agreed to incorporate new technology that will prevent multiple viewing of recorded pay-per-view programming.

Another great essay from Tony Kushner — As an antidote to the five stories above, Natasha at Pacific Views points out a great essay called Despair Is a Lie We Tell Ourselves. It’s a great remedy for the sense of hopelessness a lot of progressives are feeling these days. Last year I published excerpts from Kushner’s wonderful commencement address to Columbia College.

• Soaring health care costs, driven by astronomical salaries paid to senior medical practitioners by competing private health-care providers in the US
• Disproportionally high usage of the health care system by Canada’s exploding immigrant population
• Ageing population needing more health services

The answer of US-worshipping Canadian neocons is two-tier health care. Why, cries John Tory, the new leader of the hapless Ontario Conservative party, shouldn’t Canadians have “choice” in their health care services? This is classic conservative re-framing of public debate. “Choice” in health care means choice for those who can afford it, which means doctors who want to make obscene amounts of money (including many of the best ones) would work for the higher-paying private-tier system and the rest of us would be stuck with long waits and second-class service, just like we face in every other private sector of the economy.

Fortunately, and to the chagrin of the Canadian neocons, the vast majority of Canadian’s aren’t buying this Orwellian deceit. Recent polls say support for a public, single-class health care system is as high as ever.

So what’s a civilized country to do to deal with the three great challenges of 21st century health care bulleted above? I recently listened to a talk show featuring the federal Minister of Health, discussing how these problems should be solved. Caller after caller said the same two things:

1. Much of the work done by doctors should be transferred to paraprofessionals and to self-diagnosis and self-treatment. Much more information, expert systems and self-service equipment needs to be provided to enable this. [I spoke to two doctors who said they would love to do this, since the majority of the work they do does not require a licensed professional to do it competently -- but that the lawyers wouldn't let them do it.]
2. There needs to be a massive shift in the health care system from treatment to preventative care.

When the moderator asked the Minister whether he had learned anything from these recurring messages, he ’summarized’ the discussion by saying that better measurement systems were needed to ensure hospitals were operating as efficiently as possible, and that the government was looking into ways to do public-private partnerships without allowing competition or giving up control over pricing and access. The interviewer was incredulous: Had the Minister not heard the two messages that the public had been bombarding him with for the past hour? Of course these things would be considered, he replied, but the first priority was to find ways to increase access without increasing cost. His deafness to these two obvious solutions to the malaise of the system was astonishing.

What one listener of this talk show said about neoncons’ true motivation for wanting two-tier health care was also telling: “The reason rich politicians want a two class system is that they’re embarrassed to have to wait in line for health services the same as ‘ordinary’ Canadians, when their US business colleagues can jump the queue so easily and have their company write off the extra cost as a business expense. They’re also embarrassed that, to jump the queue, they have to fly to the US and pay out of their own pocket”. So in fact there is a choice for the very rich to jump the queue: Pay for treatment in the private US system.

Is Canada’s health care system the best in the world? Far from it. Health care in Canada’s cities is much better than in rural areas. The bureaucracy in much of the system (notably the blood collection system and the ‘walk-in’ clinics) is suffocating, and needlessly so. And because of its zeal to protect jobs in the system, Canada, which ranks first in the world in per-capita patents of medical technology, ranks forty-first in the world in the use of modern medical technology in its hospitals (MRI equipment is as scarce as gold, for example).

But it’s still an excellent system, and one that a two-class health care system won’t improve, at least for 95% of the population. If only the politicians and bureaucrats only had the intelligence and vision to listen to the Wisdom of Crowds and make the two changes (more paraprofessional/self-care, and more prevention instead of treatment) that the public is already starting to make themselves, our system would be the best in the world.

Oh — a word about prescription drug costs: You may have heard that many Americans come up to Canada to buy prescription drugs much cheaper than they can buy them in the US. Now, US municipal and state governments are fighting for the right to buy their drugs from Canada, too (and Kerry wants them to have this right). The funny thing is, the companies selling them are essentially all the same companies, since the Canadian pharmaceutical industry is dominated by the same handful of global corporations as the US industry. Why do these companies charge more in the US than the rest of the world for the same drugs? Not, as the neocons and the pharma industry are telling Americans, because Canadian drugs are inferior (perhaps, it is implied, dangerously so) — they are the identical drugs. They sell them for higher prices in the US because they can. Drug companies charge as much as the market will bear, and in the bloated US health care system where if you have enough money you can buy anything, the market will bear a lot. In the rest of the world money available for drugs is much less, so to sell their products pharma companies lower prices by 30, 50, even 70%, and still make a good margin. This is a case where globalization threatens to backfire on some of the corporations that most benefit from it. Couldn’t happen to a nice bunch of guys.