How A Middle Class War Born

People often misjudge another person's position due to having different definitions for the words in use.  Few people agree on what socialism really is and the same goes for capitalism.  The following is what I define as capitalism, probably more accurate would be laissez-faire capitalism:  "an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from any form of government intervention such as regulation, privileges, imperialism, tariffs and subsidies.  Proponents of laissez faire argue for a complete separation of government from the economic sector."--Wikipedia definition.

I have spent a lot of time studying the history of money itself which gives me a unique view of historical events.  I have always approached problems/issues by trying to break down the issue to the most basic element, otherwise no complete or near-complete understand of a subject is possible.  In my opinion the lifeblood of any economy is the actual money itself.  We have all been raised in debt-based, fiat money through central banking.  It was not always this way.

The claim made by Marx was capitalism was actually an impediment to the growth of an economy.  I'm not sure what life was like in England in 1850 where Marx was, however let me introduce you to government data from time of the Robber Barons.  I would say the data shows that laissez-faire capitalism actually created the middle class.  I know of no other 60-year time frame in history where the standard of living for Average Joe increased this much.  Let me know if you have other data.  The data isn't abundant, however it's quite obvious that from 1850-1900 most jobs increased in pay by 100-171% while prices dropped.  I would bet almost everyone reading this has never seen this data mentioned anywhere.  You be the judge. (Pages listed for data are from Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial times to 1970, or History of Wages.  Link below).

USA 1850-1910

Environment:

Population

1850--25 million

1860--31 million

1880--50 million

1900--77 million

1910--91 million

Labor Force:

1850--7.7 million

1860--10.5 million

1880--17.4 million

1900--29 million

1910--37 million

Percentage of labor in agriculture:

1850--63%

1860--58.9%

1880--49.4%

1900--37.5%

1910--31%

Gold--$20/ounce 1850-1910

Introduction of paper money with Lincoln Greenbacks, eventually retired, some sporadic printing of US Notes.  All notes were redeemable in gold, otherwise why take the note?

1873--Silver dropped from bimetalism system establishing gold standard.

Taxes:

Federal Government operated almost entirely on Import Duties and Excise Taxes.  Direct taxes allowed if apportioned by the census.  If anybody is aware of an example of a direct tax from the 19th century please share.

Zero Income Tax

Zero Sales Tax

Federal Government:

2.5-3% of GDP except during war time.  Today it's 20%.

Wholesale Prices:

	Unit	1850	1880	1910
Flour	100 lbs	5.550	8.890	4.690	-15.00%	Page 225 of part 1
Sugar	1 lb	0.074	0.099	,05	-32.00%
Cotton	1 lb	0.123	0.120	0.150	22.00%
Wool	1 lb	0.883	0.081	0.084	-91.00%
Cotton Sheeting	1 yard	0.073	0.073	0.081	11.00%
Coal	1 ton	3.640	4.530	4.810	32.00%
Steel Rails	100 lbs	47.870	67.520	28.000	-42.00%
Nails	50 lbs	3.710	3.680	1.888	-49.00%
Copper	1 lb	0.215	0.215	0.129	-40.00%
Turpentine	1 gallon	0.334	0.383	0.683	104.00%
Brick	1000	4.850	6.840	5.720	18.00%

Wages:  Notice that all labor is figured as daily pay, 6 day work week.  My dad was born in 1912 and said everybody worked 6 days a week, that was life back then.  There was that much work to be done.  The demand for labor more than doubled even while the work force at least tripled.  Note also that even with wages doubling the standard workday dropped from 9 or 10 hours per day to 8.

Labor		1860	1880	1900
						Page 192 history of wages
Hod Carriers	Pennsylvania	1.13/day 54 hours/week	1.62/day 57 hours/week	2.42/day 48 hours/week		Figued at 6 day weeks
		12.5 cents/hour	17 cents/hour	30 cents/hour	171.00%
Carpenters and joiners		1.75/day 60 hours/week	2.28/day 60hours	2.8/day 48 hours/week
		17.5 cents/hour	22.8 cents/hour	35 cents/hour	100.00%
Bricklayers		2/day 54 hours/week	2.22/day 57 hours/week	4/day 48 hours/week
		22 cents/hour	0.230 cents/hour	50 cents/hour	127.00%
Marble Cutters	NY	2.04/day 60 hours/week	2.4/day 60 hours/week	4.22/day 48 hours
		20.4 cents/hour	24 cents/hour	53 cents/hour	165.00%
Manufacturing						20 year increase
	Average	1.620	2.260			37.00%	Page 182
	Blacksmith	1.640	2.310			41.00%
	Carpenter	1.650	2.150			30.00%
	Engineers	1.610	2.170			35.00%
	Machinists	1.610	2.450			52.00%
	Painters	1.610	2.210			37.00%
	Laborer	1.030	1.320			28.00%	Page 185
Public School Teachers:  1890--$256/year 1910--$492/year 92%

Most of the data in the linked articles are "indexed" for one reason and one reason only, inflation due to paper money.  The data I've focused on is nominal, not indexed.  In other words in actual dollar prices since the value of the dollar did not change from 1850-1910.  An ounce of gold was $20 fixed by law, a $20 gold piece in 1850 was exactly the same as a $20 gold piece in 1910.  Prices for goods and labor rose or fell mostly because of supply and demand.  Prices continually rising for almost all things today is almost entirely a result of vastly increasing the money supply artificially with paper debt, not possible when the value of money did not fluctuate and was actual gold.

Finally, "Unemployment" data was not even collected before 1912.  In spite of the population tripling, and labor force almost quadrupling, wages went up usually more than double while prices dropped with zero taxation other than property tax to run local government.  Of course there was no Social Security, no welfare, no large standing army.  Average Joe never gave a dime to the federal government unless he paid an excise tax like on tobacco or alcohol.  Privacy was actually a real thing. Never a sales tax or fill out any tax form whatsoever.  Especially with railroads connecting the oceans the economy absolutely boomed.  From 1876-1894 there were 3 years with tiny trade deficits, then zero trade deficits until 1970.  To call today's economy the best ever is an absolute joke, if data and history matter to you.  I've found that to most people it does not matter, what matters is their belief which must be defended.  Which is why you should never believe me.

History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928--US Dept. of Labor

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106007458745&view=1up&seq=5

Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/histstatus/hstat1970_cen_1975_v1.pdf

Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789-1957

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945.html

Chart of US Population 1790-2000

https://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html

US Federal Spending Since 1792 as Percentage of GDP

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart

Increases in Spending since 1900

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending

Total Government as Percentage of GDP--36% estimate

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp

Debt as Percentage of GDP--Virtually zero in 1860, only 10% of GDP in 1900 after paying off Civil War debt.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

Belief is Boss, Rationalize is the Muscle

For most if not all of what you Believe, you must Rationalize. Because we humans are so good at believing, most are experts at rationalizing. So good we can rationalize just about anything.

Here's an interesting common example. "How could somebody possibly believe something so outrageous? They must be stupid." After living most of 4 decades in a cult, and my whole life in society, I can vouch that intelligence has very little to do with belief. But what ground has the comment covered?

The person who made it cannot understand something, the other person's belief, so they come up with a rationalization. The commenter's own belief must be defended, so a conclusion is reached with no evidence whatsoever. No consideration is given to the possibility that their own belief could be incorrect. That's how powerful Belief is, so he hires his best man, Rationalize.

For instance, the person making the comment could believe the Bible. If so they believe a donkey talked, people were raised from the dead, Moses parted the Red Sea simply by raising his staff, people were healed from leprosy, the sun stayed up for 3 days straight, Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the Nile River was turned to blood....yet they are astounded at someone else's belief, so they must rationalize. At the same time there are very many intelligent people who believe these things, and I don't say they're wrong. But they must rationalize because nobody on this entire planet has ever experienced any of the above. 7.5 billion living data points.

Think how MANY things you have to believe if you are a Democrat or Republican. haha I don't even want to go there!

If you want to see the power of Rationalization, the Milgram Experiment is classic. Milgram tested 40 men between 20-50 years of age. The Nazi's defense at Nuremberg was they were just following orders, so he wanted to see how far people would really go.

Milgram: "The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Please read that last sentence again.  

12 minutes, just ask yourself, what did these people Believe, and what did they Rationalize? One hint: The authority figure is in a white lab coat, which helps instill belief. When the test is repeated without the lab coat the results go down. But in the original experiment 65% administered the final, massive 450-volt shock, while all 40 participants gave shocks of at least 300 volts.  Ultimately the men tested were told the other person was an actor, otherwise imagine the guilt they might carry around when nobody was ever really punished.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOUEC5YXV8U

Commuters' wasted time in traffic costs $121B

http://news.yahoo.com/commuters-wasted-time-traffic-costs-121b-060227096.html

It is the rare person who has ever agreed with me on this but it seems obvious to me.

While government inefficiency is easy to find most things where government is involved, my dad pointed out an obvious fix to traffic problems that hardly anybody considers.  There are two issues, traffic safety and traffic flow.  I believe the way the gov manages traffic is the worst of both worlds.  The simple solution is one-way streets for major roads.

Number 1, the most dangerous act in driving is a left-hand turn.  I would be shocked if anybody disagrees with that.  One-way streets eliminate left-hand turns in front of oncoming traffic.  That problem is solved, totally eliminated.  Number 2, the ONLY reason lights can't be timed, allowing traffic to flow constantly, is because of left-turn signals.  Eliminate the left-turn signals and all lights can be timed.  Number 3, a road that normally has two lanes each way with a center LEFT-TURN lane only has 2 lanes of traffic flowing in each direction.  This is ridiculous during rush hour, especially when the majority are going one direction.  A one-way street would be FIVE lanes in one direction, with the middle THREE lanes not subjected to people turning off the road but able to flow with the timed lights.  Side streets could be left two-way.  Rarely you would have to go around a block to get somewhere, but to me this seems like a small price to pay to not die from somebody turning in front of you.  If you have ever ridden a motorcycle you would know this is the biggest danger you face.

I think about this quite often as I drive delivering pizzas, waiting at a light, light goes green, go two blocks and the light is red again.  A colossal waste of gas and time, as well as having the most dangerous move in driving ever-present. 

When I visited Philadelphia 5 years ago to play in the World Open chess tournament I saw this system in action.  In downtown Philly virtually all roads are one-way.  The traffic flow is unbelievable.  A surprising bonus that I was unaware of was more ease of pedestrian traffic.  Traffic is only coming from one direction, so crossing the street by foot is much easier.  More often than not, people jay walk against the light because there really is less traffic, think of 5 or 6 lanes instead of 2.  It is accepted in Philly to jay walk by everybody including cops on foot, nobody cares, and it really is safe for the most part to jay walk this way, even on streets with 5 lanes.  Jay walking is a way of life in Philly.

The only argument I have heard against this is, "People could drive the wrong way on a one-way street."  Well ok, why don't they do it in Philly?  Also, if there were one-way streets with traffic flowing nicely, imagine how insane it would be to say, "Let's have 2 lanes each way and put a lane in the middle where traffic and flow BOTH ways, plus have left-hand turns, the most dangerous move in driving.  Then we could wait at lights and do some texting."

If you think these arguments are logical, you need to visit Philadelphia.  Somehow this government entity got it right.  But for the most part, cities across the nation prefer the most dangerous move in driving while the masses sit at red lights and waste billions of dollars in gas while idling cars, while who knows how many thousands die from left hand turns.  There really are few things more ridiculous than the driving system that most city governments adopt.  About the only thing I can think of that is more ridiculous is making it a felony to own a plant that grows from a seed.  Two-way streets are only logical for low traffic volume at slow speeds, period.  They make sense in small towns and residential areas but make no sense when there is traffic volume.

Freeways are the perfect example of the safety of one-way traffic.  You can go 70 mph and be safer than going half that speed in town.

I wish a few of y'all could have spent a day or two driving around with me in a tow truck.  The vast majority of accidents we had to clean up were in intersections, of course, the result of left-hand turns.  If we didn't have left-hand turns I would imagine our calls for accidents would have been more than cut in half, but of course I have no statistical proof at the moment.  I only remember intersection after intersection of accidents.  Just ask any tow truck driver or cop you meet.  There is no need for actual stats on it.

And not only that, think about coming out of a parking lot and crossing one flow of traffic that is going north, to squeeze into a middle lane and then merge with traffic south, yet another left-hand turn.  I have to do this all the time, and sometimes the southbound traffic has a car merging into the turn lane southbound while I am crossing the traffic to get into the middle lane.  It is really a complicated move that has a lot of things that can go wrong. 

So the system we have wastes 5.5 billion hours of our time and $121 billion in time and fuel, to say nothing of higher insurance costs from more accidents as well as who knows how many more deaths.  Something as colossally inefficient as this is only possible from government entities who have no incentive whatsoever to make them better.  In fact, the system in place benefits police, courts, insurance agencies, Exxon, and morticians.  At our cost.

You can't argue that traffic flows better now with the current system.  You can't argue that there is less time or gas wasted with the current system.  The only thing you can argue with the current inefficient system is safety when there are left-hand turns and there would be chaos with one-way streets.  Then why isn't there chaos in Philly? 

And if you agree with me I will be totally shocked because hardly anybody does.

Richard M. NIxon

The Most Tolerant Cashier

This is quite humorous.  Of course it could never happen here in the US because we're cool and special.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-12/hyperinflation-action-beer-bag-cash

In May 2011, Belarus surprised its citizens by devaluing its currency by 50% overnight in an attempt to kickstart its economy, leading to swift and brutal hyperinflation. And while written narratives of the most recent episode of monetary collapse are one thing, nothing is quite as amusing, and grounding for those attempting to "value" money (such as Nobel prize winning economists writing out of their steel exoskeletal ivory towers), as watching a bag of cash be used to pay for seven boxes of beer. And nothing is quite a cathartic as spending several hours trying to count said cash - cash backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Belarus central bank...

A Russian Opinion On Gun Ownership

Courtesy of Pravda, here is one Russian's opinion on private gun ownership.  Per capita, there are 10 times more guns in the US than Russia, yet Russia's murder rate is more than double that of the US.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Americans never give up your guns

28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin 

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin

The article reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

Gun Ownership per capita compared to Murder Rate

In my blog just previous to this one, I discussed the varying murder rates in the world compared to the gun laws.  Somebody suggested I research actual gun ownership per capita and relate it to murder rates.  It seems like a good idea to compare these two stats because the argument is that reducing gun ownership would automatically lower the murder rate.  You could also compare gun ownership to the suicide rate, crime rate, what have you.  I would like to see it if you do.  This article concerns simply the murder rate.

The previous article listed this link for the murder rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The list shows 6 different categories.  Here's how they break down:

Category 1 

25 countries, murder rate of .9 or less per 100,000

Category 2

36 countries, murder rate of 1.0-1.9

Category 3

45 countries, murder rate of 2.0-4.9

Category 4

27 countries, murder rate of 5.0-9.9

Category 5

37 countries, murder rate of 10.9-19.9

Category 6

37 countries, murder rate of 20.0-91.6

Notice that each category is significantly higher than the previous one, especially when you get to Category 6.  An item in Category 6 could easily be 80 times or more higher than an item in Category 1.  While a change from Category 2 to Category 3 could be a double or triple, a change from Category 2 to Category 5 could be 19x.  So be aware that Categories 5 and 6 are extremely worse than earlier Categories.

It is also interesting that there are a lot of countries that have extremely bad murder rates.  The cases are not isolated.  As noted earlier, the United States is in Category 3 at 4.2.  That puts the US at 99th out of 207, but remember that a number of countries following the US have exponentially higher rates, not just slightly higher.

When gun ownership per capita of each country is related to its murder rate, interesting patterns emerge.  Number of Guns per capita by Country.

Data is listed below.  There are 178 countries listed for guns per capita and 2 have no murder rate data, so we have 176 countries that we can compare these two stats to.

Here are the 25 countries with the highest rate of gun ownership compared to their murder rate.
  -->

Country	Guns per 100 residents (2007)	Rank (2007)	Murder Rate Category
United States	88.8	1	3
Serbia	58.2	2	2
Yemen	54.8	3	3
Switzerland	45.7	4	1
Cyprus	36.4	5	2
Saudi Arabia	35	6	2
Iraq	34.2	7	3
Finland	32	8	3
Uruguay	31.8	9	4
Sweden	31.6	10	1
Norway	31.3	11	1
France	31.2	12	2
Canada	30.8	13	2
Austria	30.4	14	1
Germany	30.3	15	1
Iceland	30.3	15	1
Oman	25.5	17	1
Bahrain	24.8	18	1
Kuwait	24.8	18	3
Macedonia	24.1	20	2
Montenegro	23.1	21	3
New Zealand	22.6	22	1
Greece	22.5	23	2
United Arab Emirates	22.1	24	1
Northern Ireland	21.9	25	2

Of the 25 highest countries gun ownership per capita, 10 countries are in Category 1, 8 in Category 2, 6 in Category 3, and 1 Category 4.  An extremely low murder rate in the countries with the highest rates of guns per capita.

Now for the lowest 25 countries gun ownership per capita.  2 countries are in Category 1, 1 country in Category 2, 7 countries in Category 3, 5 countries in Category 4, 7 countries in Category 5, and 3 countries in Category 6.  A much higher murder rate exists here in spite of the fact that only 1 person or less in 100 has a gun in this category while in the highest countries the gun ownership was from 21.9 to 88.8 people per 100 had a gun.  

Below country 61 in ranking for gun ownership, there are only 3 countries in Category 1 out of 115 countries.
 
There are a lot more ideas and conclusions that can be reached by looking at this data but one things is obvious...In general, the murder rate is extremely lower in countries with higher guns per capita than in lower guns per capita. The complete data follows:
  -->

Country	Guns per 100 residents (2007)	Rank (2007)	Murder Rate Category
United States	88.8	1	3
Serbia	58.2	2	2
Yemen	54.8	3	3
Switzerland	45.7	4	1
Cyprus	36.4	5	2
Saudi Arabia	35	6	2
Iraq	34.2	7	3
Finland	32	8	3
Uruguay	31.8	9	4
Sweden	31.6	10	1
Norway	31.3	11	1
France	31.2	12	2
Canada	30.8	13	2
Austria	30.4	14	1
Germany	30.3	15	1
Iceland	30.3	15	1
Oman	25.5	17	1
Bahrain	24.8	18	1
Kuwait	24.8	18	3
Macedonia	24.1	20	2
Montenegro	23.1	21	3
New Zealand	22.6	22	1
Greece	22.5	23	2
United Arab Emirates	22.1	24	1
Northern Ireland	21.9	25	2
Croatia	21.7	26	2
Panama	21.7	26	6
Lebanon	21	28	3
Equatorial Guinea	19.9	29	6
Qatar	19.2	31	1
Latvia	19	32	3
Peru	18.8	33	5
Angola	17.3	34	5
Bosnia and Herzegovina	17.3	34	2
Belgium	17.2	36	2
Paraguay	17	37	5
Czech Republic	16.3	38	2
Thailand	15.6	39	3
Libya	15.5	40	3
Luxembourg	15.3	41	3
Australia	15	42	2
Mexico	15	42	6
Mauritius	14.7	44	3
Guyana	14.6	45	5
Gabon	14	46	5
Slovenia	13.5	47	1
Suriname	13.4	48	3
Guatemala	13.1	49	6
South Africa	12.7	50	6
Namibia	12.6	51	5
Armenia	12.5	52	2
Turkey	12.5	52	3
Denmark	12	54	1
Italy	11.9	55	1
Malta	11.9	55	2
Pakistan	11.6	57	4
Jordan	11.5	58	2
Chile	10.7	59	3
Venezuela	10.7	59	6
Spain	10.4	61	1
Argentina	10.2	62	3
Belize	10	63	6
Costa Rica	9.9	64	5
Estonia	9.2	65	4
Somalia	9.1	66	2
Transnistria	9.1	66
Russia	8.9	68	5
Zambia	8.9	68	6
Albania	8.6	70	3
Ireland	8.6	70	2
Portugal	8.5	72	2
Slovakia	8.3	73	2
Jamaica	8.1	74	6
Brazil	8	75	6
Barbados	7.8	76	5
Nicaragua	7.7	77	5
Algeria	7.6	78	2
Belarus	7.3	79	3
Georgia	7.3	79	3
Iran	7.3	79	3
Israel	7.3	79	2
Moldova	7.1	83	4
Ukraine	6.6	84	4
Maldives	6.5	85	2
Kenya	6.4	86	6
Swaziland	6.4	86	5
Bulgaria	6.2	88	2
England and Wales	6.2	88	2
Honduras	6.2	88	6
Colombia	5.9	91	6
El Salvador	5.8	92	6
Hungary	5.5	93	2
Scotland	5.5	93	2
Sudan	5.5	93	6
Cape Verde	5.4	96	5
Seychelles	5.4	96	4
Bahamas	5.3	98	6
Dominican Republic	5.1	99	6
Mozambique	5.1	99	4
Morocco	5	101	2
Botswana	4.9	102	5
China	4.9	102	2
Cuba	4.8	104	4
Philippines	4.7	105	4
Afghanistan	4.6	106	3
Taiwan	4.6	106	3
Zimbabwe	4.6	106	5
Cambodia	4.3	109	3
India	4.2	110	3
Burma	4	111
Netherlands	3.9	112	2
Syria	3.9	112	3
Turkmenistan	3.8	114	3
Azerbaijan	3.5	115	3
Egypt	3.5	115	2
Bhutan	3.5	115	2
Palestine	3.4	118	3
Bolivia	2.8	119	4
Cameroon	2.8	119	5
Djibouti	2.8	119	3
Congo	2.7	122	6
Lesotho	2.7	122	6
Ivory Coast	2.4	124	6
Senegal	2	125	5
Mongolia	1.9	126	4
Comoros	1.8	127	5
Vietnam	1.7	128	2
Guinea-Bissau	1.6	129	6
Liberia	1.6	129	5
Mauritania	1.6	129	3
Trinidad and Tobago	1.6	129	6
Malaysia	1.5	133	3
Nigeria	1.5	133	3
Sri Lanka	1.5	133	3
Uzbekistan	1.5	133	3
Benin	1.4	137	5
Brunei	1.4	137	1
Democratic Republic of the Congo	1.4	137	6
Tanzania	1.4	137	6
Uganda	1.4	137	6
Ecuador	1.3	142	4
Kazakhstan	1.3	142	4
Poland	1.3	142	2
Burundi	1.2	145	6
Laos	1.2	145	3
Guinea	1.2	145	6
Papua New Guinea	1.2	145	5
Burkina Faso	1.1	149	5
Chad	1.1	149	5
South Korea	1.1	149	3
Mali	1.1	149	4
Central African Republic	1	153	6
Tajikistan	1	153	3
Togo	1	153	5
Kyrgyzstan	.9	156	6
Gambia	.8	157	5
Madagascar	.8	157	4
Nepal	.8	157	3
Lithuania	.7	160	4
Malawi	.7	160	6
Niger	.7	160	3
Romania	.7	160	3
Haiti	.6	164	4
Japan	.6	164	1
North Korea	.6	164	5
Rwanda	.6	164	5
Sierra Leone	.6	164	5
Bangladesh	.5	169	3
Eritrea	.5	169	5
Fiji	.5	169	3
Indonesia	.5	169	4
Singapore	.5	169	1
Ethiopia	.4	174	6
Ghana	.4	174	5
Solomon Islands	.4	174	3
Timor-Leste	.3	177	4
Tunisia	.1	178	2