• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The World's Happiest Countries

It's truly insane what we spend on the military. No one comes close to the amount we spend.
 
OldGoldBeard said:
Our military strength is a big reason why it's not comparable. Could and should spending be cut? Absolutely, but, as ITC and Dented alluded to, someone has to keep the peace.
Click to expand...
Keep the peace? That is some bullshit right there. I'd like to see military spending cut by about 90%. Fuck being the world's policeman.
 
The world's top 5 military spenders in 2011.
76993865824def4a4d61875fdfb45e42.png
 
We're pouring this money into the military at a time when the country is in the shitter. If they're determined to spend this money I'd much rather see it spent on some sort of modern day WPA. The Taliban recently made it onto one of our most secure bases. Besides the lives that were lost look at the economic impact:
According to the Wall Street Journal, “The coordinated Taliban attack destroyed six Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier jump-jets and "significantly" damaged two others, as well as some hangars, the coalition said. The Taliban also destroyed three refueling stations. Harrier jets cost about $30 million to $40 million dollars apiece - for a total in of anywhere between $180- $240 million dollars in damage.
Click to expand...
 
OldGoldBeard said:
App grads are so cute.



Our military strength is a big reason why it's not comparable. Could and should spending be cut? Absolutely, but, as ITC and Dented alluded to, someone has to keep the peace.



Per Wikipedia, they're all at 1.4-1.5% of GDP, a little less than a third of our rate.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't mean to imply that Norway is anywhere near us, but then again, no one is.* It is in the top 10 in per capita spending IIRC though. I'm just not sure bkf's general point holds about them not spending on the military (and creating a socialist utopia as a result).

*Edit to add: I was clearly wrong if we're talking % of GDP. We're in the bottom half of the top 10 by that measure.
 
Last edited:
OldGoldBeard said:
App grads are so cute.
Click to expand...

Your girlfriend would agree.

I was not disagreeing about the Allied role in the Nordic region with the eye roll. I just get sick of Wake grads (;) )always playing the "we protected them from Hitler" card anytime it is pointed out that the nations who were our allies in WWII spend more on their citizens and in social programs today, and we are still unhappy and falling behind on education and healthcare. It's an eye-roll worthy response. :noidea:
 
Last edited:
the top four are countries full of white people
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
bobknightfan said:
http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/world...a4d6-bc1f03e823d2&bcmt_s=u#ugccmt-container-b

The top four on the list have several things in common: lots of socialist programs, strong safety nets....and very little military spending.

This is hardly surprising to me. They spend their money on people and the peaceful pursuit of happiness, rather than bombs, bullets and always looking for the next war to fight. What a novel idea!
Click to expand...

Is it interesting that none of the countries of Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union were included on that list. Now, those were ruled by socialists for a long time, and some of them still are, but for some reason their experience with socialism is "irrelevant" to Americans on the left. I wonder why that is.

I can think of other common characteristics for the top four too:

1. They are all countries where the predominant part of the population are White Europeans.

2. Not just White Europeans but as you-know-who would have called them: Aryans. Is that important?

3. They are all relatively affluent and have been for a long time.

4. Some - Norway and Holland - have huge quantities of exportable and highly profitable natural resources.

5. Their populations are relatively homogeneous with relatively little ethnic conflict (Holland may be an exception to this).

A few further questions:

What were the criteria for happiness?

Why are people not standing in line to move to the top four?

Why are most immigrants going to other countries?
 
sailor channeled his inner Pat Buchanan. White Europeans RULE in sailor's world.....the reality they have been free countries for centuries unlike Eastern Europe.

sailor seems to support Aryans.......
 
sailordeac said:
Is it interesting that none of the countries of Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union were included on that list. Now, those were ruled by socialists for a long time, and some of them still are, but for some reason their experience with socialism is "irrelevant" to Americans on the left. I wonder why that is.

I can think of other common characteristics for the top four too:

1. They are all countries where the predominant part of the population are White Europeans.

2. Not just White Europeans but as you-know-who would have called them: Aryans. Is that important?

3. They are all relatively affluent and have been for a long time.

4. Some - Norway and Holland - have huge quantities of exportable and highly profitable natural resources.

5. Their populations are relatively homogeneous with relatively little ethnic conflict (Holland may be an exception to this).

A few further questions:

What were the criteria for happiness?

Why are people not standing in line to move to the top four?

Why are most immigrants going to other countries?
Click to expand...

While I agree with most of the points you make, I'll pick on the following:
5. You might count Norway as an exception here as well after the attacks of July 2011. The non-ethnically Norwegian population here is growing rapidly and Oslo will be majority non-Norwegian in the next thirty years.

These two questions strike me as naive:
Why are people not standing in line to move to the top four?
Why are most immigrants going to other countries?

It takes a lot for people to leave their country. Additionally, people may want to leave for many reasons, but want to stay for many others. Leaving your homeland is never easy, no matter how bad it may look to an outsider. I'm friends with an Afghani guy here that desperately misses his homeland, but left under threats of death. It's not just a simple calculation of which country has higher living standards or happiness or oil reserves (etc.). A huge part of everyday life is culture and whether or not one feels like the cultural tradeoffs from leaving one's own culture are worth the benefits of moving to a new country. This is the single biggest difference between the US labor market and the EU labor market: people are much more willing to move from Michigan to DC than they are from Spain to Germany.

To tie more directly into your questions, though, each country has its own immigration policies that make it more or less hard to move there. Why fight to get into a top 4 country if you can get into #5 relatively easily (just as a hypothetical). I know that Norway has fairly strict immigration laws and, unless you're a refugee or have family in Norway, you're going to have a very hard time getting a residence permit. As a result, someone desperate to move to a rich European country would be unlikely to pick Norway in spite of its happiness and per capita income levels.

(On a more directly related matter, I'm convinced that the reason why Nordic countries rank so highly on these happiness indices is because, by all objective measures relating to development, the countries do well and, subjectively, people here have very low expectations for the future. If things are staying the same, people are happy that it isn't getting worse. In contrast, Americans expect that life will get better and are unhappy when it stagnates. Obviously a generalization, but it's also my experience in talking to people over the course of four years here.)

Edit to add: I also should have taken exception with point #3 unless by "a long time" you meant 20-30 years.
 
What percentage of defense spending goes to American companies and the Americans they employ?
 
Milhouse said:
the top four are countries full of white people
Click to expand...

So that's why they suck at sports. It also relieves them of the pain and sorrow related to losing at sports and caring, hence more happiness.
 
I think it's a cultural thing moreso than demographics (which is a touchy topic to say the least). I remember my first trip to Europe several years ago. I was touring Rome and took note of the fact that at 10:00 on Monday morning a number of storefronts/services (pharmacies and such) were still closed. The explanation I received was that Sunday evenings were reserved as family time with late dinners, drinking wine, strolling around etc. that the businesses just weren't quite open yet (not to mention the mid-day 'siestas' that you often see). As an American, where we are conditioned to have almost anything we want immediately and 24-7, this almost seemed unthinkable to me.
Another point is that many European companies are mandated to provided several weeks vacation to their employees, where in the US many companies provide a paltry 2 weeks (esp if you are just starting out with a company) which I find absurd in a civilized modern society.

I guess it's just a matter of priorities- US seems to be more focused on live to work, make money, buy material things, keep up with the Joneses, etc- all very illusory in one's pursuit of happiness.
Europe is more focused on work to live, relationships, experiences, time with family, living the good life- they seem to 'get it' better than we do in some aspects.

I would argue that yes, the social compact may be better exercised there- e.g. the social safety net allays most people concerns re survival; does it take a bit of an edge off "productivity" and "success"? Perhaps, but where has that left us in the US?
 
RJKarl said:
sailor channeled his inner Pat Buchanan. White Europeans RULE in sailor's world.....the reality they have been free countries for centuries unlike Eastern Europe.

sailor seems to support Aryans.......
Click to expand...

This is about as silly a misreading of my post as one could have managed, I knew I could count on you RJ.

My point about White Europeans and Aryans - if there is such a thing - was that all kinds of "interesting" and provocative characteristics and parallels could be noted on such a short list. And these similarities may have something to do with who drew up and applied the criteria and what criteria they used to determine happiness. You seem to have missed that.

Furthermore, your point about long-time independence is simply mistaken. Norway was a part Sweden until recent times. Finland was a part of the Tsar's Empire 100 years ago and Tsar's government was engaged in an intense policy of Russification in Finland. This included attempts to subvert local self-government, incorporation of the Finish army into the Russian army, making the postal service part of the Russian postal service, and the like. Some independence!

And when it comes to lack of independence in Eastern Eyrope, Russia has not been independent for a long time? That's funny, I thought they had been for over 500 years.

You seem to have your own confused idea of reality, where historical fact has no place.
 
Agree with Hoosiers post. A lot of good points.
 
sailordeac said:
This is about as silly a misreading of my post as one could have managed, I knew I could count on you RJ.

My point about White Europeans and Aryans - if there is such a thing - was that all kinds of "interesting" and provocative characteristics and parallels could be noted on such a short list. And these similarities may have something to do with who drew up and applied the criteria and what criteria they used to determine happiness. You seem to have missed that.

Furthermore, your point about long-time independence is simply mistaken. Norway was a part Sweden until recent times. Finland was a part of the Tsar's Empire 100 years ago and Tsar's government was engaged in an intense policy of Russification in Finland. This included attempts to subvert local self-government, incorporation of the Finish army into the Russian army, making the postal service part of the Russian postal service, and the like. Some independence!

And when it comes to lack of independence in Eastern Eyrope, Russia has not been independent for a long time? That's funny, I thought they had been for over 500 years.

You seem to have your own confused idea of reality, where historical fact has no place.
Click to expand...

You are the one who use Aryans and "white northern Europeans" multiple time in the first post.

100 years of independence is five times what Eastern Europe and at least double what what Africa, the middle East and even what most of South Asia has.

also you can't compare Norway's split from Sweden with having been colonized. Each of those countries have been "modern" for hundreds of years.

Those are the historical facts that you dismiss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top