Norway!

[Johan]

Norway succeeds as others fail. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?em)

Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.

And in the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent and its ledger is entirely free of debt.

By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy.

Nice job, Norway! Oh, and respectfully, as an individual of Swedish ancestry, now living in a country that can best be described, in terms of the economy/budget at least, as a deepening failure...f**k you! ;) I kid, I kid.

[Ancalagon]

Dont know if I've asked you this before Johan, but how do you pronounce your name?

In Afrikaans it would be pronounced as Yohan, and is a short form of Johannes.

But whats Norway ever done for us besides Roald Dahl?

[roboninja]

Obviously, their lack of social programs and small government helped them be financially sound. Wait...

[National Kato]

Obviously, their lack of social programs and small government helped them be financially sound. Wait...

That was my first reaction. 'Cradle-to-grave welfare state?' Yeah, that's a term that would go over like a lead zeppelin here.

[DoctorFinger]

Dont know if I've asked you this before Johan, but how do you pronounce your name?How do you greet Mr. Solo? Yo, Han!

[Johan]

Thank goodness there's little to no danger of replicating Norway's cradle-to-grave social programs here in America. We wouldn't want any of THAT, now would we!??! ;)

How do you greet Mr. Solo? Yo, Han!

I am indeed Mr. Solo.

"I [game] alone....YEAH, with nobody else...
You know, when I game alone...I prefer to be by myself!"

YO-han it is.

[DangerousDaze]

Nice job, Norway!
You missed the single most important aspect of Norway's economy. The fact that money literally pisses out of the ground into a very small country's very large coffers.

They have much more oil revenue than they can spend in a year. It has nothing to do with them being better at managing their economy.

/edit - it also has a very high tax burden for a government that is almost literally rolling in money, but since everyone gets paid a healthy salary it's not too frowned upon.

[alienmastermind]

Norway has trolls.

If I'm to believe everything Epcot tells me, and I do, they also have rich oil fields and bearded sailors bringing in nature's rich bounty.

Also, it's easier to take care of a citizenry that could fit into Texas and have room for all their Lefse and Lutefisk.

[Johan]

You missed the single most important aspect of Norway's economy. The fact that money literally pisses out of the ground into a very small country's very large coffers.

I didn't miss that. I already knew it.

America is rolling in money as well. The difference? Norway's political/social choices are different from our own.

It's important that we be militarily able to tell the world what to do. That takes money. We must be the cop for the world's 'beat;' a situation I'm sick of, personally. Elect me president. I'll bring ALL of our soldiers based in other nations home, barring a local referendum that supports our continued presence with a clear majority of 67% or higher; a referendum held within six months of my election or we leave.

Screw being the world's policemen. It's too expensive, unappreciated, and costly in blood.

[DangerousDaze]

Screw being the world's policemen. It's too expensive, unappreciated, and costly in blood.

Is this just another angle to attack America? I thought you were congratulating Norway?

[Ox]

Screw being the world's policemen. It's too expensive, unappreciated, and costly in blood.
Whereas our flirtations with isolationism have historically been cheap, highly popular around the world, and cost no American lives at all.

[Johan]

Whereas our flirtations with isolationism have historically been cheap, highly popular around the world, and cost no American lives at all.

Nicely done.

We've been whoring it up with the world for long enough that it may well be time for a new mistress...one closer to home. No policy is perfect, but doing essentially the same thing repeatedly, for decades, expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

Also, there's the whole thing of global empires and their eventual collapse, historically...but we can gloss over that, I suppose.

Good job, Norway!

Is this just another angle to attack America? I thought you were congratulating Norway?

That's bizarre...suggesting a change in policy (getting us out of others' business) that most of the world supports, and would therefore improve their opinion of the U.S. if implemented, is attacking America? Interesting. Very interesting.

[Ox]

We've been whoring it up with the world for long enough that it may well be time for a new mistress...one closer to home.
So... what? Bring back the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt Corollary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary)?
No policy is perfect, but doing essentially the same thing repeatedly, for decades, expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.
Since policy is holistic, with changes in one area affecting all the others, I defy you to find a situation where the world total of foreign and domestic policies globally has been substantially similar for a single ten-year span.

Also, there's the whole thing of global empires and their eventual collapse, historically...but we can gloss over that, I suppose.
Every romantic relationship I've ever had has ended. Does this mean I will never find a permanent romantic relationship? Or are we demonstrating a sort of inversion of survivorship bias? After all, there can only ever be one permanent empire, and we won't know if we're living in it until the end of the human race.

[Johan]

So... what? Bring back the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt Corollary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary)?

Remember the gauntlet you threw down?

Whereas our flirtations with isolationism have historically been cheap, highly popular around the world, and cost no American lives at all.

How many Americans died, because of isolationism or its effects, prior to our entering WW II? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? A total of perhaps 7,000? How many died after we entered those conflicts? How many civilians died during the conflicts that had us as a party to the conflict? How many nations currently house American military bases around the world? How many of those nations have popular support for their presence? How many countries want the United States out of their internal affairs?

If you're going to argue that isolationism is more costly than interventionism, I believe the ledger in blood argues against you. I also think it's a terribly simplistic foreign policy to throw military muscle and blood around the globe. Other nations do without that kind of diplomacy, and we can as well.

Every romantic relationship I've ever had has ended. Does this mean I will never find a permanent romantic relationship?

I don't know. Love is grand, however, as is marriage.

[Ravenlock]

Every romantic relationship I've ever had has ended. Does this mean I will never find a permanent romantic relationship? Or are we demonstrating a sort of inversion of survivorship bias? After all, there can only ever be one permanent empire, and we won't know if we're living in it until the end of the human race.

Well now, hang on. That's not really an apples to apples comparison. With romances, there are plenty of successes to look around at and base your chances on; lots of people succeed, so odds seem alright that given time, anybody can.

This is more like if the situation was that every romantic relationship anyone on Earth has ever had had failed, and you were asking if that meant you would never find permanent romance. And the answer in that case obviously still wouldn't be that it's impossible, but the chances would look a hell of a lot less bright. ;)

[Ox]

How many Americans died, because of isolationism or its effects, prior to our entering WW II? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? A total of perhaps 7,000?
As you might put it, I find it interesting that you only consider American lives. Very interesting. Okay, I forgot I started that.

But hey: let's only look at American lives. If we had invaded Germany in 1933, World War II would have been far less costly, yes? We wouldn't have had to fight our way through France, the Wehrmacht would not yet have been mobilized, it would have been much easier. How much easier? Let's assume it would have been as expensive as beating the snot out of the Germans had been 15 years earlier: 53,402 battle deaths. Compared to what?

I mean, you seem to be assuming that isolationism means never fighting another war again. But that's not isolationism; that's pacifism. Isolationism is just waiting until your enemies are ready to stage Barbarossa. That strategy can be described in many ways, but "cheaper" isn't one of them.

[Ox]

Well now, hang on. That's not really an apples to apples comparison. With romances, there are plenty of successes to look around at and base your chances on; lots of people succeed, so odds seem alright that given time, anybody can.

This is more like if the situation was that every romantic relationship anyone on Earth has ever had had failed, and you were asking if that meant you would never find permanent romance.
That's not really an apt comparison, either. After all, there's nothing about your successful relationship that precludes me from having a successful relationship. But it seems (at least since Columbus) that it's not possible for any empire to arise until the prior one has fallen.

In any event, we might as well note that the Mayan Empire lasted over 2000 years without substantial interruption, and it only failed when climate change forced them to abandon their cities. Which, depending on how dire you think global warming is, is either a reassuring or a worrying factoid.

[Ravenlock]

That's not really an apt comparison, either. After all, there's nothing about your successful relationship that precludes me from having a successful relationship. But it seems (at least since Columbus) that it's not possible for any empire to arise until the prior one has fallen.

True, I guess, but my point was that the romance comparison as a whole just doesn't work, simply because there have been many, many successful permanent romances. Or at least, permanent until the point of death, which is consistent with your "end of the human race" stipulation. The proof of concept exists, writ large. There have been, obviously, zero "permanent" empires. Lack of success does not guarantee there will never be success, but lack of success over a long enough timeline - in this case human history - certainly implies that it is unlikely. Obviously to some degree the question is silly anyhow, since as you say there's no measure of success for permanence until we're all dead and gone, at which point there's no-one to measure it. ;)

In any event, we might as well note that the Mayan Empire lasted over 2000 years without substantial interruption, and it only failed when climate change forced them to abandon their cities. Which, depending on how dire you think global warming is, is either a reassuring or a worrying factoid.

I think there's some debate over whether or not the Mayan collapse was due to climate change. Regardless, however, I think it's unlikely they would have survived the eventual Spanish conquests and/or other colonizing forces even if drought and/or other hardships hadn't previously befallen them. Though I'll happily grant that two thousand years is mighty impressive. We should be so lucky as to last just one.

[Johan]

As you might put it, I find it interesting that you only consider American lives. Very interesting. Okay, I forgot I started that.

This is extremely insulting, inflammatory, and totally unnecessary. Are you reading what I post, or just naturally defaulting to condescension to insult me? Here:

How many civilians died during the conflicts that had us as a party to the conflict?

Naturally, every life has value (I'll leave it to insurance adjusters to determine monetary values, and philosophers/ethicist to determine other gauges with which to somehow compare lives). Indicated in my previous post, quoted above, is the fact that our military misadventures have cost civilian lives in other nations. Millions, in fact (Vietnam and Iraq, in particular).

The reality is that your statement regarding the "cost" of isolationism (call it pacifism if you will, but I'm no pacifist. I believe in a strong national DEFENSE, not warmongering all around the globe) compared with what we have been utilizing as our policies of the past decades, is ridiculous and patently wrong. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, uselessly and needlessly in many cases, as have foreign civilian nationals, and while WW II is certainly and arguably necessary intervention, and Korea less so, there isn't much of a case to be made for the 50,000+ thousand Americans who died in Vietnam, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese, or our misadventure in Iraq.

See...implicit in my desire for Americans to be home is my desire to allow others to live as they see fit as well. I don't believe we should be dictating how others live, and I don't believe we should be dying overseas to create nation-states in our, or any other, image.

We are not the world's moral, military, or "other" police force. I deeply disagree with some of the ways that many other nations order their societies, and there are ways to actually work for one's goals overseas, but I'm tired of the cost in blood and treasure that our military misadventures have cost, including specifically Korea (to a lesser degree), Vietnam (to a great degree), Iraq (to a great degree), and Afghanistan (growing worse with each passing month).

Do me the courtesy of ignoring my posts if you're going to cherry-pick them and make ridiculous, and horrendously insulting, claims that I only care about American lives. Thanks.

[Ancalagon]

I think the history of American isolationism/imperialism can be summed up as:

If you guys do what the world wants you to do (ie help end the Nazi threat), we love you.

If you guys do your own thing, ie let Premier Bush invade Iraq and Afghanistan on faulty intel and drag the rest of the west into war and make fundamentalists even more fundamental, then we dont like you. Especially when theres an undercurrent of torture and money changing hands.

[Doogie2K]

When others splurged, it saved.

Wait, you mean they didn't send out $400 to every man, woman, and child in the country instead of socking it away for when the black-gold gravy train ended? Blasphemy!

/Ralph Klein'd

[Ox]

This is extremely insulting, inflammatory, and totally unnecessary. Are you reading what I post, or just naturally defaulting to condescension to insult me?
Wait a second: I say something out of line, realize it, and withdraw it. Two hours later, see my retraction, and act insulted anyway? What the hell do you want from me, blood?

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died, uselessly and needlessly in many cases, as have foreign civilian nationals, and while WW II is certainly and arguably necessary intervention, and Korea less so, there isn't much of a case to be made for the 50,000+ thousand Americans who died in Vietnam, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese, or our misadventure in Iraq.
"WW II is certainly and arguably necessary intervention"? Is it certainly or arguably? You seemed like you were claiming before that World War II was unjustifiable. Now you're either vacillating or solidly on the other side. I can't even figure out what your position is.

Do me the courtesy of ignoring my posts if you're going to cherry-pick them and make ridiculous, and horrendously insulting, claims that I only care about American lives. Thanks.
I believe I already acknowledged it was unfair to suggest you only cared about American lives. So I'm having some difficulty understanding why you would be so insulted even now. But I believe I've already prostrated myself to you enough. Suck it up and stop whining.

[Johan]

Wait a second: I say something out of line, realize it, and withdraw it. Suck it up and stop whining.

If you want to withdraw something, edit it OUT, don't strike it out and leave it there for posterity.

Edit button. It's a great feature, but not when you leave the content up.

So I'm having some difficulty understanding why you would be so insulted even now.

Gosh, I wonder why? Perhaps the fact that you left the content up? If you wanted to withdraw it, then WITHDRAW IT, don't leave it there.

Thanks so much.

[Ox]

If you want to withdraw something, edit it OUT, don't strike it out and leave it there for posterity.

Edit button. It's a great feature, but not when you leave the content up.
I struck it rather than deleting it because I was afraid you were already writing a response to me, and if I deleted it without evidence, it would look like I was trying to cover it up. When retracting a statement, I find it best to leave the original error up and retract it rather than pretending I never made a mistake.

I sincerely doubt posterity cares about what I said to you, meritorious or not.

[Johan]

I sincerely doubt posterity cares about what I said to you, meritorious or not.

On this we sincerely and genuinely agree. Too true. May the tubes continue on...