http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=140
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fundforpeace.org%2Fweb%2Fimages%2Ffsi_09_small.gif&hash=c15d963d551c668a173a8c3b082cd48b055534d5)
QuoteWe are pleased to present the fifth annual Failed States Index. The FSI focuses on the indicators of risk and is based on thousands of articles and reports that are processed by our CAST Software from electronically available sources. To learn more, please see the FAQs.
We encourage others to utilize the Failed States Index to develop ideas for promoting greater stability worldwide. We hope the Index will spur conversations, encourage debate, and most of all help guide strategies for sustainable security.
The Twelve Indicators
Click on an indicator to see some examples of measures that may be included in the analysis of that indicator. These are neither exclusive nor exhaustive. You can add more measures, as appropriate.
Social Indicators
I-1. Mounting Demographic Pressures
I-2. Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creating
Complex Humanitarian Emergencies
I-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
I-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight
Economic Indicators
I-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
I-6. Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline
Political Indicators
I-7. Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State
I-8. Progressive Deterioration of Public Services
I-9. Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread
Violation of Human Rights
I-10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"
I-11. Rise of Factionalized Elites
I-12. Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors
The failedest states according to the long ass list on the site that I won't post here are (from worst to not quite worst):
Somalia
Zimbabwe
Sudan
Chad
Dem.Rep. Congo
Iraq
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Guinea
Pakistan
The unfailedest states (from best to not quite as good):
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Switzerland
Ireland
Denmark
New Zealand
Australia
Netherlands
Austria
The list also shows how each state was rated in every category. E.g. Germany rates badly in:
I-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
I-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
Whereas Poland is rated badly in:
I-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight
The index included a bit about Somalia. Apparently al-Qaeda tried to set up in Somalia but found the random violence and lack of infrastructure too much. So now, it seems they've left. Somalia's so failed that even international terrorists can't use it as a base.
How do you account for al-Shabaab then?
I wonder how Ireland would rate if it got the North back, instead of Great Britain having it. Though GB would probaby still be in the yellow with Scotland and Wales.
It's nice to know the US is on par with Oman.
Japan is moderate only?
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Propped up by American anime fans.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Of course. Like all these kinds of "ratings" the upper end is really just a rating of how socialist you are.
Japan is clearly not socialist enough to be "sustainable". What a ironic choice of word...
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2009, 10:39:06 PM
Whereas Poland is rated badly in:
I-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight
We have invented the airplane. No scribes allowed.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 11:43:19 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Of course. Like all these kinds of "ratings" the upper end is really just a rating of how socialist you are.
Japan is clearly not socialist enough to be "sustainable". What a ironic choice of word...
:rolleyes: Give it a rest already.
Luxembourg is a tax shelter and financial hub with very few people=very socialist.
high population and wide diversity of results seem to drag down larger countries.
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 11:43:19 PM
Of course. Like all these kinds of "ratings" the upper end is really just a rating of how socialist you are.
Japan is clearly not socialist enough to be "sustainable". What a ironic choice of word...
Switzerland, Ireland and Australia aren't very socialist by Western-world standards. In the rating that I'd guess is most related to how socialist you are (I-5), the US ranks better (i.e. more socialist) than France. :P
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 12:29:01 AM
Luxembourg is a tax shelter and financial hub with very few people=very socialist.
high population and wide diversity of results seem to drag down larger countries.
.
It seems that they're measuring social, political, and economic stability more than anything else. While I would tend to agree that in general it's legit to consider states with huge amounts of instability as "failed" I think it could be argued that those on the opposite end of the spectrum could be considered as "stagnant" rather than "sustainable".
Not to mention, anyone who has actually been following the situation in Japan over the last two decades (hint: Berkut is not one of them) knows that Japan actually *is* a somewhat failed state, at least by the Western free market democracy standards.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2009, 10:43:38 PM
The index included a bit about Somalia. Apparently al-Qaeda tried to set up in Somalia but found the random violence and lack of infrastructure too much. So now, it seems they've left. Somalia's so failed that even international terrorists can't use it as a base.
:face:
QuoteNot to mention, anyone who has actually been following the situation in Japan over the last two decades (hint: Berkut is not one of them) knows that Japan actually *is* a somewhat failed state, at least by the Western free market democracy standards.
Are they still in that recession? Or did it break and they're now in a new one?
Quote from: Berkut on July 22, 2009, 11:43:19 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Of course. Like all these kinds of "ratings" the upper end is really just a rating of how socialist you are.
Japan is clearly not socialist enough to be "sustainable". What a ironic choice of word...
So do reality and you ever meet or are you two just not seeing one another anymore?
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2009, 10:39:06 PM
The list also shows how each state was rated in every category. E.g. Germany rates badly in:
I-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
I-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
For Spain, I'll see that and raise these other two:
I-10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"
I-11. Rise of Factionalized Elites
Damn those guys at the FP are harsh.
North Korea is red? Their state apparatus functions very effectively. You may or may not agree with their goals, of course. But that should be a different matter.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2009, 05:08:08 AM
North Korea is red? Their state apparatus functions very effectively. You may or may not agree with their goals, of course. But that should be a different
matter.
They aren't socialist enough for Berkut's taste.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2009, 11:16:06 PM
It's nice to know the US is on par with Oman.
Massachusetts drags the rest of the US down. :blush:
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2009, 12:44:11 AM
Not to mention, anyone who has actually been following the situation in Japan over the last two decades (hint: Berkut is not one of them) knows that Japan actually *is* a somewhat failed state, at least by the Western free market democracy standards.
What, do they not like gays enough for you?
Industrialized, high income, good education, high technology, good infrastructure, free and democratic elections. #2 in the G-7. Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
The people that make these kinds of polls always have a giant boner for Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries always are at the top of "freedom" polls (i.e. freedom of the press, free of corruption, poverty, etc.) Having never been to Scandinavia I have no idea if this reflects reality. Switzerland is usually at or near the top of these rankings also, and I have been there... it seemed pretty much the same as the US to me, but then again I was only there for a few days.
Scandinavia doesn't have African-Americans.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 07:04:48 AM
Scandinavia doesn't have African-Americans.
What does that have to do with anything? :hide:
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2009, 07:07:03 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 07:04:48 AM
Scandinavia doesn't have African-Americans.
What does that have to do with anything? :hide:
Blacks are always death in these kinds of polls, due to their genetic predisposition towards being ungovernable.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 23, 2009, 12:51:58 AMAre they still in that recession? Or did it break and they're now in a new one?
More like a couple of them, strung very close together that pretty much blend.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
I-5, uneven economic development along group lines. Like Throbby said.
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2009, 06:59:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
The people that make these kinds of polls always have a giant boner for Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries always are at the top of "freedom" polls (i.e. freedom of the press, free of corruption, poverty, etc.) Having never been to Scandinavia I have no idea if this reflects reality. Switzerland is usually at or near the top of these rankings also, and I have been there... it seemed pretty much the same as the US to me, but then again I was only there for a few days.
It's rather a list of placid, boring, kind of dull places the ones that always top this kind of rankings. :P
How come French Guiana, despite being a department and region of France, is not ever considered a part of France on those maps? Alaska and Hawaii are never considered not part of the US...it just seems odd to me.
And thus concludes the extent of what interests me about that map.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
I-5, uneven economic development along group lines. Like Throbby said.
And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2009, 05:08:08 AM
North Korea is red? Their state apparatus functions very effectively. You may or may not agree with their goals, of course. But that should be a different matter.
Only because the populace is only exposed to government-sanctioned information. All it would really take is a prolonged interruption of communications to start shaking up N. Korea.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
I-5, uneven economic development along group lines. Like Throbby said.
And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.
It is hell here.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:14:28 AM
I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).
I-5, uneven economic development along group lines. Like Throbby said.
And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.
It is hell here.
It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:18:14 AM
It is hell here.
We rank above most countries. *shrug* Who cares? We are dragged down by places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Oklahoma.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 23, 2009, 05:08:08 AM
North Korea is red? Their state apparatus functions very effectively. You may or may not agree with their goals, of course. But that should be a different matter.
But it isn't a different matter, which is the point. The people who do these ratings have a certain list of things they find important, but if they titled the list "Rating countries by what we think is important" nobody would care.
Instead they give it a nice title like "ZOMG FAILED STATZORS!" so everyone will pay attention, even if there ratings don't always have much to do with "failed states" except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.
All that being said, you picked a rather poor example to champion.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 08:21:52 AM
It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".
Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.
According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 08:22:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:18:14 AM
It is hell here.
We rank above most countries. *shrug* Who cares? We are dragged down by places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Oklahoma.
I've been told by Internet sources that Oklahoma may secede.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 08:21:52 AM
It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".
Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.
According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.
The point, I guess, is about the countries at the top of the "failed states ranking", the places we're checking are at the bottom of the list, we're looking at it upside down.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:23:36 AM
except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.
That catagory is about wealth distribution among ethnic groups, not individuals. Obviously if one ethnic group controls all the wealth and education and so forth that creates social and political problems that can create a failed state. It is not talking about wealth distribution among individuals.
So in that context I can see why they included it as it is a serious problem in alot of countries in the world and I do not comprehend at all your outrage over it being about socialism. Plenty of socialist countries have ethnic underclasses. France, which is more "socialist" ranks behind the US in that catagory, for example.
Having said that I think most of the ratings of the first world countries are nonsense. The US gets a rather bad score for 'Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights' which gets my attention far more than the economic catagory.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 08:28:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2009, 08:21:52 AM
It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".
Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.
According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.
The point, I guess, is about the countries at the top of the "failed states ranking", the places we're checking are at the bottom of the list, we're looking at it upside down.
Again, I agree. The list, to the extent that it is useful, isn't about the Western democracies.
Which is why it is so odd that they insist on distracting from that by drawing these false distinctions that really are not that interesting except as a means of making some irrelevant political argument about the "failure" of some countries at not being socialist enough.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:32:17 AM
The list, to the extent that it is useful, isn't about the Western democracies.
I agree
Quoteirrelevant political argument about the "failure" of some countries at not being socialist enough.
I cannot believe you latch on to this and ignore how we arbitrarily suspend and violate human rights according to them. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 08:32:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:23:36 AM
except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.
That catagory is about wealth distribution among ethnic groups, not individuals. Obviously if one ethnic group controls all the wealth and education and so forth that creates social and political problems that can create a failed state. It is not talking about wealth distribution among individuals.
So in that context I can see why they included it as it is a serious problem in alot of countries in the world and I do not comprehend at all your outrage over it being about socialism. Plenty of socialst countries have ethnic underclasses. France ranks behind the US in that catagory, for example.
Having said that I think most of the ratings of the first world countries are nonsense. The US gets a rather bad score for 'Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights' which gets my attention far more than the economic catagory.
I don't think you can separate the two. Sure, in countries where there are truly screwed over ethnic groups, that rating is perfectly valid. But drawing distinctions at the top in order to smugly label this country as "wodnerful/green" and that country as "kinda failed/yellow" betrays a lack of objectivity on the part of the people making this silly lists.
The fact that the US gets dinged for something as patently ridiculous as "...Widespread violation of human rights" is just further evidence that there is an agenda here that goes well beyond illustrating the truly failed states.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 08:34:34 AM
I cannot believe you latch on to this and ignore how we arbitrarily suspend and violate human rights according to them. :lol:
Shrugh. Like I said, I think we get the ratings we do on things like "human rights violations" because we don't distribute wealth in a satisfactory manner for those making lists like this. They are all tied up together. The particular rating that they massage to get the result they want isn't really all THAT interesting, except to illustrate how silly the entire thing is.
Quote from: dps on July 23, 2009, 12:37:54 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 12:29:01 AM
Luxembourg is a tax shelter and financial hub with very few people=very socialist.
high population and wide diversity of results seem to drag down larger countries.
.
It seems that they're measuring social, political, and economic stability more than anything else. While I would tend to agree that in general it's legit to consider states with huge amounts of instability as "failed" I think it could be argued that those on the opposite end of the spectrum could be considered as "stagnant" rather than "sustainable".
yes, maybe stagnant. it depends on how dynamic the economy is. the USA has a fairly dynamic economy, even in a recession.
we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.
like all these sorts of rankings, it comes down to values. for example here's Heritage Foundation's "Economic Freedom Index" top 10, which embodies different values:
1 Hong Kong 902 Singapore 87.1
3 Australia 82.6
4 Ireland 82.2
5 New Zealand 82
6 United States 80.7
7 Canada 80.5
8 Denmark 79.6
9 Switzerland 79.4
10 United Kingdom 79
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:37:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 08:34:34 AM
I cannot believe you latch on to this and ignore how we arbitrarily suspend and violate human rights according to them. :lol:
Shrugh. Like I said, I think we get the ratings we do on things like "human rights violations" because we don't distribute wealth in a satisfactory manner for those making lists like this. They are all tied up together. The particular rating that they massage to get the result they want isn't really all THAT interesting, except to illustrate how silly the entire thing is.
Actually, I think they also ding you on human rights for the death penalty. Same for Japan.
QuoteShrugh. Like I said, I think we get the ratings we do on things like "human rights violations" because we don't distribute wealth in a satisfactory manner for those making lists like this. They are all tied up together. The particular rating that they massage to get the result they want isn't really all THAT interesting, except to illustrate how silly the entire thing is.
I think it is them blowing shit like Guantanamo and what Neil said out of proportion, as foreigners tend to do.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.
Depends on how far out you're looking.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.
Depends on how far out you're looking.
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:55:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.
Depends on how far out you're looking.
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Norway certainly is.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 22, 2009, 11:07:12 PM
How do you account for al-Shabaab then?
The lads are pirates. I saw an interview with a few members of them and they said they were in it to buy a big house with a pool, get a wife and enough money to buy some guns and get some guards to protect it all. If that's what al-Qaeda wanted they'd be easier to deal with.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 08:52:58 AM
QuoteShrugh. Like I said, I think we get the ratings we do on things like "human rights violations" because we don't distribute wealth in a satisfactory manner for those making lists like this. They are all tied up together. The particular rating that they massage to get the result they want isn't really all THAT interesting, except to illustrate how silly the entire thing is.
I think it is them blowing shit like Guantanamo and what Neil said out of proportion, as foreigners tend to do.
Yeah, but WHY do they do that? There is a chicken and egg thing here, I suppose, but my point is simply that their ratings are pretty clearly designed to draw distinctions between countries where there isn't any real or practical distinction.
When it comes to how "failed" a state is, there is no real difference between the US and Norway, or England and Australia, and suggesting that there is is just distracting from the real message.
Well I do get rather tired of everybody saying the Skandinavian countries are the best in the universe. I mean even Iceland is highly ranked and if our economy was in the shape theirs is we would ranked down there with Bolivia somewhere.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:58:44 AM
When it comes to how "failed" a state is, there is no real difference between the US and Norway, or England and Australia, and suggesting that there is is just distracting from the real message.
Actually, states with smaller numbers of criminal blacks are generally less failed.
It's not foreign. I think it's the same thing as the Foreign Policy failed state meter which just has a bit more nuance (the US and Oman are still equal):
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings
And the Fund for Peace aren't foreign either:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_faq_methodology
Shelf, those aren't seperate ratings, they are the same ratings.
And to put this into context here's the bottom (least failedest) 20 states. It looks like more or less every global measure of something:
France
United States
Singapore
United Kingdom
Belgium
Portugal
Japan
Iceland
Canada
Luxembourg
Austria
Netherlands
Australia
New Zealand
Denmark
Ireland
Switzerland
Sweden
Finland
Norway
More amusingly Oman and several Latin American countries are ahead of Poland :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 09:17:33 AM
Shelf, those aren't seperate ratings, they are the same ratings.
That's what I said:
QuoteI think it's the same thing as the Foreign Policy failed state meter which just has a bit more nuance (the US and Oman are still equal):
Do any of you know anything about Oman? Apart from me, has any of you actually been there? Or know anything apart from what you can find on Wikipeidia and the CIA world fact book?
All I know is that they are pissed that they are being lumped in with a disaster of a country like the US.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Are they taking the demographic problems into account?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2009, 09:13:20 AM
And the Fund for Peace aren't foreign either:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_faq_methodology
There is nothing more foreign than an organization like that :bleeding: Sounds like a poorly disguised Cold War era eastern bloc propaganda organization.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 08:57:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:55:34 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 08:53:01 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 08:38:09 AM
we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.
Depends on how far out you're looking.
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Norway certainly is.
yeah. but unlike , say Alberta, they invested most of their royalties. should be fine for a few centuries.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2009, 10:03:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2009, 09:13:20 AM
And the Fund for Peace aren't foreign either:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_faq_methodology
There is nothing more foreign than an organization like that :bleeding: Sounds like a poorly disguised Cold War era eastern bloc propaganda organization.
just based on the sound of their name? heck, your name sounds like you should be in a docket at Nuremberg.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Are they taking the demographic problems into account?
But they don't try to solve demographic problems by importing muslims, so Japan wins.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 10:05:09 AM
yeah. but unlike , say Alberta, they invested most of their royalties. should be fine for a few centuries.
I wonder what they invested them in?
At any rate, the Trust Fund should ensure that Ethnic Alberta remains superior to all other provinces forever.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on July 23, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
But they don't try to solve demographic problems by importing muslims, so Japan wins.
I just don't get it sometimes. Japan, as a culture, seems obsessed with youth and cuteness...yet they don't have any kids...weird.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on July 23, 2009, 10:17:00 AM
But they don't try to solve demographic problems by importing muslims, so Japan wins.
I just don't get it sometimes. Japan, as a culture, seems obsessed with youth and cuteness...yet they don't have any kids...weird.
Are they really any different than we are?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:55:34 AM
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Only Norway even has oil. But they don't use it to finance their day-to-day government business but rather invest the windfall from the oil worldwide. They own like 0.5% of a lot of blue chip companies out there.
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:55:34 AM
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Only Norway even has oil. But they don't use it to finance their day-to-day government business but rather invest the windfall from the oil worldwide. They own like 0.5% of a lot of blue chip companies out there.
That seems hard to believe. It is so sane and responsible. Are you sure this is a real life thing, and not just a story?
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 11:23:41 AM
Are they really any different than we are?
Yes, all the greatest heroes of our fiction aren't 16 and look 12.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 22, 2009, 11:28:58 PM
Japan is moderate only?
Are they taking the demographic problems into account?
Why would they? I believe their measure is the likelihood of internal conflict. A very young population is more troublesome than a very old one.
Quote from: saskganesh on July 23, 2009, 10:10:44 AM
just based on the sound of their name? heck, your name sounds like you should be in a docket at Nuremberg.
Nah, they didn't try any NCOs there ;) :nerd:
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 11:40:51 AM
That seems hard to believe. It is so sane and responsible. Are you sure this is a real life thing, and not just a story?
If it is a story, I've heard it told the same way at different times and from different sources. I guess there must be some truth. Norway being #1 in this study suggests that they have pretty good governance.
Here is an (older) article:
QuoteAvoiding the Oil CurseWhat Norway can teach Iraq.
By Daniel GrossPosted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 4:37 PM ET
There are some pretty big pools of capital out there. Vanguard's 500 Index Fund has got $97.7 billion. The TIAA-CREF's College Retirement Equities Fund is stocked with $150 billion. Then there's Bill Gates' personal brokerage account. But the 4.5 million citizens of chilly, oil-rich Norway may be sitting on the biggest gusher of them all. The largely unknown Petroleum Fund of Norway was worth 940.7 billion Norwegian kroner on June 30—about $147 billion—and is growing rapidly.
When it comes to oil—and investing—it's easy to overlook Norway. While political and social upheavals in major oil producers—Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, the Persian Gulf—dominate headlines, Norway since 1971 has quietly been pumping massive quantities of crude from the icy waters of the North Sea. Today, Norway is the world's third-largest oil exporter, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia, and the seventh-largest oil producer. The Norwegians have proven that oil doesn't have to be an obstacle to stability and long-term growth.
Political scientists like to talk about the " 'curse' of oil." Over the past several decades, we've seen the sorry economic state of affairs that ensues when tribal kingdoms, authoritarian regimes, kleptocracies, and left-wing dictatorships get their hands on national oil revenues. Easy oil cash entrenches corrupt establishments, discourages sound long-term economic planning, and is almost never channeled in ways that promote development.
Iraq is on the verge of finding out whether it will succumb to the curse or defeat it. Norway offers an interesting model for the Iraqis to consider. Assuming things ever calm down, Iraq will decide how to use the nation's oil wealth to benefit its putative owners—the long-suffering Iraqi people. More than a year ago, Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation suggested that Iraq duplicate the Alaska Permanent Fund. Established in the 1970s, the fund guarantees that at least a quarter of all oil revenues received by the state be invested on behalf of the state's hardy residents. It has grown into a huge, highly diversified mutual fund. According to its September 2004 report, the APF has about $28 billion in assets. Each year, it pays out dividends to qualified residents—$919.84 per person. And in many ways, it's a classically American approach—built on a concept of individual ownership and intended to spur demand and consumption. Last year, the fund injected about $581 million into the state's economy.
Norway has pursued a classically Scandinavian solution. It has viewed oil revenues as a temporary, collectively owned windfall that, instead of spurring consumption today, can be used to insulate the country from the storms of the global economy and provide a thick, goose-down cushion for the distant day when the oil wells run dry.
Less than 20 years after they started producing oil, the Norwegians realized their geological good luck would only be temporary. In 1990, the nation's parliament set up the Petroleum Fund of Norway to function as a fiscal shock absorber. Run under the auspices of the country's central bank, the fund, like the Alaska Fund, converts petrodollars into stocks and bonds. But instead of paying dividends, it uses revenues and appreciation to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth across generations.
Here's how it works. Cash flow from the government's petroleum activities—the state owns 81 percent of the aptly named Statoil—is funneled into the fund. Last year, the total came to 91.9 billion kroner (about $14 billion). The fund then hires external managers to invest, generally using low-cost indexing strategies. It's conservatively managed—more bonds than stocks, and investments divided equally between Europe and the rest of the world. (Here are the results of six years of active management.)
Of course, the fund's history reveals some of the pitfalls of having socialists manage oodles of cash. The fund didn't start to invest in stocks until 1998, thus missing out on a big chunk of the boom. In 2001, it started a sub-fund to make eco-friendly investments—good social policy, dubious asset-management strategy.
But the huge balances mean Norway can happily continue to be heavily socialist without confronting the problems that its Euro-neighbors to the south face—unemployment, high inflation, and huge national debts. Yes, fiscal budget expenditures were a whopping 38.3 percent of gross domestic product in Norway last year. But the country still runs a budget surplus. Last year, per-capita GDP was a healthy $51,755, and both unemployment and inflation are low.
In Norway, the sudden increase in oil prices has meant larger inflows to the fund and enhanced long-term welfare for its citizens. That's not how it goes down in other big oil producing countries. In Russia, the oil boom has enriched oligarchs and increased foreign currency reserves. But the quality of life in Russia continues to deteriorate. Saudi Arabia has been pumping far more oil than Norway and for a far longer time. But its oil revenues tend to flow into the bank accounts of the royal family—not into a segregated account to benefit the public at large. As a result, the richest oil nation on earth still resembles a garden-variety poor country: a 25 percent unemployment rate, tremendous inequality of wealth and assets, a massive public debt, and an undiversified economy dependent on commodity exports.
The Norwegian economy remains heavily dependent on oil (though much less than the Saudi economy): Petroleum industries account for about 17 percent of Norwegian GDP and a hefty 45 percent of exports. But the rapid growth of the fund means Norway won't suffer massively if the oil market suddenly tanks or if production begins to dwindle. (In 30 years, Norway has pumped about 29 percent of its total reserves.) In a land of high taxes, the fund functions as a substitute for national savings. When the government runs deficits, it's allowed to transfer cash out of the funds. Unlike many other oil-dependent economies—like Russia and Saudi Arabia—Norway won't have to alter spending habits dramatically if revenues suddenly decline.
Of course, Iraq isn't directly analogous to Norway—any more than it is directly analogous to Alaska. And I'm sure most Iraqis would rather have a dividend check than see their oil wealth pile up in a vast investment pool. But Iraq has endured enough internal and external shocks in the past few decades. Maybe the shattered nation needs a fiscal shock absorber more than a gift certificate.
According to Wiki, that Norwegian oil fund now owns about 0.75% of global equity - by far the biggest stock owner on the planet.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 11:40:51 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2009, 11:39:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:55:34 AM
Doesn't the same thing apply to the Scandi countries? I seem to recall that their welfare states are pretty dependent on oil income as well.
Only Norway even has oil. But they don't use it to finance their day-to-day government business but rather invest the windfall from the oil worldwide. They own like 0.5% of a lot of blue chip companies out there.
That seems hard to believe. It is so sane and responsible. Are you sure this is a real life thing, and not just a story?
Yeah, Norway is more or less the only democratic country with a sovereign wealth fund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2009, 11:22:29 AM
I just don't get it sometimes. Japan, as a culture, seems obsessed with youth and cuteness...yet they don't have any kids...weird.
Unlike children, robots don't puke and shit. YET.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on July 23, 2009, 12:03:53 PM
Unlike children, robots don't puke and shit. YET.
They can do fashion shows now, however: http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/23/video-hrp-4c-model-robot-is-getting-married-wont-shut-up-ab/
Japan's robot obsession is both hilarious and creepy.