World Happiness Report 2018: Top Spots Claimed by Countries w. Northern European Socialist Model

[Trotsky]

Yeah people are born poor -- or are poor due to circumstances outside their control, this is known. I simply don't give a shit, thats the breaks of life, something also seen quite often in all facets of nature. I dont begrudge them, i don't ridicule them for their misfortune as a byproduct of laziness or stupidity -- i just dont care about their lives.

What i do care about is that all those nations have a similar pre-tax poverty rate, and that i live in a country who ranks high on that list and that necessitates a much higher % of my tax dollars to bridge the gap. I also care that i spend more on taxes (as an individual, not even my household taxation contribution) than i do in mortgage, utilities, food, cars/ insurance combined -- all of which to bridge a gap (happiness or otherwise) that is of no concern to me.

Some are born privileged and some or not -- just how it is.

So you acknowledge that, if you were born poor and/or with a physical/intellectual disability or mental illness, you would find your position to be selfish, privileged, and discerningly un-meritocratic?

Tell me: I know you're Canadian (and I'm not all that well-versed in Canadian history), but would you prefer if the United States had never undergone the social democratic revolution of the New Deal era? That is, that we still had huge(r) economic stratification, no labor rights or workplace/hour regulations, huge rates of poverty and illiteracy, lower life expectancy and healthcare access?

I'm always curious how right-libertarian ideologues are able to reconcile the brutality of pre-New Deal America, where dynastic cartels owned the economy and upward mobility was nearly foreclosed by the existence of a permanent exploiter class.

 

[Rod1]

I don't believe it is a non sequitur. The larger a country, the more difficult accountability becomes. It would require a massive gov't with far more moving parts, places for money to go missing and much more difficult to even calculate costs with any accuracy. We also don't have a homogeneous culture with like values to give any kind assurance that there would be even comparable contribution among all the different demographic groups. China and Russia weren't exactly raging successes.

No it doesnt, its not the middle ages where a large centralized bureacracy requires incrementally higher bureacratic costs.

There is no reason why it cant be applied in the macro besides the lack of political will.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't believe it is a non sequitur. The larger a country, the more difficult accountability becomes. It would require a massive gov't with far more moving parts, places for money to go missing and much more difficult to even calculate costs with any accuracy.

But this doesn't make any sense. Government, like private business, reduces costs at the margins. There is absolutely no basis to think that (other than for healthcare and transit, like I said earlier) American administration would cost more per capita. In fact, because of the principle of economies of scale, it would be intuitive that it would be less per capita, even though we already have much more to spend per capita.

We also don't have a homogeneous culture with like values to give any kind assurance that there would be even comparable contribution among all the different demographic groups. China and Russia weren't exactly raging successes.

I don't really understand this argument. "Comparable contribution?" That doesn't eve make sense: the retention of upward mobility and personal property acquisition assures that the same incentives for "contribution" exist, as they always have.

As far as the actual significant of cultural heterogeneity, the concern should only be that (as history has shown) the rich and their right-wing stooges will try to attack and privatize using racial rhetoric. But that doesn't reflect the objective merits of the system at all.

 

[nostradumbass]

No it doesnt, its not the middle ages where a large centralized bureacracy requires incrementally higher bureacratic costs.

There is no reason why it cant be applied in the macro besides the lack of political will.

The cost is that any corruption at all and the whole thing goes to hell. You're willing to leave your well-being in the hands of that many strangers, who frankly, don't have a great track record with corruption?

 

[Rod1]

The cost is that any corruption at all and the whole thing goes to hell. You're willing to leave your well-being in the hands of that many strangers, who frankly, don't have a great track record with corruption?

Again, the bureacratic costs per capita arent increasing proportionally with the population.

Otherwise the per capita costs of public healthcare would be bigger in larger countries, and thats simply not the case.

Corruption isnt an issue if you have strong institutions, there is FAR, FAR more corruption in the US system.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

So you acknowledge that, if you were born poor and/or with a physical/intellectual disability or mental illness, you would find your position to be selfish, privileged, and discerningly un-meritocratic?

Id accept my lot in life and would not care if people were concerned about my happiness. I wasnt born any of those things and i see my position as selfish, (somewhat) privileged (as i wouldnt care about the bottom rungs happiness even if i was one) but not un-meritocratic: plenty of poor upbringings establish fruitful lives -- good for them!

Tell me: I know you're Canadian (and I'm not all that well-versed in Canadian history), but would you prefer if the United States had never undergone the social democratic revolution of the New Deal era? That is, that we still had huge(r) economic stratification, no labor rights or workplace/hour regulations, huge rates of poverty and illiteracy, lower life expectancy and healthcare access?

I'm always curious how right-libertarian ideologues are able to reconcile the brutality of pre-New Deal America, where dynastic cartels owned the economy and upward mobility was nearly foreclosed by the existence of a permanent exploiter class.

well, Im not a right - libertarian. I am a conservative who doesn't believe in biblical influence in my views of politics. As that, i accept things like same-sex marriage, drug legalization and abortions are cost effective policy - with little to no upfront investment needed from taxation.

I appreciate the necessity of the new deal from the standpoint that i agree with increased spending in infrastructure to reduce unemployment rates. Also appreciate that "dynasties" were established after the fact. Not sure what my not caring about the poor's happiness in 2018 has to do with my views on TND (there are so many variables in that question that its not really worth typing out the full answer) but to cut through your verbosity -- im completely cool with peoples urge to see labour unions forming, peoples desire to obtain more of the pie -- i just dont simply care if they achieve it or not if it doesnt affect my bottom line. To bring it back to the topic in this thread, my focus is on government as a service, an entity like others in which you pay for something to get something -- i dont care about closing gaps, so i rather not pay more for it.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

You obviously haven't looked at their methodology

You obviously don't understand there is no objective measure for happiness.

 

[GOATER]

Again, the bureacratic costs per capita arent increasing proportionally with the population.

Otherwise the per capita costs of public healthcare would be bigger in larger countries, and thats simply not the case.

Corruption isnt an issue if you have strong institutions, there is FAR, FAR more corruption in the US system.

Where exactly is the corruption of the US system? Lobbyist?


It's not that I don't believe you...I do...It's just that the United States is so good at hiding the corruption...It's not like paying off a cop.....its way more hidden.

 

[nostradumbass]

But this doesn't make any sense. Government, like private business, reduces costs at the margins. There is absolutely no basis to think that (other than for healthcare and transit, like I said earlier) American administration would cost more per capita. In fact, because of the principle of economies of scale, it would be intuitive that it would be less per capita, even though we already have much more to spend per capita.



I don't really understand this argument. "Comparable contribution?" That doesn't eve make sense: the retention of upward mobility and personal property acquisition assures that the same incentives for "contribution" exist, as they always have.

As far as the actual significant of cultural heterogeneity, the concern should only be that (as history has shown) the rich and their right-wing stooges will try to attack and privatize using racial rhetoric. But that doesn't reflect the objective merits of the system at all.

You're acting as if everything stays the same with a few funds shifted and there will be no loopholes, giant companies leaving. The doors aren't locked from the outside and people will still be looking to keep more of their money and people looking for something for nothing.

I'll spell it out then. Do you think white trash and poor black communities who place 0 value on education or family are suddenly going to change their minds and get great jobs to pay more taxes to people in places they'll never even see?​

Again, the bureacratic costs per capita arent increasing proportionally with the population.

Otherwise the per capita costs of public healthcare would be bigger in larger countries, and thats simply not the case.

Corruption isnt an issue if you have strong institutions, there is FAR, FAR more corruption in the US system.

Are we just talking about the cost of medical insurance? I don't think lack of medical insurance is causing people to join gangs and rape and murder and start smoking and snorting a bunch of drugs.

There is a lot of corruption in the US system, which is why I don't want those assholes in charge of more than they already are.

 

[IDL]

.

 

[Trotsky]

You're acting as if everything stays the same with a few funds shifted and there will be no loopholes, giant companies leaving. The doors aren't locked from the outside and people will still be looking to keep more of their money and people looking for something for nothing.

None of this is coherent to me. Can you spell it out a little bit more?

I'll spell it out then. Do you think white trash and poor black communities who place 0 value on education or family are suddenly going to change their minds and get great jobs to pay more taxes to people in places they'll never even see?

​

Suddenly? No, that's not how it works. Over (a fairly short period of) time? Yes.

Unless you think American white trash/poor blacks are naturally and uniquely lazy and opposed to (the documented human condition of) bettering oneself and being useful. Unless you think that, unlike the previously-scummy lower classes of the Nordic countries, they would be unresponsive to the transformation that those Nordic poor folks underwent.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's certainly interesting that some of the most unhappy countries have been the subject of a system of prolonged external governance created by certain people. So the people seemed to create multiple systems, some that advanced happiness and others that seemed to slow its progression.

You're often half right.

 

[nostradumbass]

None of this is coherent to me. Can you spell it out a little bit more?

​

Suddenly? No, that's not how it works. Over (a fairly short period of) time? Yes.

Unless you think American white trash/poor blacks are naturally and uniquely lazy and opposed to (the documented human condition of) bettering oneself and being useful. Unless you think that, unlike the previously-scummy lower classes of the Nordic countries, they would be unresponsive to the transformation that those Nordic poor folks underwent.

I mean similar to "white flight", the people being treated like endless bags of loot will simply leave and the money that was being counted on won't be there anymore.

And I don't think it's "natural and unique" as in genetic, I think it's cultural and responsibility, education, and civic duty are not valued among those groups. The government can't and shouldn't be a substitute for good parenting.

 

[Rod1]

Are we just talking about the cost of medical insurance? I don't think lack of medical insurance is causing people to join gangs and rape and murder and start smoking and snorting a bunch of drugs.

No, but certainly is one of the biggest happiness killers out there.

 

[Trotsky]

I mean similar to "white flight", the people being treated like endless bags of loot will simply leave and the money that was being counted on won't be there anymore.

I'm not sure I see how this fits into the discussion.

You think that a stronger safety net and subsidization of economic opportunity and basic living standards will cause rich people to....leave the country? Why didn't that happen 1939-1979? Why didn't that happen in Scandinavia?

Where would they leave the country to go to? All the other major countries already have those programs in place.

And I don't think it's "natural and unique" as in genetic, I think it's cultural and responsibility, education, and civic duty are not valued among those groups. The government can't and shouldn't be a substitute for good parenting.

Okay, so you think that poor whites and poor blacks in America are uniquely irrresponsible and deviant compared to the poor of other countries?

How did you arrive upon this conclusion? We've already seen in every other country that increased living standards for the poor reduce crime and increase their work participation. Can you explain why the US would be any different?

 

[Goonerview]

Countries with more white people as a percentage of the demographic.

I don't think "socialism" is the cause here.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm not sure I see how this fits into the discussion.

You think that a stronger safety net and subsidization of economic opportunity and basic living standards will cause rich people to....leave the country? Why didn't that happen 1939-1979? Why didn't that happen in Scandinavia?

Where would they leave the country to go to? All the other major countries already have those programs in place.



Okay, so you think that poor whites and poor blacks in America are uniquely irrresponsible and deviant compared to the poor of other countries?

How did you arrive upon this conclusion? We've already seen in every other country that increased living standards for the poor reduce crime and increase their work participation. Can you explain why the US would be any different?

Obviously they didn't leave after a world war left a lot of the world decimated. I don't know what qualifies as a major country, but many do already move to cheaper countries and many more would if the expense of staying outweighed the expense of leaving.

Depends on the country. Violent crime has already been decreasing in the US and increasing in Europe. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system that has ever been tried. Not committing crime and work participation are what lead to increased living standards, not the other way around.

 

[Trotsky]

Obviously they didn't leave after a world war left a lot of the world decimated. I don't know what qualifies as a major country, but many do already move to cheaper countries and many more would if the expense of staying outweighed the expense of leaving.

Depends on the country. Violent crime has already been decreasing in the US and increasing in Europe. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system that has ever been tried. Not committing crime and work participation are what lead to increased living standards, not the other way around.

Alright, fuck it. I've been patient and entertained this for long enough. You're just going to keep working backward from your initial reaction and digging in.

 

[irish_thug]

List is wrong. Clearly North Koreans are happiest.

 

[Trotsky]

Countries with more white people as a percentage of the demographic.

I don't think "socialism" is the cause here.

^^Yep, this is why Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Croatia, and Russia are so happy.

White supremacy FTW!