Freshell said: Just a generalized point I want to bring up. The World Happiness Report attempts to find what variables best explain the data using quantitative methods. Here we're scattershot trying to find relationships that might explain the data based on apparent pattern matching (while focusing on the top of the income distribution for some reason.) Will these considerations yield some insight? Maybe. I treat everything I'm responding to as based on speculation. It's just a fun way of finding patterns. Freshell said: Just a generalized point. It would apply to all labor regulations that would raise business costs and cause workers to sacrifice some income. Doesn't apply to everything of course. But if we ran a regression on this ranking by an international trade union organization, I'm sure we'd find some correlation. Income would be a strong confounder, with the causal map being that high income causes happier people, and high income also causes more labor regulations. That doesnt sound like your cause and effect makes sense here. There is no reason income would cause more labour regulations. Rather these things go hand in hand and tend to come along in the same swoop in the general labour laws and labour movements. Freshell said: This link doesn't include Singapore, who I compared Japan to. Again, Singapore has a longer work week on average. Also, Japan also performed really high on the labor protections ranking you posted while the US still has higher job satisfaction despite ranking really low. For fun, I could list all the countries that rank higher than the US on that labor protection list and perform worse on the Happiness Report. But it would almost feel like spam. Some highlights are France, Spain, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan to go with fairly well of nations. Singapor has low job satisfaction for teachers like Japan so maybe it also isnt that good? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01645-7.pdf I managed to find one that had Singapore and Japan This is what Singapore says on their work culture Less than half (42%) agree that their manager treats them fairly and equitably (vs. Asia Pacific 53%) Close to 70% of employees say that their manager is not very tolerant of small-scale failures. Similar to Asia Pacific, only one in three agree that their manager often/usually encourages dissent and debate. Only 41% find their job fulfilling (vs. Asia Pacific 51%). 40% actively seek feedback and use it to improve their performance (vs. Asia Pacific 53%). 43% provide constructive feedback to their coworkers to help improve the team's performance (vs. Asia Pacific 51%). This is Japan...it definitely looks worse off for work culture Only 31% state that their manager treats them fairly and equitably (vs. Asia Pacific 53%). Only 26% agree that their manager often/usually tolerates small-scale failures (vs. Asia Pacific 31%). Only 23% agree that their manager often/usually encourages dissent and debate (vs. Asia Pacific 33%). Only 29% of the employees find their job fulfilling (vs. Asia Pacific 51%). Only 18% would actively seek feedback and use it to improve their performance (vs. Asia Pacific 53%). Only 18% would provide constructive feedback to their coworkers to help improve the team's performance (vs. Asia Pacific 51%). Freshell said: These could be the mechanisms. Or perhaps people who have more leisure time tend to develop mental health issues like depression. You also seem to be under some impression that the US is particularly individualist among rich countries, but the US also wound up performing well relative to other rich countries on the mental health index. In fairness to your explanations though, the US is also more religious than other nations, and it experiences higher than average economic growth rates compared to other rich nations. Might be pollution levels and processed food too. But the US religiousness is not evenly distributed the Bible Belt overlaps with Tornado Alley. Also religiousness in the US is very superficial. Most people that say they are religious do not attend any religious service. Also it isnt so much the religion anyway, im just talking the general way of viewing things. These naturally would differ in individualist vs collectivist cultures. Freshell said: When it's about the UK, inequality is causing mental health problems that shows up in the statistics you posted, but when it's the US having high inequality while also performing well on the metric, inequality is skewing the results to make it look good. Inequality seems to be able of explaining both bad outcomes and good outcomes for mental health. I'm not sure how you're reconciling this. It seems post hoc. I get what you mean but like I said I never really suggested the system was an accurate measure so I was only giving an example due to the extremes, so I just hastily threw in an explanation for US because you seemed to want one but it's not really contradictory that different countries will have other factors that cause things to be different. The US is a very large country and the UK has an even larger class divide than the US to my recall so statistically things might appear different. It's unlikely id have the time and mathematical knowledge to break down every factor into precise measures so Im just giving a rough impression. I never claimed to be a mathematician in meta analysis. |
traedMay 2, 12:20 AM
| @traed I'm finding that Japan generally performs worse on job satisfaction than Singapore as well, now that I'm looking it up myself. So you're right on that. I did also make the point that there are other nations that seem to underperform, even when thinking about fairly well off nations. traed said: That doesnt sound like your cause and effect makes sense here. There is no reason income would cause more labour regulations. Rather these things go hand in hand and tend to come along in the same swoop in the general labour laws and labour movements. I gave a perfectly understandable explanation for why higher income would lead to more workplace safety laws. Another one we could think about is limitations of work week hours. As incomes rise, there is a labor leisure trade off and people become more willing to earn less in order to have more leisure time, and this likely reflects in law. Now, when it comes to explaining high levels of income, the variable that stands out to me is the consistent relationship between income and GDP per capita across nations. I don't imagine you're of the view that labor regulations cause economic growth. traed said: Might be pollution levels and processed food too. But the US religiousness is not evenly distributed the Bible Belt overlaps with Tornado Alley. Also religiousness in the US is very superficial. Most people that say they are religious do not attend any religious service. Also it isnt so much the religion anyway, im just talking the general way of viewing things. These naturally would differ in individualist vs collectivist cultures. If we are treating religiosity as a variable that has more benefits for mental health the higher it is, then what we should care about is that America attends church more often than other rich nations in explaining why America performs better than other rich nations on your posted mental health index.  Don't know why you'd be resistant to that being a possible explanation if you already think it's a possible explanation for poor nations. Plus, if the mechanism is that religion is a coping mechanism, you and I both know religion functions as a coping mechanism for Americans as well, even if they hold onto it superficially. traed said: I get what you mean but like I said I never really suggested the system was an accurate measure so I was only giving an example due to the extremes, so I just hastily threw in an explanation for US because you seemed to want one but it's not really contradictory that different countries will have other factors that cause things to be different. The US is a very large country and the UK has an even larger class divide than the US to my recall so statistically things might appear different. It's unlikely id have the time and mathematical knowledge to break down every factor into precise measures so Im just giving a rough impression. I never claimed to be a mathematician in meta analysis. I'm not sure how you're quantifying that. The US has higher inequality than the UK. I guess you're saying Americans care less that they are unequal than Brits do? My point is just that your hasty explanation doesn't seem able to explain much once you do that. An explanation that works to explain one thing happening and the opposite equally well doesn't give us a very good explanation for the differences between nations on the outcome measure. |
Freshell said: I'm finding that Japan generally performs worse on job satisfaction than Singapore as well, now that I'm looking it up myself. So you're right on that. I did also make the point that there are other nations that seem to underperform, even when thinking about fairly well off nations. Oops left out the source https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/pwc-asia-pacific/hopes-and-fears.html Freshell said: I gave a perfectly understandable explanation for why higher income would lead to more workplace safety laws. Another one we could think about is limitations of work week hours. As incomes rise, there is a labor leisure trade off and people become more willing to earn less in order to have more leisure time, and this likely reflects in law. Now, when it comes to explaining high levels of income, the variable that stands out to me is the consistent relationship between income and GDP per capita across nations. I don't imagine you're of the view that labor regulations cause economic growth. The ITUC Global Rights Index didn't use worker safety as what determines ranking actually, it was more about unions and right to strike and not being attacked physically for it either directly or by police. Not directly no, but indirectly I dont see why not.... Some of the countries with the most upper class are the Nordic ones because of their social mobility and when people on the bottom are given a hand up it can encourage spending plus the workers wouldnt be on strikes so often. Freshell said: If we are treating religiosity as a variable that has more benefits for mental health the higher it is, then what we should care about is that America attends church more often than other rich nations in explaining why America performs better than other rich nations on your posted mental health index. Don't know why you'd be resistant to that being a possible explanation if you already think it's a possible explanation for poor nations. Plus, if the mechanism is that religion is a coping mechanism, you and I both know religion functions as a coping mechanism for Americans as well, even if they hold onto it superficially. I don't know why you keep referencing this index when I never suggested it's better than the happiness index inherently, just worth looking at for comparison as an indirect way to see if there is any weak spots in the happiness index. Psychology is extremely flawed as is so... Well I think religiosity plays a certain roles though it doesnt inherently have to be religion in the literal sense, it can be philosophy or an entertainment medium that is full of escapism etc...and like I said this also interacts with collectivist vs individualist cultures where things work a little different in each. Freshell said: I'm not sure how you're quantifying that. The US has higher inequality than the UK. I guess you're saying Americans care less that they are unequal than Brits do? My point is just that your hasty explanation doesn't seem able to explain much once you do that. An explanation that works to explain one thing happening and the opposite equally well doesn't give us a very good explanation for the differences between nations on the outcome measure. If I recall correctly the UK has more gaps in the economic classes so it is more jarring, while US it's the upper upper class is ultra wealthy, but i might be recalling wrong. And that may be the case people in US and UK have different outlooks. |
traedMay 2, 1:08 AM
Reply to traed
Freshell said:
I'm finding that Japan generally performs worse on job satisfaction than Singapore as well, now that I'm looking it up myself. So you're right on that. I did also make the point that there are other nations that seem to underperform, even when thinking about fairly well off nations.
I'm finding that Japan generally performs worse on job satisfaction than Singapore as well, now that I'm looking it up myself. So you're right on that. I did also make the point that there are other nations that seem to underperform, even when thinking about fairly well off nations.
Oops left out the source
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/pwc-asia-pacific/hopes-and-fears.html
Freshell said:
I gave a perfectly understandable explanation for why higher income would lead to more workplace safety laws. Another one we could think about is limitations of work week hours. As incomes rise, there is a labor leisure trade off and people become more willing to earn less in order to have more leisure time, and this likely reflects in law.
Now, when it comes to explaining high levels of income, the variable that stands out to me is the consistent relationship between income and GDP per capita across nations. I don't imagine you're of the view that labor regulations cause economic growth.
I gave a perfectly understandable explanation for why higher income would lead to more workplace safety laws. Another one we could think about is limitations of work week hours. As incomes rise, there is a labor leisure trade off and people become more willing to earn less in order to have more leisure time, and this likely reflects in law.
Now, when it comes to explaining high levels of income, the variable that stands out to me is the consistent relationship between income and GDP per capita across nations. I don't imagine you're of the view that labor regulations cause economic growth.
The ITUC Global Rights Index didn't use worker safety as what determines ranking actually, it was more about unions and right to strike and not being attacked physically for it either directly or by police.
Not directly no, but indirectly I dont see why not.... Some of the countries with the most upper class are the Nordic ones because of their social mobility and when people on the bottom are given a hand up it can encourage spending plus the workers wouldnt be on strikes so often.
Freshell said:
If we are treating religiosity as a variable that has more benefits for mental health the higher it is, then what we should care about is that America attends church more often than other rich nations in explaining why America performs better than other rich nations on your posted mental health index.
Don't know why you'd be resistant to that being a possible explanation if you already think it's a possible explanation for poor nations. Plus, if the mechanism is that religion is a coping mechanism, you and I both know religion functions as a coping mechanism for Americans as well, even if they hold onto it superficially.
If we are treating religiosity as a variable that has more benefits for mental health the higher it is, then what we should care about is that America attends church more often than other rich nations in explaining why America performs better than other rich nations on your posted mental health index.
Don't know why you'd be resistant to that being a possible explanation if you already think it's a possible explanation for poor nations. Plus, if the mechanism is that religion is a coping mechanism, you and I both know religion functions as a coping mechanism for Americans as well, even if they hold onto it superficially.
I don't know why you keep referencing this index when I never suggested it's better than the happiness index inherently, just worth looking at for comparison as an indirect way to see if there is any weak spots in the happiness index. Psychology is extremely flawed as is so...
Well I think religiosity plays a certain roles though it doesnt inherently have to be religion in the literal sense, it can be philosophy or an entertainment medium that is full of escapism etc...and like I said this also interacts with collectivist vs individualist cultures where things work a little different in each.
Freshell said:
I'm not sure how you're quantifying that. The US has higher inequality than the UK. I guess you're saying Americans care less that they are unequal than Brits do? My point is just that your hasty explanation doesn't seem able to explain much once you do that. An explanation that works to explain one thing happening and the opposite equally well doesn't give us a very good explanation for the differences between nations on the outcome measure.
I'm not sure how you're quantifying that. The US has higher inequality than the UK. I guess you're saying Americans care less that they are unequal than Brits do? My point is just that your hasty explanation doesn't seem able to explain much once you do that. An explanation that works to explain one thing happening and the opposite equally well doesn't give us a very good explanation for the differences between nations on the outcome measure.
If I recall correctly the UK has more gaps in the economic classes so it is more jarring, while US it's the upper upper class is ultra wealthy, but i might be recalling wrong. And that may be the case people in US and UK have different outlooks.
traed said: The ITUC Global Rights Index didn't use worker safety as what determines ranking actually, it was more about unions and right to strike and not being attacked physically for it either directly or by police. If it's just about unions, then I guess you're right that 14% of Switzerland's labor force that is unionized enjoys pretty good labor union protections, at least as judged by that organization. Nonetheless think I was fair to characterize Switzerland as being economically right wing relative to Europe while performing really well on the World Happiness Report. traed said: . Some of the countries with the most upper class are the Nordic ones because of their social mobility and when people on the bottom are given a hand up it can encourage spending plus the workers wouldnt be on strikes so often. I can see why social mobility could boost output, provided it was a mobility that involved workers becoming more productive. Like say educational mobility. Labor unions seem to be more about flattening the income distribution than boosting productivity, however. Encouraging spending doesn't cause long run, real economic growth. It winds up causing inflation as well. Economic growth happens when firms become more productive, like by developing or adopting new technologies. Increasing spending is helpful during a downturn, but it's not a generalized way to perpetually juice up the economy. traed said: I don't know why you keep referencing this index when I never suggested it's better than the happiness index inherently, just worth looking at for comparison as an indirect way to see if there is any weak spots in the happiness index. Psychology is extremely flawed as is so... Think it's reasonable to bring up other things an index indicates when it's being used to make a point. Plus, I only bring up these indexes not because I believe they are definitive. Other people treat them that way. I'm just pointing out other things they say that don't support simple narratives like "we should be more like Denmark" and such. |
FreshellMay 2, 1:53 AM
| I honestly think you're referring to some lagging economic and social indicators in this thread. I've recently been in Scandinavian countries, and it feels like they're experiencing a downturn. It's not that I'm saying it's bad there, but there's definitely a more pessimistic outlook than before. One of my Norwegian buddies referred to their currency as "pesetas" (for a reason), constantly complained about high mortgage rates, and mentioned the mud on the streets (which I can confirm, walking in the city wasn't pleasant). That left me with some mixed feelings, to be honest. I wouldn't say he looked happy. |
LoveYourSmileMay 2, 2:25 AM
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Freshell said: If it's just about unions, then I guess you're right that 14% of Switzerland's labor force that is unionized enjoys pretty good labor union protections, at least as judged by that organization. Nonetheless think I was fair to characterize Switzerland as being economically right wing relative to Europe while performing really well on the World Happiness Report. I decided to on a whim look up the minimum wage in Switzerland. Found a possible flaw in the world happiness report. Depending on where they live their minimum wage ranges from none like Denmark for example to up to nearly 27USD equivalent per hour so depending what cantons were surveyed more it could easily alter results. Im thinking it's possible the high minimum wage in some cantons plus the good rights for unionizing and striking is what makes Switzerland the odd one out. As of 2024, three cantons have official minimum salaries: SFr 20.6 (US$22.64) per hour in the canton of Jura; SFr 21.09 (US$23.18) per hour in the canton of Neuchâtel, SFr 24.32 (US$26.73) in the canton of Geneva;[224] the rest of the country has no minimum wage.[225] There are a minority of the voluntary General Labour Contracts (GLC, collective labour agreements), reached on a sector-by-sector basis,[226] contain minimum compensation clauses, which provide for compensation ranging from SFr 2,200 to SFr 4,200 (US$2418 to US$4615) per month for unskilled workers and SFr 2,800 to SFr 5,300 (US$3077 to US$5824) per month for skilled employees.[10] On 18 May 2014, Swiss voters rejected a federal initiative (by 76.3%) that would have enforced GLCs for every sector and set the hourly minimum wage at SFr 22 (US$24.18, or PPP-adjusted US$12.55).[227][228] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_wage I almost overlooked it but I noticed New Zealand is also in that Asia Pacific Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey for 2023. New Zealand has a higher job satisfaction (high or moderate) 57% than Japan 29% or Singapore 47%. Likewise New Zealand is one of the higher minimum wages out there as well. So im guessing several different combinations seem to work possibly or there is more missing factors Freshell said: I can see why social mobility could boost output, provided it was a mobility that involved workers becoming more productive. Like say educational mobility. Labor unions seem to be more about flattening the income distribution than boosting productivity, however. Encouraging spending doesn't cause long run, real economic growth. It winds up causing inflation as well. Economic growth happens when firms become more productive, like by developing or adopting new technologies. Increasing spending is helpful during a downturn, but it's not a generalized way to perpetually juice up the economy. It's not about output but sales made in more diverse products and services since less people only going for necessities is what i was thinking. And yes I had thought of inflation which is why I tend to point out that things like universal basic income doesnt work unless there is price controls. Also iirc a good portion of their GDP is exports which might be what prevents inflation. Freshell said: Think it's reasonable to bring up other things an index indicates when it's being used to make a point. Plus, I only bring up these indexes not because I believe they are definitive. Other people treat them that way. I'm just pointing out other things they say that don't support simple narratives like "we should be more like Denmark" and such. Well I did point out it seems to on both indexes indicate more semi collectivist cultures are at an advantage over very individualist countries from better support networks. That's what im thinking is the only consistent trend i noticed But it's difficult since there are arguments on some countries whether they are individualist or collectivist though that indicates they likely are a mix. I did a check to make sure New Zealand isnt really individualist apparently they claim to be a mix interestingly enough. So seems consistent between both the happiness index and the mental wellbeing index. https://idealog.co.nz/etc/2018/06/individuality-new-zealand-you-can-be-who-you-want-be-dont-make-song-and-dance-about-it |
Reply to traed
Freshell said:
If it's just about unions, then I guess you're right that 14% of Switzerland's labor force that is unionized enjoys pretty good labor union protections, at least as judged by that organization. Nonetheless think I was fair to characterize Switzerland as being economically right wing relative to Europe while performing really well on the World Happiness Report.
If it's just about unions, then I guess you're right that 14% of Switzerland's labor force that is unionized enjoys pretty good labor union protections, at least as judged by that organization. Nonetheless think I was fair to characterize Switzerland as being economically right wing relative to Europe while performing really well on the World Happiness Report.
I decided to on a whim look up the minimum wage in Switzerland. Found a possible flaw in the world happiness report. Depending on where they live their minimum wage ranges from none like Denmark for example to up to nearly 27USD equivalent per hour so depending what cantons were surveyed more it could easily alter results. Im thinking it's possible the high minimum wage in some cantons plus the good rights for unionizing and striking is what makes Switzerland the odd one out.
As of 2024, three cantons have official minimum salaries: SFr 20.6 (US$22.64) per hour in the canton of Jura; SFr 21.09 (US$23.18) per hour in the canton of Neuchâtel, SFr 24.32 (US$26.73) in the canton of Geneva;[224] the rest of the country has no minimum wage.[225] There are a minority of the voluntary General Labour Contracts (GLC, collective labour agreements), reached on a sector-by-sector basis,[226] contain minimum compensation clauses, which provide for compensation ranging from SFr 2,200 to SFr 4,200 (US$2418 to US$4615) per month for unskilled workers and SFr 2,800 to SFr 5,300 (US$3077 to US$5824) per month for skilled employees.[10] On 18 May 2014, Swiss voters rejected a federal initiative (by 76.3%) that would have enforced GLCs for every sector and set the hourly minimum wage at SFr 22 (US$24.18, or PPP-adjusted US$12.55).[227][228]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_minimum_wage
I almost overlooked it but I noticed New Zealand is also in that Asia Pacific Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey for 2023. New Zealand has a higher job satisfaction (high or moderate) 57% than Japan 29% or Singapore 47%. Likewise New Zealand is one of the higher minimum wages out there as well.
So im guessing several different combinations seem to work possibly or there is more missing factors
Freshell said:
I can see why social mobility could boost output, provided it was a mobility that involved workers becoming more productive. Like say educational mobility. Labor unions seem to be more about flattening the income distribution than boosting productivity, however.
Encouraging spending doesn't cause long run, real economic growth. It winds up causing inflation as well. Economic growth happens when firms become more productive, like by developing or adopting new technologies. Increasing spending is helpful during a downturn, but it's not a generalized way to perpetually juice up the economy.
I can see why social mobility could boost output, provided it was a mobility that involved workers becoming more productive. Like say educational mobility. Labor unions seem to be more about flattening the income distribution than boosting productivity, however.
Encouraging spending doesn't cause long run, real economic growth. It winds up causing inflation as well. Economic growth happens when firms become more productive, like by developing or adopting new technologies. Increasing spending is helpful during a downturn, but it's not a generalized way to perpetually juice up the economy.
It's not about output but sales made in more diverse products and services since less people only going for necessities is what i was thinking. And yes I had thought of inflation which is why I tend to point out that things like universal basic income doesnt work unless there is price controls. Also iirc a good portion of their GDP is exports which might be what prevents inflation.
Freshell said:
Think it's reasonable to bring up other things an index indicates when it's being used to make a point.
Plus, I only bring up these indexes not because I believe they are definitive. Other people treat them that way. I'm just pointing out other things they say that don't support simple narratives like "we should be more like Denmark" and such.
Think it's reasonable to bring up other things an index indicates when it's being used to make a point.
Plus, I only bring up these indexes not because I believe they are definitive. Other people treat them that way. I'm just pointing out other things they say that don't support simple narratives like "we should be more like Denmark" and such.
Well I did point out it seems to on both indexes indicate more semi collectivist cultures are at an advantage over very individualist countries from better support networks. That's what im thinking is the only consistent trend i noticed But it's difficult since there are arguments on some countries whether they are individualist or collectivist though that indicates they likely are a mix. I did a check to make sure New Zealand isnt really individualist apparently they claim to be a mix interestingly enough. So seems consistent between both the happiness index and the mental wellbeing index.
https://idealog.co.nz/etc/2018/06/individuality-new-zealand-you-can-be-who-you-want-be-dont-make-song-and-dance-about-it
| @traed I did a check to make sure New Zealand isnt really individualist apparently they claim to be a mix interestingly enough. So seems consistent between both the happiness index and the mental wellbeing index. https://idealog.co.nz/etc/2018/06/individuality-new-zealand-you-can-be-who-you-want-be-dont-make-song-and-dance-about-it I don't know why you sent this essentially glorified blog post written by a nobody without a picture, on a website apparently nobody browses enough to like the post of, that shows no grounding for the claim other than the words on their PM's wife's jacket, to demonstrate New Zealand is less individualist. There are Reddit comments that do more work supporting their thesis lol. There are research on individualism, like some study the wheat farming vs rice farming theory on how wheat farming can foster more individiualism as it can be managed by oneself but rice paddies require more cooperation. But this doesn't pass for evidence at any level and certainly not enough to say "New Zealand isn't really individualist apparently" |
Auron_May 2, 3:49 PM
 |
| my theory (severely lacking in supportive evidence): a large portion of the year they are shrouded in darkness, so in turn they learn to appreciate the light russia is exempt from this rule because it's russia |
DRINK SOME WATER! FOOL!!! |
Auron_ said: don't know why you sent this essentially glorified blog post written by a nobody without a picture, on a website apparently nobody browses enough to like the post of, that shows no grounding for the claim other than the words on their PM's wife's jacket, to demonstrate New Zealand is less individualist. There are Reddit comments that do more work supporting their thesis lol. There are research on individualism, like some study the wheat farming vs rice farming theory on how wheat farming can foster more individiualism as it can be managed by oneself but rice paddies require more cooperation. But this doesn't pass for evidence at any level and certainly not enough to say "New Zealand isn't really individualist apparently" First thing I found and figured it's fine enough for now because i was having trouble finding accedemic papers on the topic. |
Reply to NoelleIsSleepy
my theory (severely lacking in supportive evidence): a large portion of the year they are shrouded in darkness, so in turn they learn to appreciate the light
russia is exempt from this rule because it's russia
russia is exempt from this rule because it's russia
| @NoelleIsSleepy I mean, there is a thing called seasonal affected disorder, a type of depression which reduced sunlight levels contribute to by lowering serotonin activity[1]. To the extent that Nordics are happy, they are happy despite low sunlight levels, not because of it. [1] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/seasonal-affective-disorder @traed In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections. |
|
Reply to Auron_
@NoelleIsSleepy
I mean, there is a thing called seasonal affected disorder, a type of depression which reduced sunlight levels contribute to by lowering serotonin activity[1]. To the extent that Nordics are happy, they are happy despite low sunlight levels, not because of it.
[1] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/seasonal-affective-disorder
@traed
In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections.
I mean, there is a thing called seasonal affected disorder, a type of depression which reduced sunlight levels contribute to by lowering serotonin activity[1]. To the extent that Nordics are happy, they are happy despite low sunlight levels, not because of it.
[1] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/seasonal-affective-disorder
@traed
In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections.
| @Auron_ oh I know that's a thing, but that "don't know what you've got til it's gone" mentality can attribute to them appreciating what they do have. I actually get seasonal depression which is why during the winter I appreciate things like a warm fire, cozy bed, daylight, etc... the little things that make a difference. and then when summer comes around I make the most of it. gratitude = key to happiness |
| DRINK SOME WATER! FOOL!!! |
Reply to NoelleIsSleepy
@Auron_ oh I know that's a thing, but that "don't know what you've got til it's gone" mentality can attribute to them appreciating what they do have. I actually get seasonal depression which is why during the winter I appreciate things like a warm fire, cozy bed, daylight, etc... the little things that make a difference. and then when summer comes around I make the most of it. gratitude = key to happiness
| @NoelleIsSleepy We do appreciate things on account of their low supply sometimes sure. I don't know if it would reflect into national data, other nations have certain things in low supply too, there is a short window of time to go to beach etc. Anyway Finland and so on seem to have high suicidality and happiness coupled so that's odd, I haven't seen a good intuitive response to it yet. I wouldn't doubt if GINI scores (inequality measure) have a role in happiness, and social trust as well, there is a sense in which no man gets behind or falls through the cracks, which is good for solidarity. There is something to be said demographic homogeniety as well, for better or worse it does remove some of the drama that ensues out of disparate outcomes. Those are what I think of atm |
|
Auron_ said: In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections. I mean i couldnt find anything else at the moment saying it was individualist or collectivist and I have a good enough sense for these things. I managed to find a paper on the topic. I was right it's leaning more toward collectivist and not just their Chinese and Maori and Pacific islander population but also European descended. One factor in both the relatively collectivist results from the New Zealand Europeans and the differences between Māori and other Pacific Islander groups could be that two of the groups, Māori and New Zealand European, have coexisted and interacted for the better part of two centuries (e.g. Walker, 2004). https://www.psychology.org.nz/journal-archive/Padsiadlowski.pdf |
Reply to traed
Auron_ said:
In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections.
In these cases, dear traed, we leave that point for later. We don't have to shoehorn every datapoint that doesn't comport with the narrative under at best tenuous if not spurious connections.
I mean i couldnt find anything else at the moment saying it was individualist or collectivist and I have a good enough sense for these things. I managed to find a paper on the topic. I was right it's leaning more toward collectivist and not just their Chinese and Maori and Pacific islander population but also European descended.
One factor in both the relatively collectivist results from the New Zealand Europeans and the differences between Māori and other Pacific Islander groups could be that two of the groups, Māori and New Zealand European, have coexisted and interacted for the better part of two centuries (e.g. Walker, 2004).
https://www.psychology.org.nz/journal-archive/Padsiadlowski.pdf
| @traed I would like a test on individualism-collectivism like, from what I looked up, Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (HVICS) or the Auckland (ironically a city in New Zealand) Individualism and Collectivism Scale (AICS) tested on representative samples. What I could find wasn't it, but a comparison of New Zealand and Malaysian culture on many axes, upon which it was markedly higher on individualism.  I think one of the intellectual problems you have is you are so confident on your conjectures that you immediately conclude upon the slightest hint of an affirmation that your sense (aka gut) for things is right. |
|
As of 2024, three cantons have official minimum salaries: SFr 20.6 (US$22.64) per hour in the canton of Jura; SFr 21.09 (US$23.18) per hour in the canton of Neuchâtel, SFr 24.32 (US$26.73) in the canton of Geneva;[224] the rest of the country has no minimum wage.[225] There are a minority of the voluntary General Labour Contracts (GLC, collective labour agreements), reached on a sector-by-sector basis,[226] contain minimum compensation clauses, which provide for compensation ranging from SFr 2,200 to SFr 4,200 (US$2418 to US$4615) per month for unskilled workers and SFr 2,800 to SFr 5,300 (US$3077 to US$5824) per month for skilled employees.[10] On 18 May 2014, Swiss voters rejected a federal initiative (by 76.3%) that would have enforced GLCs for every sector and set the hourly minimum wage at SFr 22 (US$24.18, or PPP-adjusted US$12.55).[227][228] So you're saying 3 cantons out of 26 have a minimum wage. Population of Switzerland: 8.776 million Population of Geneva canton: 524,281 Population of Neuchâtel canton: 176,850 Population of Jura canton: 73,419 Percentage wise that makes for 8.6% of the population being covered by a canton minimum wage law. Meanwhile the US has a federal minimum wage while Switzerland does not. Then with numbers like this, take California. That's 39.03 million/333.3 million = 12% of the US population, and it's covered by a minimum wage of $16 an hour. Then look at the PPP adjusted (purchasing power parity, which controls for the cost of living) that your quote gave and a wage of SFr 22 per hour makes for $12.55 USD. Florida, a right leaning state, has a minimum wage of $12. Now, a minority of the Swiss working population also has labor agreements. But I gave more aspects of the Swiss economy than that. Switzerland's government spending as a percentage of GDP in 2022 was 31.93%. The US's government spending as a percentage of GDP in 2022 was 36.79%. Switzerland's corporate tax rate is nominally 8.5%. The US's corporate tax rate is nominally 21%. And again, Switzerland, when we go back to comparing it to the rest of Europe, has a privatized healthcare system. Think it's fair to say Switzerland is a relatively economically right wing relative to Europe, and the same people who would advocate we move towards being more like Finland because it ranks high on the World Happiness Report would not advocate we become more like Switzerland. But if you would like to cut US government spending and corporate taxes while also incorporating the Swiss labor system, let me know. traed said: And yes I had thought of inflation which is why I tend to point out that things like universal basic income doesnt work unless there is price controls. When you lower the cost of a commodity through government fiat, more people want to buy that good because it's cheaper. However, less firms want to sell that good because they get less revenue per sale. The end result are shortages and a reduction of economic output. If we combined this with UBI, that would cause even more people to want to buy the good, and the shortage would be even worse. So I wouldn't recommend this approach. The point of a UBI would be redistribution, not causing a stable increase in real economic growth. Well I did point out it seems to on both indexes indicate more semi collectivist cultures are at an advantage over very individualist countries from better support networks. If by support networks you mean things like friends and family people could rely on, the World Happiness Report didn't show that being an important factor holding US happiness back. I'm not sure how you quantify individualist vs collectivist. But on the mental wellbeing index you gave, the US again performed better than France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand. It also performed better than France, Spain, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan on the World Happiness Report. So I'm not sure how you're quantifying individualism and collectivism, but clearly any relationship would not be simple. |
Auron_ said: I would like a test on individualism-collectivism like, from what I looked up, Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (HVICS) or the Auckland (ironically a city in New Zealand) Individualism and Collectivism Scale (AICS) tested on representative samples. The paper I linked did use a test with a sample size of 400 New Zealanders. I just quoted a small line in it that highlighted one point from the analysis. Auron_ said: I think one of the intellectual problems you have is you are so confident on your conjectures that you immediately conclude upon the slightest hint of an affirmation that your sense (aka gut) for things is right. It's how i find connections and I just correct if I am wrong. |
Anyway, feel like it's easy to get lost in all the argumentation. Many variables probably affect a nation's happiness. What's the big one? GDP per capita. There's a reason why the World Happiness Report lists it first. |
Reply to Freshell
Anyway, feel like it's easy to get lost in all the argumentation. Many variables probably affect a nation's happiness. What's the big one? GDP per capita. There's a reason why the World Happiness Report lists it first.
| @Freshell Unless you're Turkey and then you're 1 whole point below where you're supposed to be according to GDPPC (PPP) 🥲 But yeah, let's not miss the forest for the trees. Everything else (except GINI since these are averages not median) even starts meaningfully mattering at all after a certain threshold of wealth. That's why almost all of <5K$ occupy the lower half, and all of >20K$ (except Turkey, fuck you Erdog) occupies the upper half. Most people are reasonably happy when they have certain level of income and leisure, rest is minutea that they largely sort out on their own like relationships. |
Auron_May 2, 5:37 PM
|
| Wait... what? You know that most of the "example countries" that they use to fuel political agendas of bigger government are actually really rich? And not only that, they are also really small, making many problems that big countries have irrelevant. Now, they also have theirs problems, so I wouldnt say they are just happy, you probably dont hear about their complains because they speak different language that is just too different to English an they dont care enough to learn it and use it. I could also guess that many of them different social platform, so maybe we just dont come across them that much. And about america beign unhappy... all i will say is that you guys choose to not be happy, like really, you have great housing, great income and many services are way beyond many countries. Its perfect? no, but dont fall into the trap of "victisim" that main media push. Just look outside to other countries and realize that many of the struggles USA has, is nothing compared to other ones |
Freshell said: So you're saying 3 cantons out of 26 have a minimum wage. Population of Switzerland: 8.776 million Population of Geneva canton: 524,281 Population of Neuchâtel canton: 176,850 Population of Jura canton: 73,419 Percentage wise that makes for 8.6% of the population being covered by a canton minimum wage law. Meanwhile the US has a federal minimum wage while Switzerland does not. Then with numbers like this, take California. That's 39.03 million/333.3 million = 12% of the US population, and it's covered by a minimum wage of $16 an hour. Then look at the PPP adjusted (purchasing power parity, which controls for the cost of living) that your quote gave and a wage of SFr 22 per hour makes for $12.55 USD. Florida, a right leaning state, has a minimum wage of $12. Now, a minority of the Swiss working population also has labor agreements. But I gave more aspects of the Swiss economy than that. Switzerland's government spending as a percentage of GDP in 2022 was 31.93%. The US's government spending as a percentage of GDP in 2022 was 36.79%. Switzerland's corporate tax rate is nominally 8.5%. The US's corporate tax rate is nominally 21%. And again, Switzerland, when we go back to comparing it to the rest of Europe, has a privatized healthcare system. Think it's fair to say Switzerland is a relatively economically right wing relative to Europe, and the same people who would advocate we move towards being more like Finland because it ranks high on the World Happiness Report would not advocate we become more like Switzerland. But if you would like to cut US government spending and corporate taxes while also incorporating the Swiss labor system, let me know. My point was the variation can shift results depending on whether or not sampled individuals represent the larger part of the country or not. Same issue is even more the case for the US which is like several countries in one. I already explained this so I dont know why you keep circling back. It isnt any one factor by itself but combinations together and there may be more than one combination that works out in special cases which explains any countries that kick trends plus neighboring countries also play a role when people are able to freely move around to work elsewhere and buy things elsewhere. Freshell said: When you lower the cost of a commodity through government fiat, more people want to buy that good because it's cheaper. However, less firms want to sell that good because they get less revenue per sale. The end result are shortages and a reduction of economic output. If we combined this with UBI, that would cause even more people to want to buy the good, and the shortage would be even worse. So I wouldn't recommend this approach. The point of a UBI would be redistribution, not causing a stable increase in real economic growth. That likely would depends on how diverse their sales assets are and what they have to work with. I generally dont like UBI since it is inefficient in how it gives money to people even if they dont need it. Freshell said: If by support networks you mean things like friends and family people could rely on, the World Happiness Report didn't show that being an important factor holding US happiness back. I'm not sure how you quantify individualist vs collectivist. But on the mental wellbeing index you gave, the US again performed better than France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand. It also performed better than France, Spain, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan on the World Happiness Report. So I'm not sure how you're quantifying individualism and collectivism, but clearly any relationship would not be simple. You gotta read between the lines. The world happiness index didnt consider when the norm is different and cultures are different perceptions can change. You could take twins, separate them raise them in different countries by twin couples have them hypothetically feel the same thing, one would say they are well connected the other could say they are isolated and lonely. You might be able to tell more from what immigrants say about where they came from and where they moved to in how they differ. The US is one of the most developed countries due to geopolitical dominance and being built on slave labour and Nazi scientists which gives it economic and military power over other countries while Americans are largely ignorant of the world around them and the happenings of their own country. You're taking the exact rank order too seriously since these things being measured are not something easy to quantify. It should just be looked at loosely the top vs the bottom will tell you more than trying to figure why one country is two ranks ahead another or something, Freshell said: Anyway, feel like it's easy to get lost in all the argumentation. Many variables probably affect a nation's happiness. What's the big one? GDP per capita. There's a reason why the World Happiness Report lists it first. I think GDP per capita only tells so much whether nominal or PPP so it might be indirectly indicating something to do with things like country infrastructure, variety of goods and services and access to them. |
traedMay 2, 6:07 PM
| @traed think GDP per capita only tells so much whether nominal or PPP so it might be indirectly indicating something to do with things like country infrastructure, variety of goods and services and access to them Access to a variety of goods is not an indirect indication of high GDP per Capita, it is a direct consequence. When you produce a lot, you can import a wide variety of goods and have access to them. The others are slightly more accurately indirect but even then a better term would be necessarily interlinked. You cannot have a high wealth generating nation without a robust infrastructure that can sustain its population and allow them to continue to be productive. |
|
traed said: It isnt any one factor by itself but combinations together Exactly. Yet you pinpoint factors that would tend to support policies you support while ignoring factors that would not tend to support policies you do not support. When you are told that the better way to do a causal analysis is not to do loose pattern matching but to find what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between countries, you balk. You are not engaging in this in any systematic way, and I'm just pointing that out. And I will also take it that you not responding to me saying this: Freshell said: But if you would like to cut US government spending and corporate taxes while also incorporating the Swiss labor system, let me know. Means the answer is no. Because Switzerland is a fairly economically right wing nation that performs extremely well on the World Happiness Report. traed said: That likely would depends on how diverse their sales assets are and what they have to work with. Some firms will have other things they can sell and will shift their stocks appropriately. Others may not. The point will be that when a good is forced to be cheaper by government fiat, less businesses will sell it, and more people will want to buy it, so there will be a shortage. traed said: The world happiness index didnt consider when the norm is different and cultures are different perceptions can change. You could take twins, separate them raise them in different countries by twin couples have them hypothetically feel the same thing, one would say they are well connected the other could say they are isolated and lonely If you want to throw out that World Happiness Report, that's fine. The answer to the thread question should therefore be "we don't know whether Nordic countries are happy, and our measures of happiness shouldn't be used to determine the best economic system." traed said: The US is one of the most developed countries due to geopolitical dominance and being built on slave labour and Nazi scientists Now we're reaching.  Checking 1950 to 2020 alone, we're talking about the real economy multiplying four fold. US wealth isn't based on something that ended in 1865, when the economy was largely agricultural. Also, personally, I don't think the Nazi scientists that came over were so smart that they're single handedly responsible for growing the US economy for more than half a decade. I think GDP per capita only tells so much whether nominal or PPP so it might be indirectly indicating something to do with things like country infrastructure, variety of goods and services and access to them. One of the reasons why GDP per capita PPP is a great explanatory variable is that it's literally just how much stuff your economy produces per person. Being able to produce more stuff means more infrastructure and more goods and services consumed. |
FreshellMay 2, 6:59 PM
traed said: @traed Um, what the heck? If your talking about when slavery was legal before the civil war the economy was mainly built up by the factories and the workers in the north. They were the ones industrializing. If your talking about something else you should clarify that. As for the nazi scientist building the economic and military power of the US, some nazi scientists helping to build nukes isn't reason enough to say they are one of three reasons why our economy and military is so strong, especially several decades later. Besides, the nazi scientists were too busy at Der Riese building the Wunderwaffe DG-2 and experimenting with element 115.The US is one of the most developed countries due to geopolitical dominance and being built on slave labour and Nazi scientists which gives it economic and military power over other countries while Americans are largely ignorant of the world around them and the happenings of their own country. |
| When a pancake lover does something: "Outrageous vicious crime" When a waffle lover does something: "That means it is not illegal" Quotes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_HIM667Do&t=2822s |
WaffleMaster89 said: Um, what the heck? If your talking about when slavery was legal before the civil war the economy was mainly built up by the factories and the workers in the north. They were the ones industrializing. If your talking about something else you should clarify that. As for the nazi scientist building the economic and military power of the US, some nazi scientists helping to build nukes isn't reason enough to say they are one of three reasons why our economy and military is so strong, especially several decades later. [s]Besides, the nazi scientists were too busy at Der Riese building the Wunderwaffe DG-2 and experimenting with element 115.[/b] I was speaking somewhat figuratively. Sort of. I was not inherently talking about the infrastructure but more so general wealth. I never said it was the only factor or necessarily the largest in history but slavery certainly played a role in shaping what the US became. In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy. The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory. https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm US being first country to have nukes and use them is a big part of why it holds so much influence over other countries giving it a jumpstart which is why I mentioned that. There is likely other factors but i dont want to obsess over endless details forever. About economy. I didnt tie that together, it was just my sentence structure making it seem that way...but since you mention it, this is amusing. |
| They aren't, for those who are not living cannot be happy. |
Reply to traed
WaffleMaster89 said:
Um, what the heck? If your talking about when slavery was legal before the civil war the economy was mainly built up by the factories and the workers in the north. They were the ones industrializing. If your talking about something else you should clarify that. As for the nazi scientist building the economic and military power of the US, some nazi scientists helping to build nukes isn't reason enough to say they are one of three reasons why our economy and military is so strong, especially several decades later. [s]Besides, the nazi scientists were too busy at Der Riese building the Wunderwaffe DG-2 and experimenting with element 115.[/b]
Um, what the heck? If your talking about when slavery was legal before the civil war the economy was mainly built up by the factories and the workers in the north. They were the ones industrializing. If your talking about something else you should clarify that. As for the nazi scientist building the economic and military power of the US, some nazi scientists helping to build nukes isn't reason enough to say they are one of three reasons why our economy and military is so strong, especially several decades later. [s]Besides, the nazi scientists were too busy at Der Riese building the Wunderwaffe DG-2 and experimenting with element 115.[/b]
I was speaking somewhat figuratively.
Sort of. I was not inherently talking about the infrastructure but more so general wealth. I never said it was the only factor or necessarily the largest in history but slavery certainly played a role in shaping what the US became.
In 1860, the South was still predominantly agricultural, highly dependent upon the sale of staples to a world market. By 1815, cotton was the most valuable export in the United States; by 1840, it was worth more than all other exports combined. But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability, about 29 percent of the railroad tracks, and only 13 percent of the nation's banks. The South did experiment with using slave labor in manufacturing, but for the most part it was well satisfied with its agricultural economy.
The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
US being first country to have nukes and use them is a big part of why it holds so much influence over other countries giving it a jumpstart which is why I mentioned that. There is likely other factors but i dont want to obsess over endless details forever.
About economy. I didnt tie that together, it was just my sentence structure making it seem that way...but since you mention it, this is amusing.
| @traed traed said: I agree that unfortunately slavery did create a great deal of wealth for the US, it's just people often overestimate how much wealth it made, at least in comparison to the north. As the article stated it because the south have so much money tied into the slave trade that the north got an advantage in industrializing, proving yet again that paying your workers is more beneficial to the economy then trying to force them to do it for free. Although the north wasn't perfect, there was plenty of abuse done in the factories people worked at, especially for immigrants.Sort of. I was not inherently talking about the infrastructure but more so general wealth. I never said it was the only factor or necessarily the largest in history but slavery certainly played a role in shaping what the US became. Anyways I know this isn't exactly what you said but when people say stuff like "slaves built this country" it often leave out the context of everyone else who helped build the country. Slavery in reality was just one part of it, as you also stated. |
| When a pancake lover does something: "Outrageous vicious crime" When a waffle lover does something: "That means it is not illegal" Quotes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_HIM667Do&t=2822s |
Freshell said: Exactly. Yet you pinpoint factors that would tend to support policies you support while ignoring factors that would not tend to support policies you do not support. When you are told that the better way to do a causal analysis is not to do loose pattern matching but to find what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between countries, you balk. You are not engaging in this in any systematic way, and I'm just pointing that out. Where are you even getting that idea from? Then why would I even have ever linked a chart that would disrupt any real narrative if that was my goal? I change my views when I see fit to do so and I also don't really support any single policy or culture. I also have a tendency to try to balance out views in different topics presenting counter arguments sometimes out of fairness for views I don't necessarily agree with. I think what works will depend on so many factors there is no one size fits all at least not at the same period of time, maybe a same end goal can be reached but it will take different paths to get there. Freshell said: And I will also take it that you not responding to me saying this: I just missed it. Freshell said: Means the answer is no. Because Switzerland is a fairly economically right wing nation that performs extremely well on the World Happiness Report. Left vs right is not really the best way to look at government policy even in just economics. I already clearly explained repeatedly what might work for Switzerland wouldn't work everywhere under every condition and no country exists in a vacuum so that's why I wouldn't suggest it should be all applied to the US. Freshell said: Some firms will have other things they can sell and will shift their stocks appropriately. Others may not. The point will be that when a good is forced to be cheaper by government fiat, less businesses will sell it, and more people will want to buy it, so there will be a shortage. That all depends on how well prices are controlled. I didn't say it's an easy way. Many times companies price their goods with artificial scarcity prices. If you took your argument to the end, wouldn't that also suggest you should never break a monopoly too? Because part of why breaking up monologues is a thing is to prevent them from having too much power over prices by not giving people an option. Freshell said: Checking 1950 to 2020 alone, we're talking about the real economy multiplying four fold. US wealth isn't based on something that ended in 1865, when the economy was largely agricultural. Also, personally, I don't think the Nazi scientists that came over were so smart that they're single handedly responsible for growing the US economy for more than half a decade. See my post to WaffleMaster89. I was talking about some of the leg ups the country got at different periods in time. The earlier a country has a growth in their economy the larger their economy will potentially be in the same time period available for growth. The US and geopolitics would look different without chatel slavery and the US being first to have nukes. The past is not it's own world isolated entirely from the present, the present is influenced by events in the past. Only 1865 on paper, it didn't end till 1963 in some parts of the US. That's before I even get to prison labour that is protected by the US constitution still in use today. https://www.livescience.com/61886-modern-slavery-united-states-antoinette-harrell.html https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884989263/the-uncounted-workforce Freshell said: One of the reasons why GDP per capita PPP is a great explanatory variable is that it's literally just how much stuff your economy produces per person. Being able to produce more stuff means more infrastructure and more goods and services consumed. Auron_ said: Access to a variety of goods is not an indirect indication of high GDP per Capita, it is a direct consequence. When you produce a lot, you can import a wide variety of goods and have access to them. The others are slightly more accurately indirect but even then a better term would be necessarily interlinked. You cannot have a high wealth generating nation without a robust infrastructure that can sustain its population and allow them to continue to be productive. GDP even when per capita in a way represents flow of money. It doesn't inherently indicate anything good or bad. If there was a massive disaster that killed a bunch of people for example the costs in rebuilding homes and for funerals would go to the GDP. If the GDP isnt coming from a diverse economy it doesn't really represent an availability of different things. Also if the money isn't being invested in all the people in a nation it also means goods and services are limited to a small group. GDP per capita better tells you how much potential is there (in a type of economy GDP has meaning), whether it's reached is another story. There is also other factors that come with some production like pollution. https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being Also one should keep in mind happiness index is just looking at net values which means minorities of any kind of group can be overlooked in these rankings. Like look at Israel being high up on the list despite everyone knowing how many human rights violations it has. |
Reply to traed
Freshell said:
Exactly. Yet you pinpoint factors that would tend to support policies you support while ignoring factors that would not tend to support policies you do not support. When you are told that the better way to do a causal analysis is not to do loose pattern matching but to find what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between countries, you balk. You are not engaging in this in any systematic way, and I'm just pointing that out.
Exactly. Yet you pinpoint factors that would tend to support policies you support while ignoring factors that would not tend to support policies you do not support. When you are told that the better way to do a causal analysis is not to do loose pattern matching but to find what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between countries, you balk. You are not engaging in this in any systematic way, and I'm just pointing that out.
Where are you even getting that idea from? Then why would I even have ever linked a chart that would disrupt any real narrative if that was my goal? I change my views when I see fit to do so and I also don't really support any single policy or culture. I also have a tendency to try to balance out views in different topics presenting counter arguments sometimes out of fairness for views I don't necessarily agree with. I think what works will depend on so many factors there is no one size fits all at least not at the same period of time, maybe a same end goal can be reached but it will take different paths to get there.
Freshell said:
And I will also take it that you not responding to me saying this:
And I will also take it that you not responding to me saying this:
I just missed it.
Freshell said:
Means the answer is no. Because Switzerland is a fairly economically right wing nation that performs extremely well on the World Happiness Report.
Means the answer is no. Because Switzerland is a fairly economically right wing nation that performs extremely well on the World Happiness Report.
Left vs right is not really the best way to look at government policy even in just economics. I already clearly explained repeatedly what might work for Switzerland wouldn't work everywhere under every condition and no country exists in a vacuum so that's why I wouldn't suggest it should be all applied to the US.
Freshell said:
Some firms will have other things they can sell and will shift their stocks appropriately. Others may not. The point will be that when a good is forced to be cheaper by government fiat, less businesses will sell it, and more people will want to buy it, so there will be a shortage.
Some firms will have other things they can sell and will shift their stocks appropriately. Others may not. The point will be that when a good is forced to be cheaper by government fiat, less businesses will sell it, and more people will want to buy it, so there will be a shortage.
That all depends on how well prices are controlled. I didn't say it's an easy way. Many times companies price their goods with artificial scarcity prices. If you took your argument to the end, wouldn't that also suggest you should never break a monopoly too? Because part of why breaking up monologues is a thing is to prevent them from having too much power over prices by not giving people an option.
Freshell said:
Checking 1950 to 2020 alone, we're talking about the real economy multiplying four fold. US wealth isn't based on something that ended in 1865, when the economy was largely agricultural.
Also, personally, I don't think the Nazi scientists that came over were so smart that they're single handedly responsible for growing the US economy for more than half a decade.
Checking 1950 to 2020 alone, we're talking about the real economy multiplying four fold. US wealth isn't based on something that ended in 1865, when the economy was largely agricultural.
Also, personally, I don't think the Nazi scientists that came over were so smart that they're single handedly responsible for growing the US economy for more than half a decade.
See my post to WaffleMaster89. I was talking about some of the leg ups the country got at different periods in time. The earlier a country has a growth in their economy the larger their economy will potentially be in the same time period available for growth. The US and geopolitics would look different without chatel slavery and the US being first to have nukes. The past is not it's own world isolated entirely from the present, the present is influenced by events in the past. Only 1865 on paper, it didn't end till 1963 in some parts of the US. That's before I even get to prison labour that is protected by the US constitution still in use today.
https://www.livescience.com/61886-modern-slavery-united-states-antoinette-harrell.html
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884989263/the-uncounted-workforce
Freshell said:
One of the reasons why GDP per capita PPP is a great explanatory variable is that it's literally just how much stuff your economy produces per person. Being able to produce more stuff means more infrastructure and more goods and services consumed.
One of the reasons why GDP per capita PPP is a great explanatory variable is that it's literally just how much stuff your economy produces per person. Being able to produce more stuff means more infrastructure and more goods and services consumed.
Auron_ said:
Access to a variety of goods is not an indirect indication of high GDP per Capita, it is a direct consequence. When you produce a lot, you can import a wide variety of goods and have access to them. The others are slightly more accurately indirect but even then a better term would be necessarily interlinked. You cannot have a high wealth generating nation without a robust infrastructure that can sustain its population and allow them to continue to be productive.
Access to a variety of goods is not an indirect indication of high GDP per Capita, it is a direct consequence. When you produce a lot, you can import a wide variety of goods and have access to them. The others are slightly more accurately indirect but even then a better term would be necessarily interlinked. You cannot have a high wealth generating nation without a robust infrastructure that can sustain its population and allow them to continue to be productive.
GDP even when per capita in a way represents flow of money. It doesn't inherently indicate anything good or bad. If there was a massive disaster that killed a bunch of people for example the costs in rebuilding homes and for funerals would go to the GDP. If the GDP isnt coming from a diverse economy it doesn't really represent an availability of different things. Also if the money isn't being invested in all the people in a nation it also means goods and services are limited to a small group. GDP per capita better tells you how much potential is there (in a type of economy GDP has meaning), whether it's reached is another story. There is also other factors that come with some production like pollution.
https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being
Also one should keep in mind happiness index is just looking at net values which means minorities of any kind of group can be overlooked in these rankings. Like look at Israel being high up on the list despite everyone knowing how many human rights violations it has.
traed said: GDP even when per capita in a way represents flow of money. It doesn't inherently indicate anything good or bad. If there was a massive disaster that killed a bunch of people for example the costs in rebuilding homes and for funerals would go to the GDP. This doesn't increase GDP per capita in the long run. 100 buildings get destroyed. Yes, that means you'll probably get permission to build 100 new buildings, but that's resources being used to get you back to the level you were before the destruction. Those resources are not being used to do other things, like having buildings in locations they were not built in before that would be useful. When countries come out of war, they often bounce back to their previous GDP level, but that's because getting back to their old levels is simply a matter of repairing destroyed buildings, equipment, infrastructure, and getting people back to work. It's taking two steps back, then two steps forward. Believe it or not, getting bombed constantly is not a good strategy for maximizing wealth. traed said: If the GDP isnt coming from a diverse economy it doesn't really represent an availability of different things. Also if the money isn't being invested in all the people in a nation it also means goods and services are limited to a small group. GDP per capita better tells you how much potential is there (in a type of economy GDP has meaning), whether it's reached is another story. In concept, you have a point. As a matter of fact, you're wrong. Let's look at the many wonderful things GDP per capita PPP is associated with, on top of the fact that it's associated with higher life satisfaction. It's correlated with high median consumption. That's median, as in the middle person, not the wealthy of society.  Life expectancy  It's correlated with per capita electricity use.  Clean sanitation  High GDP per capita PPP countries produce a lot of stuff per person. That's what it means to be a high GDP per capita PPP nation. Producing more things does in fact lead to benefits for the population in practice. traed said: That all depends on how well prices are controlled. I didn't say it's an easy way. Many times companies price their goods with artificial scarcity prices. If you took your argument to the end, wouldn't that also suggest you should never break a monopoly too? Because part of why breaking up monologues is a thing is to prevent them from having too much power over prices by not giving people an option. Explain what you mean by "how well prices are controlled." My point applies pretty generally, but the reasoning is sound throughout. Businesses will tend to want to sell less of a product when the government makes them sell it for less, and people will want to buy it more. I'd take monopoly to be a terrible model in most circumstances. There's instances where it applies. But not generally. If a business charges too much for a product, generally other firms can fuck that business over by undercutting them on price. Left vs right is not really the best way to look at government policy even in just economics. You know what right wing vs left wing means in this context. Right wing would tend to involve policies you dislike, such as cutting corporate taxes, having lowered government spending, and having a privatized healthcare system. So more market oriented policies. I already clearly explained repeatedly what might work for Switzerland wouldn't work everywhere under every condition and no country exists in a vacuum so that's why I wouldn't suggest it should be all applied to the US. And what works for the Nordic countries might not work for the US, right? Great. Want to get started on talking about what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between nations? I'll start: GDP per capita, social support, and life expectancy. [quote=traed message=70990164]L traed said: Where are you even getting that idea from? Then why would I even have ever linked a chart that would disrupt any real narrative if that was my goal? You usually tell a narrative and I'm the one who points out counter examples. You don't welcome the counter example. You start questioning the metric I used, which was typically a metric you used. So you used for example the labor ratings by the International Trade Union org and you were perfectly fine using that combined with the World Happiness Report to point out that the happiest nations also tended to be ranked well by the labor ranking. But when I point out that the US ranks better on the Happiness Report than a lot of countries that do better on that labor ranking, well, the World Happiness Report is flawed. Another instance was you using the mental health index to try to undermine the World Happiness Report. I bring up other things the mental health index indicates, but you don't like that because you believe the index is very flawed. Then why bring it up? You never make the concession that this undermines the connection you tried to make prior. It's only brought up to undermine the point I'm making using your same metrics. You've been trying to play "heads I win, tails you lose" for a while now. I gave you the consistent out if you want to hold these positions, which is to say "we don't know whether the Nordic countries are happy, and we should not base what our economy should ideally be based on claims about them being happier." traed said: See my post to WaffleMaster89. I was talking about some of the leg ups the country got at different periods in time. The earlier a country has a growth in their economy the larger their economy will potentially be in the same time period available for growth. The US and geopolitics would look different without chatel slavery and the US being first to have nukes. The past is not it's own world isolated entirely from the present, the present is influenced by events in the past. Only 1865 on paper, it didn't end till 1963 in some parts of the US. That's before I even get to prison labour that is protected by the US constitution still in use today. Your link just gives an indication that there existed a particularly exploitative form of debt labor after slavery ended. It doesn't give us an appreciation for the scope. And it definitely doesn't give us an estimate for how less wealthy we would be if we had instead allowed black people to freely work normal wage labor jobs. Generally good explanations for a country's wealth are their international test scores, market liberalization, and the existence of sound government institutions that protect property rights, among other things. The US performs decent on international tests, has sound government institutions, and has a fairly liberalized economy. That is why the US is wealthy. |
FreshellMay 4, 8:53 AM
Reply to Gween_Gween
Happiness vs GDP per Capita is imperialistic propaganda
| @Gween_Gween Don't think so, after all money can be exchanged for things you want, and things you want usually make you happy. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Even though we may trust GDP PPP and happiness indicators, the income-happiness correlation remains inconsistent both globally and over time, even within the same country. Some studies have found that it's a very dynamic measure, and the correlation is typically higher in countries where wealth inequality is greater. This implies that in more socially oriented countries, household wealth may not be as crucial for fostering self-confidence and optimism compared to, let's say, modern US. Even if we desperately want to correlate "wealth" with "happiness," I would refer to the median net worth more than GDP because household assets matter more than income or consumption imo. For instance, my family consumes way less than it can afford - I truly care more about infrastructure, crime levels, health care and education, availability of green recreational areas and the quality of water and air. Every time I visit US, I tell myself "never again," and no numbers can convince me otherwise. @Gween_Gween Comrade! |
LoveYourSmileMay 4, 4:40 AM
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to LoveYourSmile
Even though we may trust GDP PPP and happiness indicators, the income-happiness correlation remains inconsistent both globally and over time, even within the same country. Some studies have found that it's a very dynamic measure, and the correlation is typically higher in countries where wealth inequality is greater. This implies that in more socially oriented countries, household wealth may not be as crucial for fostering self-confidence and optimism compared to, let's say, modern US.
Even if we desperately want to correlate "wealth" with "happiness," I would refer to the median net worth more than GDP because household assets matter more than income or consumption imo. For instance, my family consumes way less than it can afford - I truly care more about infrastructure, crime levels, health care and education, availability of green recreational areas and the quality of water and air. Every time I visit US, I tell myself "never again," and no numbers can convince me otherwise.
@Gween_Gween Comrade!
Even if we desperately want to correlate "wealth" with "happiness," I would refer to the median net worth more than GDP because household assets matter more than income or consumption imo. For instance, my family consumes way less than it can afford - I truly care more about infrastructure, crime levels, health care and education, availability of green recreational areas and the quality of water and air. Every time I visit US, I tell myself "never again," and no numbers can convince me otherwise.
@Gween_Gween Comrade!
LoveYourEyes said: the correlation is typically higher in countries where wealth inequality is greater. This implies that in more socially oriented countries, household wealth may not be as crucial for fostering self-confidence and optimism compared to, let's say, modern US. In terms of predicting national happiness, within country correlations are less informative than country level correlations with respect to determining the society wide determinants of happiness. There's a tradeoff to getting wealthier within a country. You can always choose to earn more money by working longer hours, but an hour spent working is an hour not spent doing a hobby or being with friends. If a country is nationally productive and therefore wealthy, that means you can take the same job as someone else in a less productive country, be just as competent, have the same kind of credentials, work just as hard, work the same amount of hours (though usually the wealthier country person works less), and you'll still make more money than the person in the less productive country. Why? Productivity is not determined by the individual worker but by the efficacy of the entire organization they're operating in, which is itself influenced by the entire economic ecosystem it is in. So, on the individual level, pursuing a higher income comes with a tradeoff that could adversely affect your happiness. On the national level, it does not so much. That's why we should focus on the country level regressions. LoveYourEyes said: Even if we desperately want to correlate "wealth" with "happiness," I would refer to the median net worth more than GDP because household assets matter more than income or consumption imo. Countries that produce more stuff per person will generally have people with higher incomes. You're then left with the decision of what to do with your income. The two basic options are to save (and hopefully invest) or engage in consumption, and you'll be able to do more of both as incomes get higher. Plus, richer nations tend to have higher savings rates. Now, maybe you're correct that median net worth is a better variable overall when you do a regression. The decision chain I just mentioned nonetheless starts with how much stuff there is to go around, which is what GDP per capita PPP captures. |
Freshell said: This doesn't increase GDP per capita in the long run. 100 buildings get destroyed. Yes, that means you'll probably get permission to build 100 new buildings, but that's resources being used to get you back to the level you were before the destruction. Those resources are not being used to do other things, like having buildings in locations they were not built in before that would be useful. When countries come out of war, they often bounce back to their previous GDP level, but that's because getting back to their old levels is simply a matter of repairing destroyed buildings, equipment, infrastructure, and getting people back to work. It's taking two steps back, then two steps forward. Believe it or not, getting bombed constantly is not a good strategy for maximizing wealth. It can though if the negative isnt too much vs the positive. In other words a GDP or GDP per capita being more doesn't necessarily mean the country is having only good things going on for everyone. I never said GDP or GDP per capita has zero correlation, I said it isn't the only factor and may indicate other things since there is obvious cases it does not correlate in some countries. Freshell said: In concept, you have a point. As a matter of fact, you're wrong. Let's look at the many wonderful things GDP per capita PPP is associated with, on top of the fact that it's associated with higher life satisfaction. It's correlated with high median consumption. That's median, as in the middle person, not the wealthy of society. High GDP per capita PPP countries produce a lot of stuff per person. That's what it means to be a high GDP per capita PPP nation. Producing more things does in fact lead to benefits for the population in practice. Russia is near the top of one of those so how many sober + happy Russians have you spoken to? Ive never met one. Russia isnt on those countries in that happiness index (i was having trouble getting it to load properly so im not sure if a country like Russia wasnt surveyed or it just didnt make that list you posed from lower ranking) What about Qatar which has human trafficking? Happiness of slavery? Life expectancy has a lot to do with genes and diet which varies by region and culture. Being of longer life expectancy assuming if this also comes with better overall health (it doesnt necessarily mean that, but usually does in youth) their health would increase production. Lot's of stuff per person doesnt mean everyone gets a piece of it nor does having lots of stuff even if everyone got a piece equally, which doesnt happen anywhere, that does not guarantee they will be happy. Also when they just say GDP they mean Nominal not PPP. I noticed PPP is explicitly mentioned every time it is used because it isn't the main standard in use. Freshell said: Explain what you mean by "how well prices are controlled." My point applies pretty generally, but the reasoning is sound throughout. Businesses will tend to want to sell less of a product when the government makes them sell it for less, and people will want to buy it more. I'd take monopoly to be a terrible model in most circumstances. There's instances where it applies. But not generally. If a business charges too much for a product, generally other firms can fuck that business over by undercutting them on price. I mean not setting prices too low or too high and if itis applied everywhere to prevent companies from putting everything into non price controlled goods. Like I said it isnt that different from breaking up a monopoly. I dont think it is the best strategy in every case or anything just something to consider, but it can be risky. It is no different to the consumer if the company does it or a government entity in either case the consumer isnt who controls the price. That is why artificial scarcity exists because the demand doesnt actually directly control supply or prices it is a conscious decision made from above not below. The below can influence the above though but not always. Other businesses can only undercut on price if they have access to the resources but many large businesses do things like set up exclusive deals with suppliers where they will not sell to anyone else and even if they did have access they need enough capital to grow. Sure they can undercut price and make sales but if they cant keep up with demand they will have trouble with future sales because no one will know when they are available and they if lucky might make a modest profit. There is a large number of tricks used. They also try to buy out competition is very common to occur or make use of patents even stealing patents knowing the smaller people dont have the money to sue them. Not that I am saying price controls is a catch all solution or inherently should be applied at all, just not dismissed outright. There is other ways of handling things like public goods and services competing with private, or control import and export flow, or changing of intellectual property restrictions of use Freshell said: You know what right wing vs left wing means in this context. Right wing would tend to involve policies you dislike, such as cutting corporate taxes, having lowered government spending, and having a privatized healthcare system. So more market oriented policies. Im not sure you even inherently need a corporate tax if you dont treat corporations as people. Couldnt you just tax the owners? It is legally their money after wages are paid to employees after all. Though i guess it would be same thing just structured different. I dont think lowering or raising government spending is partisan everyone does both when they see fit. Freshell said: And what works for the Nordic countries might not work for the US, right? Great. Want to get started on talking about what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between nations? I'll start: GDP per capita, social support, and life expectancy. Depends what hidden variables are but it is worth noting how many countries at top have similar policies. They potentially hold more significance than outliers do. You could maybe dismiss Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark being right next to eachother but countries like Iceland, Germany, Luxemberg and Austria are some distance from them. You also have to look at exports, countries with oil exports tend to fair better in GDP per capita unless there is foreign interference. Freshell said: You usually tell a narrative and I'm the one who points out counter examples. You don't welcome the counter example. You start questioning the metric I used, which was typically a metric you used. So you used for example the labor ratings by the International Trade Union org and you were perfectly fine using that combined with the World Happiness Report to point out that the happiest nations also tended to be ranked well by the labor ranking. But when I point out that the US ranks better on the Happiness Report than a lot of countries that do better on that labor ranking, well, the World Happiness Report is flawed. Another instance was you using the mental health index to try to undermine the World Happiness Report. I bring up other things the mental health index indicates, but you don't like that because you believe the index is very flawed. Then why bring it up? You never make the concession that this undermines the connection you tried to make prior. It's only brought up to undermine the point I'm making using your same metrics. You've been trying to play "heads I win, tails you lose" for a while now. I gave you the consistent out if you want to hold these positions, which is to say "we don't know whether the Nordic countries are happy, and we should not base what our economy should ideally be based on claims about them being happier." Because Im good at rationalizing so i can see how what you think is a counter example using an outlier (although it depends on at what could be considered the cutoff point as to what is and isnt an outlier) isnt necessarily a counter example to me but an opportunity to explore other factors to get an even bigger picture because I like chasing down different rabbit holes and I dont change my views till ive gone down enough of them, not that I have very specific views on economics more a broad set of different views for different situations and general goals. Since there is multiple variables they all only contribute a portion to the overall results Like i said I never said GDP per capita doesnt sometimes show something and likewise the happiness report has some use but isnt perfect so you have to look at multiple country trends not cling to obvious outlier countries(whatever that is since it depedns) as if they are as significant in showing the same thing when there is so more factors involved but if a pattern appears the pattern helps point you to either a cause or a adjacent correlation. No i didnt use the mental health index to undermine the happiness report, it was to contextualize it to see if it has any weak points by directly contradicting eachother. My view is more like: Why just settle for what already exists, when you can strive for even better? I dont think blindly copying other countries because they seem well off would work consistently, it is better to understand why they are the way they are with as many factors taken into consideration as possible and intelligently adjust to suit the needs of people in any given area. For example Ecuador decriminalized all drugs. Oregon did something similar. The results were different because Ecuador had a system set up to get addicts help, Oregon didn't. Freshell said: Your link just gives an indication that there existed a particularly exploitative form of debt labor after slavery ended. It doesn't give us an appreciation for the scope. And it definitely doesn't give us an estimate for how less wealthy we would be if we had instead allowed black people to freely work normal wage labor jobs. Generally good explanations for a country's wealth are their international test scores, market liberalization, and the existence of sound government institutions that protect property rights, among other things. The US performs decent on international tests, has sound government institutions, and has a fairly liberalized economy. That is why the US is wealthy. Yes. Bashar al-Assad (came in 2000) liberalized Syria's economy (if you look into him he is Western educated even) and that only seemed to have a minor increase in GDP per capita growth trajectory vs what it would have been had he kept things the same. Then drought came followed by the Syrian civil war tanking the GDP per capita. You could maybe argue given more time the economy would have faired a good amount better than original trajectory with enough time but hard to say for sure. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SY And what about how economies that werent very liberal also had GDP per capita growth? Property rights depends what you are defining different kinds of property as and who owns it. The US gov does asset freezing and asset seizing of it's own citizens and can do so with no crime committed. Im not sure what you are considering a sound government either. In review GDP per capita =/= net happiness (there is a correlation in many cases just not always) Net happiness =/= happiness for all I would be interested in a happiness ranking using not a net happiness as a single score but looking at what the highs, lows and most common values are and better elaboration and consideration on perceptions of what these different countries value and take a sample size larger for the larger countries to try to capture a certain percentage of the population and make sure it is will distributed in a way to not misrepresent. |
traedMay 4, 3:10 PM
| @traed In other words a GDP or GDP per capita being more doesn't necessarily mean the country is having only good things going on for everyone nor does having lots of stuff even if everyone got a piece equally, which doesnt happen anywhere, that does not guarantee they will be happy. He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean. Also when they just say GDP they mean Nominal not PPP. I noticed PPP is explicitly mentioned every time it is used because it isn't the main standard in use. Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right. Because Im good at rationalizing Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though. Assad (came in 2000) liberalized Syria's economy (if you look into him he is Western educated even) and that only seemed to have a minor increase in GDP per capita growth trajectory vs what it would have been had he kept things the same. Then drought came followed by the Syrian civil war tanking the GDP per capita. You could maybe argue given more time the economy would have faired a good amount better than original trajectory with enough time but hard to say for sure. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SY And what about how economies that werent very liberal also had GDP per capita growth? Lol, lmao even. > By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates. > "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added. https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means. Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before. |
Auron_May 4, 4:06 PM
|
Auron_ said: He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean. I have a tendency to make general statements because it is so tedious to constantly reference the same things repeatedly and it helps convey the point im making. I was saying mean, median, mode and range by themselves only tell you so much and you can understand more looking at the bigger picture of every way you can analyze the economy and people's quality of life and general wellbeing. Again it comes to countries like Russia with a good median income and GDP per capita PPP but I dont see masses of happy Russians. Where are they? Not high enough? Then what about Malaysia a country that oppresses all who arent Sunni Muslim and where they lock up people for being gay with punishment of up to 20 years in prison and caning them? Auron_ said: Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right. Purchasing power parity which is adjusted on inflation rate and cost of living differences based on an unproven theory prices over time will become same everywhere. The critique is how prices differ region to region and taxes differ and all that so it's use is still limited. I was focusing on the data points so I just missed the subheader. Auron_ said: Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though. Rationalizing doesn't inherently mean false rational. There is false rational when the basis of it is false. Finding hidden variables is not poor rational. Trying to imply economics is unquestionable science is bad rational. Auron_ said: Lol, lmao even. > By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates. > "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added. https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means. Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before. I suggest you look at the source linked here Syria’s accelerated implementation of neoliberal policies in the decade following Bashar al-Assad’s ascent to power in 2000 benefited the Syrian upper class and foreign investors, particularly from the Gulf monarchies and Turkey, at the expense of the vast majority of Syrians, who were hit by inflation and a rising cost of living. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60112/MED_2018_05.pdf Unfortunately i dont have full access to this in full (comes from 2016) This chapter examines Bashar’s lurch to the market-driven economic order starting in the year 2000. Neoliberal reforms were wide-ranging and included lifting of price controls and tariffs, amending investment reform law, unifying the exchange rate, removing subsidies, and opening up trade and capital accounts. The Bashar regime aimed not only to transform the economy from a state-controlled to a market-oriented one, but also to serve the class-based interests of the state bourgeoisie. The natural next step for that class was to break free from the fetters of state control and to transform itself from a state capitalist class, which controls the means of production through its control of the state, into a private capitalist class that owns the means of production. While on fieldwork, the standard cliché that I heard from state officials in response to my critique that market liberalisation has not paid off was that the move toward the free market was irreversible. The grip of neoliberal ideology on the imagination of ruling class and its cronies acted like a sedating drug: while working people became poorer, the authorities hallucinated that conditions were rosy. Nevertheless, this irreversible move would eventually prove disastrous. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137397720_6 Existence of cronyism does not negate the fact of the economy being liberalized. For example you look at the Economic Freedom Index top five ranking tends to include Hong Kong but Hong Kong also is high ranking on The Economist's Crony Index. You know you could just actually stick to your point instead of an ad hominem routine that doesn't get you anywhere. |
traedMay 4, 6:54 PM
| They aren't unhappy...you have no proof that they are unhappy.... |
Reply to traed
Freshell said:
This doesn't increase GDP per capita in the long run. 100 buildings get destroyed. Yes, that means you'll probably get permission to build 100 new buildings, but that's resources being used to get you back to the level you were before the destruction. Those resources are not being used to do other things, like having buildings in locations they were not built in before that would be useful. When countries come out of war, they often bounce back to their previous GDP level, but that's because getting back to their old levels is simply a matter of repairing destroyed buildings, equipment, infrastructure, and getting people back to work. It's taking two steps back, then two steps forward. Believe it or not, getting bombed constantly is not a good strategy for maximizing wealth.
This doesn't increase GDP per capita in the long run. 100 buildings get destroyed. Yes, that means you'll probably get permission to build 100 new buildings, but that's resources being used to get you back to the level you were before the destruction. Those resources are not being used to do other things, like having buildings in locations they were not built in before that would be useful. When countries come out of war, they often bounce back to their previous GDP level, but that's because getting back to their old levels is simply a matter of repairing destroyed buildings, equipment, infrastructure, and getting people back to work. It's taking two steps back, then two steps forward. Believe it or not, getting bombed constantly is not a good strategy for maximizing wealth.
It can though if the negative isnt too much vs the positive. In other words a GDP or GDP per capita being more doesn't necessarily mean the country is having only good things going on for everyone. I never said GDP or GDP per capita has zero correlation, I said it isn't the only factor and may indicate other things since there is obvious cases it does not correlate in some countries.
Freshell said:
In concept, you have a point. As a matter of fact, you're wrong. Let's look at the many wonderful things GDP per capita PPP is associated with, on top of the fact that it's associated with higher life satisfaction.
It's correlated with high median consumption. That's median, as in the middle person, not the wealthy of society.
High GDP per capita PPP countries produce a lot of stuff per person. That's what it means to be a high GDP per capita PPP nation. Producing more things does in fact lead to benefits for the population in practice.
In concept, you have a point. As a matter of fact, you're wrong. Let's look at the many wonderful things GDP per capita PPP is associated with, on top of the fact that it's associated with higher life satisfaction.
It's correlated with high median consumption. That's median, as in the middle person, not the wealthy of society.
High GDP per capita PPP countries produce a lot of stuff per person. That's what it means to be a high GDP per capita PPP nation. Producing more things does in fact lead to benefits for the population in practice.
Russia is near the top of one of those so how many sober + happy Russians have you spoken to? Ive never met one. Russia isnt on those countries in that happiness index (i was having trouble getting it to load properly so im not sure if a country like Russia wasnt surveyed or it just didnt make that list you posed from lower ranking)
What about Qatar which has human trafficking? Happiness of slavery?
Life expectancy has a lot to do with genes and diet which varies by region and culture. Being of longer life expectancy assuming if this also comes with better overall health (it doesnt necessarily mean that, but usually does in youth) their health would increase production.
Lot's of stuff per person doesnt mean everyone gets a piece of it nor does having lots of stuff even if everyone got a piece equally, which doesnt happen anywhere, that does not guarantee they will be happy.
Also when they just say GDP they mean Nominal not PPP. I noticed PPP is explicitly mentioned every time it is used because it isn't the main standard in use.
Freshell said:
Explain what you mean by "how well prices are controlled." My point applies pretty generally, but the reasoning is sound throughout. Businesses will tend to want to sell less of a product when the government makes them sell it for less, and people will want to buy it more.
I'd take monopoly to be a terrible model in most circumstances. There's instances where it applies. But not generally. If a business charges too much for a product, generally other firms can fuck that business over by undercutting them on price.
Explain what you mean by "how well prices are controlled." My point applies pretty generally, but the reasoning is sound throughout. Businesses will tend to want to sell less of a product when the government makes them sell it for less, and people will want to buy it more.
I'd take monopoly to be a terrible model in most circumstances. There's instances where it applies. But not generally. If a business charges too much for a product, generally other firms can fuck that business over by undercutting them on price.
I mean not setting prices too low or too high and if itis applied everywhere to prevent companies from putting everything into non price controlled goods. Like I said it isnt that different from breaking up a monopoly. I dont think it is the best strategy in every case or anything just something to consider, but it can be risky. It is no different to the consumer if the company does it or a government entity in either case the consumer isnt who controls the price. That is why artificial scarcity exists because the demand doesnt actually directly control supply or prices it is a conscious decision made from above not below. The below can influence the above though but not always. Other businesses can only undercut on price if they have access to the resources but many large businesses do things like set up exclusive deals with suppliers where they will not sell to anyone else and even if they did have access they need enough capital to grow. Sure they can undercut price and make sales but if they cant keep up with demand they will have trouble with future sales because no one will know when they are available and they if lucky might make a modest profit. There is a large number of tricks used. They also try to buy out competition is very common to occur or make use of patents even stealing patents knowing the smaller people dont have the money to sue them.
Not that I am saying price controls is a catch all solution or inherently should be applied at all, just not dismissed outright. There is other ways of handling things like public goods and services competing with private, or control import and export flow, or changing of intellectual property restrictions of use
Freshell said:
You know what right wing vs left wing means in this context. Right wing would tend to involve policies you dislike, such as cutting corporate taxes, having lowered government spending, and having a privatized healthcare system. So more market oriented policies.
You know what right wing vs left wing means in this context. Right wing would tend to involve policies you dislike, such as cutting corporate taxes, having lowered government spending, and having a privatized healthcare system. So more market oriented policies.
Im not sure you even inherently need a corporate tax if you dont treat corporations as people. Couldnt you just tax the owners? It is legally their money after wages are paid to employees after all. Though i guess it would be same thing just structured different. I dont think lowering or raising government spending is partisan everyone does both when they see fit.
Freshell said:
And what works for the Nordic countries might not work for the US, right? Great. Want to get started on talking about what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between nations? I'll start: GDP per capita, social support, and life expectancy.
And what works for the Nordic countries might not work for the US, right? Great. Want to get started on talking about what variables best explain the variance in outcomes between nations? I'll start: GDP per capita, social support, and life expectancy.
Depends what hidden variables are but it is worth noting how many countries at top have similar policies. They potentially hold more significance than outliers do. You could maybe dismiss Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark being right next to eachother but countries like Iceland, Germany, Luxemberg and Austria are some distance from them. You also have to look at exports, countries with oil exports tend to fair better in GDP per capita unless there is foreign interference.
Freshell said:
You usually tell a narrative and I'm the one who points out counter examples. You don't welcome the counter example. You start questioning the metric I used, which was typically a metric you used. So you used for example the labor ratings by the International Trade Union org and you were perfectly fine using that combined with the World Happiness Report to point out that the happiest nations also tended to be ranked well by the labor ranking. But when I point out that the US ranks better on the Happiness Report than a lot of countries that do better on that labor ranking, well, the World Happiness Report is flawed. Another instance was you using the mental health index to try to undermine the World Happiness Report. I bring up other things the mental health index indicates, but you don't like that because you believe the index is very flawed. Then why bring it up? You never make the concession that this undermines the connection you tried to make prior. It's only brought up to undermine the point I'm making using your same metrics. You've been trying to play "heads I win, tails you lose" for a while now. I gave you the consistent out if you want to hold these positions, which is to say "we don't know whether the Nordic countries are happy, and we should not base what our economy should ideally be based on claims about them being happier."
You usually tell a narrative and I'm the one who points out counter examples. You don't welcome the counter example. You start questioning the metric I used, which was typically a metric you used. So you used for example the labor ratings by the International Trade Union org and you were perfectly fine using that combined with the World Happiness Report to point out that the happiest nations also tended to be ranked well by the labor ranking. But when I point out that the US ranks better on the Happiness Report than a lot of countries that do better on that labor ranking, well, the World Happiness Report is flawed. Another instance was you using the mental health index to try to undermine the World Happiness Report. I bring up other things the mental health index indicates, but you don't like that because you believe the index is very flawed. Then why bring it up? You never make the concession that this undermines the connection you tried to make prior. It's only brought up to undermine the point I'm making using your same metrics. You've been trying to play "heads I win, tails you lose" for a while now. I gave you the consistent out if you want to hold these positions, which is to say "we don't know whether the Nordic countries are happy, and we should not base what our economy should ideally be based on claims about them being happier."
Because Im good at rationalizing so i can see how what you think is a counter example using an outlier (although it depends on at what could be considered the cutoff point as to what is and isnt an outlier) isnt necessarily a counter example to me but an opportunity to explore other factors to get an even bigger picture because I like chasing down different rabbit holes and I dont change my views till ive gone down enough of them, not that I have very specific views on economics more a broad set of different views for different situations and general goals. Since there is multiple variables they all only contribute a portion to the overall results
Like i said I never said GDP per capita doesnt sometimes show something and likewise the happiness report has some use but isnt perfect so you have to look at multiple country trends not cling to obvious outlier countries(whatever that is since it depedns) as if they are as significant in showing the same thing when there is so more factors involved but if a pattern appears the pattern helps point you to either a cause or a adjacent correlation. No i didnt use the mental health index to undermine the happiness report, it was to contextualize it to see if it has any weak points by directly contradicting eachother.
My view is more like: Why just settle for what already exists, when you can strive for even better? I dont think blindly copying other countries because they seem well off would work consistently, it is better to understand why they are the way they are with as many factors taken into consideration as possible and intelligently adjust to suit the needs of people in any given area. For example Ecuador decriminalized all drugs. Oregon did something similar. The results were different because Ecuador had a system set up to get addicts help, Oregon didn't.
Freshell said:
Your link just gives an indication that there existed a particularly exploitative form of debt labor after slavery ended. It doesn't give us an appreciation for the scope. And it definitely doesn't give us an estimate for how less wealthy we would be if we had instead allowed black people to freely work normal wage labor jobs.
Generally good explanations for a country's wealth are their international test scores, market liberalization, and the existence of sound government institutions that protect property rights, among other things. The US performs decent on international tests, has sound government institutions, and has a fairly liberalized economy. That is why the US is wealthy.
Your link just gives an indication that there existed a particularly exploitative form of debt labor after slavery ended. It doesn't give us an appreciation for the scope. And it definitely doesn't give us an estimate for how less wealthy we would be if we had instead allowed black people to freely work normal wage labor jobs.
Generally good explanations for a country's wealth are their international test scores, market liberalization, and the existence of sound government institutions that protect property rights, among other things. The US performs decent on international tests, has sound government institutions, and has a fairly liberalized economy. That is why the US is wealthy.
Yes.
Bashar al-Assad (came in 2000) liberalized Syria's economy (if you look into him he is Western educated even) and that only seemed to have a minor increase in GDP per capita growth trajectory vs what it would have been had he kept things the same. Then drought came followed by the Syrian civil war tanking the GDP per capita. You could maybe argue given more time the economy would have faired a good amount better than original trajectory with enough time but hard to say for sure.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SY
And what about how economies that werent very liberal also had GDP per capita growth?
Property rights depends what you are defining different kinds of property as and who owns it. The US gov does asset freezing and asset seizing of it's own citizens and can do so with no crime committed.
Im not sure what you are considering a sound government either.
In review
GDP per capita =/= net happiness (there is a correlation in many cases just not always)
Net happiness =/= happiness for all
I would be interested in a happiness ranking using not a net happiness as a single score but looking at what the highs, lows and most common values are and better elaboration and consideration on perceptions of what these different countries value and take a sample size larger for the larger countries to try to capture a certain percentage of the population and make sure it is will distributed in a way to not misrepresent.
traed said: It can though if the negative isnt too much vs the positive. In other words a GDP or GDP per capita being more doesn't necessarily mean the country is having only good things going on for everyone. I never said GDP or GDP per capita has zero correlation, I said it isn't the only factor and may indicate other things since there is obvious cases it does not correlate in some countries. Your example trying to illustrate this is a bad one. Again, because you're confusing temporary economic growth with stable GDP level. Go to war with a country, and after the war and them having to repair everything, they will experience economic growth. It will be from a low level where industry was stalled and equipment is destroyed to one where equipment has been repaired. Once that has been done again, their productive ability over the long run is what it was prior to the war. If the US decided to bomb a random country today, the end result wouldn't be that 10 years after the fact, their GDP would be higher than it would have otherwise been. There's at best the short bump that will come back down. If that's your best criticism of the GDP per capita metric, it's bad, because it has limited applicability. traed said: Russia is near the top of one of those so how many sober + happy Russians have you spoken to? Ive never met one. Russia isnt on those countries in that happiness index (i was having trouble getting it to load properly so im not sure if a country like Russia wasnt surveyed or it just didnt make that list you posed from lower ranking) What about Qatar which has human trafficking? Happiness of slavery? Life expectancy has a lot to do with genes and diet which varies by region and culture. Being of longer life expectancy assuming if this also comes with better overall health (it doesnt necessarily mean that, but usually does in youth) their health would increase production. Lot's of stuff per person doesnt mean everyone gets a piece of it nor does having lots of stuff even if everyone got a piece equally, which doesnt happen anywhere, that does not guarantee they will be happy. Also when they just say GDP they mean Nominal not PPP. I noticed PPP is explicitly mentioned every time it is used because it isn't the main standard in use. Interesting that you believe that there are genetic group differences that cause differences in life expectancy. Whatever the cause though, it was found to be a variable that explains some portion of the data by the World Happiness Report. So you would just be saying some portion of the results are genetic and some portion of the results are cultural and due to things like diet of the people. There is also a component that is explained by the amount of stuff that economy produces per person. Also I'll retrace the flow of the conversation since I don't think you understand why I posted that series of graphs. I posted a graph showing that GDP per capita PPP is correlated with happiness. Unlike what you did, this correlation explains the data set for the whole range of countries. You brought up that what this metric which measures the amount of stuff an economy created per person does not necessarily mean that said stuff accrues as material benefits for the typical citizen. I then posted a series of graphs that showed that in fact the benefits do materialize in many ways. The amount of stuff created per person is correlated with higher consumption of the middle person, life expectancy, electricity generation, and water sanitation. You brought up Russia as a counter example. Russia isn't a high GDP per capita nation. It has a GDP on par with Italy while having 2 and a half times the population. If you check with the GDP per capita vs Life Satisfaction graph, Russia is decently following the trend line, although it's undershooting it. The graph where Russia performs well is the electricity generation graph. It has energy abundance. But again, retrace the flow of the conversation. The benefits of country producing a lot of stuff per person go beyond just having a lot of electricity use. That's just one obviously meaningful and tangible benefit. Russia is less productive in other domains. The median consumption per day is less than half of that of the US on the graph posted prior. You then bring up Qatar as a counter example. That actually is a decent counter example, because Qatar has a very high GDP per capita by anyone's standard. Then you bring up reasons why Qatar would not be happy. Now, if we retrace what is the plausible causal mechanism for GDP per capita being connected to happiness, it would be because there is greater material abundance. I don't have to claim that this overrides all considerations in all instances. My point is just that this explains a large portion of the variance of outcomes, which is the approach I prefer using rather than loose pattern matching based on the top few countries. You know, if I did the loose pattern matching approach, I could just say that the top few countries on the World Happiness Report are all high GDP per capita nations. That's the standard of evidence you're applying. I go beyond that. Let's see what can explain the entire data set. And to quote what a wise man once said traed said: you have to look at multiple country trends not cling to obvious outlier countries traed said: My view is more like: Why just settle for what already exists, when you can strive for even better? I dont think blindly copying other countries because they seem well off would work consistently, it is better to understand why they are the way they are with as many factors taken into consideration as possible and intelligently adjust to suit the needs of people in any given area. For example Ecuador decriminalized all drugs. Oregon did something similar. The results were different because Ecuador had a system set up to get addicts help, Oregon didn't. This would be a sentiment I generally sympathize with. This is what I accuse people who use the World Happiness Report to say "we should become more like the Nordics" of. One model for Oregon seemed to be the Portugal approach. A problem Oregon has run into is that they are not effectively coercing people into treatment. People just ignore the fines and don't appear in court. They seem to have misunderstood what decriminalization is within a larger context of a public health policy agenda, and drug overdoses are surging as result. Similarly, people who say we should imitate Nordic countries typically find the few policy items associated with the countries that they like while ignoring the policy items they dislike. One example being that Nordic countries do not fund themselves by just taxing the rich, but by having high income taxes on everyone and having high consumption taxes. However raising taxes on everyone is politically unpopular in the US, likely because we do not have the same level social trust as the Nordics. But then you're missing out on how the Nordic countries fund themselves in a fiscally responsible way. They actually have less debt than the US as a percentage of GDP after all. So anyway, so I go for the do better option. Find out what generally makes people happier, consider the realities of your own country, then go for what would probably lead to the best outcomes in that context. The biggest explanatory variables seem to be GDP per capita, social support, and life expectancy. In the US case I would say emphasize raising the life expectancy. Countries should keep in mind what would improve those outcome metrics. I don't want to get into a details about your price controls argument. Getting besides the main thrust of the conversation. All I'll say is that it just takes one competitor to realize they can undercut you and take greater market share to make the attempted price hike above market equilibrium fail. Again, except for special circumstances, monopoly usually isn't a good model for the market of a commodity. But sure, in those few instances where there is an actual monopoly, price controls can be justified. Water and electricity utilities come to mind. People who advocate for price controls tend to go beyond these uncontroversial examples, though. traed said: Yes. Bashar al-Assad (came in 2000) liberalized Syria's economy (if you look into him he is Western educated even) and that only seemed to have a minor increase in GDP per capita growth trajectory vs what it would have been had he kept things the same. Then drought came followed by the Syrian civil war tanking the GDP per capita. You could maybe argue given more time the economy would have faired a good amount better than original trajectory with enough time but hard to say for sure. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=SY And what about how economies that werent very liberal also had GDP per capita growth? Property rights depends what you are defining different kinds of property as and who owns it. The US gov does asset freezing and asset seizing of it's own citizens and can do so with no crime committed. Im not sure what you are considering a sound government either. I used the term institutions. Generally I am referring to the "rules of the game" of your economy. Liberalization can go wrong when the correct institutions are not in place. Important ones are strong private property rights, an efficient court system that enforces contracts, and protections for minority investors. Often when you look at indexes for economic freedom, they are actually including some measure of these in their definition of economic freedom. Here they're taking freedom index scores by CATO and comparing it to logged real GDP per capita.  https://www.niskanencenter.org/freedom-government-part-one/ Correlation coefficients show the data has 35% of the variance explained by economic freedom. Interestingly the analysis linked does not find that government spending was associated with less growth. Although personally I expect reverse causation there. But nonetheless the mentioning of that result shows honest attempt at analysis. As for less liberal countries that experience a fair amount of economic growth. I often think these cases, when they are not explained by resource wealth, can be explained by high performance on international tests. The East Asian tiger economies all did things that I would not think of as ideal policy, but they all perform very well on international tests.  https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/06/basic-skills-gap-hanushek-woessmann There the research is using a composite measure taking into account performance across many different international tests, including PISA and TIMSS. The growth rate variance explained by this is about 70% iirc after accounting for initial GDP. The initial GDP is to account for the conditional convergence phenomenon. So for the US. It doesn't perform terrific on international tests, but it does perform decent. Does a bit better than France on the PISA. It's also probably the case that despite the meh average by rich international standards, that the US does have highly educated individuals within the country, often immigrants that makes up for the median. It is also a fairly economically free nation. Such a country is the kind of country I would expect to grow consistently, and it has had stable governance under these kind of conditions, so it has more time to accumulate wealth under pretty good conditions than most nations. |
FreshellMay 5, 10:14 AM
Reply to traed
Auron_ said:
He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean.
He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean.
I have a tendency to make general statements because it is so tedious to constantly reference the same things repeatedly and it helps convey the point im making. I was saying mean, median, mode and range by themselves only tell you so much and you can understand more looking at the bigger picture of every way you can analyze the economy and people's quality of life and general wellbeing.
Again it comes to countries like Russia with a good median income and GDP per capita PPP but I dont see masses of happy Russians. Where are they? Not high enough? Then what about Malaysia a country that oppresses all who arent Sunni Muslim and where they lock up people for being gay with punishment of up to 20 years in prison and caning them?
Auron_ said:
Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right.
Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right.
Purchasing power parity which is adjusted on inflation rate and cost of living differences based on an unproven theory prices over time will become same everywhere. The critique is how prices differ region to region and taxes differ and all that so it's use is still limited.
I was focusing on the data points so I just missed the subheader.
Auron_ said:
Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though.
Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though.
Rationalizing doesn't inherently mean false rational. There is false rational when the basis of it is false. Finding hidden variables is not poor rational. Trying to imply economics is unquestionable science is bad rational.
Auron_ said:
Lol, lmao even.
> By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates.
> "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah
You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means.
Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before.
Lol, lmao even.
> By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates.
> "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah
You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means.
Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before.
I suggest you look at the source linked here
Syria’s accelerated implementation of neoliberal policies in the decade following Bashar al-Assad’s ascent to power in 2000 benefited the Syrian upper class and foreign investors, particularly from the Gulf monarchies and Turkey, at the expense of the vast majority of Syrians, who were hit by inflation and a rising cost of living.
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60112/MED_2018_05.pdf
Unfortunately i dont have full access to this in full (comes from 2016)
This chapter examines Bashar’s lurch to the market-driven economic order starting in the year 2000. Neoliberal reforms were wide-ranging and included lifting of price controls and tariffs, amending investment reform law, unifying the exchange rate, removing subsidies, and opening up trade and capital accounts. The Bashar regime aimed not only to transform the economy from a state-controlled to a market-oriented one, but also to serve the class-based interests of the state bourgeoisie. The natural next step for that class was to break free from the fetters of state control and to transform itself from a state capitalist class, which controls the means of production through its control of the state, into a private capitalist class that owns the means of production. While on fieldwork, the standard cliché that I heard from state officials in response to my critique that market liberalisation has not paid off was that the move toward the free market was irreversible. The grip of neoliberal ideology on the imagination of ruling class and its cronies acted like a sedating drug: while working people became poorer, the authorities hallucinated that conditions were rosy. Nevertheless, this irreversible move would eventually prove disastrous.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137397720_6
Existence of cronyism does not negate the fact of the economy being liberalized. For example you look at the Economic Freedom Index top five ranking tends to include Hong Kong but Hong Kong also is high ranking on The Economist's Crony Index.
You know you could just actually stick to your point instead of an ad hominem routine that doesn't get you anywhere.
traed said: Rationalizing doesn't inherently mean false rational. There is false rational when the basis of it is false. Finding hidden variables is not poor rational. Trying to imply economics is unquestionable science is bad rational. I generally consider it to be bad form to post a bunch of videos to bombard people with, although at least you didn't post hour long documentaries. The first criticism was about social science generally. Obviously social science is not physics. But you do not need to be physics in order to find meaningful relationships. Biology and medicine are not disciplines of physics without talking about it in the reductionist sense where social science would also be considered physics (we are all composed of fundamental particles and energy.) I'm familiar with the Feynman criticism. Sciences like psychology will not verify precise law like relationships, just because people are not so simple. The hypotheses they are testing for tends to be whether there is an average effect in one direction or another. This is a legitimate way of doing science and follows the scientific method. Lee Smolin seems to be oversimplifying economics as a discipline. He makes the claim that neoclassical economics does not allow you to justify government intervention into the economy. It does. This is standardly accepted by economists. You can increase economic surplus through government intervention when it prevents a negative externality. There are also positive externalities in which government spending increases consumer surplus. Then you can just make a point about diminishing marginal utility if the goal is not to maximize consumer surplus but rather happiness (these are distinct concepts, and economics basically acknowledges it if you keep track of the meaning of various terms.) |
Reply to traed
Auron_ said:
He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean.
He has said for the nth time, that's why his income data had median and not mean.
I have a tendency to make general statements because it is so tedious to constantly reference the same things repeatedly and it helps convey the point im making. I was saying mean, median, mode and range by themselves only tell you so much and you can understand more looking at the bigger picture of every way you can analyze the economy and people's quality of life and general wellbeing.
Again it comes to countries like Russia with a good median income and GDP per capita PPP but I dont see masses of happy Russians. Where are they? Not high enough? Then what about Malaysia a country that oppresses all who arent Sunni Muslim and where they lock up people for being gay with punishment of up to 20 years in prison and caning them?
Auron_ said:
Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right.
Do you even know what PPP means traed? It says on the graphs repeatedly "adjusted for inflation and cost of living between countries". Turkey is at >30k$ on the graph, its nominal is ~10k$, just have the modicum of desire to get things right.
Purchasing power parity which is adjusted on inflation rate and cost of living differences based on an unproven theory prices over time will become same everywhere. The critique is how prices differ region to region and taxes differ and all that so it's use is still limited.
I was focusing on the data points so I just missed the subheader.
Auron_ said:
Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though.
Truest thing you said all thread. Not the greatest at reasoning though.
Rationalizing doesn't inherently mean false rational. There is false rational when the basis of it is false. Finding hidden variables is not poor rational. Trying to imply economics is unquestionable science is bad rational.
Auron_ said:
Lol, lmao even.
> By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates.
> "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah
You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means.
Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before.
Lol, lmao even.
> By the summer of 2001, Assad was cracking down on dissent. The promise of economic liberalisation also faded as wealth fell exclusively in the hands of regime associates.
> "Bashar's 'social market economy' turned out to be a formula for rapacious corruption among Bashar's inner circle," Itani added.
https://www.france24.com/en/20200609-assad-s-20-year-rule-from-damascus-spring-to-pariah
You are deluded if you think Assad was a liberal in any sense, economic or otherwise. I guess can't expect much when you kept harping onto inequality despite being given median numbers although you've been explained what median is and didn't know what PPP means.
Just stop, every reply is worse than the one before.
I suggest you look at the source linked here
Syria’s accelerated implementation of neoliberal policies in the decade following Bashar al-Assad’s ascent to power in 2000 benefited the Syrian upper class and foreign investors, particularly from the Gulf monarchies and Turkey, at the expense of the vast majority of Syrians, who were hit by inflation and a rising cost of living.
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60112/MED_2018_05.pdf
Unfortunately i dont have full access to this in full (comes from 2016)
This chapter examines Bashar’s lurch to the market-driven economic order starting in the year 2000. Neoliberal reforms were wide-ranging and included lifting of price controls and tariffs, amending investment reform law, unifying the exchange rate, removing subsidies, and opening up trade and capital accounts. The Bashar regime aimed not only to transform the economy from a state-controlled to a market-oriented one, but also to serve the class-based interests of the state bourgeoisie. The natural next step for that class was to break free from the fetters of state control and to transform itself from a state capitalist class, which controls the means of production through its control of the state, into a private capitalist class that owns the means of production. While on fieldwork, the standard cliché that I heard from state officials in response to my critique that market liberalisation has not paid off was that the move toward the free market was irreversible. The grip of neoliberal ideology on the imagination of ruling class and its cronies acted like a sedating drug: while working people became poorer, the authorities hallucinated that conditions were rosy. Nevertheless, this irreversible move would eventually prove disastrous.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137397720_6
Existence of cronyism does not negate the fact of the economy being liberalized. For example you look at the Economic Freedom Index top five ranking tends to include Hong Kong but Hong Kong also is high ranking on The Economist's Crony Index.
You know you could just actually stick to your point instead of an ad hominem routine that doesn't get you anywhere.
| @traed Purchasing power parity which is adjusted on inflation rate and cost of living differences based on an unproven theory prices over time will become same everywhere. So you admit it was PPP after all? Good. No it does not hinge upon prices over time being same everywhere, PPP is updated monthly adjusting for the prices of a basket of goods. Finding hidden variables is not poor rational If there was some analysis to isolate the variables that one hypothesizes has explanatory power, that would not be poor. Just trying to loosely pattern match while not checking the prevalence of those variables in middle of the list, as well as those who don't have the variable on the top of the list, this is just wishful thinking. I suggest you look at the source linked here Look, you can lower some tarriffs, but in a "rapaciously corrupt" society where regime loyalists are favored economically (an aspect of being decidedly not free) that is mostly agricultural, where dissent is crushed and which had a 10 year run before a civil war destroyed 90% of GDP anyway, it's not gonna do much, and very obviously so. It also doesn't make it liberal. You can look at Economic Freedom Index--which you just cited--of 2008, Syria is number 128 (on page 17). https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2010.pdf Given how not free it is, what's surprising is that it doubled its GDP per capita in 8 years (2000-2008) at all, not that it wasn't higher, like you stipulated.  I would just stick to my point if you weren't doing this excuse game of "look at Syria" instead of actually analyzing the general trends. And the particulars you gave--independent of looking at particulars not being a good form of analysis--being an example of a dysfunctional desert dictatorship, that there are indices for it not being economically free. |
|
| Sweden is miserable, has mediocre economic growth, is unprepared for inflation, has had refugees all over the place and its future is still at stake. Check it again webhead. Like what are you, trippin'? My Swedish buddy isn't exactly happy like my first girlfriend who went from being a jolly and smexy American tomboy to a proud mother. Finland being part of the EU doesn't necessarily make it any cooler either. Most of the western world is screwed. Not everyone is as jolly as my first girlfriend. I feel sorry for Sweden and Germany going from woke to broke instead of shining. Pretty soon, America will be in the yellow zone, economic-wise. |
Kurt_IrvingMay 9, 11:36 PM
More topics from this board
» Twitter is officially X.com nowdeg - Today |
25 |
by Soverign
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you guys actually read the comments on the threads heretsukareru - May 11 |
32 |
by Malkshake
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» I showed the music that I've produced to my father, he liked itweirdmusty7 - Today |
16 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » is marriage compulsory? ( 1 2 )FruitPunchBaka - May 10 |
74 |
by NoelleIsSleepy
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again?KiraraFan - May 7 |
31 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
2 hours ago |