gross national hapiness index

[eppie]

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs published his report on the gross national hapiness index again.
(I didn't manage to find a link to the report yet).

He was quoted to say that the most important factors for hapiness are a social welfare system, absence of corruption and the amount of personal freedom and that these are much more important than financial factors.
His example the US; having a four fold increase in GDP since 1960 but no increase in the happiness index.
Country like the Netherlands and scandinavia are doing much better.

I am not placing this thread as a type of pissing contest but more as a support for some thing angry commie sometimes writes down here (in a very crude way). And also because we always tend to push our threads away from the initial topic and into something about the constitution and freedom of speech.

What I wanted to do here is showing that looking at a different economic model not just based solely at increasing wealth is not such a strange thing. (the UN is actually holding a conference about this at the moment)

Further (before you start) I would like to point out that holland and the scandinavian countries are not the communist havens that the US media always tries to make you believe. They are farthest with privatization of many services, personal freedoms are very high and corruption very low. The only thing that these countries try to regulate a tiny bit is that taxes are high for high incomes.

here we are http://static1.volkskrant.nl/static/asse...ort_61.pdf

[Jester]

His example the US; having a four fold increase in GDP since 1960 but no increase in the happiness index.
Country like the Netherlands and scandinavia are doing much better.

...

What I wanted to do here is showing that looking at a different economic model not just based solely at increasing wealth is not such a strange thing. (the UN is actually holding a conference about this at the moment)

I tend to tune out Jeff Sachs. His arguments are seldom very convincing to me.

All of the Scandinavian and Benelux countries are really, really rich. Whatever arguments one wants to advance for the causes of happiness, wealth buys almost all of the ones that matter. This is not just true for consumer crap, but also for health, food, shelter, security, and the amelioration of social ills like poverty, crime, and inequality. All of the things we like best, even in the most equal societies, are the product of historically unprecedented levels of income. It's certainly not the whole picture, but it's most of it.

-Jester

[eppie]

I tend to tune out Jeff Sachs. His arguments are seldom very convincing to me.

Fair enough. Anyway he is a pretty well respected scientist. Wasn't he mentioned (rumours?) as candidate for becoming president of the world bank?

All of the Scandinavian and Benelux countries are really, really rich. Whatever arguments one wants to advance for the causes of happiness, wealth buys almost all of the ones that matter. This is not just true for consumer crap, but also for health, food, shelter, security, and the amelioration of social ills like poverty, crime, and inequality. All of the things we like best, even in the most equal societies, are the product of historically unprecedented levels of income. It's certainly not the whole picture, but it's most of it.
-Jester

Well, yes but the UK, Australia, the US, Saudi Arabia, Singapore etc. are just as or even richer.

Of course you need a certain level of wealth, mainly because when they ask you if you are happy you will always try to compare your situation to that of others.
(which is of course one of the reasons why in countries with large gaps between the rich and the poor people will be on average less happy).

[Taelas]

Denmark has been called the 'happiest country in the world' on numerous occasions (or at least among the top ones). I lack a filter to tell whether or not this is true--I have lived here all my life. I can say that we have little crime, little corruption, and a mostly robust social welfare system. If that's what you use to define 'happiness', sure. But I wouldn't say that's the only thing that matters.

[kandrathe]

I tend to tune out Jeff Sachs. His arguments are seldom very convincing to me.

All of the Scandinavian and Benelux countries are really, really rich. Whatever arguments one wants to advance for the causes of happiness, wealth buys almost all of the ones that matter. This is not just true for consumer crap, but also for health, food, shelter, security, and the amelioration of social ills like poverty, crime, and inequality. All of the things we like best, even in the most equal societies, are the product of historically unprecedented levels of income. It's certainly not the whole picture, but it's most of it.

Here is a link to the report.

First, let me make the Beatles "Can't buy me love" argument. Happiness is a squishy hard to measure thing. But, I agree with you on wealth. Wealth is a prerequisite of being able to make changes or "make things" in general. Poverty removes choices, and paralyzes people into a struggle for mere survival. For some, like UAE, and Venezuela, the happiness may be temporary until their source of wealth (oil) is interrupted, or is more subject to the price of that commodity.

As is mentioned in the report I too am swayed by eastern philosophy when it comes to happiness. If you don't set your expectations too high then you won't be disappointed. If you work on removing desires, then you will find yourself to be more content. However, desire and "pain" are key factors for motivating our cultures. On the extreme side, there is no more motivated revolutionary than a father with starving children.

I'm also thinking about Maslow's pyramid.

I believe one of the most important factors for happiness is stability where a person can clearly predict their own future, set goals, and achieve them. The socioeconomic system would matter little, so long as it is broadly acceptable to those living in it and that it is very, very stable. In our time, I feel global happiness is directly tied to the price of energy derived from crude oil. As we bump up against the ceiling of world peak oil production, the gyrations create rapid boom, bust cycles resulting in more global economic upheavals. These upheavals are diverting focus away from the root causes, and making a transition away from oil more difficult. I'm uncertain if we will make it.

In general, if you look at the table 2.3, it is easy to see the differences in stability and wealth between the top 20, and the bottom 20 nations.

It doesn't take too many fingers to poke some holes in the report. I would point to things like national suicide rates for example. I would take some issue with the "comparability" argument. Homeowners are all equally unhappy when the bank comes to foreclose. Throughout the recorded history of humanity there has always been someone with more. The poor person is unhappy because they don't have a house, and the rich person is unhappy that they need to clean 5 bathrooms (so they hire help, and are unhappy because they now have to manage other peoples work). I often say to my wife, "The more you own, the more you need to maintain". Ergo, I try to live simply.

It is interesting, but I feel that happiness is just too squishy to comparably measure.

[FireIceTalon]

Studies elsewhere have shown that money doesn't buy happiness, and I believe there is a co-relation there on why the Scandinavian countries are happier than America. In America, we tend to value income and material goods more, in Europe you guys value vacation and leisure time more. This is one of the primary cultural differences between us. The larger social welfare state in many European countries and the hyper-capitalist society in America are both causes and reflections of these differences as well, as far as I can see. I am with the Euro's personally, I have little interest in material items for the most part, and would much prefer to spend more time with my family, traveling, or engaging in more intellectual discourse instead of who discussing who won the latest American Idol, whether or not Lindsey Lohan is a lesbian, or buying the biggest gas guzzling SUV possible. But that's just me. Mill's lower and higher pleasures are at work here to some extent, I think, although I am by no means a Utilitarianist

Anyway, check this article, it's a pretty interesting read:
Money doesn't buy happiness

[Taelas]

Studies elsewhere have shown that money doesn't buy happiness, and I believe there is a co-relation there on why the Scandinavian countries are happier than America. In America, we tend to value income and material goods more, in Europe you guys value vacation and leisure time more. This is one of the primary cultural differences between us.

Perhaps, though honestly, I don't know if it's quite that cut and dry.

In the middle-aged demographic, it's probably mostly true, but for young adults...? I don't think so. While we still have our culture, we're heavily influenced by globalization.

As for valuing vacation and leisure time... I don't know that we do that more than you. It's certainly possible.

The larger social welfare state in many European countries and the hyper-capitalist society in America are both causes and reflections of these differences as well, as far as I can see. I am with the Euro's personally, I have little interest in material items for the most part, and would much prefer to spend more time with my family, traveling, or engaging in more intellectual discourse instead of who discussing who won the latest American Idol, whether or not Lindsey Lohan is a lesbian, or buying the biggest gas guzzling SUV possible. But that's just me.

You're deluding yourself if you think Europeans aren't just as shallow as Americans in general. Instead of pop celebrity scandals (though they still exist, to a somewhat lesser degree), we have royalty scandals (especially in England).

We also buy new cars, new TVs, new phones, etc. at a rate that is likely comparable to yours, if not worse. In Denmark, at least, it is turning into a bit of a social problem; loans are cheap, and a lot of people tend to forget that they actually have to pay them back at some point, even if it's supposedly "cheap". There are a lot of idiots who get huge loans and buy expensive material goods to show off to their friends how "successful" they are. (There's even a teenage version of the phenomenon: due to refunding laws, many teenagers can buy clothes they can't actually afford--they wear them for a weekend while partying, then return them to the store for a full refund once the weekend is over, and there is nothing the stores can really do to combat it.)

We're capitalists too. Probably less than Americans, over all -- we don't tend to buy engagement rings worth thousands of dollars, for example -- but it's still rampant in our culture.

[FireIceTalon]

Perhaps, though honestly, I don't know if it's quite that cut and dry.

In the middle-aged demographic, it's probably mostly true, but for young adults...? I don't think so. While we still have our culture, we're heavily influenced by globalization.

As for valuing vacation and leisure time... I don't know that we do that more than you. It's certainly possible.

Perhaps 'value' wasn't the best word to use. You guys certainly do take more vacation and leisure time than we do overall though, for the simple fact that you can. There is a much more generous benefits package for employees over there, than there is here in America. It varies from country to country of course, but what is the average paid time off that you get in England? I would like to know also from some of our Scandinavian posters also. Here in America, the general standard is usually 2-3 week paid vacation for most workers, a bit more for managers or other higher positions, and A LOT more for CEO's. Also, you must keep in mind we have been greatly socialized to believe in the so-called 'American Dream', that if you just work hard enough, you get ahead (which of course, is false, most Americans are now just struggling to get by, let alone ahead). The powers that be, of course, want it this way, because the more we work, the more we can consume. And the more we consume, the more we become complacent and dumbed down. I'm not saying its not this way in Europe also, but there is no doubt that to at least some degree you guys aren't socialized in such a manner. I've been told that you guys are actually ENCOURAGED to take time off, and enjoy intellectual life and spending time with your family. Here, it is about making the fast buck, to buy a big beautiful home with a yard, a nice car, and a dog. I think deep down, most Americans would like less hectic and more simplified life style, but they have little time to think about this as they are too busy in the rat race of balancing work, school, family, social life, etc, not to mention paying bills and putting food on the table, to think more profoundly about this stuff. All the advertising around us in this ultra hyper corporate jungle doesn't help matters either. I think both Americans and Euros try to balance the so-called lower pleasures and higher pleasures in society, its just that you guys prefer the higher ones while it is the reverse for us, as far as I can tell.

You're deluding yourself if you think Europeans aren't just as shallow as Americans in general. Instead of pop celebrity scandals (though they still exist, to a somewhat lesser degree), we have royalty scandals (especially in England).

Right, but at least you guys respect your intellectuals. In America, it is almost considered a crime to be smart, or at least it seems like it. Intellectuals are greatly mistrusted and considered "elitist" here. Anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American culture and politics for quite a long time now, which is baffling to me considering the nation was founded by intellectuals. Actually, strike that. I'm not baffled. It is a methodology used by those in power and their tools (the media) to control us easier. After all, a less intellectually astute populace is a more passive populace that isn't as likely to question the system or its values.

We also buy new cars, new TVs, new phones, etc. at a rate that is likely comparable to yours, if not worse. In Denmark, at least, it is turning into a bit of a social problem; loans are cheap, and a lot of people tend to forget that they actually have to pay them back at some point, even if it's supposedly "cheap". There are a lot of idiots who get huge loans and buy expensive material goods to show off to their friends how "successful" they are. (There's even a teenage version of the phenomenon: due to refunding laws, many teenagers can buy clothes they can't actually afford--they wear them for a weekend while partying, then return them to the store for a full refund once the weekend is over, and there is nothing the stores can really do to combat it.)

We're capitalists too. Probably less than Americans, over all -- we don't tend to buy engagement rings worth thousands of dollars, for example -- but it's still rampant in our culture.

No doubt. But alot of the 'Marxian' propositions can be seen in your guys values overall, namely by the fact you value equality more than freedom and have a substantial welfare state compared to us. But the irresponsibility of younger consumers is a natural result of living under Capitalism. The powers that be know this too, because younger citizens are more impressionable and easier to exploit. I dont know how it is there, but here, if you live in the city, there is advertising, billboards and marketing all around you. This stuff is force fed to people, especially younger people. I assume its the same way there. But nevertheless, there is quite a substantial difference in our base values, and thus were socialized in a very different way from one another. While I hate all Capitalism, at least in your guys culture, it is somewhat tempered by your generous welfare state, and that equality and intellectualism is of more importance than freedom and conspicuous consumption. And of course, most of the stuff we are spoon fed is junk. My general rule is: if it is advertised, it is probably garbage. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to be promoted to be bought - it would be able to sell itself based on an intrinsic quality. People would simply buy it if it was truly something worth purchasing. Now, I'm not saying to never buy stuff that is advertised, we all do it to some extent, myself included. I guess my ultimate message is, just be aware - unfortunately, most people aren't. Anyways, as someone who is an unapologetic and openly Communist, I have no problem with the advancement of technology or the distribution of societies products and services. In fact, I encourage their advancement so long as they contribute to social and technological or scientific progression. What I DO take issue with, is the exploitation and the subjugation of the labor involved to do so, as well as WHERE many of these goods are actually allocated - and that is just the economical aspect of it of course, this doesn't take into account the political and social material conditions of society that result from class antagonist economic modes of production.

[eppie]

Denmark has been called the 'happiest country in the world' on numerous occasions (or at least among the top ones). I lack a filter to tell whether or not this is true--I have lived here all my life. I can say that we have little crime, little corruption, and a mostly robust social welfare system. If that's what you use to define 'happiness', sure. But I wouldn't say that's the only thing that matters.

I know denmark pretty well and I can agree with the fact that it would be a happier palce than for example Sweden.
But you are right, also things like sunshine are very important, or the availabilty of good quality fresh fruit an vegetables (like you have in the south of europe) of course if you are not used to anything else you will probably not see that as a negative.

Probably these lists also have changed with our global economy and the internet and other modern media.....you much easier can become jealous of other countries.

---

As is mentioned in the report I too am swayed by eastern philosophy when it comes to happiness. If you don't set your expectations too high then you won't be disappointed. If you work on removing desires, then you will find yourself to be more content.

I agree a king in the middle ages could be a rich as Bill gates is now, but he could die at the age of 30 from a simple infection. Still he would probably be a happy guy because he was doing so much better than all the other around him.

It is interesting, but I feel that happiness is just too squishy to comparably measure.

That is a common criticsim on this report.
So Bhutan, which is organising this conference is implementing this happiness factor as a measure of how the country is doing. I find that very interesting, but of course Bhutan is hardly a country that is of any economic importance in this world. But I like that initiative.

---

We also buy new cars, new TVs, new phones, etc. at a rate that is likely comparable to yours, if not worse. In Denmark, at least, it is turning into a bit of a social problem; loans are cheap, and a lot of people tend to forget that they actually have to pay them back at some point, even if it's supposedly "cheap". There are a lot of idiots who get huge loans and buy expensive material goods to show off to their friends how "successful" they are. (There's even a teenage version of the phenomenon: due to refunding laws, many teenagers can buy clothes they can't actually afford--they wear them for a weekend while partying, then return them to the store for a full refund once the weekend is over, and there is nothing the stores can really do to combat it.)

We're capitalists too. Probably less than Americans, over all -- we don't tend to buy engagement rings worth thousands of dollars, for example -- but it's still rampant in our culture.

This is a good point. But to be more correct, in many countries this is something from the last few years. Many of the social wellfare states are rapidly breaking down that social system......the results will become visible in a few years and I don't think it will be anything positive.

[eppie]

I would like to know also from some of our Scandinavian posters also.

Yeah, this year (Sweden) I have 31 days (depends on age) And I work in the semi-private sector.
Of course besides that me and my wife are sharing 480 days of parental leave. (390 for 80 % salary)
This means we can send our kids to daycare when they are older than 1 year, which is a nice thing. Of course Sweden is the extreme case, but as you know Sweden is (especially for a country with only 9 million inhabitants) extremely competitive economically despite relatively high salaries. So this works pretty good.

But it is a choice you make. If you find it normal that Mitt Romney pays 10 % income tax, and if you find it normal that such a person gets rewarded by becoming presidential candidate, than you shouldn't worry too much about having only 2 weeks of holidays.......you have so little holidays because people like Mitt don't have to pay taxes.
Anyway this example also exists in Europe; namely Italy.
Politicians in Italy have the highest salaries in Europe but work the least amount of hours. But for some reason the people are not able to vote all those guys out of office.....once a rich upperclass has built a system that sets up different groups of people against eachother, everybody will forget about this rich class making their huge sums of money.
Most rich guys don't care if the next president is a rep or a dem they know that in either case they will keep their wealth. If the dems raise taxes to 50 % that means that Romney will pay 11 % next year instead of 10......hardly worth loossing a nights sleep over.


We have rich guys as well. (the Ikea guy, the tetrapak family and the H&M guys are usually in the top 100 of richest people on this earth) but they don't need to pay off political parties for that.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea. Once there is a ruling class, the state will become an instrument whose ultimate purpose is to protect the interests of said class. All wrapped in a pretty package with grand words like "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy", "the constitution", and whatever else they are saying in 10 second sound-bytes these days, written all over it. Yea, right...freedom my arse. Freedom to vote for your new ruler every 4 years - the reactionary of your choice (but under a different label than the previous guy), hehe. And of course, the sheeple fall for it - every time. America doesn't have a budget deficit, it has a CRITICAL THINKING deficit.

The ironic thing is, people are afraid that Socialism will produce a state of laziness in society, this has been one of the common criticisms of it, and of Marxism in general. But if this was really the truth, Capitalism would have failed long ago, because it does the very things, including this, that people criticize Socialism or Communism for. In a Capitalist society, in general, those who work for a living have nothing, and those who do not work have, well, everything. Disparities in wealth would likely result under Socialism as well, but the difference is this - under Capitalism, income and wealth disparities are COERCED, while under Socialism, resulting disparities would be do to that some will voluntarily have less than others, and products would be allocated based on need rather than greed. Some people, such as myself, will choose to have less than others. Socialism (nor Communism) isn't concerned with making everyone have an equal amount of wealth anyway - this is a common misconception. It is concerned with eliminating exploitation, alienation, Capital (bourgeois property) being converted to PUBLIC ownership, eliminating commodities (both material and human) and emancipating people from the class system that fuels the oppression of women, racism, hyper-nationalism, war, and other reactionary ideals. People here become content when they have a house and a car and make just enough to put food on the table, but then wonder why they have to work such long hours, with little benefits, in a system with increasing austerity to important social programs like education (in conjunction with increased military spending and corporate tax breaks) where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and it becomes increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The simple reason of course is, they do not control the means to production, and have only their labor to sell. You can have a house, a car, and clothes or other petty personal items, but that doesn't mean shit when the person you have to sell your labor to, to survive, owns a part of THE ECONOMY and you do not. As I've said plenty of times before also, those who control society economically, also control it politically and socially as well. OFC, most of the right-wingers will disagree, but I don't see how its even up for debate, when the material conditions of our society and Capitalism's history show it to be fact. It would be like cops beating someone, someone else films it, and the cops STILL deny it even though it was caught on tape.

BTW, 480 days parental leave is just NUTS, lol. Must be friggin wonderful. Working parents here, and especially single mothers, can only dream of being afforded such circumstances^^

[kandrathe]

But it is a choice you make. If you find it normal that Mitt Romney pays 10 % income tax, and if you find it normal that such a person gets rewarded by becoming presidential candidate, than you shouldn't worry too much about having only 2 weeks of holidays.......you have so little holidays because people like Mitt don't have to pay taxes.

Just a little fact checking...

You can point at him as one who benefits from the laws he didn't create. Although, he also is probably one who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I think we've talked about this before, but the difference between the rich and the middle class here is that the wealthy earn more income through investments which are taxed at 15% (and allow for deduction of capital losses over successive years), while the middle class pay between 15% and 34% depending on their income levels. Here is why, as a percent of total income, a person like Warren Buffet can pay less than his secretary.

[Frag]

IIRC, to a scientist happiness is measurable as how well you feel you're doing compared to those around you, there was a study from an Ivy League about it not too long ago. I'll see if I can find a link. I don't agree/disagree with it, but they did have parameters for the measurement of it, so it wasn't 'squishy' to them.

[Treesh]

IIRC, to a scientist happiness is measurable as how well you feel you're doing compared to those around you, there was a study from an Ivy League about it not too long ago. I'll see if I can find a link. I don't agree/disagree with it, but they did have parameters for the measurement of it, so it wasn't 'squishy' to them.

It may not have been "squishy" to them, but that doesn't mean they were right about how to actually measure it. I certainly don't measure my own happiness that way. I just simply don't see the connection between how others are doing and my own happiness.

[kandrathe]

It may not have been "squishy" to them, but that doesn't mean they were right about how to actually measure it. I certainly don't measure my own happiness that way. I just simply don't see the connection between how others are doing and my own happiness.

Yeah, I was alluding to my own experiences. Some of my happiest times were when I was a fairly carefree college kid spending my summers on California beaches. My wife and I were very poor, staying with in-laws, but our days were filled with adventures. Then other times, when I have been very wealthy and unhappy, my work weeks between airports were 80 or 90 hours long, and I wasn't sure which cities Marriott I was staying in this week.

[Taelas]

Perhaps 'value' wasn't the best word to use. You guys certainly do take more vacation and leisure time than we do overall though, for the simple fact that you can. There is a much more generous benefits package for employees over there, than there is here in America. It varies from country to country of course, but what is the average paid time off that you get in England? I would like to know also from some of our Scandinavian posters also. Here in America, the general standard is usually 2-3 week paid vacation for most workers, a bit more for managers or other higher positions, and A LOT more for CEO's. Also, you must keep in mind we have been greatly socialized to believe in the so-called 'American Dream', that if you just work hard enough, you get ahead (which of course, is false, most Americans are now just struggling to get by, let alone ahead). The powers that be, of course, want it this way, because the more we work, the more we can consume. And the more we consume, the more we become complacent and dumbed down. I'm not saying its not this way in Europe also, but there is no doubt that to at least some degree you guys aren't socialized in such a manner. I've been told that you guys are actually ENCOURAGED to take time off, and enjoy intellectual life and spending time with your family. Here, it is about making the fast buck, to buy a big beautiful home with a yard, a nice car, and a dog. I think deep down, most Americans would like less hectic and more simplified life style, but they have little time to think about this as they are too busy in the rat race of balancing work, school, family, social life, etc, not to mention paying bills and putting food on the table, to think more profoundly about this stuff. All the advertising around us in this ultra hyper corporate jungle doesn't help matters either. I think both Americans and Euros try to balance the so-called lower pleasures and higher pleasures in society, its just that you guys prefer the higher ones while it is the reverse for us, as far as I can tell.

I seem to have created a bit of a misconception; I'm Danish, not English.

Off the top of my head, we have maybe 8 weeks worth of vacation time on average for working adults, all in all. I think that's mostly accurate, but again, off the top of my head.

Right, but at least you guys respect your intellectuals. In America, it is almost considered a crime to be smart, or at least it seems like it. Intellectuals are greatly mistrusted and considered "elitist" here. Anti-intellectualism has been a staple of American culture and politics for quite a long time now, which is baffling to me considering the nation was founded by intellectuals. Actually, strike that. I'm not baffled. It is a methodology used by those in power and their tools (the media) to control us easier. After all, a less intellectually astute populace is a more passive populace that isn't as likely to question the system or its values.

"Those in power" cannot control the general population to the extent you suggest. From what I understand of your media, it's terrible, but it isn't the only source of news, so its value is decidedly less.

What you are describing is far from unique to America. We have a concept in Denmark called 'janteloven' (translates as 'the Jante Law'); essentially, it says, "Don't think you're better than the rest of us." (There is really a bullet point list of 'laws', but that one more or less encapsulates the intent in all of them.)

From the point of view of Europeans, Americans are people who pride themselves on knowing everything, while essentially knowing nothing. It's a common joke that Americans can't place countries on a map.

Being a joke based on stereotypes, it is of course wrong while at the same time hypocritical (as all such jokes are). The vast majority of Europeans can't tell one US-state from the next. (I have a lot of problems distinguishing between them, just as an example, and I can at least place some.)

No doubt. But alot of the 'Marxian' propositions can be seen in your guys values overall, namely by the fact you value equality more than freedom and have a substantial welfare state compared to us. But the irresponsibility of younger consumers is a natural result of living under Capitalism. The powers that be know this too, because younger citizens are more impressionable and easier to exploit. I dont know how it is there, but here, if you live in the city, there is advertising, billboards and marketing all around you. This stuff is force fed to people, especially younger people. I assume its the same way there. But nevertheless, there is quite a substantial difference in our base values, and thus were socialized in a very different way from one another. While I hate all Capitalism, at least in your guys culture, it is somewhat tempered by your generous welfare state, and that equality and intellectualism is of more importance than freedom and conspicuous consumption. And of course, most of the stuff we are spoon fed is junk. My general rule is: if it is advertised, it is probably garbage. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to be promoted to be bought - it would be able to sell itself based on an intrinsic quality. People would simply buy it if it was truly something worth purchasing. Now, I'm not saying to never buy stuff that is advertised, we all do it to some extent, myself included. I guess my ultimate message is, just be aware - unfortunately, most people aren't. Anyways, as someone who is an unapologetic and openly Communist, I have no problem with the advancement of technology or the distribution of societies products and services. In fact, I encourage their advancement so long as they contribute to social and technological or scientific progression. What I DO take issue with, is the exploitation and the subjugation of the labor involved to do so, as well as WHERE many of these goods are actually allocated - and that is just the economical aspect of it of course, this doesn't take into account the political and social material conditions of society that result from class antagonist economic modes of production.

You need to make more paragraphs. It becomes rather difficult to read like this.

Stuff which is advertised is not automatically garbage; the opposite is often true, simply due to the fact with increased scrutiny, producers are forced to act to protect their brand from any negative publicity.

The sheer fact is, there are enough products in existence for virtually anything that you need advertisement to foster public knowledge of your product, so it doesn't drown in the sea of your competitors.

No-name brands are generally terrible, because they don't need to be more -- people don't expect it, and what's more, they don't really want it (as the no-name brand is generally also a hell of a lot cheaper). Look for the no-name brands the next time you shop and maybe compare one to a well-known counterpart. Unless you have virtually no tastebuds, you should be able to tell a difference in quality in any food products or beverages. (If you prefer the no-name brands, well, then maybe you just have no taste. :p)

[eppie]

I just simply don't see the connection between how others are doing and my own happiness.

Well if everyone around you has an ipad, chances are you want one as well. And if you don't have it that may influence your hapiness.

For ipad you can of course als fill in health care, a pet, stability, safety etc. etc.

Of course some people are less susceptible for this, and that is great for them, but comparing with your peers is a very human thing to do.

[Pantalaimon]

I think we've talked about this before, but the difference between the rich and the middle class here is that the wealthy earn more income through investments which are taxed at 15% (and allow for deduction of capital losses over successive years), while the middle class pay between 15% and 34% depending on their income levels. Here is why, as a percent of total income, a person like Warren Buffet can pay less than his secretary.

As a (slight) aside, what's the popular definition of "middle class" these days? I'm used to it being manager-level and above, generally white collar, but a lot of the political rhetoric about the middle class seems to be talking about what I would call the "working class" or the perennial "working (wo)man". Has that terminology gone out of vogue in the mainstream? For example, according to Wiki individuals with a marginal tax rate of 15% in the U.S. would make less than $35,350 after deductions. Perhaps the PC police think it's more polite to lump everyone into a middle class. Simpler to just say the 99%.

The reason I ask is that a significant income can be derived from investments by anyone who isn't living paycheque to paycheque, even if it's just a retirement savings that reinvests earnings. And even then, I would venture that many people who are living paycheque to paycheque are in need of a reality check on the lifestyle their salaries can support.

To AngrieCommie's (Edit: whoops, Eppie's) original point, here in Canada we have an investment vehicle (they call it a "Tax-Free Savings Account" or TFSA) which allows for investment income to not be taxed at all. Granted, there is a limit to what you can contribute and withdraw from the TFSA, but in my experience it's been a fairly popular policy across most of the population, including myself. A lower tax rate on investment income, capped or progressive instead of flat, isn't necessarily a Rich-first policy. In my opinion it can provide significant benefit both at the individual and economy-wide levels.

[FireIceTalon]

I think we've talked about this before, but the difference between the rich and the middle class here is that the wealthy earn more income through investments which are taxed at 15% (and allow for deduction of capital losses over successive years), while the middle class pay between 15% and 34% depending on their income levels. Here is why, as a percent of total income, a person like Warren Buffet can pay less than his secretary.

As a (slight) aside, what's the popular definition of "middle class" these days? I'm used to it being manager-level and above, generally white collar, but a lot of the political rhetoric about the middle class seems to be talking about what I would call the "working class" or the perennial "working (wo)man". Has that terminology gone out of vogue in the mainstream? For example, according to Wiki individuals with a marginal tax rate of 15% in the U.S. would make less than $35,350 after deductions. Perhaps the PC police think it's more polite to lump everyone into a middle class. Simpler to just say the 99%.

The reason I ask is that a significant income can be derived from investments by anyone who isn't living paycheque to paycheque, even if it's just a retirement savings that reinvests earnings. And even then, I would venture that many people who are living paycheque to paycheque are in need of a reality check on the lifestyle their salaries can support.

To AngrieCommie's (Edit: whoops, Eppie's) original point, here in Canada we have an investment vehicle (they call it a "Tax-Free Savings Account" or TFSA) which allows for investment income [b]to not be taxed at all. Granted, there is a limit to what you can contribute and withdraw from the TFSA, but in my experience it's been a fairly popular policy across most of the population, including myself. A lower tax rate on investment income, capped or progressive instead of flat, isn't necessarily a Rich-first policy. In my opinion it can provide significant benefit both at the individual and economy-wide levels.[/b]

Spoken like a true Capitalist. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

"I would venture that many people who are living paycheque to paycheque are in need of a reality check on the lifestyle their salaries can support."

^^This seems like a pretty loaded statement to me. If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, chances are they do not have the means, to live beyond their means. Usually the people who live beyond their means are those in the middle-upper middle class that like to go out on binges or max their credit cards - do to any number of reasons - perhaps from working long stressful hours, or just simply an overzealous love of material things, or it could just be from living in a Capitalist society that pushes forth consumerism - only to find themselves in debt. Such things are difficult to measure, but those who struggle from paycheck to paycheck to begin with is probably more do to the salary itself than their lifestyle.

As for low taxes on investment income - It is always a rich first policy from the perspective of those who do not and often cannot invest. This is just part of the so-called 'trickle down' theory, which has proven time and again, that it DOES NOT work (but what the heck, lets give it one more shot aye?). Maybe in Canada, which like European nations, has a larger social welfare state, somewhat less corrupt government, and a smaller gap between rich and poor, it produces a less compound negative result - when compared in the hyper-Capitalist USofA. Nevertheless, geopolitics aside, the basic principle is that those who make more, should pay more - and that's all too often not the case.

[kandrathe]

A lower tax rate on investment income, capped or progressive instead of flat, isn't necessarily a Rich-first policy. In my opinion it can provide significant benefit both at the individual and economy-wide levels.

I agree.

We have that here in the US too. I guess the argument would be that one must have excess income before one can invest, and that the lower ones income, the more that would be devoted to cost of living. Our society encourages consumption beyond means through the use of credit. There is where the US may be very different from other nations. I don't know. I suspect our people have more credit card debt than other nations.

The other area where we differ is in tax policy. Outside the US, people may not realize the high levels of local, county, and state level taxes and fees that some US citizens are subject. Honestly, my federal taxes are only about 25% of my combined local, county and state taxes. Then, we pay user fees for most government services on top of that. When we are comparing the taxation of Mr. Buffets secretary, she and he pay the same rates for all these local things, but they take a bigger bite out of her gross income leaving her even less for investments.

But... All of this is why I liked Cain's plan for a national sales tax. You really can't jack up the investment tax to the income tax level without harming new venture investment in the US. You can't lower the income taxes to the investment level without skyrocketing the deficit. You can attempt to lower the cost of government through wise choices on services, but there is a point when the pain is unbearable. Cain's idea was to lower income taxes (to 9% flat), and investment taxes(to 9%) flat, and make up the difference with a 9% federal sales tax. It makes a good sound bite, and I'm pretty sure it was unworkable at those rates. But even a 15 - 15 - 5 plan would bring parity to income derived from work with income derived from investments. I like consumption side taxes rather than production side taxes as it encourages savings and investments, and discourages excess consumption.