Happiness in Socialist Countries

[D-Rex Naptime]

Has anyone ever reviewed that data behind the happiness studies and the fact that happiness is rising in more socialist countries? If so, if you could point me in the right direction to find the actual reasons for happiness and higher GDP per capita, that would be great. The study is called the World Happiness Report 2013. Here are the questions that come to my mind.

 

1 - how they are measured. Politicians will manipulate things like GDP (Boskin Commission) to show improvement. They'll also inflate GDP, as it is used as a denominator to CPI which is used to measure inflation. There is an incentive to make inflation seem lower than it actually is as it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

2 - other legal factors to health care costs, such as cartels which legally keep the cost of medical equipment high, as well as whether or not there is a culture of litigious medical consumers. Also, from my understanding, Taiwan has a similar medical set up as Canada, though Canadians complain about quality there. So we need to look at the differences there.

 

3 - let's talk about health and weather or not their government subsidizes foods which are unhealthy and keeps the prices of that unhealthy food artificially low which create demand for those foods.

[Duart]

Presuming the more socialist countries have less responsible central banking systems to 'fund' them then the claim may be true in some capacity. A family might report being happier with the 'state' of things if they choose to ignore the credit card bills stacking up. 

[WasatchMan]

Sure, a fat guy at a buffet is pretty happy in the moment.

[D-Rex Naptime]

Just to give some background, this is what I'm dealing with:

 

"March 20th is the UN International Day of Happiness, and the report published this list of top 5 happiest countries:"

 

1. Denmark

 

2. Norway

 

3. Switzerland

 

4. Netherlands

 

5. Sweden

 

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013

[Alan C.]

There is no way to quantify happiness in any meaningful way. People will say that they're happy just to save face.

 

Rising GDP does not indicate human flourishing. GDP can go up while people become increasingly impoverished and go down while people become increasingly prosperous.

[ribuck]

...top 5 happiest countries...

1. Denmark

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. Netherlands

5. Sweden

 

Have you been to those countries? I've been to some of them, and the average citizen doesn't look very happy to me. I think there's more happiness in Italy, Greece, Botswana, Canary Islands, Mexico, etc.

[thelion]

Folks in socialist countries aren't very happy. They simply get used to a lower standard of living. I was in Europe and I chatted with a professor from one of the "happiest" countries in world. (Not the happiest place, that would be disneyland apparently.)

 

He was shabbily dressed and his car was rubbish and yet he earned much more than I did in pretax income. When I asked him if he dresses like that on purpose, he said that's what he can afford, thanks to beer being elevan euros in bars, mandatory retirement savings plans managed by the government, and income plus VAT taxes being >90%.

 

But he said he was very happy since he "doesn't need so much stuff". Stuff which of course he cannot afford to buy. Reminds me of the fox in Aesop's sour grapes parable. There is no mystery about happiness statistics if these are self reported.

 

And as for what life in a real socialist country, not merely a social democratic country, is like: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43661-gruz-200-closing-eyes-my-joy-what-life-in-a-socialist-country-really-looks-like/

 

That's where the world was and where it's heading again apparently. You decide if it's a happy place.

[HollywoodSimon]

Which of these countries are socialist?

 

Just to give some background, this is what I'm dealing with:

"March 20th is the UN International Day of Happiness, and the report published this list of top 5 happiest countries:"

1. Denmark

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. Netherlands

5. Sweden

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013

[ribuck]

Which of these countries are socialist?

It depends on your meaning of socialist, but I would say all of them. They all have high taxes, and a redistributive welfare system.

[A Madman Person Guy]

Just to give some background, this is what I'm dealing with:

 

"March 20th is the UN International Day of Happiness, and the report published this list of top 5 happiest countries:"

 

1. Denmark

 

2. Norway

 

3. Switzerland

 

4. Netherlands

 

5. Sweden

 

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013

 

Looking at that list, I find myself asking "what do they mean by socialism?". And besides, Norway and Denmark are significantly less socialistic than Sweden, and if they're higher on the list...

 

The criteria they've gone on make the statistics pretty easy to tweak. They're easily muddled and do not necessarily reflect the happiness of the people as individuals. I mean, I can understand why Sweden's scored so high, but let's run through this here...

 

Criterion 1, "real" GDP per capita: Yeah, I want to see the calculations here. Sweden's income tax rates are crazy, and the sheer inefficiency of our bureaucracy due to the whole "diminishing returns" element means I cannot possibly take seriously the idea that we'd score anywhere near Norway or Switzerland.

 

Criterion 2, healthy life expectancy: Not much to say here. Except I'd like to say that Italy, Hong Kong and Singapore all have higher life expectancy ratings for their natives, and frankly I don't intend on squeezing as many years out of my life as I can, if it comes at a significant cost to quality of life, income, time and freedom of choice, etc. Again, diminishing returns.

 

Criterion 3, having "someone to count on": Absolutely vague (hah!). If anything, the cultural climate and general opinion over here is that you can't actually trust the government, and that you shouldn't expect too much of the authorities or institutions. If we're talking friendships and the ability to communicate with people freely or just strike up conversations, Swedes are some of the worst people in the world at this, I have no doubt. We're reticent and we wash our windows and watch our backs studiously; it's simply a question of acclimatization that makes us think this is normal and healthy. This is entirely a question of perspective, not of actual judgment.

 

Criterion 4, perceived freedom to make life choices: I won't go into it too much, but again I tell you that this is again merely a question of perspective. Yeah, as per modern egalitarianism, we're told that "everyone can be anything if they try hard enough". But again, diminishing returns. And we ignore this. As we do the questions about how much money that gets wasted in the public education system here, not to mention the falling grades (particularly those of male students). The only people who've actually had their freedom of this sort increased over the last half century have been women, who've promptly failed to recognize it and resorted to writing whiny columns instead. The few people whose situations are truly "open-ended" generally seem to find themselves despairing, because being the high performers they are they are going to face going through life being overlooked by teachers more attuned to high-demanding students, life choices and economic benefits more oriented towards the needy and codependent, and tax rates more favoring of modest, low-income living.

 

Criterion 5, freedom from corruption: Oh boy. Again, I ask myself how they measure this. Here's a little tip for all those who believe "corruption" is the cause of government inefficiencies, misery and oppression, etc: read some "Dilbert", and look specifically for the strips with Wally in them. Compare the behavior to that of public officials, and extrapolate just how much they might be able to get away with. We removed the "public servant accountability clause" (don't have a good translation here) from our laws in '74, under the then social-democratic government led by Olof Palme. In effectu, this removed the option to hold individual representatives of public organizations personally responsible for cock-ups in a broad scope, and places a wide level of separation between the parties whenever someone has to go to court. I've recently had a tussle with a psychiatrist at a government body who I have to judge as an utter incompetent (why someone with that level of conceit and incompetence at establishing rapport would ever choose to become a shrink, I've no idea) but was rejected in my appeal, because I could not go after her as an individual but had to face the whole institution. Corruption comes in many forms, and defining it only as rather simple concepts such as nepotism or information abuse is moronic, as it pays no heed to questions of efficiency or morality, only legality.

 

Criterion 6, "generosity": And once more with the vagueness. What can I say other than the fact that public spending on charities and taxation to produce foreign aid is not the same thing as generosity. I am suspicious of any study here, because it's very easy to mistake policy for public attitude on this point. The US government is way more stingy with its foreign aid and medicare programs, however private charity is massively greater compared to that practiced here in Sweden measured per capita. I reiterate; Swedes tend to be reticent, reserved and procedural, and I speak from deep experience. For example, we've had a significant increase in beggars and foreigners walking the commuter trains looking for handouts over the last few years, and by all accounts they aren't doing well. Motions have been made both in Sweden and Norway to attempt to ban these occurrences. Unsuccessfully, I might add, but there's a serious sense to the whole debate that this is merely because of an attitude of political correctness rather than the fact that people wouldn't want to see them gone, and I've heard policemen say that they'd rather be given the leeway to make arrests so as to be able to put these people in a holding cell for "safekeeping" and then guide them to some public authority with more of an interest in what's good for them.

 

While I cannot speak for the other Scandinavian countries, and certainly not for the Swiss or the Dutch, I have to count myself as extremely suspicious of any study of this nature. A fun linguistic tidbit; in Swedish, "efficiency" and "effectiveness" are the same word. Why this occurs in our language but not in our policies or popular philosophy, I have no idea.

[D-Rex Naptime]

Here is a list I found of the top 10 most socialist countries. Oddly, some of these also appear in the top 10 most libertarian. They have elements of both:

 

China

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Canada

Sweden

Norway

Ireland

New Zealand

Belgium

[D-Rex Naptime]

Madman Person Guy - thank you for taking the time to provide your opinions and insights and thank you also to the rest for your invaluable comments.

[Lingum]

Just to give some background, this is what I'm dealing with:

 

"March 20th is the UN International Day of Happiness, and the report published this list of top 5 happiest countries:"

 

1. Denmark

 

2. Norway

 

3. Switzerland

 

4. Netherlands

 

5. Sweden

 

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013

 

These five countries all have cultures where there's an overbearing social pressure to self-erase and blend in, so as to not be inconvenient. "The Law of Jante" was first expressed by a Danish-Norwegian writer. It's expected that you always consider how your self-expression makes others feel, and suppress all expressions that have the potential to make others feel inadequate. This is well reflected in the media in these five countries, where both journalists and politicians pride themselves on meeting success with skepticism and presenting themselves with modesty. It's considered arrogant to accept compliments without undermining them. This doesn't mean that people in these countries don't stroke their own egos, they just do it under the guise of being modest and considerate - having great intentions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-danish-dont-have-the-secret-to-happiness/384930/

[GRosado]

It depends on your meaning of socialist, but I would say all of them. They all have high taxes, and a redistributive welfare system.

Huh?? Switzerland is 5th in economic freedom that's hardly socialist.

[hannahbanana]

If you want to see a socialist country, look up Venezuela. My best friend is from Venezuela, she said it's terrible there and she never wants to go back. Her aunt came to America, walked into a supermarket and started crying because of all the things you could get there, that she would have to find through personal connections/black market in Venezuela.

My friend also told me that despite this, there are a lot of people who refuse to leave and are happy there, but like other people have already said, it's mostly because they are used to it. If they recognized how bad it really was, how could they continue in their day-to-day lives?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

No, none of them are socialist. If they were truly socialist they'd have constant shortages and excesses and a general discombobulation of every industry with massive inefficiencies crushing the standard of living. Of the countries that were listed top 5, I bet most have freer capital markets and lower corporate taxes than the USA. And in general, all the wealth they do enjoy is only because of the free market. But I think generally the United States is still far better in terms of producing material wealth than these tiny, ethnically homogeneous countries. Compare the USA to the EU and then tell me how socialism works.

 

I visited Denmark and disposable income is way less useful there, and you have less of it. If they're happy, it's not because their economic system provides them opportunities better than a free market would. They've just learned to be happy with less and become good little collectivist tax cattle. Also public transportation is a bit better when you are on a rail with people who basically look talk and act like you do. There is a lot more trust in these collectivist societies, which makes the statist intrusions into everyday life more manageable.

[Sal9000]

While I am sceptical of those studies, you can measure general happiness by the use of psychiatric drugs. When you need them to get through you are anything but happy. 

http://www.capmh.com/content/2/1/26

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/nov/20/mental-health-antidepressants-global-trends

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/nov/20/mental-health-antidepressants-global-trends

[Lingum]

I don't think it's fair to say these countries are not socialist. Your definition for socialism seems to be communism. These five countries all have massive welfare systems in place, economic redistribution and heavily regulated economies. The fact that they may be judged less socialist than other countries, does not change the fact that these countries are organized through what I would call national socialism. I think we need to agree on a definition of socialism then.

 

Consider the fact, that the entire petroleum industry in Norway is socialized. The companies that operate in this industry have an industry specific tax rate and regulations which they agree to, in turn for being allowed to operate in this industry. There is no competition. This is not the only industry that is organized by the State in Norway. For all our biggest export industries, we have specific political departments who is tasked with central organization, and I'm sure licensing is also involved.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I did some very cursory research on this topic. It seems that it is lefty propaganda. They do not measure happiness in any kind of objective fashion (if that's even possible) rather it's about quantifying the welfare systems people have available to them. And more welfare = more happy.
 

Which of these countries are socialist?

None of them are socialist, they are corporatist welfare states.

I don't think it's fair to say these countries are not socialist. Your definition for socialism seems to be communism. 

A socialist society takes one of 2 forms: The top-down state socialist society in which the means of production are state controlled (everything is nationalised), for example the USSR/Red China, or the bottom-up grass roots form of socialism where the workers own the means of production.

A communist society is one without private property, money or usury.

All the Nordic states have productive sectors largely in private hands, but heavily regulated, which is the corporatist economic model.

 

[EasyNumbers123]

I think even if it's true that these socialist countries are breeding a happier mind state amongst their populations, it doesn't matter.

 

I say this because happiness, as a standard of goodness, cannot be universalised.

 

For instance, taking the general UPB, example, applying UPB;

 

If; Happiness equals virtue, then;

 

if punching Doug will make Bob happy, Bob must punch Doug in order to achieve Virtue, ergo;

 

Assault is moral.

 

And by extension, assuming this makes Doug unhappy;

 

Doug is immoral.

 

 

This is clearly an unsustainable contradiction ('that's a funny tautology!' - he though whilst typing).

 

Also, I don't hear a lot of socialists saying, "well, all those loggers in south america seem to be pretty happy, good on them" or, "Those that get private healthcare are way happier, this is definitely the way to go!" or, "The rich seem far happier with their income, therefore...". You could go on.

 

I mean a lot of socio paths get a kick out of abuse and terror, but so what. If we take happiness as a standard of morality or goodness then we're back to a subjectivist view of ethics, or "anything goes, as long as it's good for my interests or preference".

 

So whenever someone uses this argument that socialist countries are generally happier, I think it's a reasonable position to point out that happiness is not a universal standard for judging or justifying the morality or sustainability of any given situation.

[D-Rex Naptime]

Y'all are brilliant.

[Lingum]

None of them are socialist, they are corporatist welfare states.

 

A socialist society takes one of 2 forms: The top-down state socialist society in which the means of production are state controlled (everything is nationalised), for example the USSR/Red China, or the bottom-up grass roots form of socialism where the workers own the means of production.

 

A communist society is one without private property, money or usury.

 

All the Nordic states have productive sectors largely in private hands, but heavily regulated, which is the corporatist economic model.

 

Based on these definitions, I fail to see any difference between socialism and communism. In communist theory, they typically distinguish property into two categories; private property and personal property. The former is the means of production (capital, industrial property, land), and should in communist theory only be owned by collectives.

 

Personally, I don't find these definitions to be particularly helpful. Both political ideologies, as you define them, describe (the same) ideological end goals. By insisting we use terms like socialist and communist only for this explicit state of being (societies that have achieved these ideological end goals), we can't attribute trends, cultural values and policies in societies to socialism or communism.

 

This is problematic, when in all of these countries, public discourse happens exclusively in socialist terminology with a collectivist epistemology, and the only accepted, practiced and taught economic theories are Keynesian economics and socialism.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

Based on these definitions, I fail to see any difference between socialism and communism.

 

A socialist society permits money as "labour notes" or similar, perhaps even central lending banks, and the workers are permitted ownership.

 

A communist society has no money, you have to share and the means of production are not owned by any class, they are shared. These are huge differences, but it's true that socialists typically claims to want communism.

I think even if it's true that these socialist countries are breeding a happier mind state amongst their populations, it doesn't matter.

 

I tend to agree. Pedophiles are happy when they rape children, should we let them do it because of that?

[Tweak]

This study is silly. Ignorance is bliss, socialism breeds ignorance thus the people are happy. Sweden is the rape capitol of Europe, we have many happy rapists since in essence we pay them to rape (welfare), again, happy people...

[A Madman Person Guy]

A socialist society permits money as "labour notes" or similar, perhaps even central lending banks, and the workers are permitted ownership.

 

A communist society has no money, you have to share and the means of production are not owned by any class, they are shared. These are huge differences, but it's true that socialists typically claims to want communism.

 

Democracy is tantamount to socialism is tantamount to communism. They're all based in and reliant on the exact same select and/or vague values of "equality" for their validation and practicability, only to a differently high degree.

 

Taken as an abstraction outside of culture and environment and with individuals as mere components, modeled as rational actors in a political and economical influence-game taking place in informational media, it would appear (well, to me at least) that the level of naïve comprehension of and/or denial of human nature and moralistic appeal will rise of its own accord, causing democracy to gradually turn into socialism, and then into hard-leftism, social constructionism or communism. This process appears to be compounded by the development of Information Technology, and seems to have no brakes other than "culture" or "sociopolitical inertia". The general intelligence and education level of the populace appears to have a sort of "Uncanny Valley" effect on it as well, with a certain threshold that gets crossed and causes negative development rather than positive, with another line that must be crossed once again in order for intelligence to act as a counterforce rather than a contributor. This is my theory.

 

The US fits my model, with its current developments and trends, and several other ideas I have as well, such as the dropping voting participation, which I like to call the "Lizard Effect" (which is ingeniously countered by seats as representation rather than people...). So does Australia, Japan, Russia... and Sweden unfortunately falls very close to the bottom of the curve, with a horrendous left-trending force-index. The result of which I'd say in light of historical evidence is likely to be attempts at social engineering, extreme redistribution, the raising of the status and power of the almost totally inefficient "administrator class", crackpot activism and economic failure.

 

The first political step toward a better future should be the upheaval of democracy.

[Bilderberg CEO]

Have you been to those countries? I've been to some of them, and the average citizen doesn't look very happy to me. I think there's more happiness in Italy, Greece, Botswana, Canary Islands, Mexico, etc.

 

Exactly. Swedes and Danes look miserable. They make up these lame studies 1) to make loser countries feel like they're winning at something and 2) to make Americans want more government.

[Torero]

Just to give some background, this is what I'm dealing with:

 

"March 20th is the UN International Day of Happiness, and the report published this list of top 5 happiest countries:"

 

1. Denmark

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. Netherlands

5. Sweden

 

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013

 

 

 

Hi D-Rex,

 

interesting topic and questions and I of course agree with most of what the others said.

 

Still, let me shed my 2 cents (of which 1.39 taxed) on the question you pose.

 

First of all, the institute doing this research is heavily political in nature. Direct advisory to/part of the UN and proudly presenting themselves on this website as "Sustainable Development Solutions Network". That is some unveiled statism in the name only...

 

I've lived over 75 % of my life in country number 4 on this "list" so let me share some experiences and observations which may help you.

 

- like the others mentioned; happiness is impossible to measure objectively and consistently. It varies from person to person, from day to day and also the questions that are asked direct the respondents to certain, wanted (after all it's politics) outcomes

- your original question about the socialist (or "socialist") countries is interesting, as indeed 4 out of 5 of these countries one can call socialist. Socialist in a broader sense than purely a text book definition

 

It might however be possible to rephrase the two questions a bit:

1 - "what makes people -in general- happy?"

2 - "what makes a country -in essence- socialist?"

 

As tools in looking for answers we can look for statistics, anecdotes or rather reason; arguments. I very much prefer the latter, backed up by the first two if needed. Like I said I know The Netherlands pretty well (both from first-hand experience and a 14 year experience on internet forums), the others unfortunately not so well, but many factors are common in these countries. Switzerland is the big exception; I would not call that enclave of happiness, trading history and direct democratic (within a statist system still the most preferable way) relative paradise within the European "Union" superstate a socialist country. The others yes.

 

1 - what makes people -in general- (keeping in mind the disclaimer) happy? I would say it is based on a couple of common and a lot of varying factors. Common factors include stability, safety, access to goods and services and health. Varying factors are much harder to quantify and I will try to explain some that make people in these socialist countries generally less happy than in other countries.

 

The common factors are the base of the Maslow pyramid; without safety for yourself and loved ones, without health (or the access to care for it) and without a basic access to goods one would not be so happy. To falsify the argument; it's pretty hard to be hippie happy when starving, badly hurt and in a WWI trench, so to say.

 

The varying factors are much more and more impacting and exactly the ones that the UN statism political subgroup does not want to see as important, because that would spoil their simplistic "Correlation = causation" claim they intend to justify with this "research" (sociology is not an exact science, so also not hard research; it's more a set of opinions with a sauce of selective statistics). See below for more on those.

 

2 - what makes a country -in essence- socialist? Rather than a pure state system description or a narrow economic one, I would like to focus on just that aspect that these researchers are trying to use: sociology. What, sociologically, so regarding the public opinion and dynamic of a country, makes these 4 out of 5 countries socialist?

 

I would list the following factors from own experience and want to ask the fellow members from or with experience in the other countries (including the fellow dutchies) to add, comment or correct:

 

- the influence of the state on public life in general - how much statism or statist organisations do people come across when living in these countries

- the access (or rather lack thereof) to non-statist, private education - afaik there's only 1 private university in Holland, on a population of nearly 17 million (!)

- the amount of media-driven statism - the state broadcast channel has a dedicated daily Youth News show where the statism is drilled into the young unspoilt minds from a very early age on

- the general feeling of the public with respect to income inequality - many people I know do regard that as one of the most horrible things possible and thus the look at other countries (Western; like US and Canada and the countries in development; like here in Latin America, or Asian growing countries like China, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.) with an enormous amount of standard disrespect - although politically Holland is behaving like a friend of US politics, the general stance of the people is more like a French anti-US feeling (funnily nobody seems to talk about Canada) which is supported and driven by the media and education system.

 

Personal anecdote: an ex-colleague of mine, an averagely smart, non-leftist, independent and very internationally minded lady congratulated a US American student of mine with the election of Obama in November 2008. When the student said he was sad cause Republican voter, she could not believe her ears and direct, honest and open as we dutchies are she expressed that very clearly. She could not comprehend that someone who was smart, young, not religious was voting Republican; that is for hyperreligious warmongering crazies, she said and I am paraphrasing. She is far from the exception, rather she represents the general opinion of Dutch people

 

- the drilling for equality in general, or rather the distorted Northwest European version of it and the fear of being called discriminatory (discriminating between everything and everyone to me is the essence of good and moral individualism, but I am an exception in that aspect) - which means that everything must hold for everyone. There are some good sides to that(not treating poor or disadvantaged people like animals, like the horrific Indian kaste system is doing), but the people make the mistake to connect that to the statist version of it which is not only flawed but counterproductive.

 

Publicly known anecdotes on (Captain) Sweden are known and spread all over the internet

 

- the automated answer by people, not even (only) the poor, that "the state should take care of the people from crib to grave" (a literal translation of the meme in Dutch). Criticising that or even thinking differently will make you an outcast, much like what the person above said about Sweden; do not fall outside of the "public opinion" or your head gets chopped off.

- the conviction that there's no corruption in those countries. And knowing the Dutch arrogance; it is extremely hard to break that brainwashed idea. There's enormous amount of corruption in the countries, yet it's not of the stereotypical Russian or "banana republic" Latin American kind, but far better hidden and most importantly institutionalised. It simply became part of the system, the vast statist moloch. The "best" example is the European Union; the biggest most corrupt system in the world as it holds the biggest money supply (combined; 2nd economy) and the most docile people (~500 million). The "funny" thing is that because of this there's also a huge trust in politicians.

 

Chinese and Brazilian politicians lie, are corrupt and abuse the people, our politicians care for us, although not always like we want it to be, but hey, it's not too bad after all. - well it is even worse; the people from countries with a much more obvious kind of corruption are far more aware of the problem and not so brainwashed like you guys...

 

- the amount of feminism is staggering. It is part of the system everywhere and everytime, with the standard distorted views that Stefan has addressed in detail in many videos. I've been raised by a fierce feminist (my father took care of us for the most part in typical mother things), I've seen it all from very close by.

- the size and especially organisation of the welfare state. If you think US American food stamps, Obamacare and housing benefits are bad, you will be shocked by what is played out on the poor in Holland, and I don't even want to know the levels in Scandinavia; they must outgrow that even more. - it makes people extremely dependent on the state, causes poverty traps if they want to work (more hours) cause that makes them lose "benefits" and the institutionalised fear that causes that in the society. It's ridiculous how many subsidies there are and how they all are part of this horrific scamdalous scheme paternalising and feeding of the poor and dependent. It's like a foie gras goose.

This is not only directed at the poor; in Holland there's a rather unique system that the government returns tax benefits for home owners. It is a huge part of the annual state budget and because many people have bought a house, they all depend on it, also because the house prices are driven up by it. House prices in Holland are much higher than those in Belgium or Germany for comparable houses.

- something Holland is "suffering" from and the Scandinavian countries much less is the collectively drilled self shame about the colonial past. For such a small country we had a lot of territory in the world; South Africa, Indonesia, Suriname ("traded" with the British for New York + 1 dollar ) and smaller colonies in Brazil, Ghana, Sri Lanka and the Caribbean. And the playing of the media and educational system that slavery and colonialism is not something inherent to dirty statism (the truth) but rather the lack of it; more statism prevents us, horrible human beings, from committing those awful deeds. How intelligent people still can fall for this, keeps amazing me. I am not proud of those oxymorons (pun intended).

- last but not least and in my opinion one of the root causes for all of this and the main reason that only Stefans approach of "philosophy via the womb" can change this, is the apparent secularity of the people. I can speak for the Dutch situation but I think the Scandinavian countries have the same problem; the belief in God has been replaced by a belief in the State, yet more powerful, in ways less ethical and due to the arrogance of antitheists much harder to change. Moral values in general (smaller countryside religious communities still do exist, but most of the city citizens are atheist and many antitheist) are not transmitted by the Church, yet by the State. In the many forms outlined above and many more. Especially comparing my home country to Colombia and other Latin American countries I visit regularly that is really obvious and causes a volatility in moral; what a politician, law or state media says is considered morally good and much better than "those religious crazies".

 

I was raised by two antitheists and statists, of which 1 feminist and 1 non-masculine follower (my dad) of that. The attacks on religious values were huge, while at the same time defending the statist doctrine. From an early age I opposed a lot to that and thus I was happy to see the video Stefan made on it, which exactly said what I was saying for years (and found with Bakunin afterwards). Now I am a proud full atheist; I do not believe in Church nor State "values" yet in philosophy, reason, ethics, moral and intelligent debate

 

Coming back to the connection of the two questions and the many variables on which basis people can call themselves "happy".

 

People in Holland, and please add for the other morally-socialist states, may present themselves in such simple interviews as happy, but in general they are not. They are suffering from these huge dependencies on the state which is pervasive in all life. They are chained and submitted to the statist doctrine (it really is that) like a devote muslim to Allah. They are cuckolded to the state money as a whore to the pimp.

 

For someone without ambition, will to grow and like the example of the Scandinavian poor professor it is indeed “the perfect solution” which makes people to a certain extent satisfied. But happiness does not equate to satisfaction.

 

What makes people happier, in general, is a good family life (the destruction of the family is far more widespread in Holland than in the US or Canada), respectable and nice people around, less regulations or fines set upon you (the amount of speeding cameras in Norway, Sweden and Holland – Denmark I’ve never been- is insane). Also how the Northwest European countries import the world’s problems from overseas on their 55” flatscreens (and the many discussions about it) makes people unnecessarily unhappy.

 

I decided to stop watching tv 9 years ago and never regretted it. The amount of war propaganda I “had to” swallow from CNN and BBC in 2 days while on holidays when the MH17 event took place made me truly sick. Do people watch this shit every day??

 

There’s another “happiness” index which is called the “Happy Planet Index”. Again, the same principles hold for this one (directing questions, dubious research, preconceived ideas etc.) but at least the outcome of it coincides much much better with my personal experiences in those countries.

 

The top 10 for 2012 (the most recent one):

1 – Costa Rica

2 – Vietnam

3 – Colombia

4 – Belize

5 – El Salvador

6 – Jamaica

7 – Panama

8 – Nicaragua

9 – Venezuela – that will change in next rating....?

10 – Guatemala

 

I am not calling this rating more true that the UN one, but at least it makes more sense to me. And although there are some very socialist countries in the list (Vietnam?, Nicaragua, Venezuela), I think other factors play a much more important role, such as the family, the satisfaction with life (including poverty), weather and the acceptation of the unfortunately very high crime rates in some of these countries but also the decision not to be led by that. Main point is the way people behave; more respect and patience than in rushed colder climate countries. Ecological footprint is taken into account, but can never explain all the differences between the countries.

 

And number 2 and 3, Vietnam and Colombia are considered heavy growth areas where the economies are booming and development is high, also something which lacks a lot in Europe and makes people happy.

 

The map for the outdated 2006 list looked like this:

 

[mlsv2f]

I have an excel sheet I'm in the process of making, it compares median income/cost of living for all these countries.

 

I want to account for taxes as well so I am not done with it, but it would appear that those Nordic countries, even with their 95% native population demographics, still lag behind the USSA (USA joke) in terms of real income.

 

Once I take into account taxes (which are much higher in the Nordics), It will be able to show a stark difference in disposable income. (At least that's my theory)

 

Anecdotally speaking, I've been to Stockholm and was amazed by the high prices of everything and small living spaces. I enjoyed my time there, but I can't imagine living there and paying that much of my income to taxes and high prices.