Happiness Index

[tomsang]

The US is currently at number 17, just below Panama and Mexico.  Lots of socialist type countries at the top. 

http://www.livescience.com/39489-the-happiest-countries.html

[grantmeaname]

Lots of rich countries at the top, too. If you take the list as a whole it's pretty clearly ordered from rich to poor as the dominant effect, and then a bit of everything else explains variation within that pattern.

[GuitarStv]

Interesting that Israel is that high on the list.  All that you ever hear on the news are stories of rocket attacks and fighting with Palestinians . . .

[MissStache]

Seriously, I don't know how anyone could be happy in a country with harsh, dark, and long winters!

[rockstache]

I loved Israel. I would move there in a minute if it wasn't so expensive....and I could convince my husband.

[tooqk4u22]

Lots of rich countries at the top, too. If you take the list as a whole it's pretty clearly ordered from rich to poor as the dominant effect, and then a bit of everything else explains variation within that pattern.

This is certainly a primary contributor, but it is the type of wealth relative to the population that is the true drive.  Many of the countries in the top are loaded with natural resources and are the primary drivers of their economies - this allows the government to fund the various entitlement programs easily and not ask much from its population in terms of work and effort (this is also why socialism doesn't work in nations that rely on productivity for GDP).  If natural resource prices collapse (or more specifically China) then these countries fall apart.

Also, many of the countries have populations that are very homogeneous, this results in a high level of comfort within the population.  Don't get me wrong, diversity is great, interesting, and leads to more thought and solutions - but it can be difficult at times.

Interesting that Israel is that high on the list.  All that you ever hear on the news are stories of rocket attacks and fighting with Palestinians . . .

In some regard it is surprising, but the other perspective is that it is a beautiful country with an appreciation for life, the population is homogenous and highly religious (which has been proven to enhance life satisifaction), and the war/conflict that is going on is external such that it rallies and unites the population further.

I look at the US rank and think that is about right - we are very diverse (race, religion, politics, etc.) so there is always some dissention/dissatisfaction/confusion), we have abundant natural resources for a country but on per populous basis it is relatively low compared to the others, and we have internal conflict due to violence (primarily in urban areas) due to drugs and guns (eliminate this sole part and the US would rank much more highly). 

[hybrid]

I think another negative in the United States column is the level of financial insecurity at the bottom of the demographic ladder.  Until we finally figure out a better way to do health care the struggles of the poor in our country relative to other countries will continue to bring these scores lower.

As a nation I feel like we are really struggling to come to terms with the new norms of the 21st century.  Both on the national policy and individual choices level.

[grantmeaname]

As a nation I feel like we are really struggling to come to terms with the new norms of the 21st century.  Both on the national policy and individual choices level.

I've got to question that an international, multicultural world even has norms. Doesn't that sorta defy the definition of what a norm is?

Is another possible explanation that your political views lead you to accept what some other countries are doing (i.e., Western Europe) as the destiny of humanity, the one right way to do things, and the inevitable destination of the United States, when the citizenry of the US doesn't agree?

[tooqk4u22]

As a nation I feel like we are really struggling to come to terms with the new norms of the 21st century.  Both on the national policy and individual choices level.

I've got to question that an international, multicultural world even has norms. Doesn't that sorta defy the definition of what a norm is?

Is another possible explanation that your political views lead you to accept what some other countries are doing (i.e., Western Europe) as the destiny of humanity, the one right way to do things, and the inevitable destination of the United States, when the citizenry of the US doesn't agree?

I would also point out that every nation of Western Europe that does not rely primarily on natural resources (Spain, France, Germany, etc) is lower on the list than the US, which to me supports the notion that socialism does not work when it depends on a working population - why are they lower, debt/deficits, high unemployment all leading to, or at least it should, a fundamental change in expectations and way of life.  They also don't have the internal conflict that the US has, but be thankful that the US internal conflict is nothing compared to others that fall lower on the list for obvious reasons (can you say Syria, Iraq,...).

[Mr.Macinstache]

Interesting that Israel is that high on the list.  All that you ever hear on the news are stories of rocket attacks and fighting with Palestinians . . .

Heck yeah, the US gives them billions of dollars for free... who wouldn't be happy with that?

[grantmeaname]

Pakistan.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Pakistan.

Or Palestine.

#14. They are happy. Or else.

[Albert]

In some regard it is surprising, but the other perspective is that it is a beautiful country with an appreciation for life, the population is homogenous and highly religious (which has been proven to enhance life satisifaction), and the war/conflict that is going on is external such that it rallies and unites the population further.

Sounds convincing except that it's not true. There is a large percentage of Arabs (ca 20%, not counting Palestinians) living in Israel and much of the immigrant population from former USSR has only vague religious affiliation.

[Albert]

As for natural resources Denmark has virtually none and Swiss have only little more than that...

[dragoncar]

Interesting that Israel is that high on the list.  All that you ever hear on the news are stories of rocket attacks and fighting with Palestinians . . .

Heck yeah, the US gives them billions of dollars for free... who wouldn't be happy with that?

Also, religion is shown to make people very happy.  I wonder where the Vatican would rank.

[hybrid]

As a nation I feel like we are really struggling to come to terms with the new norms of the 21st century.  Both on the national policy and individual choices level.

I've got to question that an international, multicultural world even has norms. Doesn't that sorta defy the definition of what a norm is?

Is another possible explanation that your political views lead you to accept what some other countries are doing (i.e., Western Europe) as the destiny of humanity, the one right way to do things, and the inevitable destination of the United States, when the citizenry of the US doesn't agree?

Could be, but no.  No, I am referring to the fact that our economy and our role as the worlds last superpower has changed dramatically over the past few decades and we haven't adjusted to that reality (or "norm").  There are a host of reforms that are badly needed to make us more competitive and efficient as a nation IMO and we haven't embraced them, including but not limited to:

Our dramatic overspending on national "defense" compared to the rest of the developed world
Our three decade long addiction to deficit spending
Reforms in social security
Reforms in health care
Underfunding of government pensions
Neglect of infrastructure
Overhauling education to address the jobs of the 21st century (we are sorely lacking in apprenticeship programs, for example)

On the personal level I am referring to things like data plans and cable TV being the "norm" in so many households, money that would be so much better served in other buckets.   

I started using the term "lost decade" during the end of the Bush era, and I don't think we are any closer to being out of the woods under the current administration as we were the one before it.  We as a nation (both left and right) have lost our way these past twelve years. 

[hybrid]

Pakistan.

The best friend we never had!

[Mr.Macinstache]

We as a nation (both left and right) have lost our way these past twelve years.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Syria might have our way..... we must do something about that. That will fix our ranking.

[Jamesqf]

Seriously, I don't know how anyone could be happy in a country with harsh, dark, and long winters!

While I don't understand how someone could be happy in a place where they need to run air conditioners 9 months out of the year, and exercising outdoors is asking for heat stroke.

[Albert]

Mediterranean - there is no better climate than that, but I understand how people can be happy in Sweden or Finland as well.

I was born in a cold and snowy climate. Winter (mid December- mid March) is actually a nice time. Most of the time everything is white and pretty and you can ski and skate. It's the shoulder seasons with everything grey and a constant mix of snow and rain which I hated.

[Jamesqf]

It's the shoulder seasons with everything grey and a constant mix of snow and rain which I hated.

Not even that, for me.  I love fall, even here in the western US (where we don't really get fall colors, bar a few aspens along streams), and much of the spring is good.  It's the month or so of "mud season" that comes in anywhere from March to early May that's really depressing to me.

I would rather have crisp fall/spring temperatures, than the occasional summer heat wave, where I feel lethargic, the dogs pant and want to lay down in the shade instead of going for a run, the horses come back from a short ride dripping sweat...

[grantmeaname]

Could be, but no.  No, I am referring to the fact that our economy and our role as the worlds last superpower has changed dramatically over the past few decades and we haven't adjusted to that reality (or "norm").

Excuse me for misunderstanding. That's not what the word "norm" means.

There are a host of reforms that are badly needed to make us more competitive and efficient as a nation IMO and we haven't embraced them, including but not limited to:
Our dramatic overspending on national "defense" compared to the rest of the developed world

Okay, I can understand why you think we spend too much on our military. That's reasonable.

Our three decade long addiction to deficit spending

Our deficit spending and national debt are both unremarkable relative to the size and level of development of our economy:

It's certainly not an unhealthy addiction, any more than a corporation funding itself with bonds.

Reforms in social security

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have social services figured out? There's a balance to be maintained between social services and ridiculously oppressive taxes, which I'm sure you grasp if you think the US is going to capsize any second now from issuing treasury bonds. If you think you have an answer that respects both constraints, the politicians and economists of the world would love to hear it.

Reforms in health care

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have healthcare figured out? Even without the revenue argument, I think there's a compelling case to be made for our public health system given that we live as long as we do in a nation full of unexercising, smoking white-bread-eating soda-drinkers. Yes, it's expensive, but changing who pays for it doesn't change that.

Underfunding of government pensions

I don't think this is near the significance you think it is. I've never seen a compelling argument that pensions have a meaningful magnitude relative to the economy.

Neglect of infrastructure

Again, compared to who or what? We maintain our infrastructure to the extent that we're willing to pay for it with taxes or borrow to do so. Neglect is relative to countries that pay twice the tax we do, and that tax burden holds back the economy.

Overhauling education to address the jobs of the 21st century (we are sorely lacking in apprenticeship programs, for example)

We're certainly not sorely lacking in spots in the world's top 100 university lists. There also are only so many jobs that need internships - I think the ratio of jobs that could benefit from internships to wistful New York Times editorialists is what's unusual. But if you have a compelling argument that our real economy would grow significantly more quickly if only more kids wanted to be plumbers' apprentices, I'd love to hear it.

I started using the term "lost decade" during the end of the Bush era, and I don't think we are any closer to being out of the woods under the current administration as we were the one before it.  We as a nation (both left and right) have lost our way these past twelve years.

I disagree. The only thing that's not even better today than twelve years ago is the hurt feelings and shitty attitudes of pundits.

[Albert]

It's the shoulder seasons with everything grey and a constant mix of snow and rain which I hated.

Not even that, for me.  I love fall, even here in the western US (where we don't really get fall colors, bar a few aspens along streams), and much of the spring is good.  It's the month or so of "mud season" that comes in anywhere from March to early May that's really depressing to me.

That's exactly that I meant with "shoulder season"...

If I was looking for some place to live with a great climate as the main requirement I might choose Madeira. About +18-22 C in January, high twenties in July. Even at nights never less than about +15 C, occasional rains here and there, flowers blooming all year round and people growing bananas in their back yards. Beautiful place...

[matchewed]

Could be, but no.  No, I am referring to the fact that our economy and our role as the worlds last superpower has changed dramatically over the past few decades and we haven't adjusted to that reality (or "norm").

Excuse me for misunderstanding. That's not what the word "norm" means.

There are a host of reforms that are badly needed to make us more competitive and efficient as a nation IMO and we haven't embraced them, including but not limited to:
Our dramatic overspending on national "defense" compared to the rest of the developed world

Okay, I can understand why you think we spend too much on our military. That's reasonable.

Our three decade long addiction to deficit spending

Our deficit spending and national debt are both unremarkable relative to the size and level of development of our economy:

It's certainly not an unhealthy addiction, any more than a corporation funding itself with bonds.

Reforms in social security

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have social services figured out? There's a balance to be maintained between social services and ridiculously oppressive taxes, which I'm sure you grasp if you think the US is going to capsize any second now from issuing treasury bonds. If you think you have an answer that respects both constraints, the politicians and economists of the world would love to hear it.

Reforms in health care

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have healthcare figured out? Even without the revenue argument, I think there's a compelling case to be made for our public health system given that we live as long as we do in a nation full of unexercising, smoking white-bread-eating soda-drinkers. Yes, it's expensive, but changing who pays for it doesn't change that.

Underfunding of government pensions

I don't think this is near the significance you think it is. I've never seen a compelling argument that pensions have a meaningful magnitude relative to the economy.

Neglect of infrastructure

Again, compared to who or what? We maintain our infrastructure to the extent that we're willing to pay for it with taxes or borrow to do so. Neglect is relative to countries that pay twice the tax we do, and that tax burden holds back the economy.

Overhauling education to address the jobs of the 21st century (we are sorely lacking in apprenticeship programs, for example)

We're certainly not sorely lacking in spots in the world's top 100 university lists. There also are only so many jobs that need internships - I think the ratio of jobs that could benefit from internships to wistful New York Times editorialists is what's unusual. But if you have a compelling argument that our real economy would grow significantly more quickly if only more kids wanted to be plumbers' apprentices, I'd love to hear it.

I started using the term "lost decade" during the end of the Bush era, and I don't think we are any closer to being out of the woods under the current administration as we were the one before it.  We as a nation (both left and right) have lost our way these past twelve years.

I disagree. The only thing that's not even better today than twelve years ago is the hurt feelings and shitty attitudes of pundits.

hybrid, some of your ideas as to what's "wrong" with our country seem to be echo chamber effect from political punditry (forgive me if I'm wrong). But our country is doing quite well right now. Mostly it's an awful lot of fear mongering developed by our media which needs to generate controversy in order to maintain their business and increase ratings rather than actually report the complexities and overall "okayness" of our country. I present evidence A.

People won't be drawn to the television (or websites of certain sources) if the front page/headline is "Everything Is Going To Be OK." So we're convinced the country is constantly in this handbasket to hell when we're still doing fine.

I think we've adjusted to whatever there is out there and will continue to do so. In fact the last major power shift has gone by relatively easily (end of the Cold War). It has been a time highlighted by incredible prosperity in our country. We will continue to adjust because I'm not sure there is a "way" to be lost. Our consumptive culture is nothing new, we just consume different things.

I do have to say that the healthcare issue is a complex problem with no one thing being the magic solution which will solve it.

[swiper]

Reforms in health care

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have healthcare figured out? Even without the revenue argument, I think there's a compelling case to be made for our public health system given that we live as long as we do in a nation full of unexercising, smoking white-bread-eating soda-drinkers. Yes, it's expensive, but changing who pays for it doesn't change that.

Well, what about job mobility?  ie being stuck working a job because you worry about not getting similar coverage from another employer? Changing who pays, does change that.

[matchewed]

Reforms in health care

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have healthcare figured out? Even without the revenue argument, I think there's a compelling case to be made for our public health system given that we live as long as we do in a nation full of unexercising, smoking white-bread-eating soda-drinkers. Yes, it's expensive, but changing who pays for it doesn't change that.

Well, what about job mobility?  ie being stuck working a job because you worry about not getting similar coverage from another employer? Changing who pays, does change that.

You'd first have to establish that job mobility is an issue. Also in the larger context of the discussion (America's perceived ills and how it relates to happiness) is job mobility one of those things which would dictate the happiness of a nation? I doubt it but have no proof either for or against.

[swiper]

Reforms in health care

Because all of those nations waiting to leapfrog us in ... something ... have healthcare figured out? Even without the revenue argument, I think there's a compelling case to be made for our public health system given that we live as long as we do in a nation full of unexercising, smoking white-bread-eating soda-drinkers. Yes, it's expensive, but changing who pays for it doesn't change that.

Well, what about job mobility?  ie being stuck working a job because you worry about not getting similar coverage from another employer? Changing who pays, does change that.

You'd first have to establish that job mobility is an issue. Also in the larger context of the discussion (America's perceived ills and how it relates to happiness) is job mobility one of those things which would dictate the happiness of a nation? I doubt it but have no proof either for or against.

I think i heard it either on planet money or freakonomics.I believe they referenced this study: http://www.columbia.edu/~tg2370/garthwaite-gross-notowidigdo.pdf

How does it relate to happiness? I don't know, but it seems to follow people stuck in a job because they are worried about their coverage won't be all that happy.

Decoupling health insurance from employment seems like a good healthcare reform for America to take.

[GuitarStv]

If we're talking about socialized health care . . . the costs do change when there's a public health care system.  There are many opportunities to save costs because you have the negotiating power of a whole country when buying drugs for example.  This probably contributes to why the same drugs are so much cheaper if you live in Canada or Britain vs the US.

[grantmeaname]

I thought the only cheap drugs in Canada and the UK were the same drugs that are like $4 here.

[hybrid]

hybrid, some of your ideas as to what's "wrong" with our country seem to be echo chamber effect from political punditry (forgive me if I'm wrong). But our country is doing quite well right now. Mostly it's an awful lot of fear mongering developed by our media which needs to generate controversy in order to maintain their business and increase ratings rather than actually report the complexities and overall "okayness" of our country. I present evidence A.

People won't be drawn to the television (or websites of certain sources) if the front page/headline is "Everything Is Going To Be OK." So we're convinced the country is constantly in this handbasket to hell when we're still doing fine.

I think we've adjusted to whatever there is out there and will continue to do so. In fact the last major power shift has gone by relatively easily (end of the Cold War). It has been a time highlighted by incredible prosperity in our country. We will continue to adjust because I'm not sure there is a "way" to be lost. Our consumptive culture is nothing new, we just consume different things.

I do have to say that the healthcare issue is a complex problem with no one thing being the magic solution which will solve it.

No worries, I forgive you.  ;-)  I don't buy into the echo chamber from either side, my favorite source of news is the fiscally conservative, no skin in America's game The Economist, and I don't always agree with their editorial board (especially concerning whether to get involved in Syria, as a recent example).

State pension funds in numerous large states are dangerously underfunded.  NJ, IL, and CA all face serious problems among others.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579463-states-cannot-pretend-be-good-financial-health-unless-they-tackle-pensions-ruinous-promises
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21582282-pensioners-are-pushing-many-cities-and-states-towards-financial-crisis-who-pays-bill
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570733-illinois-lawmakers-fail-tackle-states-pension-crisis-squeezed
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582258-it-not-just-detroit-american-cities-and-states-must-promise-less-or-face-disaster


To Grant, I get the whole debt-to-GDP ratio and how it's really not that bad all things considered.  Each side is glad to point that out when it is them piling on to our debt.  Except you are arguing that "debt is not that bad" position on MMMs site, and frankly that sounds a bit ridiculous to me.  America has a debt emergency.  And what's worse, unlike a personal budget it cannot be fixed overnight, not without plunging the nation back into recession.  It will take decades to right the ship.  In 1999 the budget was balanced and a golden opportunity existed to retire much of the national debt, closer to 5 billion at the time.  Instead, our nation chose the exact opposite direction and tripled that debt in 12 years.  Sound very Mustachian to you?

Our nation has been on a bad path for years now IMO.  I don't expect everyone to agree with that opinion, but you will have to argue the converse from the "ten trillion dollars of debt in the 2000s is totally reasonable" perspective, and on this site to boot.  Good luck with that!

[Mr.Macinstache]

People won't be drawn to the television (or websites of certain sources) if the front page/headline is "Everything Is Going To Be OK." So we're convinced the country is constantly in this handbasket to hell when we're still doing fine.

Well, half true, they entice viewship with fake controversies, using them to distract you from the real issues - which of course they ignore.

I.O.U.S.A. is a great documentary. From a purely fiscal standpoint, we are going to hell in a handbasket. We preach being frugal here, while the central service beaurcracy spends like they have an unlimited supply of human resource capital and a fiat currency to back it up. Oh, wait.

The Great Deception is that people have NO idea how prosperous we ALL could be without these institutions. They should be kicked off the island so to speak.

[GuitarStv]

I thought the only cheap drugs in Canada and the UK were the same drugs that are like $4 here.

It seems that the higher prices are mostly for the poor and uninsured.  The rest of the US only pays slightly more for drugs because their insurers negotiate (like the Canadian government does) for lower prices.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126857/

High prices for prescription drugs have prompted widespread attempts to import drugs from Canada, where government controls make prices 20-80% lower than in the United States.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/170/6/945.full?etoc

Canadian drug prices are certainly lower than US retail prices. But there are two prices (at least) in the US market: a “retail” price, and a discounted price for large drug plans. Large US purchasers such as insurance companies and government plans leverage the buying power of millions of beneficiaries to negotiate undisclosed price discounts from drug manufacturers. The bulk of these discounts do not take place at retail. Rather, substantial discounts come in the form of payments made directly from the manufacturer to the insurance company or government agency. Just as a dealership will not disclose the negotiated price given on your neighbour's new car, hiding drug price discounts is essential to the practice of segmenting the market according to negotiating power. When discounts are taken into account, the average price paid by large US purchasers is certainly lower than the average Canadian retail price. Otherwise, the large US drug benefits managers and insurance companies would be lining up alongside the uninsured to buy their drugs from Canada.

[tomsang]

I post a story about happiness and we get in a heated argument about fiscall spending!  That makes me happy!

My take on happiness is that it is based on external stimulus.  There are very happy people in the middle of the jungle who have enough food to eat, shelter, great family, and mates.  They don't have anything that we would consider assets or networth, but they are truly happy mustachians.  Then you have countries like the US who has so many resources and yet is not truly happy and the negativity appears to be growing. Seventeen isn't terrible, but it isn't as great as it should be based on our resources and opportunities.

I think that it will be difficult for the US to increase it's happiness when you have all the political parties that only want to tear down the other parties.  When you have a system of playing the haves against the have-notes, when you have media portraying everything negative versus emphasizing all the positives.  When you have Facebook and the media portraying a lifestyle that is frankly not feasible for most people to attain. This causes people to unnatural disappointed in their life/happiness. When you have laws allowing corporations or people to take more out of this country than they provide, you have inequities. 

Back to the fiscal and freakonomics discussion. I think you would see a correlation between happiness and spending on mililtary as a percentage of GDP.  There are a lot of companies and people that have a vested interested in maintaining the US Military Complex. This complex needs fear to obtain the consent of the population to spend a trillion a year on defense related expenses.  If 1/4 of these expenses were diverted to improving our infrastructure, education, parks, help for the mentally ill, and other social services and a 1/4 going to pay down our national debt, I believe our happiness score would be one of the strongest. If we also funded our debt with a tax structure similar to Reagan, then the gap between the richest and the poorest would shrink our budget would be balanced and we would again increase our happiness score. 

Be Happy!

Tom

[hybrid]

Nicely said.  Should we be happy with being #17?  Well, I suppose it's much better than being number 117.  But given what we as a nation are capable of, it seems like we have become somewhat content to lower the bar in recent years.  Much of this site is devoted to the concept of raising the bar (on a personal level), and that is the approach I am taking in regards to our government.  It's not that I am not appreciative of our B+ status, I am, but we reallly should be an A instead.

[Mr.Macinstache]

There are a lot of companies and people that have a vested interested in maintaining the US Military Complex. This complex needs fear to obtain the consent of the population to spend a trillion a year on defense related expenses.  If 1/4 of these expenses were diverted to improving our infrastructure, education, parks, help for the mentally ill, and other social services and a 1/4 going to pay down our national debt, I believe our happiness score would be one of the strongest.

I am quite happy with the opposition to the Syrian war. I'm proud of the people, over 90% are against it - that makes me happy!

The sooner we abandon the idea of being an Empire, and start looking inward, this country will turn around. The paid propagandists on the boob tube like to call that idea isolationism. It's actually non-intervention. Minding our own business in the world, building bridges here instead of blowing them up over there, saving a trilion dollars overseas, putting it back into the hands of citizens and local communities. That is happiness.

[Russ]

Should we be happy with being #17?

Ironic as it is, wouldn't that be the only way to move up the list?

[hybrid]

Should we be happy with being #17?

Ironic as it is, wouldn't that be the only way to move up the list?

Do you mean that the only way to move up a list is to fall down it first?  Makes sense if you turn your head just so.  Better to be at the top of the list, stay there, and lift the bar higher for others to get to the top of the list.

[matchewed]

Nicely said.  Should we be happy with being #17?  Well, I suppose it's much better than being number 117.  But given what we as a nation are capable of, it seems like we have become somewhat content to lower the bar in recent years.  Much of this site is devoted to the concept of raising the bar (on a personal level), and that is the approach I am taking in regards to our government.  It's not that I am not appreciative of our B+ status, I am, but we reallly should be an A instead.

Why should we be an A? Remember this is information is actually based off of a complicated study (http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf see page 23 for a graphical explanation) based on individuals within a country, this has little to do with our government's debt. What does the capabilities of our nation have to do with an individual's happiness?

Also I think Russ's comment just made a whoosh sound.

[hybrid]

Nicely said.  Should we be happy with being #17?  Well, I suppose it's much better than being number 117.  But given what we as a nation are capable of, it seems like we have become somewhat content to lower the bar in recent years.  Much of this site is devoted to the concept of raising the bar (on a personal level), and that is the approach I am taking in regards to our government.  It's not that I am not appreciative of our B+ status, I am, but we reallly should be an A instead.

Why should we be an A? Remember this is information is actually based off of a complicated study (http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf see page 23 for a graphical explanation) based on individuals within a country, this has little to do with our government's debt. What does the capabilities of our nation have to do with an individual's happiness?

Also I think Russ's comment just made a whoosh sound.

I'll answer your question with a question. Why shouldn't we be an A?  I suppose I could be darn happy in a middlin' country, but the path to that happiness might be a lot tougher to navigate for the Average Joe.  If our country as a whole performs better for Average Joe, then Average Joe has a better crack at happiness.  That's all I'm saying.  You guys tease out the details to the nth degree to your hearts content.  I'm merely pointing out that IMO our nation was in a much better place in the late 90s than we are today, and I'm not surprised we rank 17th on that list behind countries that are arguably doing a better job of managing overall health care, their debt, their infrastructure, the affordability of higher education, etc., better than we are.  It could and should be better than that.

[Jamesqf]

The sooner we abandon the idea of being an Empire, and start looking inward, this country will turn around. The paid propagandists on the boob tube like to call that idea isolationism. It's actually non-intervention. Minding our own business in the world, building bridges here instead of blowing them up over there, saving a trilion dollars overseas, putting it back into the hands of citizens and local communities. That is happiness.

I can't entirely agree.  It does little good to "mind our own business" when people elsewhere in the world have decided that it is their business - no, their religious obligation - to blow us up.

Now I will agree that it is purely idiotic to blow stuff up in other places, and then spend our money to rebuild it - with handsome rakeoffs for politically-connected defense contractors.  But that's quite another issue, though it does help explain a small bit of my personal happiness shortfall.

[Mr.Macinstache]

The sooner we abandon the idea of being an Empire, and start looking inward, this country will turn around. The paid propagandists on the boob tube like to call that idea isolationism. It's actually non-intervention. Minding our own business in the world, building bridges here instead of blowing them up over there, saving a trilion dollars overseas, putting it back into the hands of citizens and local communities. That is happiness.

I can't entirely agree.  It does little good to "mind our own business" when people elsewhere in the world have decided that it is their business - no, their religious obligation - to blow us up.

Now I will agree that it is purely idiotic to blow stuff up in other places, and then spend our money to rebuild it - with handsome rakeoffs for politically-connected defense contractors.  But that's quite another issue, though it does help explain a small bit of my personal happiness shortfall.

Actually it's the same issue. There is an incentive to radicalize and destabilize. War is profit. Once you see the game for what it really is, it becomes rather clear. All hands on deck for the bastards who stand to gain. Us mundanes are strung purely based on the motive of fear and personal religious righteousness.

[grantmeaname]

State pension funds in numerous large states are dangerously underfunded.  NJ, IL, and CA all face serious problems among others.

I agree. I just don't think it threatens either our national welfare or the wellbeing of our entire trillions-of-dollars economy, and I said as much.

To Grant, I get the whole debt-to-GDP ratio and how it's really not that bad all things considered.

So do you or don't you believe that it's about to torpedo the future of the American citizenry? Because that's different than what you said above.

you are arguing that "debt is not that bad" position on MMMs site, and frankly that sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Do you also think that corporations should never issue bonds, that households shouldn't buy homes with mortgages, that we shouldn't use credit cards for month to month expenses if we pay them off, that it never makes sense for an individual to take student loans to bolster their earning potential, and that any contract in which any party is obligated to do anything for any other party is a bad thing? Because that's a hell of a lot less nuanced than MMM's view on debt. I specifically addressed this concept above: it's specious to compare credit card debt to deficit spending.

In 1999 the budget was balanced and a golden opportunity existed to retire much of the national debt, closer to 5 billion at the time.

The number you're looking for is $5 trillion. Spare me the history lesson until at least the point that you can distinguish between FICA contributions and the income tax, though - the FICA contributions were being used by the SSA to buy US Treasuries, which means that the sum total assets in the pot from which SS benefits are to be paid is debt obligations of the US government. You need seriously criminal accounting to record FICA as tax revenue for the government and an asset for the SSA - it's one or it's the other, but it can't be both. And all of that is ignoring the fact that deficit spending isn't even bad!

[hybrid]

Yes Grant, I get the difference between good debt and bad debt, been around the block with both types just a few more times than you have.  So if you can convince me the ten trillion in debt we as a nation took out over the past dozen years somehow amounts to good debt, and on this site, well, then more power to you sir.  A lucrative career awaits in politics for you. 

Oh, and thanks for catching my billions / trillions typo there.  A smaller man might have let such an obvious typo go by....  ;-)

[grantmeaname]

Good to see we're paying attention to the ideas and not the relative ages of their sources. Because that didn't get old the first time.

[tooqk4u22]

Yes Grant, I get the difference between good debt and bad debt, been around the block with both types just a few more times than you have.  So if you can convince me the ten trillion in debt we as a nation took out over the past dozen years somehow amounts to good debt, and on this site, well, then more power to you sir.  A lucrative career awaits in politics for you. 

Oh, and thanks for catching my billions / trillions typo there.  A smaller man might have let such an obvious typo go by....  ;-)

In this case you are both right - as Grant says government deficit spending (I'll preface it with reasonable or manageable) is good for a healthy economy and your right that the levels of debt and deficits over the last decade are irresponsible....but we are not at the point where it is crippiling but it won't take much if rates rise dramatically (allow the fed will just load up to manage this and inlatione will ensue).

As for the cause behind the deficits it obviously a combination of revenue and spending.  On the revenue side we had some early tax cuts and this little financial crisis that whacked incomes. 

On the spending side the claim is often made that if we spent more on (pick your entitlement) and cut defense then all would be right with the world.  The fact of the matter is that over the last 12 years spending on defense and enitlements (ex SSA) increased at about the same pace.  We spend too much on everything, period.  Do we need a trillion dollar defense budget, sounds like a lot to me but I am not an expert, but we still need to spend on defense.

[grantmeaname]

We spend too much on everything, period.

And, more explicitly, you can not have all of the things you want simultaneously. You can't have a fast-growing economy with a 50% tax burden, and you can't pay down the deficit, better infrastructure, better healthcare, better welfare, more expensive education programs, and more funding of pensions, to name all of your pet projects, without an enormous tax rate. Not even Scandinavia has it all, and that's even with the advantage of remarkably rich natural resources and a small population to care for. Whether or not you agree with the allocation decision, our politicians have currently selected one of many possible balances between these competing tensions, and their effort deserves more than "America droolz, Europe roolz" as an analysis of ways to improve it.

[tooqk4u22]

......deserves more than "America droolz, Europe roolz" as an analysis of ways to improve it.

And if anyone really believes this statement then to bring this back on topic I will point out again that the US is happier than most of the nations in Europe.....therefore I can only summize then that it should be America roolz, Europe droolz!

[Jamesqf]

Actually it's the same issue. There is an incentive to radicalize and destabilize. War is profit. Once you see the game for what it really is, it becomes rather clear.

Sorry, but no.   Those who have radicalized & destabilized (in the past century or so of US politics) have had no other issue than to push their particular religion* or political philosophy.  Now this may lead to their profit, or put them in positions of power, but there has been no general profit.  To claim to think otherwise is just to ignore history, and do a good job of burying one's head in the sand.

*And it's often been done without any reference to the US, or the West in general.  Take for instance the partition of India, and the Bangladeshi war of independence.

In this case you are both right - as Grant says government deficit spending (I'll preface it with reasonable or manageable) is good for a healthy economy and your right that the levels of debt and deficits over the last decade are irresponsible....

You also have to consider what that deficit financing is buying.  On and individual level, it might be perfectly sensible to take on some debt to pay for an education or start a business, but not sensible to borrow the same amount of money for a cruise or new car.  Likewise, on a national level it might make sense to use deficit funding to build high-speed rail or an intelligent power grid, but not to keep on funding wasteful spending.

[hybrid]

Good to see we're paying attention to the ideas and not the relative ages of their sources. Because that didn't get old the first time.

Here's the difference.  You haven't witnessed your politicians lie to you over and over and over about the deficit over three decades.  I have.  So yes Grant, in this case your youth and inexperience and my weariness of governmental fiscal irresponsibility dating back to the early 80s truly does color both our opinions.  Maybe after you've spent three decades witnessing your government (left and right) rationalize why we must engage in deficit spending Yet. One. More. Year. you will tire of it as well.

Until that time try to appreciate that those of us with gray hair on our heads have heard all this happy horseshit about the benefits of deficit spending for a long, long time.  And always by the party in power, while the other power bemoans the deficit.  Right up until the day they get elected.

Your government will always have an excuse at the ready to engage in deficit spending one more year, which will ultimately mask over the legitimate reasons to engage in it on an occasional basis.

[grantmeaname]

So some politicians hurt your feelings, and now your opinions are too goddamned important for you to consider what I have to say? I have lots of respect for that!

Your ridiculous emotional attachment to being mad at politicians is apparently preventing you from reading the other ninety percent of what I have to say. I never even said that I think deficit spending is appropriate, just that 1) it's not categorically inappropriate, and 2) you desire lots of other things that require deficit spending, as does the rest of the electorate, and neither you nor anyone else has acknowledged that and proposed how exactly these competing demands should be balanced. Quit being grumpy for two minutes and read!