What would Earth be like if everyone were millionaires? (NOT VIA INFLATION)

[ChrisV]

Its simple supply and demand... More money makes it less valuable. Just like more of anything makes it less valuable. There is still an intrinsic value to money despite fiat. It's the work people associate trading for it. Everyone is different, but the collective perceptions create the stability of the value of money.

It is impossible for everyone to have today's millionaire level buying power all at once on a macro "whole world" scale. Relativity is required to even measure. I suppose it could happen in a single country (maybe due to crazy natural resource exports or something). This is why my answer to the original question is that the buying power would simply erode. It's a known cause and effect relationship.

I already figured out the answer after posting this thread.

What you’re saying is what I thought at first, but I realized I was wrong. Supply and demand is more complex than that. Yes, if you just increased the amount of paper capital, that would happen.

What would happen would be that the quality of EVERYTHING would go up. Because in order for these people to become wealthy in the first place, they would have to produce higher quality stuff.

Building a Ferrari required roughly the same amount of metal and raw materials as a Civic. But by arranging those raw materials in a smarter way, it makes that same hunk of metal worth 390k vs 27k

But if the engineer who was building Civics now learned to build Ferraris. He can now sell them for 390k vs the 27k he was making. Now everyone would make similar quality shifts. Chefs start making higher quality meals, companies start making higher quality furniture.

So for everyone to become millionaires, they would have to stop producing ‘Civic” level work, and start producing “Ferrari” level work.

it’s like lowtek said... “What if everyone were living up to their potential."

Dubai’s current wealth has almost nothing to do with exports. What happened with Dubai was the prince realized ‘umm this oil isn’t going to last forever’ so he built up Dubai as a self-sustaining tourism and business hotspot so they would still have an income when the oil supply finally dried up. It wasn’t just them balling out on oil money.

Although Dubai's economy was initially built on revenues from the oil industry,[4] revenue from petroleum and natural gas currently account for less than 5% of the emirate's gross domestic product[5]. Dubai became important ports of call for Western manufacturers. Most of the new city's banking and financial centres were headquartered in the port area. Dubai maintained its importance as a trade route through the 1970s and 1980s. The city of Dubai has a free trade in gold and until the 1990s was the hub of a "brisk smuggling trade" of gold ingots to India, where gold import was restricted.
​

Economy of Dubai - Wikipedia

Dubai:


If you look at the history of Dubai it’s fascinating. The Sheikh got the worlds best architects and basically told them to go Apeshit. He’s a lot like these other billionaires. People would tell him “sir there’s no possible way we’re going to get enough sand to build entire islands that look like palm trees.. you’re being completely ridiculous”.... Sheikh: “just do it” ... "sir there’e no possible way this project can be done”.. Sheikh: “I want it done in 3 weeks” Engineers “ARE YOU SERIOUS, THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE”.... anyway, 3 weeks later it was done.

He build value from nothing.

The world’s greatest architects went in there and build the projects they always dreamed of but couldn’t do anywhere else. Why? NYC had rules. Sheikh Mohammad was just like “Impossible? F*ck that... just draw something and we’ll figure it out.” The result is F*cking insanity. Underwater hotels, ski resorts in the middle of the dessert man-made islands the shape of palm trees that can be seen from space.

Again, they build value from nothing.

The same amount of raw materials can be used so build some useless trinket like a snow globe or it can be used to build an iPhone. The same amount of raw materials can be used to make a Brooklyn ghetto as is needed to build a lavish underwater hotel.

What you’re talking about is when you increase the supply of paper currency without increasing the supply of value of it represents. When you increase the amount of paper without increasing the value, you get just that... more paper lol. When you increase the actual value you get just that... a world with a shitton more value. It’s really simple. Create more paper = a world with more paper. Create more value = a world with more value. More convenience, more technology, better food.

The world has more ‘value’ in 2018 than it did in 307BC. There are roughly the same exact atoms on earth that there were 2500 years ago. Just people use them in smarter ways.

Snd this is why this discussion is important. It helps us understand the essence of money and trade, which is why i posted it. Not some fantasy question.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[lowtek]

Really seems like you're moving the goal posts with that Dubai argument.

1) not everyone in Dubai is a millionaire
2) not everyone in Dubai is producing millionaire level work

The Sheikh forces a handful of creative people to come up with great ideas, and then uses slave labor (quite literally) to do the grunt work. I'm guessing you're not really aware of the visa abuses that go on in that country, otherwise you wouldn't have held it up as an example.

While they do some crazy cool stuff, this will ultimately prove to be detrimental to the country. A central authority does not have the insight to efficiently and effectively allocate resources. Only a market can do that, and even then mistakes are made. However, it's much easier for a market to correct itself than a Sheikh. While a monarchy is preferable to state communism, and in some cases preferable to democracy (yes, I mean that), it's in no way a replacement for Laissez Faire capitalism.

It's very easy to see what is created, but impossible to see what is not created. While they're building sandcastles, what are they neglecting? What else could have been created with those resources? We'll never know.

This whole argument also completely ignores the role of monetary creation. While thinking of money as value vouchers is a useful mental construct for getting into the entrepreneurial mindset, it's factually incorrect. They are literally debt vouchers.

One of the first things people (who are living up to their potential) do with a windfall is get rid of their debt. In this hypothetical, if every single person paid off their debt, there would be no money.

 

[ChrisV]

Really seems like you're moving the goal posts with that Dubai argument.

1) not everyone in Dubai is a millionaire
2) not everyone in Dubai is producing millionaire level work

Of course not everyone in Dubai are millionaires LOL, I already posted their average incomes. They may not be millionaires, but their per capita income is higher than that of the US. And the beautiful city they live in is the result. Or the cause, rather. Or a little of both.

Replace Dubai with any high income city. Paris. London. Osaka. San Jose.

Then compare it to low income areas. The Lower East Side, Southern LA (ie Compton,) anywhere in Alabama. They’re wastelands.

The difference is production.

The Sheikh forces a handful of creative people to come up with great ideas, and then uses slave labor (quite literally) to do the grunt work. I'm guessing you're not really aware of the visa abuses that go on in that country, otherwise you wouldn't have held it up as an example.

I saw a documentary on it and they spoke about the labor situation. I don’t remember much aside from the fact that there was a controversy over the treatment. I’n my previous post I wrote a line “I don’t want to keep the focus on Dubai specifically because it’s going to derail the thread.” and I deleted the sentence, which I shouldn’t have.

 

[ChrisV]

This whole argument also completely ignores the role of monetary creation. While thinking of money as value vouchers is a useful mental construct for getting into the entrepreneurial mindset, it's factually incorrect. They are literally debt vouchers.

One of the first things people (who are living up to their potential) do with a windfall is get rid of their debt. In this hypothetical, if every single person paid off their debt, there would be no money.

I mean I guess that’s one way to look at it. I just see it as reciprocity scorecard. People are compelled to repay favors and keep the giving/taking balance relatively equal. Like in friendships there’s always this mental sense of who’s giving and who is taking. If you’re taking too much, you start to feel guilty in that relationship (assuming you’re not a sociopath.) And if you’re giving too much, you start to feel taken advantage of. Reciprocity is something that evolved because it’s helpful to our species. I think MJ gave the example of the people in hell with 3 foot spoons. Reciprocity evolved as a method of ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine,’ because it’s hard for us to reach our own backs. Money is just a scorecard for our natural sense of reciprocity.

And yea, it ignores the question of monetary creation. Obviously everyone being millionaires wouldn’t even work out mathematically. There’s not enough US currency and if everyone were living up to their potential the goalposts of wealth start to move.

I mean we get that. That money is worth is based on how much is in the supply. It’s basic economics.

It’s a though experiment moreso than literally everyone having millions.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Its simple supply and demand... More money makes it less valuable. Just like more of anything makes it less valuable.

And this may be true, but I never ever ever ever ever said “let’s create more money.”

It’s really cut and dry, black and white. In a world where people are creating more value, you have just that... more value.

There’s really no debating that.

If I have to explain exactly what that means: it would be the difference between the world in 307BC vs 2018. It would be the difference between Kenya and Italy. It would be the difference between Monrovia and Paris. It would be the difference between any poorly educated area vs any highly educated area.

Sure relativity still exists, but comparison is only part of the puzzle. If relative wealth was the only thing that mattered, I might as well just go go retire in Monrovia, Liberia and be the richest person they’ve ever seen. Why don’t I do that? Because it’s objectively a shithole (imo.) The relativity doesn’t matter enough to outweigh the constant smell of goats

You might live in a neighborhood full of millionaires. The guy next door might have the S-Class Maybach edition while you only have the regular S-Class which costs half of the S-Class, but you are still objectively more comfortable than the richest guy in Monrovia. There are two factors, which are absolute wealth and relative wealth.

I mean again, it’s just really black and white... what would the world be like if people created more value? It would be a world with more value.

 

[masterneme]

Dubai has and is being built thanks to an army of thousands of slave workers from Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, take a look at the "Slaves of Dubai" documentary and open your eyes to the tragic reality of that place.

If everyone was a millionaire the situation would be the same as today for many reasons. One being that money wouldn't have the same value and another one is that the world would self-adjust very rapidly because those with no experince managing money and without self-discipline would spend it all in stupid crap and the money would go back again to the hands of those who produce and with good monetary skills.

It's not that we didn't read your post is simply that you can't just make everyone millionaires or rich without consequences.

In order to "ascend" humanity to a "godlike" Society, money is not the way, everyone needs to be transformed into a value provider and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Tommo]

Sigh, if I had a dollar for every time I heard or saw this argument, but..but Sweden...but but..Norway.

My father in law is a Norwegian citizen and his family has been there hundreds of years. The biggest difference between our countries, without getting too political, is cohesion. The majority of Norwegians like the current system and are willing to contribute to it. However, they still have wealthy people and they still have poor people, just like every country on earth.

So yes, I stand my statement which was incorrectly called a blanket statement that “redistribution creates a society where nobody produces” but is “redistribution creates a society where some people STILL produce more and some less”

Which speaks to the heart of the original question. The countries you’ve listed are the closest real world examples of everybody adding value and they still have many pitfalls because at the end of the day, every single person is different with different values and work ethics.

I wish I could express myself as you do Lowtek.
This post ChrisV, is a waste of time. Back to work Gentlemen and Ladies.
Oh wait a minute who would win a fight between Elon and Jeff?
Do not waste your writing talents Chrisv.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Do not waste your writing talents Chrisv.

It’s NOT a waste of time. It’s an important thought experiment. This was actually a major hurdle I had to overcome when dealing with the inner game aspects of wealth and it’s important to understand the dynamics. Why? Because if you take a zero sum view of wealth, you feel unconsciously that by getting wealthy, you are ‘taking’ from others. I personally sabotaged myself for a long time due to this. In others words, there is one pie, and you are taking from that pie. But the reality is that by building wealth, you are actually helping build up the world, making it better for others... which is why understanding what I wrote rather than thinking it would just water down the value of money is so important.

 

[Supercar]

OP, just look back 100 years and extrapolate 100 years forward. We are all millionaires compared to how people lived 100 years ago.

 

[Dan M.]

Edit again: Guys please read the post. We’re not talking about simply printing more money. I mean if the entire world did the things necessary to create wealth (ie creating value.)

This is always something I’ve wondered. There used to be a time that I wouldn’t help others gain an advantage financially because I thought if they were rich it would just dilute thee value of money that it would be as worthless as paper. Now, I don’t believe that at all. So what do I think the world would be like? Better. I think everyone would simply be adding more value. Cars would be better. Books would be better. Art would be better. And those people who created it would be rich, allowing them to purchase Homes/clothes/cuisine of the same improved quality.

Problems would be few becasue people would be coming up with ideas. Don’t know the best place to get chinese? There’s an app for that? Don’t know where to get a limo in another state? There’s an app for that. Maybe a website.

Obviously all the solutions wouldn’t be apps lol but i wanted to use the line.

So what do you guys think? How would the world change if everyone were millionaires?

Edit: Okay, apparently there a little confusion.. i don’t mean ‘if the government printed a bunch of money and just handed it out’... the answer to that would be obvious: money would become worthless. What I mean is if everyone created enough value to become millionaires the legit way.

As much as I'd loved that concept, it's impossible due to the nature of humanity. Everyone has different values and many don't see money as the means to an end.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Dan M.]

Yeah, I would say we're looking at it already. We're millionaires compared to people living in the 1920s and 30s. People flying around, checking their personal telegraph machines in their pockets? OMG. This is outer space compared to your grandparents' generation.

Definitely a good time to be alive.

 

[jon.M]

What about countries like Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden where redistribution of wealth is basically par for the course? The tax rate in those countries are astounding... ~60%[1] and a lot is given to social programs. For instance rent? It’s free. Everyone is given a subsidy check to cover their rent. If you want a nicer place you can pay more.

Sounds pretty horrible, right?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Chris, a lot of what you're saying in this post is factually incorrect. I live in Sweden. Rent is absolutely not free. I have no idea where you got that from. Don't know if you're trolling or lying but this statement is absurd. We pay rent out of our own pockets.

After some research, there seems to be a subsidy for people under 29 years of age or families with kids. But to qualify for that is rare and only happens if you're a low-income earner renting a ridiculously expensive apartment. And in that case, we're not talking about sums that nearly cover the rent.

Same goes for Denmark. Where did you get this information from?

 

[Rabby]

@jon.M I meant to comment on that too. Sweden seems like a delightful country to me, and one I would like to visit. My mother grew up there during part of her school years. But the English language media seems to have redefined Sweden as a Marxist utopia that proves some theory of wealth redistribution.

My understanding is that the peak of its wealth redistribution efforts came in the 70's. One of the anecdotes from that time (1976) was that Astrid Lindgren, author of the Pippi Longstocking books, owed 102% of her income in taxes. This caused something of a scandal; after all, how can you pay more than 100% of what you make, and why would you produce anything in a system like that? So around that time the trend reversed and the country steered, at least in part, back toward its free market roots. Those roots had driven its impressive economic growth up through the 1950s, when it became one of the top 3 or 4 economies in the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, as I'm not trying to be the expert on your country. I just think it's nice to have context, especially when you've been reading some of the media we get here.

A year or two ago I met Karin Svanborg-Sjövall of Timbro at an event where she spoke in Naples, Florida, US. My observation was that free markets have at least strong minority support in Sweden, and the country has reversed many of the redistribution programs that had set it back economically. There are still some oddities though - is it still the case that medicine is State controlled, and doctors have a lower income than dock workers? (Another anecdote, I know, but a surprising one.) Apparently that was the case not too long ago; which would make the decision to become a doctor a tough one -- go to university for 8 extra years and intern for several more, only to make less income than someone who didn't need to spend all those years learning their craft?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Chris, a lot of what you're saying in this post is factually incorrect. I live in Sweden. Rent is absolutely not free. I have no idea where you got that from. Don't know if you're trolling or lying but this statement is absurd. We pay rent out of our own pockets.

After some research, there seems to be a subsidy for people under 29 years of age or families with kids. But to qualify for that is rare and only happens if you're a low-income earner renting a ridiculously expensive apartment. And in that case, we're not talking about sums that nearly cover the rent.

Same goes for Denmark. Where did you get this information from?

I’m sorry, you’re correct. The subsidy was referring to Switzerland, and it was probably factually irresponsible to lump them all together in terms of policy. Or I should have structured my sentence differently. Where did I get it from.. i had a few friends who lived over there and that’s how I understood it. I forget the full details since it was a while ago and they were also on the younger side and were college aged at the time. I never really looked up the details fully so you could be correct.

Rent aside, the overall point still remains that those nations are more socialized than the US.

 

[MTEE1985]

I’m sorry, you’re correct. The subsidy was referring to Switzerland, and it was probably factually irresponsible to lump them all together in terms of policy. Or I should have structured my sentence differently. Where did I get it from.. i had a few friends who lived over there and that’s how I understood it. I forget the full details since it was a while ago and they were also on the younger side. I never really looked up the details fully so you could be correct.

Rent aside, the overall point still remains that those nations are more socialized than the US.

I’d call you more overzealous with the statements than blatantly incorrect because there are still some truths in there.

My father in law who I mentioned owns a farm in Norway where he spends his summers. He is required by the government to farm that land, but he receives a subsidy that essentially eliminates his risk.

The biggest difference (and I believe the point you were trying to make) is that those governments reward and incentivize production while the U.S. government, you could argue, rewards and incentivizes laziness.

 

[ChrisV]

@jon.M I meant to comment on that too. Sweden seems like a delightful country to me, and one I would like to visit. My mother grew up there during part of her school years. But the English language media seems to have redefined Sweden as a Marxist utopia that proves some theory of wealth redistribution.

My understanding is that the peak of its wealth redistribution efforts came in the 70's. One of the anecdotes from that time (1976) was that Astrid Lindgren, author of the Pippi Longstocking books, owed 102% of her income in taxes. This caused something of a scandal; after all, how can you pay more than 100% of what you make, and why would you produce anything in a system like that? So around that time the trend reversed and the country steered, at least in part, back toward its free market roots. Those roots had driven its impressive economic growth up through the 1950s, when it became one of the top 3 or 4 economies in the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this, as I'm not trying to be the expert on your country. I just think it's nice to have context, especially when you've been reading some of the media we get here.

A year or two ago I met Karin Svanborg-Sjövall of Timbro at an event where she spoke in Naples, Florida, US. My observation was that free markets have at least strong minority support in Sweden, and the country has reversed many of the redistribution programs that had set it back economically. There are still some oddities though - is it still the case that medicine is State controlled, and doctors have a lower income than dock workers? (Another anecdote, I know, but a surprising one.) Apparently that was the case not too long ago; which would make the decision to become a doctor a tough one -- go to university for 8 extra years and intern for several more, only to make less income than someone who didn't need to spend all those years learning their craft?

And no, I definitely don’t think that it’s some type of utopia. I just don’t think it’s fair to universally categorize socialized nations as broken. There are plenty of nations where it doesn’t/didn’t work (China, USSR, Cuba,) but there are some where it does work, like European nations. Honestly, it seems to have less to do with the actual policy than it does other things. In other words, socialist policies generally work in already wealthy nations, but fail in poorer nations. European nations have historically been among the wealthiest in the world.

Me personally? I believe in libertarian values. Whenever something is free, it causes people to undervalue and abuse it. For example, most restaurants made it harder to grab a shitload of napkins, because when there’s no restrains on how many people take, they just grab a million then waste them. So most places started putting in those dispensers where you can only take one at a time.

So when healthcare is free, people undervalue it, making abuse more likely. They might get a prescription for pills that cost $600/mo.. try 3 of them, then throw out the rest. Why not? it didn’t cost anything. Whereas if that person had to pay the $600 for those pills, they would probably research it, make sure it’s right for them, ask the doctor for samples.

That’s a libertarian view. You should just pay for the services you use, that way money isn’t wasted and is allocated where necessary. If people care about the public library, they can pay to use it Why? Because otherwise the library is paid for out of tax money. Capitalism works because resources are allocated to places where they are wanted. Another example, I believe that the money used to pave roads should be rolled into gasoline taxes, that way the people who actually use the roads are paying for them.

So don’t take my statements as support for social policies. I just disagree when people try to paint them as wastelands that universally don’t work.

And as far as dock workers earning more than doctors, I’m not sure, but this is true of cuba:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo


At the time of making that video that was true, although they have changed a number of policies especially with the situation with Fidel Castro, so I’m not sure if it’s still the case.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WJK]

You're talking about everyone having an achiever's mindset -- not necessarily the actual cash? (The cash is just a symbol of the right to exchange one thing of value for another. So, money only has the value we assign to it.) Interesting. Would it make the world blandly boring or predictably perfect? What would we do with that one holdout, who wants a handout from those who achieve?

When I was a kid, most of my relatives and many people in our community didn't have indoor plumbing. Many lived in shacks and had very little in material goods. But, they had a sense of community and pride for their place within that society. Now, almost everyone lives much better with a lot more material goods and better-living situations. Are they happier now? Not that I have seen. They seem less connected and therefore less happy. Evaluating one's human condition is a never-ending quest. The bench marks change all the time.

 

[G-Man]

So, after all that, I get back to the first post, and the question is basically "Do you think the world would be better if everyone produced at the maximum of their potential, the government didn't print money, and we all looked at the world as non-zero sum?"

Yes.

Just trying to save any other newcomers to the thread 4 pages of reading.

 

[ChrisV]

Also, I didn’t title this thread ‘what would the world be like if everyone lived up to their potential’ for a reason. I wanted to get people thinking about relative value and how much wealth is absolute and how much is relative. Relative wealth exists, but I would argue that the life of the average peasant on 2018 is almost better than that of royalty in 300AD.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WJK]

Also, I didn’t title this thread ‘what would the world be like if everyone lived up to their potential’ for a reason. I wanted to get people thinking about relative value and how much wealth is absolute and how much is relative. Relative wealth exists, but I would argue that the life of the average peasant on 2018 is almost better than that of royalty in 300AD.

It's much better than the royalty of old in the materialist sense. The real question is IF it is better spiritually and socially. I'd say no to that. We have a much larger database of information, and less human connections.

 

[ChrisV]

It's much better than the royalty of old in the materialist sense. The real question is IF it is better spiritually and socially. I'd say no to that. We have a much larger database of information, and less human connections.

All the research shows that yes, people are indeed getting happier as well.

 

[WJK]

All the research shows that yes, people are indeed getting happier as well.

I'm not so sure about that. It's all relative. I think the people I came from were more content than the people around me today... I'm not sure that people are getting "happier" -- just richer in goods and data.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

I'm not so sure about that. It's all relative. I think the people I came from were more content than the people around me today... I'm not sure that people are getting "happier" -- just richer in goods and data.

Happiness and Life Satisfaction

 

[ChrisV]

How it seems to work is: as life gets easier, people get happier. And as technology gets better, life gets easier.

Anecdotally it may seem as though people are less happy, and it’s a popular meme to say that they’re connecting less due to technology and their smartphones, but actually the data suggests that people just get happier and happier as quality of life increases.

I used to think the same thing, but I wanted to make sure that it was true and when I checked the data I found it wasn’t. People are indeed getting happier.

And it makes sense... more value = more wealth. more value = more happiness. So more wealth = more happiness. Also wealthier nations report greater life satisfaction.

 

[Maxboost]

How it seems to work is: as life gets easier, people get happier. And as technology gets better, life gets easier.

Anecdotally it may seem as though people are less happy, and it’s a popular meme to say that they’re connecting less due to technology and their smartphones, but actually the data suggests that people just get happier and happier as quality of life increases.

I used to think the same thing, but I wanted to make sure that it was true and when I checked the data I found it wasn’t. People are indeed getting happier.

And it makes sense... more value = more wealth. more value = more happiness. So more wealth = more happiness. Also wealthier nations report greater life satisfaction.

If people are soo happy why are they killing themselves? Every study is flawed in some ways and I don't believe for a second that more people are happy. These happiness studies can be deeply flawed including the ones I posted and there are so many variables that may affect someone's happiness during the study and the methodology used.

One study that can't be refuted is the increasing suicide rates and mental illness affecting society. These are objective findings that can't be refuted, in other words numbers don't lie. If more people are killing themselves we can assume that more people are miserable, depressed and unhappy.

Women unhappy

Suicide rates increasing

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

If people are soo happy why are they killing themselves?

Not sure, you would have to study it. It could very well be that the factors that are increasing happiness are rising and separately certain factors related to suicide are rising as well. Suicide generally has to do more with social isolation than depression (for instance areas with low population density have higher suicide rates, but rates of depression don’t particularly correlate)




vs Depression:



I wrote a post on that a while back: What population density can tell us about the importance of socializing.

Also, it’s not one study. There are a number of them. The one I cited used Gallup's World Poll, which is considered to be one of the most respected research firms, but I guess take it for what you will. The idea that happiness has been steadily increasing over time isn't really controversial, but I’d be happy to look at any data suggesting otherwise.

 

[WJK]

View attachment 21515

View attachment 21516

Happiness and Life Satisfaction

Your presented data only goes back to 1984. I guess that being older gives me a longer point of view. The lack of choices for women during the pre-1970s years and morals of those days created a very predictable and stable lifestyle. The people I knew were happy because it was the only lifestyle for them to pursue. A lot of choices tend to sow the seeds of discontent.

 

[jon.M]

@jon.M I meant to comment on that too. Sweden seems like a delightful country to me, and one I would like to visit. My mother grew up there during part of her school years. But the English language media seems to have redefined Sweden as a Marxist utopia that proves some theory of wealth redistribution.

You're correct. Either it's portrayed as the utopian society every other nation should learn from, or it's the next Venezuela on the brink of anarchy. There are upsides -- but some big flaws in the system as well. Just as every other county, of course.

My understanding is that the peak of its wealth redistribution efforts came in the 70's. One of the anecdotes from that time (1976) was that Astrid Lindgren, author of the Pippi Longstocking books, owed 102% of her income in taxes. This caused something of a scandal; after all, how can you pay more than 100% of what you make, and why would you produce anything in a system like that? So around that time the trend reversed and the country steered, at least in part, back toward its free market roots. Those roots had driven its impressive economic growth up through the 1950s, when it became one of the top 3 or 4 economies in the world.

That's right. By the end of the 70's, the governing social democratic party lost control to the more liberal parties -- leading to a somewhat more free market in the following years.

However, it should be noted that Astrid Lindgren was only taxed 102% on parts of her income. So technically she didn't pay more in taxes than what she earned in total, but the taxation at the time was still incredible.

A year or two ago I met Karin Svanborg-Sjövall of Timbro at an event where she spoke in Naples, Florida, US. My observation was that free markets have at least strong minority support in Sweden, and the country has reversed many of the redistribution programs that had set it back economically. There are still some oddities though - is it still the case that medicine is State controlled, and doctors have a lower income than dock workers? (Another anecdote, I know, but a surprising one.) Apparently that was the case not too long ago; which would make the decision to become a doctor a tough one -- go to university for 8 extra years and intern for several more, only to make less income than someone who didn't need to spend all those years learning their craft?

I don't know too much about the health care system. It's not state controlled but it's public. Some private clinics are available as well. We have these smaller kinds of county councils who are responsible for public health care. It's free, but the level of quality is... questionable. I don't want to pay for something I can't rely on when I actually need it.

Wait times can be terribly long. Hospitals outside of the largest cities close down. Lack of doctors, some get hired from other countries and don't speak the language well - communication errors are common. Those few times you really need help, you often get turned down.

There's this commonly accepted idea that if you truly need medical attention, you'll have to exaggerate everything about your problem. Sadly, that's something I and others have experienced is true. (Even with conditions that are potentially life-threatening already)

I plan to get private health & dental insurance soon. It's the only thing that would let me sleep well at night growing older.

Anyways, where were we... doctors and income. The median income for a medical intern is about $3k per month. You could make something around that with a normal blue-collar job without education. The salaries for higher-level physicians seems to float around $5-9k per month. (All pre-taxes, of course.) Less common among dock workers.

Sorry for going off on a tangent, @ChrisV .

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

no, @jon.M it’s fine... the original discussion is basically beaten to death so whatever turn the thread takes now is fine

 

[ChrisV]

i think redistribution is like chasing your tail anyway, because poor people just spend all their money on junk (sorry, but I’m too tired to be politically correct).. they have little self control and at the end of the day, the producers are going to control everything. the producers are the ones who control what your products cost, what wages you earn.. so i wonder if redistribution really has as much of an effect as people say

what i mean is... if we took the the all wealth in the world and handed it out evenly... in a year or two people would have roughly the same amount of money as they do now

it’s the same way that lottery winners almost consistently go broke

the thing about money is that it’s just a placeholder for reciprocity (I’ll do this favor for you, you do this favor for me) so i don’t know if you can really ‘trick’ it by screwing with things artificially

it seems to come back and bite people in the a$$