[Newfie]

I’ve run out my 500mb “high speed” data allotment for the day so I’m back to dial up speeds. It’s 25 miles to a coffee shop with free WiFi. So I’m not researching anything for the moment.

Is there anything like a consistent GDH Index for a large number of countries? Something with some credibility to it? It would be interesting to observe and compare.

One immediate difference to GDP immediately comes to mind, it would be reporting the average persons “wealth” as opposed to the aggregate of the country, which obviously is skewed by the “wealth” gap.

[kublikhan]

Do you mean an index that also looks at developed nations? You can try the Global Food Security Index

Since you are having bandwith trouble I'll give you the US info and a few other countries for comparison. Values are from 2017:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nited States
Rank: 2nd best
Strengths (15)
Score:
100/100 Food consumption as a share of household expenditure
100/100 Nutritional standards
100/100 Presence of food safety net programmes
86/100 Food Affordability
83/100 Food Availability
87/100 Food Quality and safety
Human Development Index: 92
Intensity of food deprivation(lower is better): 8 kcal/person/day
Prevalence of undernourishment(lower is better): 5%
Challenges (0)

[Newfie]

No, not something that looks at one single parameter but something more comprehensive. Also something that explained its criteria and why it picked those particular elements to track.

[kublikhan]

Sounds like you might be interested in the Fragil States Index. They analyse over 178 countries with 12 broad metrics and over 100 sub metrics. There's also several pages of explanations if you are interested in delving into their methodology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Fragile States Index (FSI) is an annual ranking of 178 countries based on the different pressures they face that impact their levels of fragility. The Index is based on The Fund for Peace’s proprietary Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) analytical approach. Based on comprehensive social science methodology, three primary streams of data — quantitative, qualitative, and expert validation — are triangulated and subjected to critical review to obtain final scores for the FSI. Millions of documents are analyzed every year, and by applying highly specialized search parameters, scores are apportioned for every country based on twelve key political, social and economic indicators and over 100 sub-indicators that are the result of years of expert social science research. For an explanation of the various indicators and their icons, please refer to page 30.
...
It certainly felt like a tumultuous year in 2017. As the wars in Syria and Yemen ratcheted up in intensity, Qatar was suddenly politically, economically and physically isolated from its neighbors, Catalonia moved forward on its attempts to separate from Spain, Venezuela fell further into chaos, the United Kingdom continued to struggle with the terms of its exit from the European Union, and the United States (in addition to being plagued by a series of natural disasters) moved from one political crisis to the next. Yet despite all of these concerns, the clear message of the Fragile States Index (FSI) in 2018 was that, on the whole, most countries around the world continue to show signs of steady improvement, and many – particularly Mexico – demonstrate resiliency in the face of enormous pressure.

[onlooker]

Kub, related to my post, why do you think the US ranks so low among the richer nations in the specified metrics? Not being provocative just curious. This question is for a anybody else

[kublikhan]

I think one of the biggest problems is wealth inequality. The US wealth inequality is on the level you would normally find in a banana republic. The Healthcare & education systems too need an overhaul IMHO. Too much money spent for too little result. There are a plethora of examples of better systems to look at in other countries. Put the nation's infrastructure on the list too.

It seems to me that in the above areas money is not flowing to the correct places. Poor systems in place, plain old greed, etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. costs are high due to general inefficiency -- inefficient project management, an inefficient government contracting process, and inefficient regulation. It suggests that construction, like health care or asset management or education, is an area where Americans have simply ponied up more and more cash over the years while ignoring the fact that they were getting less and less for their money. To fix the problems choking U.S. construction, reformers are going to have to go through the system and rip out the inefficiencies root and branch.

[GHung]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I') think one of the biggest problems is wealth inequality. The US wealth inequality is on the level you would normally find in a banana republic. The Healthcare & education systems too need an overhaul IMHO. Too much money spent for too little result. There are a plethora of examples of better systems to look at in other countries. Put the nation's infrastructure on the list too.

It seems to me that in the above areas money is not flowing to the correct places. Poor systems in place, plain old greed, etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U').S. costs are high due to general inefficiency -- inefficient project management, an inefficient government contracting process, and inefficient regulation. It suggests that construction, like health care or asset management or education, is an area where Americans have simply ponied up more and more cash over the years while ignoring the fact that they were getting less and less for their money. To fix the problems choking U.S. construction, reformers are going to have to go through the system and rip out the inefficiencies root and branch.

[onlooker]

Beyond the diminishing returns on complexity presented by Tainter in his work, we have the problem of "corruption-is-both-a-symptom-of-the-basic-structures-of-capitalism-and-a-technology-that-supports-them"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/0 ... orts-them/

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'B')eyond the diminishing returns on complexity presented by Tainter in his work, we have the problem of "corruption-is-both-a-symptom-of-the-basic-structures-of-capitalism-and-a-technology-that-supports-them"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/0 ... orts-them/

[noobtube]

What does corruption mean in terms of Tainter and a complex system?

If, say, Rome produces a certain amount of energy, and that decreases over time, is the loss due to corruption or complexity?

Does corruption cause complexity? Or, vice versa? Or, do they feed off each other?

You don't tend to get corruption in small, flat societies. It only really appears when you have ruling classes, standing armies, monetary systems, and bureaucracies.

All of which describe the United States and Europe.

To say Venezuela is corrupt implies a complex system, as I understand it. But, how could Venezuela possibly be anywhere near as corrupt as a complex system like the United States? Never understood the argument that banana republics and African dictators were corrupt. How could they be? With what complexity?

Clearly the corruption is a result of United States/European complexity, since they are the primary beneficiaries. Basically, these are vassal states, which subsidize the United States/Europe, like the vassal states in the days of Rome.

Was the corruption in the provinces or in Rome? History says it was Rome.

[onlooker]

Noob, in fairness they're is corruption everywhere. It is not necessarily tied to complexity. Rather, to the top down ruling structure of hierachy, I would say

[Tanada]

Corruption leads to more complexity as the corrupt seek to put distortions and loopholes in place for their own benefit. As others notice and smooth out or gain in accessing these distortions the corrupt add more ad more distortion trying to stay ahead of the reformers and the general masses to get their own nest feathered first.

[Newfie]

Kub,

New day, New data allotment. The FSI is not what I was thinking of but it works in the right direction and may even be better. Gotta think about that.

But it seems a better indication of a nations health than GDO or the other barrow financial indicators we focus on. I would say it’s something we should pay more attention to. It surely highlights areas where we could stand improvement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_States_Index

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Fragile States Index (FSI; formerly the Failed States Index) is an annual report published by the United States think tank the Fund for Peace and the American magazine Foreign Policy since 2005. The list aims to assess states' vulnerability to conflict or collapse, ranking all sovereign states with membership in the United Nations where there is enough data available for analysis.[1] Taiwan, the Palestinian Territories, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo and Western Sahara are not ranked, despite being recognised as sovereign by one or more other nations. Ranking is based on the sum of scores for 12 indicators (see below). Each indicator is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable), creating a scale spanning 0−120.[1]

[Newfie]

RE: FSI

Here is the FSI 2017/18 notes on the USA. Not sure I agree with all they wrote but it bears consideration. They touch on many topics we struggle with here, but do not delve into others such as resource depletion.

J.J. MESSNER AND CHARLES FIERTZ
More than any previous year, the 2018 Fragile States Index (FSI) has demonstrated that rich and developed countries can be just as prone as any other to the effects of fragility and instability – and the United States is certainly no exception. A combination of political and social turmoil, coupled with severe natural disasters, gave cause for a deeply challenging year in the United States. All this despite a strong economy, underpinned by a robust stock market and record-low unemployment, demonstrating clearly that a country’s economic performance cannot be taken as a sole indicator of success.
As a result of these recent challenges, the United States is the fourth most-worsened country on the 2018 FSI. But even more worryingly, this appears not to be a one-off aberration — not only was the United States among the 15 most-worsened countries in last year’s FSI, but it is also among the 15 most-worsened countries overall of the past five years. The country has also demonstrated severe long- term worsening trends on specific key indicators. For example, the United States is the most-worsened country in the world for the past five years for the group of three Cohesion Indicators, which includes the Security Apparatus, Factionalized Elites, and Group Grievance Indicators (and is the second-most worsened over the same period specifically for that latter Indicator). In terms of rate-of-change, this puts the United States in the same company as some countries in conflict, and among others (such as Poland and Turkey) that are experiencing increased illiberalism or authoritarianism. As the self-styled “land of the free”, for all Americans this should be the stuff of nightmares.
But how did America get here? With little doubt, 2017 saw an escalation of this trend toward political and social instability. Politically-charged investigations delved into Russian intervention in the country’s democratic process,
while Washington was rocked by a series of political scandals and investigations into alleged corruption, criminality, and wrongdoing at the highest levels of government. Meanwhile, Washington (and across the country in cities both large and small) was the scene of nearly-unprecedented mass marches and protests over issues ranging from immigration policy to women’s rights, movements that took on greater energy than ever before.
This polarization, however, is neither unique nor unprece- dented in the recent history of the country. Rather, it represents the continuation of a trend that has existed for decades. The causes for this polarization are both numerous and contentious, with little consensus as to which causes are most important, or even valid.
However, there are a number of potential contributing causes to this increasing polarization that can be identified. For example, greater rigidity in adherence to party doctrine have undermined cooperation and compromise in govern- ment, exacerbated by open primaries that encourage the selection of more radical, doctrinal, dogmatic, and “uncooperative” candidates on both sides of politics at the expense of constructive centrists. This has been further permitted by widespread gerrymandering – whereby legislators essentially choose their voters – sharply reducing the competitiveness of politics, thereby disincentivizing compromise, and reducing accountability to voters. Further, the increasing cost of elections, coupled with landmark decisions such as Citizens United, have contributed to the influence of special interests in politics. More broadly, the increasing politicization of institutions such as the judiciary and law enforcement, as well as attacks on (and dismantling of) nonpartisan governmental institutions have also eroded faith and trust in government. To a degree, the polarization has reflected growing social inequality gaps, such as in wealth and access to healthcare and education. But perhaps one of the most notable developments in the recent polarization of the country is the rise of cable news, social media, and broader partisan media environ- ments, which have fueled a near-tribalism in politics and have helped to solidify previously more fluid political allegiances, particularly by stirring up racial or ethnic divisions or using wedge issues such as immigration.
Undoubtedly, this list includes consequences of polarization as well as causes, and many are likely some combination of both. Some are superficially contradictory. Disentangling how and why this increased polarization has arisen will likely fascinate scholars for a long time to come, but for now, the United States is faced with a situation in which public opinion is more divided along partisan lines than along race, religion, age, gender, or educational background, according to a report from the Pew Research Center released in late 2017.1 Attempting to determine when the relatively unpolarized political order dating back to the Great Depression and World War II began to decay is fraught with uncertainty and disagreement. The bottom line according to the FSI trend data is that the intense polarization currently felt by many Americans is both very real and increasing in intensity, with potentially serious future consequences for American society if that trend is not reversed.
Certainly, this trend should be viewed with deep concern – in particular the United States’ worrying long-term declining trend even more so than simply the year-on-year worsening. But though concern is called for, hyperbole is not. In 2017, Professor Peter Temin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology made headlines by warning that the United States was “regressing to have the economic and political structure of a developing nation.”2 There is certainly truth to the critical observations that America’s infrastructure is crumbling and that the inequality gap in the United States is seriously worsening, risking potential social conflict in the future. However, to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of America’s demise have been exaggerated. Based on the findings of the FSI, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the United States is at risk of becoming a fragile state anytime soon. The reality is that the United States is one of the most resilient nations on Earth and is blessed with relatively strong institutions – indeed, there exists no country with more capacity than the United States. Just as with our analysis of South Africa in 2017, countries with significant resilience and strong institutions demonstrate enormous absorptive capacity to handle challenges and shocks – but that should not let any of us be complacent, either.
As the United States heads into the 2018 Congressional mid-term elections, the risk is high that social and political divisions will continue to deepen, aided and abetted by divisive rhetoric by political leaders, political tribalism reinforced by social media echo chambers, and partisan media coverage. And, as our data has demonstrated, this worsening trend is not a recent development and has instead been years, if not decades, in the making meaning that it will take time and a serious commitment by all sides of politics to right this ship. While the end is definitely not nigh for the United States, these findings should nevertheless be heeded as a warning to political leaders and social influencers that fueling division and tribalism for short-term political gain is unsustainable and potentially catastrophic in the long- term.

[GHung]

Increasingly complex systems become more corrupted (in a physical sense rather than a moral/values sense) in light of declining resource availability as those who create them attempt to sustain growth and the rewards growth brings them. Growing systems are inherently extractive beyond the point where the larger systems they exist in can sustain said extraction, and those who exist within those systems compete for more than their share of declining available real inputs.

This is the point of overshoot, where (in the human case) fiat currencies, chemical fertilizers, technology, etc, are used to further exceed long-term carrying capacity of the overall system, which moves further into a corrupt state as natural-order checks and balances are temporarily cheated. All who, whether knowingly or blindly, participate in these schemes are parties to, and victims of, this corruption.

Of course, nature does bat last. Whatever new state nature finds itself in is utterly indifferent to those it leaves behind.

[dissident]

Primitive 3rd world corruption makes life hard for the average citizen. Abstracted 1st world corruption does not have the immediate, brutal impact of 3rd world corruption on the quality of life. With enough wealth, the impact on the 1st world masses is soft. However, the impact of 1st world corruption on the 3rd world masses is harsh. The 1st world is composed of imperial meddlers who increase their wealth at the expense of the 3rd world. In fact, the 3rd world corruption is, to leading order, induced by the 1st world. Cuba under Batista is an example. Loads of corrupt death squad juntas installed by the CIA in Latin America during the 1950s, 60s and 70s were corrupt to the core and big time human rights abusers.

The Cold War was a good racket. In the name of some BS goodness a carte blanche was self-given by the self-anointed guiding lights of humanity to engaging in gross meddling in sovereign states and to state coups to install bloody tyrants that would service the needs of the ones that installed them. So the abstracted corruption of the 1st world is the worst type.

[onlooker]

Good thoughts last several posts. I think consistent with the manner that world wide Capitalism and Neo-liberalism works and has been setup, rich countries are positioned to exploit poor ones to the extreme. We see this with the complete disenfranchisement of the people of the Middle East and Africa.

And the other pernicious influence on people around the world is the corruption which Dissident alluded to quite well. So, the elites of poor countries contribute to the exploitation of their own people and that is also consistent with the manner that Capitalism has evolved along class lines. So say what you wish about Marx, but he seems to have been right about how economic statification and class divisions would set the tone for rabid Capitalism. And so in poor countries, we see now conspicuous signs of affluence alongside desperate poverty. In fairness, we see that also in NYC where I lived for quite some time. So, all this is both a product of the economic system ie. Capitalism but also our overshooting limits as a species around the world. Ghung, is right that we have outwitted Nature to go ever into deeper overshoot. Of course, the problem is that is highly risky as failure to maintain the means to care for everyone means a huge dieoff. Well, in fact our wanton use and abuse of nature to maintain both our huge population and certain segments of it living in affluence has set up precisely the conditions that will inevitably lead to this huge die off. It is NOT just CC, our environmental crisis is both deep and diverse. At this point, the economic matters are trivial compared to the prospect of the environmnental pillars that support economics and life itself collapsing.

[marmico]

More word salad from onlooker. What a blathering bloviating blowhard!

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marmico', 'M')ore word salad from onlooker. What a blathering bloviating blowhard!

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marmico', 'M')ore word salad from onlooker. What a blathering bloviating blowhard!