[Bytesmiths]

Okay! Finally, some trustworthy data showing that affluence and economic growth is the biggest correlant to happiness! And from a totally unbiased source -- the World Bank!

Check out Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine" to learn how the World Bank nefariously holds poor countries in bondage through crushing debt. And remember, "correlation is not causation." One could just as easily say that the World Bank's efforts are directly responsible for making life in poor countries so unhappy, especially when one looks at the high happiness levels of certain countries, like Bhutan, that have rejected World Bank and IMF overtures.

Please forgive me for not having the time today to do a point-by-point refutation, except to say that, in general, I don't trust the World Bank to produce data that does anything but back their position -- a pattern Eduard DeBono calls "ludecy."

I much prefer the stats from NationMaster.com, which are generally from peer-reviewed sources, unlike those of the World Bank.

For example, NationMaster's measure of happiness paints a very different picture from the World Bank's outlook. By their mesure, the US is at #13, just behind that paragon of affluence, The Phillipenes, and well behind those well-known fortresses of "economic freedom," Sweden and Denmark (sharing second place), each with taxes at about 50%.

Even more revealing is the percentage of people who claim to be "very happy." The US is #7, well behind places known for their affluence, such as Nigeria and Ireland, and again, Phillippines. Hmmm... affluence and happiness seem to be somewhat randomly correlated!

That's the neat thing about charts and statistics: you can prove anything you want, including that using up the earth makes people happy, according to the organization who is perhaps most associated with using up the earth. Even if that were true (which I do not accept as given), aren't we here on this website to try to do something about it?

Thank goodness that one can find statistics that "prove" otherwise!

Or, assuming we're on this website because we do think at least one critical resource (oil) is soon to decline, are we content to live our lives in the most affluent way possible -- in order to enhance our own happiness -- therefore guaranteeing less affluence (and happiness) for generations to come?

[Tyler_JC]

Greater affluence beyond a certain point doesn't add to happiness. The first chart shows that one nicely. The marginal value of that last dollar for a millionaire is minimal.

Tiny homogeneous countries are bound to be happier than larger diverse countries. If everyone is just like you, what's to complain about? There's also the question of expectations. Americans expect to be happier in the future, Danes don't. This leads to Americans taking more risks to achieve success while Danes are content to just chug along.

There appear to be some poor, happy countries. Perhaps this is a result of the religious fervor of the population (Nigeria) or the expulsion of unhappy people (Venezuela).

But there are no rich, unhappy countries.

As oil depletes and the world becomes less affluent, the places that experience the largest drops in wealth will likely see the greatest drop in happiness. Places that were always poor and will stay poor won't see much of a change unless their living conditions drop below subsistence.

Regardless, I'll drop out of this debate. Statistics can be used to prove anything.

[Blacksmith]

Like the old saying goes "Money can't buy happiness, but it sure helps".

By analogy, immigrant freeloaders must be happy.

[Bytesmiths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blacksmith', '.').. immigrant freeloaders must be happy.

[deMolay]

What do you mean Blacksmith about the immigrant?.

[Blacksmith]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deMolay', 'W')hat do you mean Blacksmith about the immigrant?.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A')nd yet there appears to be a relatively strong correlation between happiness and affluence.



You might be an exception to the this trend but most people like having stuff.

More importantly, people like having the freedom to do what they want with what they earn. That matters more than anything. More freedom leads to more happiness and less freedom to less happiness.

[Tyler_JC]

The former states of the USSR saw a huge decline in their standard of living during the 1990s leading to a crash in the quality of life for the people in that region.

When the economies of countries like Poland and Latvia picked up, their people became happier while the still-poor Bulgarians and Ukrainians remain miserable.

Are there people arguing that a reduced standard of living doesn't reduce the self reported happiness of a population in the short term?



Japan entered a lost decade in the 1990s. Unemployment soared, so did male suicides.

A declining standard of living makes more people unhappy, you can't argue against that.

If a country is poor but stable, the people can achieve a relatively high level of reported satisfaction but only if the peoples' expectations remain low. As soon as the peoples expectations rise, the nation must deliver on those expectations or face a public backlash (in the form of revolution, electoral defeat, general unhappiness, whatever).

[Bytesmiths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A') declining standard of living makes more people unhappy, you can't argue against that.

[vision-master]

I had a dream the other night. This high-level deity, kind of like the pope told me, 'Chasing after materialism will only make you unhappy, keep following your spritual path.'

The happiest I ever was is when I lived out of my van as a ski bum.

[Byron100]

Looking at this through the prism of peak oil, I think we need to accept that living standards are going to go down no matter what. It doesn't matter how rich the US is, or what kind of political system we may have in place, our standard of living will decrease from here on on out, probably for a century or more (or when the big die-off occurs, at which point none of this will matter much...LOL).

So, the question to ask, how to manage this perpetual decline in the standard of living without destroying the fabric of society? Exactly how does one manage a grinding contraction of the economy for year after year, decade after decade, for whole generations to come? How will our leaders manage a ever-increasing surplus of labor, the millions upon millions of hands that will be idled in the years to come, coupled with the certainty of ever-decreasing wages for those who are lucky enough to find work? How will a debt-based economy even function in a world of ever-declining energy, where it's dammed near impossible to pay back loans of any sort, due to to the irreversible decline in economic output?

That, my friends, is what we're faced with. Political systems will matter little in such a world, as hardship will be visited upon all of us in the years to come. So, might it be a smart idea to figure out a way to redistribute what wealth currently exists so that the population can at least survive?

Face it, there is a staggering amount of wealth that still exists in the United States, and even more so in Canada. Land, gold, silver, timber, existing housing stock, metals, coal, hydro, etc. Not to mention the nearly infinite amount of funds that the millionaires and billionaires still have stashed away in overstuffed bank accounts that's locked away from the rest of us. Might it be a smart idea to tap into that vast reserve of inherent wealth so that the rest of us can at least have food, shelter and a bit to live on? There's little question new wealth can be created through the sweat of the brow, as the Incredible Shrinking Economy will surely prohibit that. Labor (wage-slave labor, that is) is the T-Rex of our era, its great roar about to be silenced forever. And there is NOTHING that can be done to reverse this, no matter how hard we try.

As much as I love my liberty and the right to chose my own path, I am also faced with the hard reality that faces us. So, shouldn't our energies and attention be focused on how to manage this decline in the most graceful way possible as opposed to being faced with the certain prospect of massive gun battles on the streets as the starving masses lash out in pure desperation at those who still have "the goods"?

To me, the answer is a simple one. Too bad so many of you out there don't see the obvious...

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s much as I love my liberty and the right to chose my own path, I am also faced with the hard reality that faces us. So, shouldn't our energies and attention be focused on how to manage this decline in the most graceful way possible as opposed to be faced with the certain prospect of massive gun battles on the streets as the starving masses lash out in pure desperation at those who still have "the goods"?

To me, the answer is a simple one. Too bad so many of you out there don't see the obvious...

[Bytesmiths]

Byron100, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', '.').. living standards are going to go down no matter what.

[odegaard]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', '.')..
Face it, there is a staggering amount of wealth that still exists in the United States, and even more so in Canada. Land, gold, silver, timber, existing housing stock, metals, coal, hydro, etc. Not to mention the nearly infinite amount of funds that the millionaires and billionaires still have stashed away in overstuffed bank accounts that's locked away from the rest of us. Might it be a smart idea to tap into that vast reserve of inherent wealth so that the rest of us can at least have food, shelter and a bit to live on?...

[Byron100]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', 'A')gain, by whose definition? The fact that Nigeria and Phillippines have happiness levels nearly that of countries with 100 times as much per capita income means your "standard of living" need not be locked to economic activity, nor even energy availability. That's our challenge!

[Blacksmith]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', ' ')Granted, you being in Canada does help, as your government is apparently supports people who voluntary "downgrade" to a simpler, lower standard of living...and having universal health coverage certainly makes the transition easier.

[SpringCreekFarm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blacksmith', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', ' ')Granted, you being in Canada does help, as your government is apparently supports people who voluntary "downgrade" to a simpler, lower standard of living...and having universal health coverage certainly makes the transition easier.

[Byron100]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SpringCreekFarm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blacksmith', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', ' ')Granted, you being in Canada does help, as your government is apparently supports people who voluntary "downgrade" to a simpler, lower standard of living...and having universal health coverage certainly makes the transition easier.

[Bytesmiths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SpringCreekFarm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blacksmith', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', ' ')Granted, you being in Canada does help, as your government is apparently supports people who voluntary "downgrade" to a simpler, lower standard of living...and having universal health coverage certainly makes the transition easier.

[Blacksmith]

[quote="Bytesmiths] But there are those who deeply resent me for that choice.[/quote]

Canada is a nation of immigrants some like my Arab friend who are willing to contribute and unfortunately some who only are here for what they can milk from the system.

I thank God that the the "freeloading immigrant parasites" are in the in the minority.

But why are they always from the USA?