Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Happy nations don't focus on growth

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#31

Post by pfranz »

Retric wrote: post #16
pfranz wrote: post #13

I read a similar things a few weeks ago. They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I'm guessing it was saying this is the cause of crazy inequality and "the jobless recovery." I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be di…

That's somewhat misleading in 1800 the US population hit ~5.24 million vs England's ~9.2 million, it had more than doubled over the prior 30 years. Economically and Militarily England was much further ahead. But, unlike Europe the US's wars of conquest and genocide where mostly vs the Native Americans. Consider, Ohio only joined the Union in 1803. By 1870 the US GDP PPP(98,374) was at near parity with the UK (100,180…

Thanks for the background. That's why I thought it was interesting but had some skepticism and want to look more into it. I don't think the average person (including myself) knows enough about our history to be able compare things 50-100 years ago in the US to now. I remember hearing the US has benefited quite a bit by having oceans between us because after the World Wars we didn't have our cities destroyed. I believe that's one reason New York became a financial hub, picking up the slack from London.

Is it a fair comparison to say a more egalitarian policy made us "happier" when we still had segregation, women couldn't vote, and much smaller welfare/social services?

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#32

Post by trynumber9 »

losteric wrote: post #23
pfranz wrote: post #13

I read a similar things a few weeks ago. They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I'm guessing it was saying this is the cause of crazy inequality and "the jobless recovery." I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be di…

> They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I absolutely agree with this. Considering the history and how we used to run public schools, it seems almost obvious. American nationalism was at an all-time high during World War 2 and we rode that straight into the Cold War... 50 years o…

So, what was the first Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Scopes Trial in the 20s about then? Many of the things you attribute to the Cold War-era were present in the 1920s USA. The biggest difference was isolation.

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#35

Post by dredmorbius »

acchow wrote: post #24
opportune wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is a classic case of a confounding variable. The happiest nations are also the richest ones. The richest ones have lower growth than developing nations precisely because they are the richest: developing nations can achieve growth by increasing their literacy rates, building infrastructure, and making other capital expenditures (e.g. farming equipment, high-tech machines for factories). The richest ones…

In economics terms: Y = f(A, K, L). That is, GDP is a function of Capital (K), Labor (L), and a catch-all of technology (A). Developing countries can ramp up any of these 3 easily, especially technology "A" by transfering/adopting technologies that exist elsewhere. The richest countries can't do that since they should be at the forefront of technology.

The attribution of the Solow Residual to "technology" is grossly misplaced and very poorly founded.

Roughly 98% can be attributed by primary energy consumption. A fact mainstream economists seem to be at pains to deny.

R.U. Ayres, Charles A.S. Hall, and numerous others have repeatedly derived this relationship, and with a pretty consistent value.

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#36

Post by dredmorbius »

pfranz wrote: post #13

I read a similar things a few weeks ago. They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I'm guessing it was saying this is the cause of crazy inequality and "the jobless recovery." I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be di…

I very strongly recommend reading literature on the Industrial Revolution(s) generally, and on relating energy and economic growth. There's still a fair bit I've yet to read, but:

* Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History (1994). Highly technical, short, dense, but quite readable. Focus is on energy and technology primarily, economics and politics only remotely.

* Manfred Weissenbacher, Sources of Power (2009). Also technical, long, rambles, somewhat, and unevenly edited, but still recommended. Draws heavily on Smil as well as numerous other sources, and includes more politics (particularly recent) and economics.

* Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth (2016). A good technical history, a middling economics text. Really hammers home the transformation in the United States, 1870 - 2015.

* Daniel Yergin, The Prize (1992). A history of oil, which is to say, the last (and largest) segments of Weissenbacher and Smil's histories (Weissenbacher continues to a forecast / scenario), and much of Gordon's work. Focus is on energy.

Gordon's book is part of a series edited by Joel Mokyr on modern industrial history and development, there are several other good books within it.

I've yet to read, but still recommend, Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation.

And yes, the obsession with economic growth was a post-WWII thing. Mostly, people didn't want to see a return of the Great Depression and pre-war crisis.

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#37

Post by dredmorbius »

robteix wrote: post #10
throwaway053 wrote: post #4

This means China isn't happy at all. They need to fake that 7.0% growth every year for eternity, even though everyone knows it's all fake data, and most likely they're not even growing.

What makes you think China's growth is fake?

The veracity of China's economics reporting is wwidely questioned:

China’s recent economic weakness has revived questions about the quality of its economic data. Critics charged that official statistics overstated the economy’s growth and understated inflation in China’s economy. The recent complaints followed a long period of questioning whether China, a developing country and authoritarian state, has the institutional capacity and political will to publish accurate statistics. Because China is now the world’s second-largest economy, and is suffering from economic imbalances, the debate carries more weight than in the past.

http://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/TheReliabil...

http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/numbers...

Generally: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china%27s+economic+reporting+quest...

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#38

Post by losteric »

trynumber9 wrote: post #32
losteric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I absolutely agree with this. Considering the history and how we used to run public schools, it seems almost obvious. American nationalism was at an all-time high during World War 2 and we rode that straight into the Cold War... 50 years o…

So, what was the first Red Scare, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Scopes Trial in the 20s about then? Many of the things you attribute to the Cold War-era were present in the 1920s USA. The biggest difference was isolation.

What's the difference? The first Red Scare was 3 years of isolated domestic violent agitation, and public response was largely focused on those agitators. The second Red Scare was a 50-year ideological war that saturated the nation, a generation raised demonizing concepts as "un-American" before becoming the teachers and politicians of their children. It takes time heal from that dogma.

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#39

Post by YokoZar »

Oddstrider wrote: post #14

The nations mentioned are some of the most advanced in the world, and their lower-than-world-average GDP growth is being used to show that "it's not all about wealth". I don't think this article makes a very good point.

Happy people don't focus on earning more money for exactly the same reason - they already have enough to not worry about their base needs.

Re: Happy nations don't focus on growth

#40

Post by tn135 »

Richest nations are the happiest nations as long as they don't run out of their money. That is the proper conclusion.

I am pretty sure 10 years ago Greece would have featured as a happiest nation and Venezuela not as much as a miserable nation that it is today.

Contrary to all this India WAS super miserable 10 years and go and much more happier today though comparatively might not be as happy as the Italian.

Post reply on HN