Country with the highest taxes has the happiest population...

[Puppycow]

And also The Awesomest Economy. It's true. Denmark has really high taxes and its people are really happy.

Evidences in the form of a two-part podcast from Planet Money (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/):

Part One: The Awesomest Economy? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest_economy.html)
Part Two: Tax Me Please (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html)

[Furcifer]

You know, despite how much people complain about how bad government is at spending money, people aren't that great at it either. If the government allowed me to keep an extra 10% of my income I'd probably spend it on something stupid like a fast food cheeseburger and fancy hair spray every week. You know what I mean? As a society we aren't putting that money away for a rainy day or giving it to charity we tend to buy knick knacks and crap we don't need with these fractional amounts taxes represent.

Americans are terrible for complaining about taxes and they actually pay very little. It's been my experience there is an inverse relationship to the amount people pay and the amount they whine about it.

I can see how a country like Denmark can pay such high taxes and be proud of what they contribute to society. A happy society is a productive one.

Maybe that's overly simplistic, but that's the reason I'm not surprised at seeing something like this.

[Francesca R]

I posted this chart in another topic yesterday, but here it is again with Denmark identified. The index of economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark) is the Heritage Foundation / WSJ calculation. Even though Denmark has high taxes and state spending (these get a bad score in this calculation), it scores very well in everything else and is the 9th ranked country in terms of economic freedom.

You can add to this that the "Nordic social-market model" (which Denmark is a synthesis of--what it tends to mean is high tax/welfare coupled with business friendliness) produces well being on several levels not captured by national income.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/127464b56e4505c0ab.jpg

[AvalonXQ]

Americans are terrible for complaining about taxes and they actually pay very little.

I guess if most other folks are shooting you in the head, stabbing you in the gut seems "very little".
I'm sorry that I have trouble seeing a third of my income going to government as being in any way a small piece. I know that it is when compared to what the more socialized countries take.

[tyr_13]

You forgot the 'happy' part when you wrote 'socialized countries'.

I like my countries to socialize. It helps them meet more people.

[Soapy Sam]

I once compared taxes with an American colleague.
(This would be in the mid 1990s).
As I recall it came out about the same, in gross percentage of earnings. once you included sales taxes and medical insurance payments.That said, his salary was a lot higher than mine.

[lomiller]

I guess if most other folks are shooting you in the head, stabbing you in the gut seems "very little".
I'm sorry that I have trouble seeing a third of my income going to government as being in any way a small piece. I know that it is when compared to what the more socialized countries take.

That money goes towards government programs. While it would be nice to keep the programs and not have to pay for them, this is unrealistic. When discussing government spending therefore, you should specify which programs you think should be shut down in order for you to pay less taxes.

There are two caveats, however. First, the cost of a program doesn’t go away just because you privatize it, it simply shows up someplace else. To get a real savings the program needs to cease altogether. The second is that you live in a democracy, so when you feel a program shouldn’t exist you may well be in a minority. For example, most US government spending goes towards Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Military and interest of previous borrowing. Cutting any of these would be widely unpopular.

[AvalonXQ]

First, the cost of a program doesn’t go away just because you privatize it, it simply shows up someplace else. To get a real savings the program needs to cease altogether.

... unless you believe that the government is grossly inefficient, in which case simply privatizing a program may very well greatly reduce costs to a tolerable level.

[kevinquinnyo]

... unless you believe that the government is grossly inefficient, in which case simply privatizing a program may very well greatly reduce costs to a tolerable level.

That's also widely unpopular around here. (jref forum)

[lomiller]

... unless you believe that the government is grossly inefficient, in which case simply privatizing a program may very well greatly reduce costs to a tolerable level.


Appealing to belief systems is seldom a reasonable substitute for looking objectively at the facts. There are plenty of examples of all types, ones where loosely private industry clearly does a better job, ones where strictly regulated private industry does a better job, and ones where direct government administration works best.

It stands to reason the countries that allow for all three will be able to provide the essential services at the lowest total cost, and therefore have the most left over to further their personal fulfillment and happiness.

[Furcifer]

I guess if most other folks are shooting you in the head, stabbing you in the gut seems "very little".
I'm sorry that I have trouble seeing a third of my income going to government as being in any way a small piece. I know that it is when compared to what the more socialized countries take.

To be honest I've always thought the US, with it's strong economy and manufacturing base would make the model country if they only gave in a little and became more "social". I just thought there was so much potential for Americans to give a little more and then make a little more. At the same time Americans are usually the first ones giving aid when something goes wrong in the World. Usually monetary, which everyone applauds, then military, which gets mixed reviews. The catch 22 is that if Americans were just a little more selfish than they appear, they wouldn't appear so selfish.

[AvalonXQ]

The catch 22 is that if Americans were just a little more selfish than they appear, they wouldn't appear so selfish.

The fact that Americans, by and large, don't care how they appear to non-Americans is part of the reason for this.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I posted this chart in another topic yesterday, but here it is again with Denmark identified. The index of economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark) is the Heritage Foundation / WSJ calculation. Even though Denmark has high taxes and state spending (these get a bad score in this calculation), it scores very well in everything else and is the 9th ranked country in terms of economic freedom.

I don't know if it's been commented on yet here, but Denmark is also one of the most secular nations around too.

[Toke]

We love complaining, so having a lot to complain about make us happy?

I do believe that government tend to do the most efficient job, as I don't really have the prerequisites to check up on it it is to a large degree belief.

I am a bit surprised that the Heritage Foundation have something positive to say about us.

[kevinquinnyo]

We love complaining, so having a lot to complain about make us happy?

I do believe that government tend to do the most efficient job, as I don't really have the prerequisites to check up on it it is to a large degree belief.

I am a bit surprised that the Heritage Foundation have something positive to say about us.

You believe the government does the most efficient job at what? Everything?

[Toke]

You believe the government does the most efficient job at what? Everything?

I would go for healthcare, education, infrastructure, and military as the more important things government does best.

The infrastructure may get the most discussion here, and I maintain that natural monopolies like water, roads, electricity, telephones and mail service be kept as a government monopoly.

[Francesca R]

I am a bit surprised that the Heritage Foundation have something positive to say about us.I expect they are too.

(Their index is actually pretty good, whatever one thinks of their mission and other work. The index is decent because it is a cross section of economic freedoms equally weighted. I suspect that many conservatives in real life would attach much greater importance to low tax and low redistribution/public provision than the 20% it gets in the index, and less to other things.)

[AvalonXQ]

The infrastructure may get the most discussion here, and I maintain that natural monopolies like water, roads, electricity, telephones and mail service be kept as a government monopoly.

Mail service is a great example where the government does a crappy job compared to the private sector.
If you don't care how long it'll take to get there or how damaged it will be but want to save money, stick a stamp on it.
If you actually need it to get there, call UPS.

[Francesca R]

Yeah well, you Stateside folks might want to emerge from socialised mail some time and borrow some pages from the free marketing Germans who privatised Deutsche Post fifteen years back. ;)

[Furcifer]

I would go for healthcare, education, infrastructure, and military as the more important things government does best.

The infrastructure may get the most discussion here, and I maintain that natural monopolies like water, roads, electricity, telephones and mail service be kept as a government monopoly.

You know, as far as I can remember, here in Canada education is the one thing the government stays pretty far removed from. We patrol ourselves and do a pretty good job of it. I think the only thing the government does is enforce some minimum. I'll have to research this.

[AvalonXQ]

I wouldn't exactly call the USPS "socialized mail", as it's self-funded -- it doesn't get tax dollars.

[Corsair 115]

You know, as far as I can remember, here in Canada education is the one thing the government stays pretty far removed from. We patrol ourselves and do a pretty good job of it. I think the only thing the government does is enforce some minimum. I'll have to research this.


Education is a provincial responsibility, which means it's the provincial governments which pick up the tab. In Ontario, for example, the government, in the 2008-09 fiscal year, put some $19.1 billion into publicly funded education.

[Mongrel]

... unless you believe that the government is grossly inefficient, in which case simply privatizing a program may very well greatly reduce costs to a tolerable level.

And then the contracts are tendered to the lowest bidders (who just happen to be pally with the appropriate government official) who are still trying to make profit from it, it's not worked well over here in the UK.

[jmcvann]

Mail service is a great example where the government does a crappy job compared to the private sector.
If you don't care how long it'll take to get there or how damaged it will be but want to save money, stick a stamp on it.
If you actually need it to get there, call UPS.

Right. Sending a letter by UPS/FedEx will only cost you...what? $20?

:eye-poppi

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right. Sending a letter by UPS/FedEx will only cost you...what? $20?

:eye-poppi

Really! And where I live, I get mail way faster than anything from UPS or FedEx--for waaay less money.

Now if we could only do away with the junk mail---oh wait--that's the free enterprise system at work, isn't it? ;)

[WildCat]

Right. Sending a letter by UPS/FedEx will only cost you...what? $20?

:eye-poppi
By law, a letter-sized mailer from a private company must cost at least 3 times the US Post office rate. Wonder why they had to make that a law?

You'll find that UPS and FedEx are often cheaper than the USPS in many areas. And they don't lose billions of dollars a year and have to be supplemented with tax dollars.

[Random]

I'm sorry that I have trouble seeing a third of my income going to government as being in any way a small piece. I know that it is when compared to what the more socialized countries take.

For me it depends on what I get in exchange. If the government gives me clean streets, low crime, free healthcare, good schools, effective public transportation, a good pension, a strong social safety net, a thirty hour workweek and six weeks paid vacation, the government can take half my money and I would be delighted.

If all they do is build a Versailles style resort for high ranking politicians and have nightly prostitute and cocaine fueled orgies, I will be screaming bloody murder if they take a tenth of my money.

[JoeTheJuggler]

By law, a letter-sized mailer from a private company must cost at least 3 times the US Post office rate. Wonder why they had to make that a law?
So that would make it less than $1.50, right? I challenge you to find a private shipper that will match the speed (not to mention the volume) of the USPS for that price.

ETA: Legally, the USPS is based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

You'll find that UPS and FedEx are often cheaper than the USPS in many areas.
I will? Then it should be no problem for you to cite examples?

About the main difference is that the USPS doesn't handle boxes beyond very small ones.

And they don't lose billions of dollars a year and have to be supplemented with tax dollars.
The USPS receives billions of dollars of tax money each year? Is that true?

[mhaze]

.....About the main difference is that the USPS doesn't handle boxes beyond very small ones.


The USPS receives billions of dollars of tax money each year? Is that true?Sure....and regarding your prior statement, that explains quite well how I shipped an Encyclopedia Brittanica USPS.

Those "very small boxes"...?

[IchabodPlain]

The USPS receives billions of dollars of tax money each year? Is that true?

Welll..it lost billions last year. Whether or not it was funded with tax dollars or stacked atop the deficit, I cannot say.

Read all about it from the well-known conservatively slanted Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/post-office-lost-38-billi_n_359646.html).

[jmcvann]

By law, a letter-sized mailer from a private company must cost at least 3 times the US Post office rate. Wonder why they had to make that a law?

You'll find that UPS and FedEx are often cheaper than the USPS in many areas. And they don't lose billions of dollars a year and have to be supplemented with tax dollars.

We've quite de-railed, but I did a little looking and it seems the least you can pay to send something FedEx is something like $12.12. So that letter that costs me $0.44 to send USPS has been jacked up 27.5 times the USPS rate. If FedEx only charged 3 times the USPS rate, they might well lose billions as well.

And the Post Office gets zero tax dollars.

[WildCat]

So that would make it less than $1.50, right? I challenge you to find a private shipper that will match the speed (not to mention the volume) of the USPS for that price.
And you'd be right, since competition is prevented by law.

ETA: Legally, the USPS is based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
And?

I will? Then it should be no problem for you to cite examples?
A one pound package shipped from Chicago to Los Angeles will cost you $4.90 via the USPS parcel post, and who knows when it will arrive as the USPS won't even make a claim for that. It will cost you $5.69 via FedEx ground, and it will be there in 4 days or less. Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.

The USPS receives billions of dollars of tax money each year? Is that true?
They're losing an estimated $7 billion for fiscal year 2009 (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_066.htm), who do you think picks up that tab?

[WildCat]

We've quite de-railed, but I did a little looking and it seems the least you can pay to send something FedEx is something like $12.12. So that letter that costs me $0.44 to send USPS has been jacked up 27.5 times the USPS rate. If FedEx only charged 3 times the USPS rate, they might well lose billions as well.
Here's the rate chart: ftp://ftp.fedex.com/pub/us/rates/downloads/documents2/Ground.pdf

Your numbers seem to be a bit off...

And the Post Office gets zero tax dollars.
So how do they pay their employees while losing billions of dollars every year?

[WildCat]

Here's some USPS annual reports: http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/annual_report_2009.pdf

Note the line "Capital contributions of US government". That's known as "tax dollars" in common language.

eta: also interesting is the graph showing pieces of mail delivered, which is declining rapidly, right above the number of employees, which is increasing. There's your government efficiency in action!

[Roboramma]

A one pound package shipped from Chicago to Los Angeles will cost you $4.90 via the USPS parcel post, and who knows when it will arrive as the USPS won't even make a claim for that. It will cost you $5.69 via FedEx ground, and it will be there in 4 days or less. Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.
So you don't have an example of:
You'll find that UPS and FedEx are often cheaper than the USPS in many areas.

[elbe]

Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.

While completely anecdotal, given the choice I'd much rather ship USPS than UPS or FedEx. USPS has taken much better care of my packages than the private agencies have.

[WildCat]

So you don't have an example of:
I did a few months ago in another thread, but now they added a fuel surcharge. :p

At any rate, USPS is losing money and it's just going to get worse because people just don't mail as many letters any more. It's hardly the agency to hold up as an example of government doing something right.

The IRS, OTOH, does its job very well... :D

[WildCat]

While completely anecdotal, given the choice I'd much rather ship USPS than UPS or FedEx. USPS has taken much better care of my packages than the private agencies have.
When I go to a FedEx or UPS store to ship something I know the employees will always be there helping customers and the lines are short if there's lines at all.

At the post office one employee will be working while the others always seem to be on break, hiding in the back somewhere even though the line is out the door. I'd much rather pay a buck more for the convenience of not having to spend half an hour in line while 2/3 of the post office employees take their break.

[lionking]

Im happy for a third of my income to go in tax, and I'm happy with the health, welfare, education etc etc it buys.

[GreyICE]

I posted this chart in another topic yesterday, but here it is again with Denmark identified. The index of economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Denmark) is the Heritage Foundation / WSJ calculation. Even though Denmark has high taxes and state spending (these get a bad score in this calculation), it scores very well in everything else and is the 9th ranked country in terms of economic freedom.

You can add to this that the "Nordic social-market model" (which Denmark is a synthesis of--what it tends to mean is high tax/welfare coupled with business friendliness) produces well being on several levels not captured by national income.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/127464b56e4505c0ab.jpg
One day I'm totally going to get bored, move all their factors into a table, check their historical reports, and run a regression analysis on the importance of the change in various factors in determining change in GDP.

Actually I have a 5 hour plane flight to Orlando coming up. And one coming back. Hmm...

[autumn1971]

I did a few months ago in another thread, but now they added a fuel surcharge. :p

At any rate, USPS is losing money and it's just going to get worse because people just don't mail as many letters any more. It's hardly the agency to hold up as an example of government doing something right.

The IRS, OTOH, does its job very well... :D

I think that the USPS is a good example of the government being able to do something which is still seen as neccessary (posting letters and flyers and such), but which would be a burden to the private sector. Imagine the costs to small businesses if they had no cheap method for mass mailings (put aside the fact that most of this is considered "junk", obviously the companies that send it think it is a vital part of their marketing).
I also think that there are resonable areas where the public sector can meet a need that the private sector will not meet as effectively.

[bpesta22]

Francesca: Does this foundation have freedom index data for the 50 us states?

[WildCat]

I think that the USPS is a good example of the government being able to do something which is still seen as neccessary (posting letters and flyers and such), but which would be a burden to the private sector. Imagine the costs to small businesses if they had no cheap method for mass mailings (put aside the fact that most of this is considered "junk", obviously the companies that send it think it is a vital part of their marketing).
I also think that there are resonable areas where the public sector can meet a need that the private sector will not meet as effectively.
Just imagine if there was a way to send out information about your business to millions of people at the cost of a fraction of a cent per person, and delivered right to their desktop! And that didn't generate hundreds of thousands of tons of waste paper! What a great invention that would be, too bad there's no way to do that.

Excuse me while I check my email.

[WildCat]

Im happy for a third of my income to go in tax, and I'm happy with the health, welfare, education etc etc it buys.
I think how happy you are to pay taxes is highly correlated to how honest and efficient you think your government is.

Sitting where I am, in one of the most corrupt cities in one of the most corrupt counties in one of the most corrupt states in the US, my view is understandably far different than yours.

[jmcvann]

A one pound package shipped from Chicago to Los Angeles will cost you $4.90 via the USPS parcel post, and who knows when it will arrive as the USPS won't even make a claim for that. It will cost you $5.69 via FedEx ground, and it will be there in 4 days or less. Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.

Hmmm...I got my previous numbers from fedex.com, but now it won't let me get another quote without signing up. Not gonna do that.

They're losing an estimated $7 billion for fiscal year 2009 (http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_066.htm), who do you think picks up that tab?

OK...this quote makes me doubt everything else you post, since apparently you believe that the government picks up the tab for companies that lose money.

Here's the rate chart: ftp://ftp.fedex.com/pub/us/rates/downloads/documents2/Ground.pdf

Your numbers seem to be a bit off...

I'll give you this. I don't know how I got to $12.12.


So how do they pay their employees while losing billions of dollars every year?

Uh...like other companies that lost money.

Here's some USPS annual reports: http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/annual_report_2009.pdf

Note the line "Capital contributions of US government". That's known as "tax dollars" in common language.

I'm not so sure. Here's some other bits from that document:

(Page 6) As a self-funding organization operating independently of taxpayer support...(Page 25) Although by law we are required to operate as a commercial entity, fully funded by the revenues we earn, and not by tax subsidies...(Page 58) As an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States,” we receive no tax dollars for ongoing operations. We are self-supporting, and have not received an appropriation for operational costs since 1982. We fund operations chiefly through cash generated from operations and by borrowing from the Federal Financing Bank.So what are the "Capital contributions of US government" that you cite? I think I found them...

(Back to Page 25) ...our current debt is more than $10 billion, the direct result of a requirement that we pre-fund retiree health benefits through annual payments of $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion through 2016. Although we are thankful the U.S. Congress reduced that amount by $4 billion for fiscal year 2009...There's that pesky $4 billion!

When I go to a FedEx or UPS store to ship something I know the employees will always be there helping customers and the lines are short if there's lines at all.

At the post office one employee will be working while the others always seem to be on break, hiding in the back somewhere even though the line is out the door. I'd much rather pay a buck more for the convenience of not having to spend half an hour in line while 2/3 of the post office employees take their break.

I bolded the bit of science in that last post. :boggled: I see you live in Albany Park. I live in Rogers Park. Now, I've only been in Chicago for 9 years, but I've never waited more than 20 minutes at the post office, and that was during the winter solstice holidays. Every time I go in it's 5-10 minutes. Perhaps you have the crap workers in your neighborhood.


I think how happy you are to pay taxes is highly correlated to how honest and efficient you think your government is.

Sitting where I am, in one of the most corrupt cities in one of the most corrupt counties in one of the most corrupt states in the US, my view is understandably far different than yours.

More of that science stuff, eh? Well...you did say "one of..." I guess you're glad you don't live in New Orleans.

[Bob Blaylock]

For me it depends on what I get in exchange. If the government gives me clean streets, low crime, free healthcare, good schools, effective public transportation, a good pension, a strong social safety net, a thirty hour workweek and six weeks paid vacation, the government can take half my money and I would be delighted.


If government takes half of your income or more, then you are not a free person. A free person owns the fruits of his labor, or at least the majority thereof. If you pay more than half of your income in taxes, than you are allowed to keep and spend yourself, then this means that your government owns more of you than you do. This makes you a slave, and not a free person. You may be a very well cared-for slave, but you're still a slave.

[Puppycow]

Sure....and regarding your prior statement, that explains quite well how I shipped an Encyclopedia Brittanica USPS.

Those "very small boxes"...?

Heck, I used the USPS to move to Japan.
I didn't send any large furniture of course. Got rid of it and bought new stuff here.

Most domestic parcels here though are sent using private companies. The post office is mostly used for letters and postcards.

I see no reason to prohibit private companies who want to deliver mail from being allowed to do so if they can compete.

[Toke]

The public postal service operate under the economic disadvantage of being public infrastructure and have to service every mailbox in the country.
The private ones can choose to run it as a business and to stick to the bigger cities where the mailboxes are closer together.

There are sound legal reasons for wanting every household in the country to have a valid mail address, as the mail volume decrease it will at some point run at a loss.

As for education, I like the idea of free/taxpaid education for all. High school and college being rationed based on school/high school grades.

[Puppycow]

If government takes half of your income or more, then you are not a free person. A free person owns the fruits of his labor, or at least the majority thereof. If you pay more than half of your income in taxes, than you are allowed to keep and spend yourself, then this means that your government owns more of you than you do. This makes you a slave, and not a free person. You may be a very well cared-for slave, but you're still a slave.

Uh, no.

Slave: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave)1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

If you make a million dollars a year and take home $499,000, and there is no-one who is your master who can give you orders outside of a job which you voluntarily agree to do, you are not a slave.

[Toke]

I see no reason to prohibit private companies who want to deliver mail from being allowed to do so if they can compete.
That means the public postal service loose the profitable part of the mail delivery. Taxpayers will then have to pay the cost of running a nationwide delivery service at a loss. It is better for the tazpayers to monopolize mail delivery by law and keep the postal service profitable or at least without loss.
One way is to require private companies to charge for a minimum size of package.

[Bob Blaylock]

UIf you make a million dollars a year and take home $499,000, and there is no-one who is your master who can give you orders outside of a job which you voluntarily agree to do, you are not a slave.


If you don't own the fruits of your labor, then you don't own yourself. Whomever it is that does own the majority of the fruits of your labor, that is who owns you. If that is anyone but you, then you are a slave; the majority of what you earn, you earn not for yourself, but for your master.

[Blackadder]

The post office.

Neither rain nor snow nor glo m of ni t can stay these mes engers about their duty

DON'T ARSK US ABOUT:

Rocks
Trolls with sticks
Mrs Cake
All sorts of Dragons
Huje Green things with Teeth
Rains of Spaniels
fog
Mrs Cake

[lionking]

Whomever it is that does own the majority of the fruits of your labor, that is who owns you.

Where is this written in stone? And "owns you"?????

You may have an argument about taxation, but this sort of hyperbole doesn't support it.

ETA If government takes a third and I give a third to my wife who owns me then?

[Fishstick]

Where is this written in stone? And "owns you"?????

You may have an argument about taxation, but this sort of hyperbole doesn't support it.

ETA If government takes a third and I give a third to my wife who owns me then?

Your wife owns you regardless of how much you pay her :p

[Mashuna]

If you don't own the fruits of your labor, then you don't own yourself. Whomever it is that does own the majority of the fruits of your labor, that is who owns you. If that is anyone but you, then you are a slave; the majority of what you earn, you earn not for yourself, but for your master.

What an idiosyncratic definition of slavery you are using.

[ServiceSoon]

And also The Awesomest Economy. It's true. Denmark has really high taxes and its people are really happy.

Evidences in the form of a two-part podcast from Planet Money (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/):

Part One: The Awesomest Economy? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest_economy.html)
Part Two: Tax Me Please (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please.html)Happiness is subjective. That's a major flaw in the "study."

...A one pound package shipped from Chicago to Los Angeles will cost you $4.90 via the USPS parcel post, and who knows when it will arrive as the USPS won't even make a claim for that. It will cost you $5.69 via FedEx ground, and it will be there in 4 days or less. Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.Based on those rates, you’d get $100 of insurance with your FedEx shipment, USPS charges extra for that. That makes the figures very similar.

That means the public postal service loose the profitable part of the mail delivery. Taxpayers will then have to pay the cost of running a nationwide delivery service at a loss. It is better for the tazpayers to monopolize mail delivery by law and keep the postal service profitable or at least without loss.
One way is to require private companies to charge for a minimum size of package.That is a good observation. The role of government in the US is to regulate business. The US gov could make it a law to offer service to all zip codes for a reasonable price.

…
I'm not so sure. Here's some other bits from that document:

So what are the "Capital contributions of US government" that you cite? I think I found them...
…Borrowing money from the Federal Financing Bank is taxing the people.

There's that pesky $4 billion! This is a valid point. This is something that a friend of mine who works for USPS tells me regularly when I give him crap about his employer. Perhaps USPS is running a profitable and fair operation, and the requirement for them fund their retirement is the cause of their net operation loss. I don’t see a reason that this borrowing will ever end. Therefore USPS will continue to operate loosing money. The fact is that if the USPS wasn’t backed by the government (federal reserve), they would have closed the doors long ago.

I think the problem is that employees of USPS make too much money and have too many benefits. The same is true for firemen. In fact, where I live these jobs are so in demand that you have to know somebody to get in. Unless you get a little luck and want to wait 5-infinitie years.

If you don't own the fruits of your labor, then you don't own yourself. Whomever it is that does own the majority of the fruits of your labor, that is who owns you. If that is anyone but you, then you are a slave; the majority of what you earn, you earn not for yourself, but for your master.The opposite of your concern is the business owner owning you. Would you rather the business owner tax you and keep the money you earned for themselves?

I’d prefer it if the wealth of a nation was owned by the majority of people, not the minority of people. Who has your interest at heart the most? Money is power. Who do you want to have the power?

[bpesta22]

Whether happiness is subjective is an empirical question. I think it can be objectively measured. There's a recent article in Science showing that subjective measures of happiness predict object measures of well-being (though I think the science article has some problems...)

[GreyICE]

If you don't own the fruits of your labor, then you don't own yourself. Whomever it is that does own the majority of the fruits of your labor, that is who owns you. If that is anyone but you, then you are a slave; the majority of what you earn, you earn not for yourself, but for your master.

Nonsense. This is obvious garbage. If I make $50,000 a year and keep all of it, it is functionally identical if I 'make' $500,000 a year and keep 10%. It's semantics.

I am not 'a slave' in the latter case and 'a free man' in the former case. I'm paid the same amount of money for doing the same job in the same conditions and live my life exactly the same.

[AvalonXQ]

I’d prefer it if the wealth of a nation was owned by the majority of people, not the minority of people.

I'd prefer it if the wealth of a nation was owned by whomever individuals in the nation choose freely, without requirement or coercion to give it to. Hence, the whole "free market" idea.

[AvalonXQ]

Whether happiness is subjective is an empirical question. I think it can be objectively measured. There's a recent article in Science showing that subjective measures of happiness predict object measures of well-being (though I think the science article has some problems...)

My understanding is that this is accutely not the case; happiness depends on how close you are to having what you believe you are supposed to have. I have no evidence to back this up; it was taught to me in economics class. "Relative deprivation" -- people being happy despite not having modern conveniences if and only if they are ignorant of these conveniences.

[GreyICE]

My understanding is that this is accutely not the case; happiness depends on how close you are to having what you believe you are supposed to have. I have no evidence to back this up; it was taught to me in economics class. "Relative deprivation" -- people being happy despite not having modern conveniences if and only if they are ignorant of these conveniences.

Actually, a tad different. To quote wiki:
More generally, there is a significant correlation between feeling in control of one's own life and happiness levels.

Really a rather interesting article, though we're talking entire books of information lurking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics

[ServiceSoon]

Whether happiness is subjective is an empirical question. I think it can be objectively measured. There's a recent article in Science showing that subjective measures of happiness predict object measures of well-being (though I think the science article has some problems...)For the most part, I believe that happiness is a choice.

[megaresp]

If all [government] do is build a Versailles style resort for high ranking politicians and have nightly prostitute and cocaine fueled orgies, I will be screaming bloody murder if they take a tenth of my money.
Why waste your breath? Far better to become a high ranking politician if such a regime exists.

[Toke]

My understanding is that this is accutely not the case; happiness depends on how close you are to having what you believe you are supposed to have. I have no evidence to back this up; it was taught to me in economics class. "Relative deprivation" -- people being happy despite not having modern conveniences if and only if they are ignorant of these conveniences.

It does make sense, and fit the observation I have read elsewhere that Danes have a comparably high awareness of being ordinary people and therefore expect a ordinary life.

[Toke]

Why waste your breath? Far better to become a high ranking politician if such a regime exists.
Take a look at Africa.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure....and regarding your prior statement, that explains quite well how I shipped an Encyclopedia Brittanica USPS.

Those "very small boxes"...?
I don't understand what you're saying. I was pointing out that the USPS does NOT compete with large parcel--only letters and small packages.

Are you agreeing with me?

Welll..it lost billions last year. Whether or not it was funded with tax dollars or stacked atop the deficit, I cannot say.
So did a lot of businesses. Last year was bad. The claim was that it loses billions of dollars each year and that the taxpayer foots the bill. I'm skeptical of that claim.


We've quite de-railed, but I did a little looking and it seems the least you can pay to send something FedEx is something like $12.12. So that letter that costs me $0.44 to send USPS has been jacked up 27.5 times the USPS rate. If FedEx only charged 3 times the USPS rate, they might well lose billions as well.
That's what I thought.

I rather think the laws that protect the USPS monopoly on mail is about the volume and type of mail and not really based on some supposed artificially high price for sending a letter. It's clear that sending a letter by first class mail is way below what the free market would charge us for that service.

And the Post Office gets zero tax dollars.
And that's also what I thought. At the very least, I don't believe it gets billions of tax dollars each year (or the equivalent by saying it's deficit spending).

[JoeTheJuggler]

(Back to Page 25) ...our current debt is more than $10 billion, the direct result of a requirement that we pre-fund retiree health benefits through annual payments of $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion through 2016. Although we are thankful the U.S. Congress reduced that amount by $4 billion for fiscal year 2009...

There's that pesky $4 billion!

And that's not Congress funding anything. It's Congress reducing a health benefit requirement that the USPS would otherwise have to pay more for.

[bpesta22]

I think economists and psychologists have differing ideas on what happiness is. For example, the science article I mentioned above ranks the 50 us states on "life satisfaction". They then correlated satisfaction with "amenities" (sunshine hours; traffic congestion, etc).

I did so from a psych perspective-- well-being.

My ranks correlated negative! with theirs.

I guess my point is happiness is indeed something we can measure objectively, just like any other psychological construct. Whether current measures map 1:1 with the construct is another issue.

[Random]

Why waste your breath? Far better to become a high ranking politician if such a regime exists.

Not necessarily. Remember what happened to the inhabitants of Versailles.

[megaresp]

Take a look at Africa.
I'd rather not. My ancestors evolved in Europe, leaving me genetically defenceless in such a climate (I still have my finger's crossed for a rapid-onset ice age).

In the meantime, I'll have to make do with the (apparently) modest levels of whoring and corruption available to politicians here in the UK.

I hear there's an election coming up. Where do I sign?

[megaresp]

Not necessarily. Remember what happened to the inhabitants of Versailles.
Yes, an important lesson learned: Choose your corrupt regime carefully

France is a nation of action-orientated trouble-makers, and is best avoided as a location for this scheme. Meanwhile, the UK has a relatively wealthy population that love moaning about things while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing about it. It's clearly the perfect jurisdiction.

The weather can be a challenge, but I'm sure I can have my lacky scientists whip up something to keep the rain and snow away from the elite.

[Praktik]

If government takes half of your income or more, then you are not a free person. A free person owns the fruits of his labor, or at least the majority thereof. If you pay more than half of your income in taxes, than you are allowed to keep and spend yourself, then this means that your government owns more of you than you do. This makes you a slave, and not a free person. You may be a very well cared-for slave, but you're still a slave.

Sounds like an invitation to drug dealing. They get to keep all the fruits of their labour as long as they stay under the radar. No taxes no nothing - just have to answer their cellphone at all hours...

Sounds to me that using Bob's measure the "free-est" are those participating in the black market.

[megaresp]

Sounds to me that using Bob's measure the "free-est" are those participating in the black market.
Homeless beggars are also completely free under this definition.

Here in the UK, anybody earning less than £6,475 in the coming tax year can also revel in their freedom (0% tax payable on first £6,475 of income).

Of course, some of us silly slaves actually like the house we live in, its central heating, its Internet connection and cable TV, the car on the drive outside, and the disposible income that buys new clothes, music, movies, lattes and so on. The garbage collection, healthcare, fresh drinkable water and sewage disposal isn't too shabby either.

I guess all this abject luxury is the shocking price of freedom in modern Britain.

[ZirconBlue]

Mail service is a great example where the government does a crappy job compared to the private sector.
If you don't care how long it'll take to get there or how damaged it will be but want to save money, stick a stamp on it.
If you actually need it to get there, call UPS.

Unless, of course, you're mailing to an area not serviced by UPS. Of course, they're not going to deliver it for $0.44, either. But, hey, screw rural people! If they want postal service they can move to the city like everyone else.

And, really, how often are items damaged when sent USPS? I've had a couple of things damaged. . . . in my life (I'm 38). As a percentage of the number of pieces of mail delivered to me, the number that arrive damaged is an infinitesimal percentage.

And although they don't guarantee delivery times on many services, the postal worker can tell you when it's expected to arrive, within +/- 1 day.

A one pound package shipped from Chicago to Los Angeles will cost you $4.90 via the USPS parcel post, and who knows when it will arrive as the USPS won't even make a claim for that. It will cost you $5.69 via FedEx ground, and it will be there in 4 days or less. Slightly more expensive, but not really comparable service either.

You could send it Priority Mail for $4.95 if it will fit in a flat rate box($5.35, otherwise), which usually delivers in 2 days.

[blutoski]

Mail service is a great example where the government does a crappy job compared to the private sector.
If you don't care how long it'll take to get there or how damaged it will be but want to save money, stick a stamp on it.
If you actually need it to get there, call UPS.

I think that's apples and oranges. Is first class mail the same product as courier? The post office will courier, too... for a higher price.

The PS has other mandates: to maintain a uniform price to all locations in the nation, and to provide free postage for communication to your political representatives.

Here in Canada, we have a similar system. I had a friend who ranted about what a bad deal it was that it took 2 days and 45c to get mail across the street. However, when he moved to Clo Oose, he discovered that UPS "doesn't go there" and FedEx will move a letter for $6 and he has to pick it up at the depot in town.

What I find confusing is that often it's the people benefitting from the subsidies who rail against the principle. ("Don't touch my Medicare.")

[Bikewer]

It does seem that "tax" is perhaps the vilest word that can be uttered by many Americans....
I know that when asked what they expect from government, most folks will list the usual items; a strong military, good police protection, good roads, social security, medicare, etc, etc.
However, when asked how these desireable items are to be paid for, "increasing taxes" are not on the list.

I have generally ascribed to the old saying, "taxes are the lubricant of democracy."

[blutoski]

Homeless beggars are also completely free under this definition.

Anatole France:The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.

[pgwenthold]

Unless, of course, you're mailing to an area not serviced by UPS. Of course, they're not going to deliver it for $0.44, either. But, hey, screw rural people! If they want postal service they can move to the city like everyone else.

It's not even that.

If I send a letter to my parents, it will cost 44 cents, and will arrive at their local post office, which is about 2 blocks from their house, in about 2 - 3 days. They don't have home delivery, living in town, but the farmers in the community do, and they get their mail delivered to their house.

However, if I send a package by FedEx, they have to drive 12 miles to the nearest FedEx delivery place, because FedEx doesn't deliver to their town. Even then, they have to wait a few days or more for there to be a big enough shipment from the nearest metropolis to get there. No, FedEx does not get it there when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight. And it costs me many dollars more (not 3 times, that is for sure).

That's the thing the USPS does that private couriers don't touch - rural delivery. If it were left to private couriers, the rural community would not have regular mail delivery in the least. Oh sure, anyone can deliver mail in the city for cheap, and even between cities. However, it costs a heck of a lot more to reach everyone.

[Praktik]

especially true for a giant, thinly populated country like Canada

[WildCat]

I bolded the bit of science in that last post. :boggled: I see you live in Albany Park. I live in Rogers Park. Now, I've only been in Chicago for 9 years, but I've never waited more than 20 minutes at the post office, and that was during the winter solstice holidays. Every time I go in it's 5-10 minutes. Perhaps you have the crap workers in your neighborhood.
In the 5 1/2 years I've lived in Albany Park I use the post office on Lawrence, just west of Western. I've seen the line literally out the door on occasion. Prior to that I lived in Lincoln Park, and went to the post office on Ashland near Belmont. Same thing there. Maybe I'll go up to Rogers Park next time...

More of that science stuff, eh? Well...you did say "one of..." I guess you're glad you don't live in New Orleans.
I'm positive NO has nothing on Chicago when it comes to corruption. Chicago, Cook County, and the state don't even investigate corruption as far as I can tell. Ever see Lisa Madigan investigate anything? If the feds don't do it, no one will. Well, maybe they'll go after a little fish once in a while if they're not playing ball with the big fish. But Daley, Stroger, Lisa's daddy, etc etc have nothing to fear from anyone but the feds.

eta: Do you think Daley, Stroger, et al are using your tax money wisely? How about Daley's TIF districts, the revenues of which he refuses to account for?

[kevinquinnyo]

If you use FedEx or UPS for "non-urgent" mail, you can be fined by the USPIS.

If the USPS is so great and cheap, why does the monopoly need to be enforced?

If you think it's because people in rural, or hard to deliver areas would suffer, think again.

Right now, urban mailboxes subsidize rural mailboxes.

Where you decide to live, or end up living, entails certain costs and benefits. The cost of delivering mail should be a part of that decision.

That said, the USPS is surprisingly reliable, for a quasi governmental organization.

[elbe]

In the 5 1/2 years I've lived in Albany Park I use the post office on Lawrence, just west of Western. I've seen the line literally out the door on occasion. Prior to that I lived in Lincoln Park, and went to the post office on Ashland near Belmont. Same thing there. Maybe I'll go up to Rogers Park next time...

While my current PO is just a small town office (down in Will county) with only two available stations, though generally only with one staffed unless the line get long (like more than 3 people), the office where I grew up was much larger and I've seen the line there quite long - the few times I had to go there. I still feel that reliable service is more important than how much trouble it is for me to ship it - if my package is all beat up then what's the point of having a quick line?

I just trust the USPS more than the private shippers, but that's just personal opinion.

[ZirconBlue]

If you use FedEx or UPS for "non-urgent" mail, you can be fined by the USPIS.

What? How do you determine that something is "non-urgent"?


If the USPS is so great and cheap, why does the monopoly need to be enforced?

If you think it's because people in rural, or hard to deliver areas would suffer, think again.


Do you deny that they would?

Right now, urban mailboxes subsidize rural mailboxes.

Perfect! Spread the cost around, so that everyone has affordable and reliable mail delivery.


Where you decide to live, or end up living, entails certain costs and benefits. The cost of delivering mail should be a part of that decision.


I disagree. And I love how you seem think that everyone can just pack up and move. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what it's really like to be poor.

That said, the USPS is surprisingly reliable, for a quasi governmental organization.

What governmental (quasi or otherwise) organizations are unreliable?

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

Perfect! Spread the cost around, so that everyone has affordable and reliable mail delivery.


It costs more to send mail to people who live on an island only accessible by boat or helicopter. So why should I pay for part of that cost?

Should we also subsidize lobster? I'm sure it's cheaper to buy lobster in Alaska than here in Georgia, why do I have to pay 18 dollars for a lobster? It's not fair! Let's spread the cost around!


I disagree. And I love how you seem think that everyone can just pack up and move. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about what it's really like to be poor.


I didn't say they can just pack up and move. I certainly can't just pack up and move if I want cheaper lobster. Everything about where you live is bundled into the cost of living where you do. Sending and receiving mail should be no different.



What governmental (quasi or otherwise) organizations are unreliable?


You name it.

[GreyICE]

It costs more to send mail to people who live on an island only accessible by boat or helicopter. So why should I pay for part of that cost?

Should we also subsidize lobster? I'm sure it's cheaper to buy lobster in Alaska than here in Georgia, why do I have to pay 18 dollars for a lobster? It's not fair! Let's spread the cost around!
The courts have ruled in the past that there's a significant difference between free speech and commodities. For instance, you have no right to 'lobster access.' The same cannot be said for free speech.

Therefore your analogy collapses. A better analogy would be telephone calls, or internet access, or cell phone costs.

[kevinquinnyo]

The courts have ruled in the past that there's a significant difference between free speech and commodities. For instance, you have no right to 'lobster access.' The same cannot be said for free speech.

Therefore your analogy collapses. A better analogy would be telephone calls, or internet access, or cell phone costs.


Well, I don't know what the courts have ruled on this subject.

But I would assume that you have the right to free speech is not the same as affordable access to doing so.

I have a right to make a blog where I can speak my mind to the world, but I don't have a "right" to be given affordable adspace and capital to promote my blog or buy google adwords to make my page rank #1.

[Ausmerican]

A combination of USPS and Australia Post have been getting packages back and forth between my family and I in less than a week for the last decade. Whether I was in CT, FL or AZ. Insured and cheaper than any other route I have found.

Average time from Phoenix, AZ to Wollongong, NSW is 5 business days. I have regularly been shipped things from a company on the other side of the U.S. Sometimes they ship UPS sometimes USPS. Delivery time is the same, about 3-4 business days.

And parcel damage is the same as well, very rare.

[jimtron]

I think this is the specific Planet Money article mentioned in the OP:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest_economy.html

[ZirconBlue]

It costs more to send mail to people who live on an island only accessible by boat or helicopter. So why should I pay for part of that cost?

In part, because all citizens have the right to petition their representatives in Congress. Access to mail isn't some luxury, at least not in First World countries.


You name it.

Police? Firefighters? Public Schools? Snow removal services? NASA?

Some of them seem pretty darn reliable to me.

[GreyICE]

Well, I don't know what the courts have ruled on this subject.

But I would assume that you have the right to free speech is not the same as affordable access to doing so. Yes, it exactly is the same as affordable access to doing so. There is no such thing as "Free speech if you pay $1 million."

I have a right to make a blog where I can speak my mind to the world, but I don't have a "right" to be given affordable adspace and capital to promote my blog or buy google adwords to make my page rank #1. No, but in the United States of America, if someone gained enough power in the marketplace make a geographic or demographic fee on blog costs (it costs X if you're in KY, and XX if you're in TX, and Y if you're in NY; or 18-25 pay N, 26-35 pay P) you'd be in really deep legal doo-doo. The fact of the matter is the architecture of the Internet has widely prevented anything like this, and the simple fact of the matter is that it is not at all feasible for anyone to gain a monopoly on "Blog hosting" or "Blogs from the state of Texas" and thus the idea is entirely moot. In fact I could fire up my desktop, purchase a domain name (the cost of which is regulated by the US Government) and launch a blog using that. So your comparison is so technically infeasible to be laughable, the equivalent of asking "why do we need a measure to control horse dung on streets since we don't put diapers on cars?"

In fact, the idea is taken so seriously that here you can see the FCC commissioner discussing broadband access as a civil right:
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/12/broadband-touted-as-civil-righ.php

[Francesca R]

The courts have ruled in the past that there's a significant difference between free speech and commodities. The "postal clause" in the US constitution must be one of the weakest arguments out there for a USPS letter monopoly and nationwide mandatory pricing.
A better analogy would be telephone calls, or internet access, or cell phone costs.Quite . . . none of which were around to substitute for the Pony Express when Article 1 was penned.

[Francesca R]

It costs more to send mail to people who live on an island only accessible by boat or helicopter. So why should I pay for part of that cost?I agree (and have said in other threads) that the logic behind subsidy of mail is weak. Certainly it does not justify a state owned provider running it or a monopoly. Even if the pricing thing is retained, competition (with public service mandates) would be better.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=134213&highlight=USPS

[BigSlowTarget]

Given the satisfaction level I wonder why there's such a brain drain (20% of Danish born scientists leave the country to work and many Danes live and work in London). Could it be they are happy to get a free education, leave the country to work and earn at lower tax rates and then return to collect pensions?

[lomiller]

It costs more to send mail to people who live on an island only accessible by boat or helicopter. So why should I pay for part of that cost?

Because you receive indirect benefits that are not accounted for in the mailing of the letter.



Should we also subsidize lobster?

You already do. Lobster fishing requires a coast guard, and that requires tax dollars. The existence of a coast guard enables a whole range of economic activities in coastal areas. You benefit from this in the form of products, lower prices, economic opportunities, national security and reciprocity as these areas grow over the long term.

[BeAChooser]

Denmark has a number of things going for it that might be responsible for it's happiness. But can we duplicate them here?

The country is tiny. It's population has been about 5 million people since the 1970s. Maybe they are happier because their problems just don't seem as overwhelmingly big and intractable … because they aren't. That's bound to make anyone happier.

There is little illegal immigration. In fact, Denmark has some of the strictest immigration policies in Europe (which are almost draconian compared to ours). Maybe Danes are happy because they don't have illegals abusing them like we do and because they feel their government is doing the one job it is really supposed to do … protecting them from foreign invasion.

The populace is ethnically homogenous. In fact, almost 91% of the populace are native born Danes. They speak a common language. They also share a common heritage and culture. And there is basically one religion … Protestant. Maybe Danes are happier because racism is a word they rarely hear because there essentially are no other races in Denmark. Maybe they are happier because the racial mix has remained constant for decades … they aren't worried about an ethnic group with completely different values taking over. And isn't it a demonstrable fact that people tend to be more comfortable (happier) when living in neighborhoods with people more like them? Why else do people of different ethnicities tend to group together in the US? But then those different groupings lead to problems … don't they … problems that Danes don't have to face.

The Danish government is a constitutional monarchy. And the King is not just a figurehead. And overall there is actually much less bureaucracy than in the US. That sure would make me happier.

It's a society bases on consensus, not lawyers. Do you know that the total number of lawyers in Denmark was 4900 in 2006. That's, per capita, 1 per 1000. That's per capita about one-fourth the number of lawyers in the US. Far fewer lawyers is bound to make anyone happier.

Danish society has no social status. Lawyers are … well … no better than garbagemen. They live right next to one another. The Danes really mean it when they say Jantelov: you're no better than anyone else.

Danes aren't particularly materialistic. Their expectations are more modest which is likely to lead to being happier with life. They best not be high given the lower disposable income (courtesy of the lower per capita GDP and the much higher tax rate), smaller houses and the cost of everyday items (e.g., gas is over $8 a gallon).

About half as many Danes get a college education as Americans. And universities do seem to breed discontent with society … no matter where the society? In Denmark, central planners decide how many doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc the society needs. More people go into trades. If we were honest with ourselves, perhaps a lot of people would be happier learning a trade than being a community organizer or a lawyer or ethnic studies major. :D

Some drugs are legal. Maybe that's why Danes are happier. They also are heavier drinkers and smokers than Americans. :D

If you go to the Danish government's website, it proclaims “the present configuration of the country is the result of 400 years of forced relinquishments of land, surrenders and lost battles." Maybe being weaker is the key to happiness? Or it's that expectation thing again. Americans expect more of their country achievement-wise, so when it doesn't achieve what we expect, we end up unhappier. Does that mean we should stop trying to achieve great things?

Danish society is also a little safer. The murder rate in 2000 was about 20% less than in the US. The incidence of rape per capita was about one-third that of the US. And there were about one-third as many robberies. But there were twice as many burglaries and more auto thefts. According to Interpol (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/denmark.html ) the rate for all index offenses combined was 3793.12 for Denmark, compared with 4123.97 for USA. And when people feel safe they feel happier. But why is Denmark safer? Because they have fewer immigrants? Less diversity? Now you might claim its because socialism takes care of people so they need not commit crimes. But the violent crime rate in Denmark has increased 700% since 1960, a period when the Danish standard of living doubled. Hmmmmm ...

[GreyICE]

There is little illegal immigration. In fact, Denmark has some of the strictest immigration policies in Europe (which are almost draconian compared to ours). Maybe Danes are happy because they don't have illegals abusing them like we do and because they feel their government is doing the one job it is really supposed to do … protecting them from foreign invasion.

The populace is ethnically homogenous. In fact, almost 91% of the populace are native born Danes. They speak a common language. They also share a common heritage and culture. And there is basically one religion … Protestant. Maybe Danes are happier because racism is a word they rarely hear because there essentially are no other races in Denmark. Maybe they are happier because the racial mix has remained constant for decades … they aren't worried about an ethnic group with completely different values taking over. And isn't it a demonstrable fact that people tend to be more comfortable (happier) when living in neighborhoods with people more like them? Why else do people of different ethnicities tend to group together in the US? But then those different groupings lead to problems … don't they … problems that Danes don't have to face.
Oh wow. It's like Arcade22 hijacked this post. Damn it, I told you not to drink Swedish Vodka to get the requisite posting numbers!


The Danish government is a constitutional monarchy. And the King is not just a figurehead. And overall there is actually much less bureaucracy than in the US. That sure would make me happier.

It's a society bases on consensus, not lawyers. Do you know that the total number of lawyers in Denmark was 4900 in 2006. That's, per capita, 1 per 1000. That's per capita about one-fourth the number of lawyers in the US. Far fewer lawyers is bound to make anyone happier.

Danish society has no social status. Lawyers are … well … no better than garbagemen. They live right next to one another. The Danes really mean it when they say Jantelov: you're no better than anyone else.

Danes aren't particularly materialistic. Their expectations are more modest which is likely to lead to being happier with life. They best not be high given the lower disposable income (courtesy of the lower per capita GDP and the much higher tax rate), smaller houses and the cost of everyday items (e.g., gas is over $8 a gallon).
Ow. This kibishes one of the central tenants of libertarianism and limited government 'pure capitalism.' (More money makes the population, on average, better off). Are you sure you wanted to go that way?

About half as many Danes get a college education as Americans. And universities do seem to breed discontent with society … no matter where the society? In Denmark, central planners decide how many doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc the society needs. More people go into trades. If we were honest with ourselves, perhaps a lot of people would be happier learning a trade than being a community organizer or a lawyer or ethnic studies major. :DThis seems, err... untrue. As in false.

Some drugs are legal. Maybe that's why Danes are happier. They also are heavier drinkers and smokers than Americans. :DOh wow, that's another Republican party platform we just deep sixed. Where are you going with this?

If you go to the Danish government's website, it proclaims “the present configuration of the country is the result of 400 years of forced relinquishments of land, surrenders and lost battles." Maybe being weaker is the key to happiness? Or it's that expectation thing again. Americans expect more of their country achievement-wise, so when it doesn't achieve what we expect, we end up unhappier. Does that mean we should stop trying to achieve great things?

Danish society is also a little safer. The murder rate in 2000 was about 20% less than in the US. The incidence of rape per capita was about one-third that of the US. And there were about one-third as many robberies. But there were twice as many burglaries and more auto thefts. According to Interpol (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/denmark.html ) the rate for all index offenses combined was 3793.12 for Denmark, compared with 4123.97 for USA. And when people feel safe they feel happier. But why is Denmark safer? Because they have fewer immigrants? Less diversity? Now you might claim its because socialism takes care of people so they need not commit crimes. But the violent crime rate in Denmark has increased 700% since 1960, a period when the Danish standard of living doubled. Hmmmmm ... Your source does not support your statement, and comparisons of crime statistics are notoriously complicated due to classification differences.

[BigSlowTarget]

Your source does not support your statement, and comparisons of crime statistics are notoriously complicated due to classification differences.

I found his stats about a third of the way down the page though the increase from 1960 - present was not listed there. As for stats being complicated, that website looks pretty dedicated to the subject and attached to a reliable university.

As for college education mels.gouv.qc.ca/STAT/indic03/indic03A/ia03509.pdf says it's 9.2pct vs 33.2 pct so I guess those stats are wrong, but they aren't low. I couldn't find anything on central planning - that would be unusual and a reference would be helpful

[GreyICE]

I found his stats about a third of the way down the page though the increase from 1960 - present was not listed there. As for stats being complicated, that website looks pretty dedicated to the subject and attached to a reliable university.

As for college education mels.gouv.qc.ca/STAT/indic03/indic03A/ia03509.pdf says it's 9.2pct vs 33.2 pct so I guess those stats are wrong, but they aren't low. I couldn't find anything on central planning - that would be unusual and a reference would be helpful
Reference: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Compiling-and-comparing-International-Crime-Statistics.html

That should give you a quick overview of the subject. I'm surprised that you didn't find anything, that was the first result in my google search. Regardless, it's laughably easy to find that information.

[jayh]

I read recently (I'd have to dig the reference) that if France became a US state, in adjusted standard of living it would be ahead of only West Virginia and Mississippi

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the 5 1/2 years I've lived in Albany Park I use the post office on Lawrence, just west of Western. I've seen the line literally out the door on occasion. Prior to that I lived in Lincoln Park, and went to the post office on Ashland near Belmont. Same thing there. Maybe I'll go up to Rogers Park next time...

Nah--nobody goes to the Rogers Park P.O. The line's too long!
</Yogi Berra mode>

[JoeTheJuggler]

I read recently (I'd have to dig the reference) that if France became a US state, in adjusted standard of living it would be ahead of only West Virginia and Mississippi

I once read that Elvis is still alive.

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
About half as many Danes get a college education as Americans. And universities do seem to breed discontent with society … no matter where the society? In Denmark, central planners decide how many doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc the society needs. More people go into trades. If we were honest with ourselves, perhaps a lot of people would be happier learning a trade than being a community organizer or a lawyer or ethnic studies major.

This seems, err... untrue. As in false.

Which part of the above are you claiming is false, GreyICE?

Because http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-09-06-higher-education_x.htm states the percentage of students going to college and completing a degree are as follows in each country:

College Participation:

United States 35%
Denmark 20%

College completion:

Denmark 23%
United States 17%

Multiplying those two statistics:

United States 0.35 * 0.17 = 0.0805
Denmark 0.20 * 0.23 = 0.046

So the ratio is 0.046/0.0805 = 0.57

I'd say that's pretty close to one-half.

Or are you trying to claim the Danes have no central planners where education is concerned? Because that would be untrue … as in false. Here:

http://www.udiverden.dk/default.aspx?id=3764


The Ministers responsible for higher education may fix a maximum number of student admissions within certain fields of study. Apart from that, individual institutions may have restricted admission for certain fields of study.


:D


Danish society is also a little safer. The murder rate in 2000 was about 20% less than in the US. The incidence of rape per capita was about one-third that of the US. And there were about one-third as many robberies. But there were twice as many burglaries and more auto thefts. According to Interpol (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rw...e/denmark.html ) the rate for all index offenses combined was 3793.12 for Denmark, compared with 4123.97 for USA. And when people feel safe they feel happier. But why is Denmark safer? Because they have fewer immigrants? Less diversity? Now you might claim its because socialism takes care of people so they need not commit crimes. But the violent crime rate in Denmark has increased 700% since 1960, a period when the Danish standard of living doubled. Hmmmmm ...

Your source does not support your statement

Never the less, all the statistics I cited are correct.

and comparisons of crime statistics are notoriously complicated due to classification differences.

I doubt classification differences of the crimes I mentioned are all that different between the two societies. And if you don't like the Interpols index for comparing all offenses, tell it to Interpol. :D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by jayh
I read recently (I'd have to dig the reference) that if France became a US state, in adjusted standard of living it would be ahead of only West Virginia and Mississippi

I once read that Elvis is still alive.


The trick is in knowing one is true and the other false. One has actual evidence to back up the claim. The other doesn't. Guess you're having trouble with that, Joe. :D

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/ms-per-capita-gdp-ppp-higher-than-eu.html


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SqVEXe7MudI/AAAAAAAALQY/hj8sjsavCoQ/s1600-h/gdpworld.jpg

The chart above displays GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita in 2008 using data from the CIA World Factbook (data available here) for various European countries, the European Union as a group, Japan, and the U.S. The chart also shows an estimate of GDP per capita for America's poorest state of Mississippi ($34,968), adjusted for purchasing power by applying a factor of .7439 to U.S. per capita GDP adjusted for PPP of $47,000, based on Mississippi's unadjusted GDP per capita compared to the U.S. average (data here).