After I Lived in Norway, America Felt Backward. Here’s Why.

http://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/

"....He believes, he added, in “a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires.” That certainly sounds like Norway. For ages, they’ve worked at producing things for the use of everyone—not the profit of a few—so I was all ears, waiting for Sanders to spell it out for Americans.
But Hillary Clinton quickly countered, “We are not Denmark.” Smiling, she said, “I love Denmark,” and then delivered a patriotic punch line: “We are the United States of America.” ..." Silly Hillary....not realizing that, consistently, Scandinavian people consider themselves much, much, happier than Americans....What do you want in life? accumulate stuff, feeling always unhappy for the things you can't afford or, be happy?

 

This sentiment is sadly all too common. Why is "being political" something to be avoided? Does it boil down to simple conflict-aversion? If so, how can we ever expect people to actually think about and discuss issues?
(though I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume it's just because it's the Quality Forum )

Maybe I too should avoid politics on this forum ...but I can't resist:

With respect to "We are not Denmark": Hillary's eye-rolling patriotic political pandering aside, I don't see why this statement is so absurd.
Culture, demographics, history, and populations ARE important. The idea that simply mimicking political systems elements from one country will translate into the same outcomes in a very different country is, in my opinion, fundamentally irrational.
...not to mention correlation and causation issues when it comes to assessing things like happiness.

 

It is not absurd, but, evokes the stupid notion of the exceptionalism of the USA. No sane person would think we should mimic anything that has been forged over centuries elsewhere, but we should LEARN that other CAPITALIST societies have been able to tame income and wealth inequality, while providing fair and just general access to great-quality education, healthcare, job security and general well-being of the population.

Most Americans are so oblivious of what happens elsewhere, they can't fathom other countries where the people is, by far, much, much happier, despite the fact they have less material possessions.

 

I don't know where the bounds of "political" are, I would consider the discussion sociological, myself. I suppose the concepts have a lot of overlap...

I agree with both above statements, but hasten to point out that the next step (if taken) is not to look for governance, but leadership.
Personally, I don't think that leadership will come from within the established framework of government...I can't see how it could function if it were.

All humans have something to learn from all other humans. All societies have something to learn from all other societies.

Until the "majority" (or at least a significant group) vote with their consumer purchasing habits, wealth inequality will remain.
Legislating the thing is governance...and what is needed is leadership which affects the hearts and minds.
Until "the people" care enough about change to fund the change willingly, it will be a slow and rocky road.
Wrap that all together...it starts with education of the following generations, and thus establishing the mindset of the society.
...My opinion anyway...

 

Would you agree that capitalism and centralized-regulation are diametrically opposed?

Being in this industry (quality & regulatory) has really demonstrated to me the nature of this relationship and how tenuous a balance it is. Increased regulation necessarily interferes with free-market. Also, there are good concepts (e.g. ISO 13485) which tend to get perverted when assimilated by a regulatory framework.

The bottom-line is this: we should all be careful what we ask for...
Emphasizing a perceived injustice (e.g. wealth inequality), and then proposing government intervention to solve it certainly makes good politics, as this is a highly palatable over-simplification. Good politics, bad policy, IMHO.

 

...yet in all of these things, it is the SOURCE of the "regulation" (IMO) that is at the root of most disagreement on this topic.

You bring up Ayn Rand's preferred style of capitalism...
One example from there (re: the Source of the change) is Henry Reardon acknowledging permission for "the people" to regulate or curtail his profits...
not by government regulation, but by people choosing to not buy his product.

Derivatives could only multiply losses for those who chose to buy them.
That they ere offered is a shame, but if the buyers knew the full risk I wonder what would have really happened.
It is the lack of due diligence, or the express choice not to learn, the basis of the investment, or the sides funded by purchasing the product that I believe is the root of the issue. Regulation can struggle to keep a lid on this, but does not address the root cause. Intentional or unintentional lack of knowledge...thus my previous post re: education.

 

Is economic equality spelled anywhere in the American constitution?

 

You would think "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would generally include something about morality and not shafting everyone else in the process.

 

I didn't ask whether it was implied. I asked whether it was mentioned, and it was a genuine question (I'm not from the US).

Once something is left for interpretation, one must accept that interpretations will vary. If you ask me, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is anything but implying economical equality, and the only morality it clearly conveys is "Thou shall not kill or enslave another person".

 

I disagree. Generally speaking (depending on your definitions), life, liberty, and happiness are not dependent on economic status over-and-above meeting basic needs.

The reality is that most of the population has higher life-expectancy and more opportunity than generations past. As far as happiness goes, as far as I know no positive correlation between happiness and vast wealth has been established.

On a macro level, I don't know how much the general public is actually being "shafted". Sure there are those accumulating ridiculous fortunes, and there are others struggling day-to-day, but the fact is that we live in a time of unprecedented abundance, and I think it's easy to lose sight of this when we focus on how much money the next guy has.

 

Yay! Great discussion!

"We" is the majority of people living in modern Western democracies. I think there is a tendency to focus on dollar figures rather than actual outcomes. For example:

• College is expensive, sure. ....but more people have post-secondary education than ever before, and college enrollment continues to climb (for better or for worse )
• Medicine can be expensive, sure. ...but average life expectancy is higher than it's ever been.

By "unprecedented abundance", I simply mean there are privileges to the time-and-place in which we live that are easy to take for granted when the focus is on dollars. Because of the times we live in, we tend to take things like cars, air-conditioning, cutting-edge medicine, food abundance, instantaneous communication, etc., etc., for granted and hence when wealthy individuals have these things in greater abundance it's perceived as an injustice. ...but this is to ignore that, not too long ago, the gaps would have been even greater.

Consider the following:

• These days, just about anyone can go and get a pineapple from the supermarket in the middle of winter. A couple generations ago, such a luxury was only available to the wealthy.
• Today, the vast majority of people will have the opportunity to travel great distances in their lifetime...something formerly only in the realm of the wealthy.
• My cell-phone has nearly the exact same (practical) capabilities as those used by billionaires...whereas not too long ago, I simply would not have had access to the same technologies.

Sure, the wealthy may still enjoy these privileges in greater abundance or luxury, but the fact is that in terms of real-world benefits, the gap between rich and poor is, IMHO, actually shrinking.

In my view, this is an issue with delivery being monopolized by government. Government as a service provider is subject to the same difficulties as any other provider. Like any other institution, they are not immune to bad-decisions, mismanagement, inefficiencies, and financial burdens. The problem is that there is no alternative, and little disincentivising consequences when they fail to deal with these difficulties. If Evian water were found to have lead in their bottled water, they couldn't get away with a "lack of funding" excuse. The company would quickly suffer huge fallout in support, and competing companies would be strongly incentivized to demonstrate that they are more capable. These controls simply don't exist when service-provision is exclusively controlled.

Yes, in this case the public is being "shafted". ...but the root-cause, in my opinion, has nothing to do with wealth inequality.

 

The fact that US economy keeps going is an indicator that US consumers (as a group) continue to consume more than the essentials, thus continuing to "support your economy". Had they retreated to bare essentials, the economy would have collapsed already.

Constitutions are not about details and specifics. They're about setting the principles from which details and specifics can be derived, through the evolving times. If economic equality, or for that matter basic well-being guarantee for all, were among the founding principles, they were more likely to be guarded against the perils of our time. Public policies are always a set of compromises; why should something which is not in the constitution be prioritized over something which is?

 

@Ronen E: not a problem, no expectations, this is a civil forum for discussion... and expanding our knowledge-base.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is not part of our constitution, but is stated in our Declaration of Independence (4-July-1776). I am sure the originators of this document did not anticipate the amount of greed and corruption that many politicians (worldwide) and corporations have fallen into. I am sure they "implied" that ones own pursuit of happiness should not entail the degradation of others' pursuit of happiness.

You are correct, it should not be based on the economy and possessions, but the 'general consensus' in this country is the more wealth and material possessions you have the happier you are... and most of this is driven by the corporations and businessmen who want as much profit at ANY cost (even if it means the class-divide increases). Look at what is being spent on advertising, lobbyists, etc. it all comes back to making the money by any means.

To quote Jennifer "with so much money flowing to people who play risks because they know there is no consequence"... Madoff, Ponzi, ENRON, are just a few.