Comment by graycat
2 years ago
You are in Denmark? WOW!! From here in the US, my impression of Denmark is a small country of really smart people with gorgeous women having really good lives!!! Your post questions that impression ....
Here in the US, there are what seem to be related issues. Opinions about what is wrong and why differ. It can seem that we don't address the issues or what is wrong, for example, it can appear that the media believes that making clear the issues and faults are too deep for the audience of the media. For example, so far I've yet to see good engineering style graphs of even the basic measures from the economy, health, education, happiness, etc. In simple terms, the birth rate is so low we are going extinct -- some graphs over time might provide some insight. To avoid going extinct should be worth some graphs of related data?
Here is one guess: Some people want more government involvement, activity, services, ..., at the national level. Involved are money and power, money collected from taxes and/or borrowed and then spent and the people spending the money getting power. Then for the money the guess is that the spending is too inefficient, that is, too often wasted. For the power, it can stop what might be solutions. So, with the waste, we are throwing away our efforts, and with the power we are blocked from better approaches.
For this view, the US has some old images, from history, the movies, some parts of education, and even from some of recent history: So, the old images are from, say, the movie The Big Sky from the 1830s of 20 or so men and one Native Indian woman leaving Saint Louis on the Mississippi River (major US river from the north east going south and dumping into the Gulf of Mexico) and the Missouri River (from the northwest of the US close to the Pacific Ocean and flowing ~2000 miles to the Mississippi) to trade with the Blackfoot tribe to give them woven blankets, guns, tools and get beaver pelts.
The whole effort was lawless, that is, no government, laws, police, political power, regulations. So there was fighting, killing. No medical care, so there was suffering. There were lots of injuries from struggles with the river. It was all highly risky with lots of struggles and losses but in the end successful.
There were more such movies about the US, people on their own, risking everything, fighting, struggling, having failures, in the end being successful. There was Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers (had a bicycle shop), etc.
To the present, there were two guys at Stanford University in a project for indexing the contents of libraries. They thought of indexing the Web sites on the Internet and were offered ~$1 million for their work and Web site. They turned down the $1 million, started a company, and had success. It was all risky. It's now worth ~$1 trillion, called Google. Other successes, risky, one or a few founders, include Microsoft, Walmart, FedEx, Facebook, Amazon, Burger King, McDonald's. One guy, sole, solo founder, used some old Dell computers, an early version of Microsoft's Windows and Web software ASP.NET, built a romantic matchmaking service, grew it, ..., and sold out for ~$550 million.
Mostly these successes are examples of significant increases in economic productivity, that is, how much utility get from each hour of work. Personal computers? Killed off the typewriters with just astounding increases in productivity; same for email; Zoom, .... In cars, using digital electronics to get fuel mixture and spark timing a lot better resulted in the engines lasting much longer -- if looked carefully into what was going on with the old carburetors and breaker point ignitions and the huge ways they were wrong (unburned gasoline diluted the engine oil and, thus, wore out the main engine parts) can understand. Tires -- progress in the synthetic rubber chemistry made the tires last much longer, maybe 5 times as long.
The theme is, as in the movie, leave individuals with a minimum of taxes and government power and let them try and take the risks. The victories can generate massive increases in productivity, wealth, and a better life.
Heck, I like music, A. Vivaldi, J. Bach, ..., S. Barber. Used to be, had to go to live performances. Then we got audio tapes, vinyl records, CDs, DVDs, and the Internet. So, now just from a few keystrokes I can get terrific performances of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons, Bach's Chaconne, ... Barber's Adagio for Strings.
Those are some of the ideas that have floated around. Money and power: The idea that just these two are the main causes of all of society's problems is tough to accept. But, for the problems in Denmark, maybe these two should get some attention.
I think the big successes that you describe are the exception rather than the rule. I think you'll find the majority of economic success comes from simple rent seeking -- whether literally as landlord, or as financial service, or otherwise being in middle.
With all the significant increases in economic productivity that has not benefited the average American. We can see historically that as productivity has increased, the wealth of individuals has decreased. We like to think of utopia where increased productivity means we would all get to work less and have more but that isn't how capitalism works. We have made everything significantly more efficient and continue to do so but who is benefiting? For most people things are getting worse because that is actually more efficient.
> leave individuals with a minimum of taxes and government power and let them try and take the risks.
Living in a country with a good social safety net is pretty helpful for risk taking. It's a lot easier to quit your job and start a business when you don't have to worry about losing health care and potentially dying or going bankrupt.
> I think the big successes that you describe are the exception rather than the rule. I think you'll find the majority of economic success comes from simple rent seeking -- whether literally as landlord, or as financial service, or otherwise being in middle.
So, $1 trillion companies versus some guy with $400K a year from 15 well run convenience stores, .... We have a lot of both.
> With all the significant increases in economic productivity that has not benefited the average American.
Maybe not in comparative terms, i.e., maybe the distribution curve for wealth has not changed much.
But in absolute terms, some of what I listed are huge benefits for "the average American":
Nearly no one in the US would want a 1950 Ford, forced to use a typewriter instead of a word processor on a computer, news papers on paper instead of the Internet, no mobile phone or Zoom, 1950s health care, lath and plaster instead of drywall, oak flooring instead of vinyl (cheaper and more durable), microwave ovens, synthetic yarn in cloth and clothing, in general, as in the famous movie, no "plastics", railroads and busses instead of airplanes, no summer air conditioning, no gasoline powered lawn mowers, no calculator aps or pocket calculators instead of adding machines, no computers instead of punched cards, car tires that wear out in 20,000 miles instead of 100,000 miles, elevator operators instead of electrically controlled elevators, etc. ....
If you gave Americans the option of those old things but also a single income could house, feed, a clothe a family of 5 I think it might be closer than you think. It's not fair to describe what we've gained without describing what we've lost.
My parents owned different homes their entire lives. I make significantly more than they ever did and don't and could never afford my own childhood home. My children are even worse off than that.
2 replies →