Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[ullar]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

And what does it have to do with "Northern Europe in Summer"?

I am planning to put my boat in to water in a week and start using it for it's purpose. So do most other sailors around here in Estonia. Access to our islands is still restricted but we hope the regime loosen soon. Sweden is closeby and relaxed and there is a lot of space to move around. July would be another matter of course...

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by tp12

Years of stagnated wage growth, eroding workers rights, less permanent jobs and more zero hours contracts meaning less worker security and a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor prove that statement incorrect.

That you’re on a free boating forum on the free internet complaining that people in the west didn’t get enough free food, money, and housing this month, as we wait for the government to come up with a fix for the coronavirus proves the statement right.

Part of the capitalism dividend is the ability to complain that you don’t feel your cut is big enough, even as you are likely in the top 1% of the world in terms of wealth.

As Greta would say, “How dare you?”

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

Another significant consequence of this infection:

In reality, we know so little about this virus that for now, the best course of action is to limit its spread. Whatever the cost!

Really? Whatever? How about 30 Million (mainly Children) dead by the end of the year and another 30 Million Next year?


That's the cost that the planet will currently pay for the economic collapse that we are bringing about.


Is that a good enough cost for you?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

... Part of the capitalism dividend is the ability to complain that you don’t feel your cut is big enough, even as you are likely in the top 1% of the world in terms of wealth...

I think Democracy has more to do with our rights to free speech, than does Capitalism.
You must be speaking to the millionaires among us.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world's richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world's wealth.
Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 56.6 percent of the world's population, but hold less than 2 percent of global wealth.
The world’s 10 richest billionaires, according to Forbes, own $801 billion in combined wealth, a sum greater than the total goods and services most nations produce on an annual basis, according to the International Monetary Fund.
OECD statistics show that the top 1 percent in the United States holds 42.5 percent of national wealth, a far greater share than in other OECD countries. In no other industrial nation does the richest 1 percent own more than 28 percent of their country’s wealth.
Credit Suisse ➥ https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-...th-report.html
OECD ➥ https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=WEALTH

[tp12]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

That you’re on a free boating forum on the free internet complaining that people in the west didn’t get enough free food, money, and housing this month, as we wait for the government to come up with a fix for the coronavirus proves the statement right.

Part of the capitalism dividend is the ability to complain that you don’t feel your cut is big enough, even as you are likely in the top 1% of the world in terms of wealth.

As Greta would say, “How dare you?”

No, it doesn't. And that's not what I've said at all. Building an irrelevant straw man isn't helpful and does nothing to address what I actually said.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

You paint an interesting picture and a possible future that is better than today yet I can't help thinking there is an apparent and inherent greed (of money or power) in the human condition that precludes this outcome - I love to be wrong though.

No, this doesn't assume less greed at all. Greed is unfortunately part of human nature.


All it says is that as people and countries become wealthier and consume more and more, what they consume is more and more services proportionately, and especially experiences, and less and less of what they consume, proportionately, is stuff.



This is logical if you think about it. How much "stuff" do you need? "Stuff" is a problem for poor people (and sailors ); beyond a certain level of wealth you start spending more and more of your money on services and especially experience.


Just look at Chinese people spending trillions on travel, now that they have come out of almost stone age poverty and emerged to start consuming massive quantities of experiences. That's an example of a worldwide trend which goes on for a century.


We don't have a problem with resources. We already have the technology to phase out fossil fuels within a couple of decades, and we would be doing that even if we didn't need to because of climate change. Recycling and ultraflexible manufacturing will continuously reduce the demand for new metals and other extracted materials. You don't need, for example, 50 mobile phones -- you only need one or two. So when you wear out one, your new phone doesn't need to have more metal and plastic dug out of the ground or produced from oil, if the old one is properly recycled. We don't need a continuously increasing amount of stuff; a ton or two of stuff is all anyone needs for a lifetime; just that stuff needs to be updated from time to time. As technology advances, the stuff we buy and the processes for manufacturing it will be more and more decentralized and will be more and optimized for recycling. Less and less resources will be required, and less and less transportation of manufactured stuff will take place. Eventually most of our stuff may even be made in our own homes. It won't be necessary to force anyone to do this (at least not in the long run); with appropriate technology it will be cheaper to recycle materials than to dig up new ones.



Good reading on this is Neil Stephenson's The Diamond Age, anyone read it? Vision of the future where there is this manufacturing machine in every household. Kid gets tired of a toy, he throws it in the machine. It's broken down and something different and new is produced. That's really the future. Not our lifetimes probably but this century for sure. This was written before 3D printing! Guy was a real visionary.


As this takes place and as world population starts to shrink (might start happening even in our lifetimes), as people continue moving into cities, which start to get build denser and denser, the countryside will empty out and there is a chance for a lot of wilderness to return. Farm productivity has been increasing faster than world population for a long time, when world population starts to decline, the amount of farmland required to feed humanity will decline, probably steeply.



Wealth does not come from resources, and consumption is not primarily or even secondarily based on resources. So the availability of resources does not, in the long term, limit the growth of either wealth or consumption. .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

. . . New, better, faster, etc. Then into the landfill. . . .

Have you ever heard of recycling?

Originally Posted by conachair

. . .As for pollution, just looking at one thing >
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...-trash-crisis/...

Ditto. According to this very article, 60% of plastic is ALREADY being recycled at least once.


Technology advances day by day to adapt manufacturing processes to recycling, and to make manufactured goods easier to recycle. The percentage of plastics which are recycled increases every year.


How in the world can you see a dimmer, rather than brighter future, in that picture?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ullar

I am planning to put my boat in to water in a week and start using it for it's purpose. So do most other sailors around here in Estonia. Access to our islands is still restricted but we hope the regime loosen soon. Sweden is closeby and relaxed and there is a lot of space to move around. July would be another matter of course...

I spent a significant part of last summer's cruise in Estonian waters, and sure hope things open up there.



You sure are opening up slowly, however, considering the very small amount of infections in Estonia. Apparently the government has promised to open up schools and some businesses on 15 May, and "outdoor sports and hobbies" -- presumably including sailing -- some time after that. See:


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN2242MR


What about the borders? Across the Gulf of Finland, although Finland has had a lot more infections than Estonia, sailing was never restricted and borders are supposed to be open on 11 May. I sure hope Estonia will follow suit.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Have you ever heard of recycling?

Of course. Unless it's 100% equilibrium is impossible.


Ditto. According to this very article, 60% of plastic is ALREADY being recycled at least once.


Technology advances day by day to adapt manufacturing processes to recycling, and to make manufactured goods easier to recycle. The percentage of plastics which are recycled increases every year.


How in the world can you see a dimmer, rather than brighter future, in that picture?[/QUOTE]

In my lifetime lots of species of bird which used to be common are very rare now. The call of the corncrake is no longer a joy to hear in the springtime, it's almost gone.
Remember when car windscreens were covered with splatter insects after a country drive? When did you last see that?
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...+decline&btnG=

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...38/576.summary

Ocean fish numbers in massive decline, one google result of many >
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...edges-to-stop/

No need to go on, humans are having a devastating influence on the equilibrium of the planet, all happening basically instantly on an evolutionary timescale . Without even mentioning the taboo subject.

On a longer term species scale humans look no different to any animal as far as any kind of control on how the species develops. No different to rabbits let loose in Australia or some bacteria on a petri dish.

How in the world can you see a brighter , rather than dimmer future.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by conachair

. . . In my lifetime lots of species of bird which used to be common are very rare now. The call of the corncrake is no longer a joy to hear in the springtime, it's almost gone.
Remember when car windscreens were covered with splatter insects after a country drive? When did you last see that?
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...+decline&btnG=

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...38/576.summary

Ocean fish numbers in massive decline, one google result of many >
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...edges-to-stop/

No need to go on, humans are having a devastating influence on the equilibrium of the planet, all happening basically instantly on an evolutionary timescale . Without even mentioning the taboo subject.

On a longer term species scale humans look no different to any animal as far as any kind of control on how the species develops. No different to rabbits let loose in Australia or some bacteria on a petri dish.

How in the world can you see a brighter , rather than dimmer future.

No question that we have wreaked a lot of damage on the planet.


But that damage started to be caused as a part of industrialization, which in its early stages causes a massive increase in the amount of extraction of resources and pollution. As the process of first industrialization then de-industrialization goes on, the factors that cause extraction and pollution decrease, rather than increase. This is progress.



So all of the factors which killed off birds and insects, as a small example of the different kinds of damage we have caused, are moving in the other direction now. So already see the results -- what was London air like 100 years ago, and what is it like now. What does the Cuyahoga River look like now, vs. 100 years go. Things are getting better, not worse.



It is of course a reasonable question how much more damage we will do before the whole world evolves beyond the extracting-and-polluting phase of industrialization. I don't know the answer to that, but things are at least moving in the right direction.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, this doesn't assume less greed at all. Greed is unfortunately part of human nature...

Is greed learned or innate? Are People Naturally Inclined to Cooperate or Be Selfish?
The definition of greed (or avarice, cupidity, or covetousness) is the excessive desire, for more than is needed or deserved, not for the greater good, but for one’s own selfish interest, and at the detriment of others and society at large.
Although there is a strong biological basis, for human behavior, humans are the most social creatures on earth. The societies and cultures we create, have a major effect on our behavior, mollifying, and modifying, our biological reactions.
Many will argue that greed is so essential a part of human nature, that any (socialist) sharing of the wealth is impossible. Obviously, greed runs rampant in modern society, but it has not always been that way.

Greed (like human nature) has a history.
Although, for the individual, greed may be good, the social group that individual belongs to may think greed is bad. In “primitive” pre-literate clans, where there is virtually no economic surplus, there is always sharing of land, resources, products, labor. By necessity (for the clan could not survive with a dog-eat-dog outlook and practice) the capacity for altruism and solidarity is dominant within the clan — a family of extended families.
Self-preservation extends beyond the personal, to the public, involving family, friends, and even strangers. What may help our personal survival, may also help others, who may help us in turn.
Greed emerges with the onset of class divided society, with enough economic surplus that one person can produce enough to support others. The capacity for greed, aggression, and cruelty shows up when there is some economic surplus, but not enough for the whole tribe or nation to share the wealth. Here we find tribal wars over limited hunting grounds, cannibalism, and slavery. This is class society, the beginning of so-called civilization.
So, the jury may still be out, on whether we are fundamentally generous, or greedy, and whether these tendencies are shaped by our genes or environment. It seems that human nature supports both prosocial and selfish traits.
However, numerous studies* show that greed is not a fundamental part of our nature.

However, when considering other human needs, most have a limit, a satiation point. When thirsty, we drink until we are no longer thirsty. When hungry, we eat. When tired, we sleep until rested. When cold, we warm ourselves. All of these have a natural limit – and lead to disease when those limits are not respected. Greed, on the other hand, is about never being satisfied with what one has, always wanting and expecting more.
So what is it that drives the seeming limitless, insatiable nature of greed?
I suggest that greed is not a native biological or psychological impulse, but rather is a symptom. It is an indicator that one is uncertain, or confused, about what one’s true need is, and therefore one ends up pursuing objects, activities, or goals that do not satisfy the primary need. Yet, not knowing what else to do, the default strategy is often to pursue still more of the same, in hopes that “more” will do it.

➥ https://healthland.time.com/2012/10/...or-altruistic/

➥ https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...nd-mean-people

➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...or-be-selfish/

➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ood-after-all/
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../12/1408988111

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I think Democracy has more to do with our rights to free speech, than does Capitalism.
You must be speaking to the millionaires among us.

According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world's richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 44 percent of the world's wealth.
Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 56.6 percent of the world's population, but hold less than 2 percent of global wealth.
The world’s 10 richest billionaires, according to Forbes, own $801 billion in combined wealth, a sum greater than the total goods and services most nations produce on an annual basis, according to the International Monetary Fund.
OECD statistics show that the top 1 percent in the United States holds 42.5 percent of national wealth, a far greater share than in other OECD countries. In no other industrial nation does the richest 1 percent own more than 28 percent of their country’s wealth.
Credit Suisse ➥ https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-...th-report.html
OECD ➥ https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=WEALTH

Nice try.

As for your stats, I suppose inflated stock market will do that, along side a carefully chosen statistics site with a political agenda to grind. Oh, look! Here's one:

An income of $32,400 per year would allow someone to be among the top 1% of income earners in the world. To reach the top 1% worldwide in terms of wealth—not just income but all you own—you'd have to possess $744,400 in net worth.

--- Investopedia

Now I don't doubt that the wealth number might have been a bit inflated due to the stock market over the last year, but I'm guessing it's back down a bit now. So all those people playing with stats to support their various narratives will once again have to change their statistics around to make their various political points. I don't think they'll choose to do that. They have the numbers they wanted in an election year. Income inequality being a big talking point. The fact is that the folks in the west are relatively well off. You think you're victimized by capitalism? Take off the blinders! 4/5 of the people of the world have a MUCH bigger complaint.

So let me reiterate. Nobody here should be complaining about how unfair life is. Because if you've hit the lottery well enough to be in a capitalistic society in the Western Hemisphere, you hit a winning number. You can take your healthy, well-educated, rich self to a forum like this and argue to your heart's content. Then again, "How dare you argue about unfairness?"

As to your other point, Democracy gives us the right to speak plainly. Capitalism makes complaining about how bad it is to live in the richest Democracy in the world sort of ironic.

There are over a billion people on the earth who are considered poor. They're not the ones complaining about "income inequality", as they can't afford a new computer, much less an apple iphone or a boat.

The real income disparity isn't among the rich capitalists. It's between rich countries and poor ones. So people should stop arguing about unfair capitalism is to the people in the core of it. The poorest among the folks on this forum are still among the richest people in the world. So if there were real income equality worldwide, their lifestyle would take a serious hit. We can debate whether they're in the top 1% or the top 10%, but they're at the top of the heap worldwide, regardless.

Capitalism allows us to debate such topics as "Is health care a basic human right?", even as it clearly is not if you live outside our countries. I mean, are we offering to raise the health care systems in Africa to the level we have? And to stop stealing their best doctors to practice in our countries? Basic human rights don't stop at our borders. Then again, some folks making this argument don't even believe in borders, so the next logical step is going to be a giant transfer of wealth.

People in the U.S. just got a stimulus check for $1200/person. What's the average salary in Malawi in a good year?

If they lose their jobs, Americans apply for unemployment and get free or subsidized health care. Europe is much the same, with generous benefits showered all around. These are the products of capitalism. How does this compare to North Korea or a typical country in Africa? It paid to get to the conclusion that "capitalism works" a bit earlier.

See: Core and Periphery

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Is greed learned or innate? Are People Naturally Inclined to Cooperate or Be Selfish?
The definition of greed (or avarice, cupidity, or covetousness) is the excessive desire, for more than is needed or deserved, not for the greater good, but for one’s own selfish interest, and at the detriment of others and society at large.
Although there is a strong biological basis, for human behavior, humans are the most social creatures on earth. The societies and cultures we create, have a major effect on our behavior, mollifying, and modifying, our biological reactions.
Many will argue that greed is so essential a part of human nature, that any (socialist) sharing of the wealth is impossible. Obviously, greed runs rampant in modern society, but it has not always been that way.

Greed (like human nature) has a history.
Although, for the individual, greed may be good, the social group that individual belongs to may think greed is bad. In “primitive” pre-literate clans, where there is virtually no economic surplus, there is always sharing of land, resources, products, labor. By necessity (for the clan could not survive with a dog-eat-dog outlook and practice) the capacity for altruism and solidarity is dominant within the clan — a family of extended families.
Self-preservation extends beyond the personal, to the public, involving family, friends, and even strangers. What may help our personal survival, may also help others, who may help us in turn.
Greed emerges with the onset of class divided society, with enough economic surplus that one person can produce enough to support others. The capacity for greed, aggression, and cruelty shows up when there is some economic surplus, but not enough for the whole tribe or nation to share the wealth. Here we find tribal wars over limited hunting grounds, cannibalism, and slavery. This is class society, the beginning of so-called civilization.
So, the jury may still be out, on whether we are fundamentally generous, or greedy, and whether these tendencies are shaped by our genes or environment. It seems that human nature supports both prosocial and selfish traits.
However, numerous studies* show that greed is not a fundamental part of our nature.

However, when considering other human needs, most have a limit, a satiation point. When thirsty, we drink until we are no longer thirsty. When hungry, we eat. When tired, we sleep until rested. When cold, we warm ourselves. All of these have a natural limit – and lead to disease when those limits are not respected. Greed, on the other hand, is about never being satisfied with what one has, always wanting and expecting more.
So what is it that drives the seeming limitless, insatiable nature of greed?
I suggest that greed is not a native biological or psychological impulse, but rather is a symptom. It is an indicator that one is uncertain, or confused, about what one’s true need is, and therefore one ends up pursuing objects, activities, or goals that do not satisfy the primary need. Yet, not knowing what else to do, the default strategy is often to pursue still more of the same, in hopes that “more” will do it.

➥ https://healthland.time.com/2012/10/...or-altruistic/

➥ https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/b...nd-mean-people

➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...or-be-selfish/

➥ https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ood-after-all/
➥ https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../12/1408988111

Well, that is one point of view, but it is a materialistic/positivist point of view, which you can't blame scientists for gravitating towards, but it's not necessarily a scientific question.

I also wouldn't define greed as an "excess of desire" -- for me a better definition would be a desire or willingness to have something at the expense of others. It is a form of aggression. And I do think it's part of human nature, just like competition in general. These things co-exist in our souls with a desire to cooperate and a capacity for altruism. Greed and competition come from fear unrestrained by moral values, and may also come from ignorance, in cases where a better result can be achieved from cooperation, and from considering the interests of others.

I do think that all of these things good and bad are inalienable parts of human nature, but that is a philosophical, not scientific question. Aggression and indeed greed are programmed into us, as behaviors which may lead to a better outcome where a mutually beneficial outcome is impossible. Probably programmed through evolution.

Good policy sets up incentives not to be like that, and punishments for harming other people. But for a really healthy society to deal well with these tendencies you also need values and ethics, not just policies and laws.


Socialism doesn't work not because of greed, but because socialism acts against the creation of wealth by removing incentives for wealth creation. Look to Nordic societies for an excellent way to solve social problems without socialism -- strong incentives for wealth creation, light taxation (relatively light, more precisely, non-progressive taxation) of entrepreneurs, strong protection of the weak, strong social trust and feeling of social security. This creates different virtuous cycles -- entrepreneurs have every incentive to take risks, invest, and create, by being allowed to keep most of what they earn if they are successful, and maybe even more importantly, by not being disdained by the rest of society as happens in this thread and in many other countries. And the weakest in society can also take risks and take initiative because society will catch them if they fail, so will not be afraid to change jobs or stand up to unreasonable demands of employers, change careers, or even start their own businesses. Lack of fear also reduces greed on the part of entrepreneurs -- since everyone gets equal access to the best education systems in the world, no one needs to earn zillions of krona to live in an exclusive neighborhood in order to get children into a non-horrible school, or earn and save millions to pay for elite private schools and universities. If you want to see how those factors drive extreme fear leading to extreme greed, then get to know some finance sector workers in the City in London and ask them about their mortgages and/or school fees. This simply does not exist in Stockholm or Helsinki -- the schools are all more or less the same, people live where they want, no one worries about what kind of company their children keep because everyone is well educated and almost everyone is well behaved; there is almost no crime. This makes entrepreneurs even more creative because it's not a life or death matter to earn the next million -- it doesn't take that much to live well in Stockholm or Helsinki, there is no wagon of elite life to fall off if you don't rake in a million this year. There's little to no showing off of wealth; it's considered bad taste. It's a brilliant system. There are more startups per capita in the Stockholm region than in Silicon Valley, and the survival rate of new startups is far higher.


The Nordic system is not well understood, and especially not in North America, where everyone thinks it's some kind of Bernie Sanders type of democratic socialism. It is as far away from that as it could be. It's in many ways a more capitalist system than any Republican platform. Nordic countries have some of the world's lowest corporate taxes and have THE least progressive income taxes in the world but only for the few countries with actual flat taxes, like a number of Eastern European and Baltic countries have. In fact the regional component of Finnish income tax (which is what funds social programs) IS a flat tax; I think it's the same in Sweden. There are special reduced dividend tax rates to encourage people to be shareholders -- 75% of dividend income on non-listed shares are tax free up to €150k, and after that 34%. There are no wealth or inheritance taxes. A significant part of state revenue is raised with very high VAT rates -- a regressive tax on consumption. Investment is highly tax favored, compared to consumption, and surprise surprise, Nordic societies are characterized by modest levels of consumption and high rates of saving and investment.


You improve equality in society not by taxing the rich even more progressively than we already do, but on the contrary by creating incentives for everyone to save and invest and join the class of asset-owning human beings. All those households with zero net worth -- those are families who never saved any money and never invested anything. Some of those just could not have saved anything because they never earned enough to do more than survive every month, but how different would it be if there were real incentives to save, if modest consumption was a cultural value, if investment was more tax favored. Just look at Nordic societies for your answer to that.

Sorry, I'll just get down off this soapbox. A bit bored today.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, that is one point of view, but it is a materialistic/positivist point of view, which you can't blame scientists for gravitating towards, but it's not necessarily a scientific question.


I also wouldn't define greed as an "excess of desire" -- for me a better definition would be a desire or willingness to have something at the expense of others. It is a form of aggression. And I do think it's part of human nature, just like competition in general. These things co-exist in our souls with a desire to cooperate and a capacity for altruism. Greed and competition come from fear unrestrained by moral values, and may also come from ignorance, in cases where a better result can be achieved from cooperation, and from considering the interests of others.

I do think that all of these things good and bad are inalienable parts of human nature, but that is a philosophical, not scientific question. Aggression and indeed greed are programmed into us, as behaviors may lead to a better outcome where a mutually beneficial outcome is impossible. Probably programmed through evolution.

Good policy sets up incentives not to be like that, and punishments for harming other people. But for a really healthy society to deal well with these tendencies you also need values and ethics, not just policies and laws.

Good critique and analysis.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I also wouldn't define greed as an "excess of desire" -- for me a better definition would be a desire or willingness to have something at the expense of others. It is a form of aggression. And I do think it's part of human nature, just like competition in general. These things co-exist in our souls with a desire to cooperate and a capacity for altruism. Greed and competition come from fear unrestrained by moral values, and may also come from ignorance, in cases where a better result can be achieved from cooperation, and from considering the interests of others.

I do think that all of these things good and bad are inalienable parts of human nature, but that is a philosophical, not scientific question. Aggression and indeed greed are programmed into us, as behaviors may lead to a better outcome where a mutually beneficial outcome is impossible. Probably programmed through evolution.

Good policy sets up incentives not to be like that, and punishments for harming other people. But for a really healthy society to deal well with these tendencies you also need values and ethics, not just policies and laws.

Socialism doesn't work not because of greed, but because socialism acts against the creation of wealth by removing incentives for wealth creation. Look to Nordic societies for an excellent way to solve social problems without socialism -- strong incentives for wealth creation, light taxation (relatively light, more precisely, non-progressive taxation) of entrepreneurs, strong protection of the weak, strong social trust and feeling of social security. This creates different virtuous cycles -- entrepreneurs have every incentive to take risks, invest, and create, by being allowed to keep most of what they earn if they are successful, and maybe even more importantly, by not being disdained by the rest of society as happens in this thread and in many other countries. And the weakest in society can also take risks and take initiative because the catch them if they fail, so will not be afraid to change jobs or stand up to unreasonable demands of employers, change careers, or even start their own businesses. Lack of fear also reduces greed on the part of entrepreneurs -- since everyone gets equal access to the best education systems in the world, no one needs to earn zillions of krona to live in an exclusive neighborhood in order to get children into a non-horrible school, or earn and save millions to pay for elite private schools and universities. If you want to see how those factors drive extreme fear leading to extreme greed, then get to know some finance sector workers in the City in London and ask them about their mortgages and/or school fees. This simply does not exist in Stockholm or Helsinki -- the schools are all more or less the same, people live where they want, no one worries about what kind of company their children keep because everyone is well educated and almost everyone is well behaved; there is almost no crime. This makes entrepreneurs even more creative because it's not a life or death matter to earn the next million -- it doesn't take that much to live well in Stockholm or Helsinki, there is no wagon of elite life to fall off if you don't rake in a million this year. There's little to know showing off of wealth; it's considered bad taste. It's a brilliant system. There are more startups per capita in the Stockholm region than in Silicon Valley, and the survival rate of new startups is far higher.


The Nordic system is not well understood, and especially not in North America, where everyone thinks it's some kind of Bernie Sanders type of democratic socialism. It is as far away from that as it could be. It's in many ways a more capitalist system than any Republican platform. Nordic countries have some of the world's lowest corporate taxes and have THE least progressive income taxes in the world but only for the few countries with actual flat taxes, like a number of Eastern European and Baltic countries have. In fact the regional component of Finnish income tax (which is what funds social programs) IS a flat tax; I think it's the same in Sweden. There are special reduced dividend tax rates to encourage people to be shareholders -- 75% of dividend income on non-listed shares are tax free up to €150k, and after that 34%. There are no wealth or inheritance taxes. A significant part of state revenue is raised with very high VAT rates -- a regressive tax on consumption. Investment is highly tax favored, compared to consumption, and surprise surprise, Nordic societies are characterized by modest levels of consumption and high rates of saving and investment.


You improve equality in society not by taxing the rich even more progressively than we already do, but on the contrary by creating incentives for everyone to save and invest. All those households with zero net worth -- those are families who never saved any money and never invested anything. Some of those just could not have saved anything because they never earned enough to do more than survive every month, but how different would it be if there were real incentives to save, if modest consumption was a cultural value, if investment was more tax favored. Just look at Nordic societies for your answer to that.


Sorry, I'll just get down off this soapbox. A bit bored today.

Wow. Excellent points all around.

Though I'm not sure I'd say greed is always a form of aggression. In it's worst form sure. In many cases greed isn't thinking of anyone else at all, so maybe it's more of a distorted perspective.

I do think that it's a symptom of society at large. We, as a society, reward and worship to some degree, monetary wealth. We worship external beauty and fashion. We worship celebrity.

What if we worshiped societal contribution? Not just in the occasional award or news article, but truly looked up to folks who contributed? Enough so that we hold them in higher esteem than actors, wealthy folks, or sports figures? Seems that we as a society need some work. We need to be praising the Dr. Faucis and not so much the Kardashans.