Quote:So the question for all other countries is "what is Japan (and Norway, Sweden, and Finland) doing that allows them to have an overall very high quality of life (via various measures) and how can we achieve the same thing?"

As far as the US is concerned, people there put freedom on a pedestal even centuries after they declared independence while the quality of life for their citizens is secondary.

Scandinavia is more concerned about the quality of life of their people, not some ideal from decades ago. If that means being more socialist, and the government taking some of our freedomz, then so be it.

Granted, there are downsides, but still- freedom is meaningless if it doesn't result in a better living environment for the people of the state. And what could be more important than that?

Fundamentally the countries are different though. USA has people from all over the world, Scandinavia is homogenized. Its easy to support one another when we are all of the same race, and although that shouldn't matter, unfortunately it does.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:As far as the US is concerned, people there put freedom on a pedestal even centuries after they declared independence while the quality of life for their citizens is secondary.

Scandinavia is more concerned about the quality of life of their people, not some ideal from decades ago. If that means being more socialist, and the government taking some of our freedomz, then so be it.

Or as I prefer to call it "freedumbz". Because freedom (the impossibility of absolute freedom aside) is dumb if it doesn't bring higher quality of life for its citizens with it.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Granted, there are downsides, but still- freedom is meaningless if it doesn't result in a better living environment for the people of the state. And what could be more important than that?

Granted there are downsides in Japanese society as well (suicide rates, which isn't unique to Japan anyway, and the cultural attitudes towards it, which might be) but I think the upsides (relative low crime rate, mental illness, imprisonment etc) make up for it.

Betelgeuzah Wrote:Fundamentally the countries are different though. USA has people from all over the world, Scandinavia is homogenized. Its easy to support one another when we are all of the same race, and although that shouldn't matter, unfortunately it does.

A valid point and unfortunately, an aspect of human nature that is hard to solve (suspicion of those who don't look like us). Though I still think lowering wealth inequality can solve this somewhat.

Oh, downsides are always present. Socialist state = government helps others so we don't have to. Volunteerism is very low compared to USA for example.

Irixmark Wrote:I was momentarily tempted to respond to nadiatims' "economics has only competing models" by pointing out that in that respect it's just like physics, but we'd probably veer off topic then.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't an underlying correct answer. In fact I think there is. It's just that it's not something that is widely agreed on. Among those who have actually studied economics, opinions are divided fundamentally about how reality actually works, hence competing models, and unfortunately most people don't think about economics at all. It's very much an issue like religion wherein most peoples opinion is decided by consequence of birth rather any critical analysis. Even expert opinion is divided. Should you make a decision about religion based on the assumption that someone who has studied theology must be correct? Where as in the case of math most people can agree that 1 plus 1 equals two. Note I realize there are competing theories in things like physics and probably maths too.

Anyway my point is that it's silly to think krugman must be right just because he has a nobel prize. He may well be a brilliant scholar but if his premises are wrong then he'll still arrive at all the wrong conclusions.

nadiatims Wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't an underlying correct answer. In fact I think there is. It's just that it's not something that is widely agreed on. Among those who have actually studied economics, opinions are divided fundamentally about how reality actually works, hence competing models, (...)

Anyway my point is that it's silly to think krugman must be right just because he has a nobel prize. He may well be a brilliant scholar but if his premises are wrong then he'll still arrive at all the wrong conclusions.

I agree with you on not just buying something because a Nobel Prize winner says so, but you'd be surprised how much agreement there is among economists on why we have models: because they are useful, not because they represent fundamentally how reality actually works. Because an economist (Ken Binmore) designed the auction right, the UK government made £22 billion on auctioning off 3G spectrum frequencies to telecoms companies.

That said, macroeconomics is to microeconomics what astrology is to astronomy. And macroeconomics has been wrong on Japan so many times that it's an embarrassment.