1. Equality is not defined (at least not in the materials I saw). Does he mean Income Inequality? Assuming so: (1) That is a very narrow view of human existence. Why not something more encompassing like Power, of which income is part of that as well as your station? What about other parts of life like leisure time vs work …
1. Equality is not defined (at least not in the materials I saw). Does he mean Income Inequality? Assuming so: (1) That is a very narrow view of human existence. Why not something more encompassing like Power, of which income is part of that as well as your station? What about other parts of life like leisure time vs work time? Any system where someone is not compensated for devoting their life to work in comparison to someone who doesn't seems bad to me for many reasons. (2) My recollection is Nordics have low INCOME inequality but HIGH wealth inequality. I would think that WEALTH inequality is actually the more relevant thing for socialists, so I think he should have to defend why his paragon does poorly there.
2. I didn't hear evidence that equality drives happiness. A priori, I would assume that both things are driven by other factors rather than having a direct causal relationship. I think that most equal times in societies are when there is the most poverty and destruction (unhappiness), so it's clearly false to say that equality is a primary instrumental factor in happiness.
4. I also thought Bryan could have hit this harder, but the question about whether socialism violates rights seems obvious on its face. If you think someone should be allowed to make a chair and you should be allowed to buy the chair, then you're a capitalist. Socialism would require you to get permission or consensus before producing and buying, correct? I think most would say that is totalitarian and undesirable.
"I didn't hear evidence that equality drives happiness."
I would think that envy drives unhappiness. If people would stop being jealous and just mind their own damn business, they would be much happier. Or, at least, less unhappy.
Envy has probably driven a lot of capitalism's success though, that was part of the original idea according to "Passions and the Interests", redirect 'bad' emotions to good outcomes. In that sense I wonder if unhappiness is really that bad on net, at least within milder ranges
I would add the point that human progress is greatly driven by a few leading economies with most of the others playing catch up by drafting on the advances of the lead huskies. Even if socialism is a reasonable fast-follower strategy, it still depends upon, or free rides, on the more dynamic policies of capitalism.
5. It seems as if he lays happiness numbers at the feat of capitalism vs socialism, yet anyone here could list huge changes and reasons on either side of the ledge that differ between Sweden and the US. Furthermore, I haven't looked, but I imagine that happiness has not increased in the US in the past 20 years as the Govt has ramped up spending as share of GDP dramatically. Wouldn't that serve to call into question the statement that increased govt intervention drives increased happiness?
A couple points
1. Equality is not defined (at least not in the materials I saw). Does he mean Income Inequality? Assuming so: (1) That is a very narrow view of human existence. Why not something more encompassing like Power, of which income is part of that as well as your station? What about other parts of life like leisure time vs work time? Any system where someone is not compensated for devoting their life to work in comparison to someone who doesn't seems bad to me for many reasons. (2) My recollection is Nordics have low INCOME inequality but HIGH wealth inequality. I would think that WEALTH inequality is actually the more relevant thing for socialists, so I think he should have to defend why his paragon does poorly there.
2. I didn't hear evidence that equality drives happiness. A priori, I would assume that both things are driven by other factors rather than having a direct causal relationship. I think that most equal times in societies are when there is the most poverty and destruction (unhappiness), so it's clearly false to say that equality is a primary instrumental factor in happiness.
3. The common knowledge of Nordics being socialist and successful is also disputed. https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-myth-swedish-socialism-again
4. I also thought Bryan could have hit this harder, but the question about whether socialism violates rights seems obvious on its face. If you think someone should be allowed to make a chair and you should be allowed to buy the chair, then you're a capitalist. Socialism would require you to get permission or consensus before producing and buying, correct? I think most would say that is totalitarian and undesirable.
"I didn't hear evidence that equality drives happiness."
I would think that envy drives unhappiness. If people would stop being jealous and just mind their own damn business, they would be much happier. Or, at least, less unhappy.
Envy has probably driven a lot of capitalism's success though, that was part of the original idea according to "Passions and the Interests", redirect 'bad' emotions to good outcomes. In that sense I wonder if unhappiness is really that bad on net, at least within milder ranges
I like that distinction! Envy is clearly something people are inclined or disinclined to feel, often irrespective of physical circumstances.
I would add the point that human progress is greatly driven by a few leading economies with most of the others playing catch up by drafting on the advances of the lead huskies. Even if socialism is a reasonable fast-follower strategy, it still depends upon, or free rides, on the more dynamic policies of capitalism.
5. It seems as if he lays happiness numbers at the feat of capitalism vs socialism, yet anyone here could list huge changes and reasons on either side of the ledge that differ between Sweden and the US. Furthermore, I haven't looked, but I imagine that happiness has not increased in the US in the past 20 years as the Govt has ramped up spending as share of GDP dramatically. Wouldn't that serve to call into question the statement that increased govt intervention drives increased happiness?