the Scott Stein

As reported on CNN.com, Denmark is the happiest place on Earth.

At the bottom came the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi. The United States came in at 23rd, Britain was in 41st place, Germany 35th and France 62nd.

Readers might not like the claim that "[s]maller countries tend to be a little happier because there is a stronger sense of collectivism." Some collectivism, like a strong community or tradition, probably does give people a sense of belonging that translates to their happiness. Perhaps when that collectivism prevents the expression of individualism, or when the larger collectivism of the society or government interferes with the sense of belonging to a family or voluntary group, then happiness declines, at least for some people. The study doesn't say that collectivism equals happiness. Researcher Adrian White was

"surprised to see countries in Asia scoring so low, with China 82nd, Japan 90th, and India 125th. These are countries that are thought as having a strong sense of collective identity which other researchers have associated with well-being."

The study's definition of happiness has explanatory power:

"We're looking much more at whether you are satisfied with your life in general," White told Reuters. "Whether you are satisfied with your situation and environment."

Even in the best of times, I don't think the U.S. would place very high in a study with happiness so defined. In dynamic societies (i.e., capitalist societies, or somewhat capitalist societies), people are often not "satisfied with [their] situation and environment." They want to make more money, buy bigger homes, get better educations, and in general move up the economic ladder. Unfulfilled desires abound in a society where the fulfilling of those desires is at least possible.

In societies where such economic improvement is not possible, there might be more satisfaction--less envy of neighbors, less sense of having failed to be successful and rich, and so on. Happiness is tied up with our expectations. That's why at our ages, our grandparents weren't necessarily less happy than we are now, even though they generally had far fewer material comforts and opportunities. Our grandparents had no expectation of having a big house, so they weren't disappointed when they couldn't afford one.

I wonder how powerful this expectation factor is. Our ancestors (maybe going back a couple of generations before our grandparents) didn't expect all of their children to survive into adulthood. Does that mean that the loss of a child didn't reduce their happiness as much as it would reduce ours?

The expectation explanation certainly falls apart when the society is so poor that misery is the only option. Zimbabwe is a miserable place to be. Even though people have no possibility of improving their situations and therefore can't blame themselves, and even though there aren't rich neighbors to envy, and even though they can expect no better, they're still miserable.

I haven't read the study, just the CNN article, but it seems that the definition of happiness is key here. If there were a way of measuring the joy of achieving a goal, making a business succeed, being able to choose one's own profession, charting one's own course, writing late at night to perfect that novel you've been working on for a couple of years, pursuing dreams, it wouldn't register in this study. Because always striving to improve yourself is the same as never being satisfied or content, and is nearly the opposite of the study's definition of happiness.

Headline from the New York Times: "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit"

Surprising? It shouldn't be. A standard argument for tax cuts is that they stimulate economic growth. And economic growth will obviously increase tax revenues. Even with lower tax rates, the government gets more money, because businesses and the wealthy pay more when they make more. Why is this so hard to understand?

Source: NY Times via Drudge