I am a lecturer in public health at Halmstad University, Sweden. Since 2019, I have been helping Happier Lives Institute. My main interests are systemic change, tax policy, global health, climate change and public health. I made a forum post about green basic income, and it was the base for this input to the UN together with Cool Earth: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.4h2l20plkgwz
Ulf Graf 🔹
Thank you very much, Vasco! I am glad that you liked my comment. I will try to answer all your questions as good as I can. I haven’t replied to long post before so I don’t know how to do the cool paragraphs that you do, so sorry if it gets a little confusing.
I updated the link, so it should work now. Thank you for mentioning this!
I didn’t find any good data for how much the top quintile funded governement transfers in other countries, but it would have been very interesting to look at. Thank you for the interesting information.
I think one reason for Singapore being closer to Sweden when it comes to social outcomes might be annual working hours per employed person, where Singapore has 2 255 and Sweden has 1 609. I don’t know much about the welfare system in Singapore, but I guess it might be less expenses in some areas. Their healthcare system is 5,5 % of GDP for example. The United States has a very ineffective healthcare system that costs much for both individuals and the state.United States Sweden Per capita national health expenditures: 11,582 USD. 16.6 % of GDP.
Military expenditure: 14 % of GDP.
Per capita national health expenditures: 6438 USD. 10.7 % of GDP.
Military expenditure: 1.3 % of GDP.
There are studies that shows the correlation between income equality and life satisfaction as well.
Growth isn’t always good, since growth also increases from bad things. According to the IPBES Nexus Assesment, there are 7 trillion in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and damages to nature for 10-25 trillion in unaccounted costs. There are 35 times more resources going to causes that destroy our planet than supports our nature. Instead of growth, it would be possible to use national income, by Thomas Piketty, would be a good global measurement instead of GDP. For example: “If you take 100 billion euros of oil from oil reserves underground or you take 100 billion euros in fish from the ocean, you have 100 billion euros of GDP, but you have zero euros of national income. And if in addition when you burn oil or gas you create global warming and you reduce the durability of life on earth, then if you put a price on the negative impact of these emissions you should have negative national income instead of positive GDP.”
When it comes to growth, the World Bank Group has some projections about growth, inequality and poverty:
I think it is wonderful that you care for the animals as well. I only have numbers (from 2023, I think) for Sweden and United States when it comes to meat consumption and different types of meat consumption. So I think you might be right about less chicken= more seafood instead:United States Sweden Meat consumption per capita: 102 kg.
Poultry 51 kg. Beef 26 kg. Pork 23 kg.
___________________________
Fish and shellfish consumption: 8,7 kg.Meat consumption per capita: 77 kg.
Poultry: 23 kg. Beef: 23 kg. Pork 29 kg.
_________________________________Fish and shellfish consumption: 14 kg.
I think one reason for these numbers are that vegetables and vegetarian food are easily accessible in Sweden, and harder to find in the US.
Thank you for your good example about the dinner! I will try to come up with an example myself based on an Oxfam report: There is a dinner party with 100 people (where one person represents 1 % in the income ladder). One person has as much food as 95 of the other people. Nine of these people are going hungry (extreme poverty) and risk starving to death. Since these people already are in a bad situation, they will not be able to get food for themselves (an article about the mechanisms behind poverty). The people who have most of the food, can share their food so these people won’t starve. 99 people at the table gets 16 new plates of food (trillion dollars of all new wealth), while the richest person gets 26 new plates of food. If the richest person is a billionaire, it gets 1.7 million plates of food for each plate of food that the 90 poorest people at the table gets.
Another example is that the 2 781 billionaires in the world owns $14.2 trillion. One million seconds is 11.57 days, one billion seconds is 31.71 years, one trillion seconds is 31,710 years, 14.2 trillion seconds is 450 282 years.
I think your thoughts about cause prioritisation are very interesting, and they have made me talk about animal suffering and effectiveness when I hold a lecture for my students in public health. I have considered donating to animal welfare. I donate money to Happier Lives Institute, since I am volunteering there and they have given me much joy. I donate money to Cool Earth because they address biodiversity, climate change and poverty. I am more of a “systems change” person and I think they address most areas so far, which was our input to the UN.
Thank you again for your interesting reply! I hope that I replied to everything! :)
Kind regards,
Ulf
First of all, I want to thank you for your posts. Many of them have given me new perspectives and knowledge that I appreciate. I want to mention that the two-parameter ortega model probably is a better measurement for inequality, but it isn’t used very much so it is hard to find any numbers.
I also want to mention that income inequality is problematic, since it correlates with almost all societal problems. Social mobility is greater in countries with low income inequality, since they have more robust welfare systems. It is easier to achieve the “American dream” in the Nordics for example. Many rich people use tax havens (but most don’t) for avoiding taxes. Another problem is when rich people use their wealth for lobbying, changing public opinion, changing politics in ways that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. An example below is a comparison between the United States and Sweden. A country with a high degree of inequality and a country with a low degree of income inequality. As you can see, Sweden has higher taxes, and also a higher union density, which might reduce the power of the rich. Which also makes those two things targets when rich people uses their power to increase their power and wealth. Sweden also has a more robust welfare system that helps people in poverty and also increases social mobility. I hope that my comment is helpful and that you appreciate it. I am happy to answer if you have any questions.
United States Sweden Income tax for people earning below 50 000 USD: 10-12 %.
Income tax for people earning over 50 000 USD: 22-37 %.
Value-added tax on goods and services: None.Instead some states have sales tax on around 6 %.
Income tax for people earning below 50 000 USD: 31 %.
Income tax for people earning over 50 000 USD: 51 %.
Value-added tax on goods and services: 25 % and all purchasers pay value-added tax. It amounts for 47 % of the total budget for the Swedish state.GINI-index: 0.395.
Federal spending 23 %.
Employed in public sector: 15 %.
Share of people belonged to unions: 10 %.
GINI-index: 0.281.
Federal spending: 48 %.
Employed in public sector: 29 %.
Share of people belonged to unions: 65 %.
Benefits in unemployment, share of previous income after five years: 9 %. Benefits in unemployment, share of previous income after five years: 60 %. Adequacy of minimum income benefits for a single person with no children: 6 % of median disposable income. Adequacy of minimum income benefits for a single person with no children: 42 % of median disposable income. Net childcare costs for a couple with average wage: 32 %.
Cost for one year in college: Over 9 000 USD / year.
Health care: Mostly expensive.Net childcare costs for a couple with average wage: 5 %.
Cost for one year in college: None, you get money for that.
Health care: Practically free.The social security contribution paid by the employer (caculated on top of the employee’s salary): 7.65 %. The social security contribution paid by the employer (caculated on top of the employee’s salary): 31.4 %. Epipen cost: 600-700 USD. Epipen cost: 40 USD (if your medical expenses exceeeds 300 dollars a year, you get your medicine for free).
When this was posted I would have said probably yes, now I say probably no.
I would say that we need to address the root causes in areas that are too complex to solve with simple solutions, e.g. biodiversity loss, since it is interconnected with many other systemic challenges. According to the assessment report about Nexus, which is the interconnections between the following crises: Climate change, biodiversity, water, food and health. According to the report, there are 7 trillion USD in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and damages to nature for 10-25 trillion USD in unaccounted costs. Also, there are 35 times more resources going to causes that destroy our planet than supports our nature. In this case it is hard to find a solution that doesn’t address the root causes. But for individual diseases or more simple challenges, there may not be any need to address the root causes.
I think that it is a high risk that AI or something else will be a great threat for humanity within a short future. But I can’t say how high the risk is or when in the future. But no matter how long or short time I have left, I would carry on like I always do. I spend time with my family and I love my job as a teacher at an university. I couldn’t ask for more. I feel that there is nothing more I must do before I die. So I am grateful and happy every day. But… My parents have four houses in a forest in the middle of Sweden. So if the apocalypse comes, I have a place where it is a quite good chance for surviving.
I skimmed in your article and must say that I am impressed. I think it is important for the EA community to think about what planet and what society we want. I looked at the summary of the IPBES Nexus Assesment and it seems clear to me that our economic system doesn’t work in its current state. That 7 trillion in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and damages on nature for 10-25 trillion in unaccounted costs is problematic. Also, the fact that there is 35 times more resources going to causes that destroys our planet than supports our nature shows that we need to do something. I think a realistic way might be national income, by Thomas Piketty. It is a global measurement instead of GDP. For example: “If you take 100 billion euros of oil from oil reserves underground or you take 100 billion euros in fish from the ocean, you have 100 billion euros of GDP, but you have zero euros of national income. And if in addition when you burn oil or gas you create global warming and you reduce the durability of life on earth, then if you put a price on the negative impact of these emissions you should have negative national income instead of positive GDP.” Buckton et al. (2024) give examples of other economic systems that might work and that are more or less capitalistic.
Hi Alexis! I think it is a wonderful idea and I would like to help you! I am kind of time constrained (having a one year old at home and working) but I will be able to give you advise. I am teaching public health at a Swedish university and I hold lectures about these topics. So I have some knowledge in this topic and would love to share it with you!
Gapminder has a list of 100 positive news during 2023: https://www.gapminder.org/news/100-positive-news-from-2023/
Thank you for a wonderful initiative! I think that many people will be happy about this!
I think that we should aim for using evidence based on reality and not try to change our ways because we want to appeal to different political groups. That doesn’t mean that we can find cause areas that are more interesting for different political groups. I guess that many conservatives might be skeptical to some paths in the EA movement that involves areas like animal welfare, climate change and raising some types of taxes and health policies (e.g. the Swedish right actively work against climate change mitigation, animal welfare and health policies), which some EA organisations promote.
But as many people have pointed out already in the comments, there are many interesting areas for conservatives as well and I think we should welcome people on different parts of the political spectrum. Since the EA community is very left leaning, I think it might be easier to recruit people from the left. The problem there is that the left might be skeptical to EA because of the lack of focus on systemic change or welfare systems. But I think that the Effective Institutions Project and Effective Environmentalism might be able to reduce that kind of critique in the future.
Thank you, I am happy that it was helpful! I am just an ordinary university teacher without a PhD so it was the first time someone called me professor! :) I wish you luck with finding the right path for you! No matter what path you choose, I think you will do great things and have a large impact! :)
Thank you for your post! I will try to give you as good advice as I can. I teach public health at a university in Sweden so I am a little biased towards global health probably.
Depending on you think is interesting and meaningful, you should choose what you like. As you are good at math, maybe statistics or health economics is a good way for you? I think that no matter what cause area you choose, it is probably good to be able to make a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Do you want to start your own organisation or choose an already existing? Volunteering at an organisation or in the effective altruism community might be more important than what education you choose. Your skills and motivation is very important. One skill that might be good in the future is to apply for grants… If it is something you like, of course. I chose to become an university teacher, since I think that I will have many students who are more capable of making great things than I am, but I can give them the tools. I think it is the advice I would give a younger version of myself. But what you think makes you and your skills unique and what you think is fun and important is what matters most. You already have the EA mindset so whatever path you choose will probably be great! :)
Kind regards,
Ulf Graf
I am very happy to hear that! You’re welcome! :)
I gave input to the UN together with Cool Earth, Equal Right and Professor Robert Fletcher. During 2025 I will try to figure out what to do with that text (any suggestions are warmly welcome): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?usp=drivesdk
I will also try to figure out how I can start a PhD in a meaningful research project. I am stuck in the southern Sweden because I have my family here, but at the university where I work as a lecturer in public health, there are not many research projects that feels right / impactful enough. The next best thing would be to collaborate more with EA people at other universities. I will also book meetings with some people from the EAG online conference, now that I have more time to spare.
Thank you for this post! I think it might be beneficial in some ways for the EA movement but a barrier in other ways. It is quite hard to find good evidence for cost-effectiveness of systemic changes, which makes it hard to look closer into. It is also hard to separate systemic change from politics, which can create tensions in a community.
Well… I am involved. I made some input to the UN together with Cool Earth, Equal Right and Robert Fletcher: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?usp=drivesdk
I also made a forum post about a way forward that I think might work when it comes to systemic change and the EA community: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tAF4zQSfDGpABLCaH/green-basic-income-and-health-taxes-as-a-way-for-systemic
Cool Earth is an organisation that was very popular in the EA movement for a while and I think they work with the topics you are looking for. I think GiveDirectly also is doing it. There are also some people doing it loosely. EA Germany has a Slack channel for systemic change.
I hope this helps! You are welcome to contact me if you want to discuss this further!
Kind regards, Ulf Graf
I just want to thank you for such an impressive forum post! I think Shrimp Welfare is very interesting and it has been an eye-opener for me when it comes to animal welfare. My own area is global / public health in different forms, but I will use some of the examples mentioned here in my lectures about global health and economic evaluations for my students if it is okay for you? I think it might be an eye-opener for some of them as well.
Thank you for an interesting forum post! In my forum post I present some examples of how to decrease inequality by using taxes and basic income. The best examples there are safety income and basic income that is funded with environmental taxes.
All the best,
Ulf Graf
Thank you for your wise reply, again! Yes, that is true. Even if we stopped all CO2-emissions now, almost none of the existing would go away because it will be up there for such a long time. But methane vanishes more quickly.
Yes, you are correct here as well. Organizations like Future Matters, that is founded by EA people, are doing research and strategy consulting services in policy, politics, coalitions and movements. So they could use this kind of article, since they give advice to politicians and national policy makers. But I still think that taxes is an underestimated tool in the EA community, because even if e.g. innovation support probably is more effective when it comes to climate change, taxes can be used for reducing poverty, health problems and so on.
Thank you Jackva, you have very wise input. I would also want the most impactful long-term policies as well. I think that the climate change already have gone so far that we need quite much focus on the short-term. For example, UNEP estimates that 25 to 50 % of all coral reefs are already destroyed, mostly because of global warming, and 70 to 90 % will be gone if we reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Many of your suggestions are good for both short-term and long-term impact so I agree that it could be better than the policies in the article. Policies like regulations and pricing may have long-term consequences as well since they have been reducing the amount of CO2 for many years, but policies like these may not be stable over time because of political decisions. But e.g. innovation-support, as you mentioned, probably have more stability.
Thank you for another insightful and interesting comment as well, Vasco! It was really nice to discuss with you and want to say that I have great respect for you and your texts. You gave me a lot to think about. I am very curios about how you would like the world to look like, what would your utopia be? I understand that it might be much to write (if you haven’t written about it already), so it is no rush, and you don’t need to reply if you feel that you want to use your time in other ways instead. But thanks again for giving me new perspectives and knowledge, I hope that I was able to return the favor. :)