The first thing that slaps me in the face is the position of Saudi Arabia @#6. That is a good place to live, is it?
Not if you are unlucky enough to be a woman or to be gay or to believe in democracy, freedom of speech or human rights.
The problem with this statistical exercise is that it gives a high weighting to material factors. If you think that human happiness is about nothing more than a series of cash transactions then the results are credible. That is a sad way to look at the world, most of us have, I hope, learnt that money does not buy happiness. However, severe shortage of money still does bring unhappiness.
At the other end of the result table, at the bottom is Cuba, apparently a worse place to live than Syria. If that's a joke it's not a funny one. How can anyone take that seriously?
Cubans have very little money, it's true, but they don't need very much to survive in an equitable society. And they manage to produce better health outcomes than America. The fact that it's difficult to buy a house there is not a problem when the supply of public housing is good.
This is still a valuable study though for what it reveals about the simplistic criteria which are used to justify bad political choices.