Hi Billy, Yeah, it is a hard problem. And sure, I don't think happiness is the right ultimate metric. But I don't believe there is *any* ultimate metric. At least by talking about happiness, we start to widen the discussion away from GDP, and that is 98% a very good thing.
E On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:17 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Not at all what I might have guessed you would say. > I didn't guess, BTW, but did suppose that you would > be upbeat about the article. Turns out this was not the case. > > For myself, I get your point but also think that Samuelson > is at least as right as he is wrong. To combine your's and his views, > in other words before we can measure what we really want to measure > we need a philosophy --a set of definitions and working hypotheses > that make good sense-- which can guide our investigation. Otherwise > we start with assumptions and may never get beyond those that > really are false. > > I'd also add that "happiness" is fluid, not static. I've been both happy and > sad > at times of much social interaction and at times of limited social > interaction. > It depends. > > So we need a calculus, not an algebraic formula. > > Billy > > =================================== > > > 4/16/2012 1:05:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] > writes: > Boy, what a sourpuss. > > Sure, measuring happiness is overly simplistic and prone to abuse. But so are > *all* measurements, and economic ones are pretty horrible. > > A healthy debate about happiness -- or alternative metrics -- is a very good > thing. The thing we need to guard against is becoming overly dogmatic > about definitions, not the mere attempt to measure things that matter. > > E > > On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The global happiness derby >> >> >> By Robert J. Samuelson, >> >> Published: April 15, 2012 >> >> The Washington Post >> “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own >> way.” >> >> — Leo Tolstoy, “Anna Karenina” >> >> We ought to leave “happiness” to novelists and philosophers — and rescue it >> from the economists and psychologists who think it can be distilled into a >> “science” and translated into pro-happiness policies. Fat chance. Government >> can often mitigate sources of unhappiness (starvation, unemployment, >> disease), but happiness is more than the absence of misery. If we could >> manufacture happiness, we could repeal the “human condition.” >> >> Somehow this has escaped the social scientists who want to make happiness >> the goal of government. They argue that economic output (gross domestic >> product) doesn’t measure everything that’s important in life — family, >> friends or religion, for example. True, but it doesn’t follow that >> “happiness” can be targeted as an alternative. No matter. Their latest brief >> is the “World Happiness Report,” which ranks countries by their “subjective >> well-being” (the technical label for happiness) as recorded by public >> opinion surveys. >> >> On the most comprehensive list, the United States ranks 11th out of 156 >> countries. Here are the top 10 and their populations: Denmark, 5.6 million; >> Finland, 5.4 million; Norway, 5 million; Netherlands, 16.7 million; Canada, >> 34.8 million; Switzerland, 7.9 million; Sweden, 9.5 million; New Zealand, >> 4.4 million; Australia, 22.9 million; and Ireland, 4.6 million. >> >> All these countries share one common characteristic: They’re small in >> population and, except Canada and Australia, land mass. Small countries >> enjoy an advantage in the happiness derby. They’re more likely to have >> homogeneous populations with fewer ethnic, religious and geographic >> conflicts. This minimizes one potentially large source of unhappiness. Among >> big countries, the United States ranks first. >> >> The irony is that Europe, where the happiness movement is strongest, >> generally registers lower happiness. On the same ranking, the United Kingdom >> (18) is the leading large European nation, followed by Spain (22), France >> (23), Italy (28) and Germany (30). >> >> The high U.S. ranking may reflect national character. “A person who smiles a >> lot is either a fool or an American,” says a Russian adage cited by >> historian Peter N. Stearns of George Mason University in the Harvard >> Business Review. Only in the mid-1700s — the Enlightenment — did happiness >> become socially acceptable, Stearns notes. Before that, religious dogma >> encouraged austere rectitude. European cultures formed before the change; >> America’s didn’t. >> >> The relationship between economic growth and happiness is controversial. In >> 1974, economist Richard Easterlin of the University of Southern California >> published a study arguing that (a) within countries, the middle class and >> rich reported being happier than the poor; but (b) as countries became >> richer, reported happiness didn’t increase. This was dubbed the “Easterlin >> Paradox.” One theory is that people grow accustomed to higher incomes and >> compare themselves with those around them. If everyone gets richer, people >> at the bottom remain less happy. >> >> Well, if economic growth doesn’t make people happier, what’s the point? The >> happiness movement is often anti-growth. Yes, the poorest countries need >> growth to relieve misery. But otherwise, “the lifestyles of the rich imperil >> the survival of the poor,” writes Columbia University economist Jeffrey >> Sachs in the happiness report. “Climate change is already hitting the >> poorest regions.” >> >> This sounds reasonable but isn’t. There are two flaws. First, the Easterlin >> Paradox may be untrue. A recent study by economists Justin Wolfers and >> Betsey Stevenson of the University of Pennsylvania found that higher >> economic growth does raise happiness in most countries. Second, even if the >> Easterlin Paradox survives (economists are quarreling), growth is essential >> to maintaining existing happiness. >> >> Look at the European Union. As its growth has dropped, unemployment has >> risen to 10.2 percent. And unemployment reduces well-being, says the >> happiness report, through lower income and the “loss of social status, >> self-esteem, [and] workplace social life.” >> >> All rich societies already try to balance economic growth with social >> justice, security and environmental progress. The happiness movement would >> merely impose more intervention. It “boils down to having zealous >> politicians regulate the rest of us into their version of happiness,” argues >> Marc De Vos of the Itinera Institute, a Belgian think tank. >> >> Creating an impossible goal — universal happiness — also condemns government >> to failure. Happiness depends on too much that is uncontrollable. For >> starters, personality. We all know people who seem blessed — stable >> marriage, healthy children, successful job — who are restless, grumpy and >> sometimes depressed. Meanwhile, others plagued by misfortune — sickness, >> shaky finances, family disappointment — persevere and remain upbeat. >> >> Contradictions abound. Freedom, the ability to choose, is also essential to >> well-being, says the happiness report. But freedom permits people to do >> self-destructive things that reduce happiness. >> >> The “pursuit of happiness” may be a “right,” as the Declaration of >> Independence says. But the achievement of happiness is not an entitlement. >> The happiness movement is at best utopian; at worst, it’s silly and >> oppressive. >> >> >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community >> <[email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
