Living Car Free - An economy based on happiness?

I wonder if we could judge our economy on the basis of Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product? One nation has tried to do this for more than 40 years, and the UN is holding high level meetings on the topic now. Andrew Revkin is providing good coverage of the topic in his blog.



Seeking Happiness on a Finite and Human-Shaped Planet (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/seeking-happiness-on-a-finite-and-human-shaped-planet/?smid=tw-dotearth&seid=auto)


What do you think?

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?
What would change if we based our economy on happiness?
Does having more stuff make people happier?
What can a nation do to make its people happier?
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?: Absolutely not. If people thought of nothing but happiness, we wouldn't have innovative companies, since no one is happy working 90 hours per week to start the next big thing. We wouldn't have cures to diseases, because working tirelessly for 20-30 years for the chance at big money.
What would change if we based our economy on happiness?: Our society would collapse....
Does having more stuff make people happier?: Yes, to an extent. As Daniel Tosh said: just try to frown when riding a jet ski
What can a nation do to make its people happier?: It isn't the nation's business to make its people happier. It is the nation's business to protect people's right to make themselves happy
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?: Yes, but not because of anything to do with cycling. People would be happier if they exercised more, which is obviously a side effect of cycling

One of the links in the Dot Earth post is a must read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-helliwell/happiness-report_b_1391510.html



But income is only one among many factors that explain the variation in happiness among people. As the report describes, income explains only about one-twentieth of the variation within nations that can be explained statistically, and across countries it explains about one-eighth of the explained variation. The other factors besides income can be divided into those that are mainly social and those that are mainly personal.

Countries differ hugely in the strength of their networks of social support ("If you were in trouble do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them?"). They also differ in the degree of corruption in government and business, and of course in personal freedom and security. All these factors matter a great deal. So too does the state of the labor market. High and stable employment is extremely important. Therein lies the case for active labor market policies, job training, and various innovations in working hours flexibility.

Turning to more personal factors, a crucial one is mental health. A person's mental health many years earlier is a better predictor of his current happiness than his current level of income. Policy-makers need to take note. Mental illness comprises more than 40 percent of disability in advanced countries, according to the World Health Organization. Yet even in rich countries, it is estimated that only around one-fourth of the mentally ill are in treatment.

Physical health is also a major factor affecting happiness. It has to be a major priority in poor countries, and in rich countries for people in retirement.


Many North Americans single mindedly pursue economic health as the sole indicator of happiness. But studies show that societies are happiest when there is a smaller gap between poorest and richest.

This world might be a lot happier if we stopping pursuing "stuff" and helped the poorest among us achieve more wealth.

The amount of money one has isn't what makes one happy. It is having plenty of money for one's situation with some big reserves. That might be just $200,000 for me and for somebody else it might be five times that amount. Unless somebody is living in an Amazon rainforest for their entire life, money is the foundation for happiness.

I've got a job that is OK but not satisfying. If it paid plenty of money my opinion of it would change.

You need a new job.

I wonder if we could judge our economy on the basis of Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product? One nation has tried to do this for more than 40 years, and the UN is holding high level meetings on the topic now. Andrew Revkin is providing good coverage of the topic in his blog.



Seeking Happiness on a Finite and Human-Shaped Planet (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/seeking-happiness-on-a-finite-and-human-shaped-planet/?smid=tw-dotearth&seid=auto)

[/LIST]

Happieness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be? Of course. There are some that think we must sacrifice happieness to gain achievement but this is folly. You can have both but too many people only attain one. Lets just say that no one want to be unhappy in life.

What would change if we based our economy on happiness? I suspect you would have to replace a capitalist economy with maybe a socialist one? Maybe even one based on religion but who knows. I remember Star Trek had such an economy where no one worked for money. Then again, that was a television show, wasn't it? LOL!

Does having more stuff make people happier? I'll have to say yes here. As you get older, your health matters far more. The young people find buying stuff makes them happy. The shopping mall were made for them.

What can a nation do to make its people happier? Do what prosperous countries like Germany is doing. Stay out of wars, focus on manufacturing, education and economic wealth.

Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less? Maybe but more access to public transit can do the same. LOL! Just had to get my public transit advocacy hat on for a moment. I happen to think people are located or work in areas that require motor transport. They are conditioned to drive and if you asked the motor centrist are they happy, most would say yes if it ment riding a bicycle.

You need a new job.I'm working on it. A guy I know has hired me to do marketing for him. It is so infrequent that I can't really call it a job. I've got other personal work projects happening but there is no telling when they will take off, if ever.

What do you think?

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?
What would change if we based our economy on happiness?
Does having more stuff make people happier?
What can a nation do to make its people happier?
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?


Interesting questions.

Generally, happiness is our goal. But happiness is not found in getting all the goodies. Real happiness comes in giving and helping others. It's compassion based and goes beyond our selfish temporary perspective.

We can still invent great stuff and conquer new challenges. But greed will be so yesterday. Everyone does their best as a gift to others. Taking the view of the greater-mind rather than the smaller-mind, WIIFE (whats in it for everyone) replaces WIIFM (whats in it for me). I am taken care of because everyone else sees that my well being is a reflection on them. And I return the favor.

What a nation can do, if by that you mean a government, mostly it can keep the greedy out and let its enlightened people do their thing. Ultimately, a country governed like that will fade away, because people themselves have taken the up the needed tasks voluntarily.

I don't think bicycling would affect happiness much, but it would be a byproduct of happiness. With a greater-mind attitude, you'd care about how you were transported not just about what comfort level you were transported with, because you'd acknowledge the costs of the transportation. You'd try to find transportation that put a light burden on Earth, public transportation, bicycling and walking.

Is this idyllic? As long as there are greedy bastards trying to pull down everyone else, it won't happen. If money and stuff buy happiness, then the Koch brothers should be dancing on cloud nine. But they really don't get a great payoff there, and they are so naive that they just don't get it.

Once I had a vision. Everyone was in a great river. No one could always stay afloat by themselves, it was too difficult. The only way was that everyone would help everyone else. Sometimes others would keep you afloat, sometimes you would keep others afloat.

The term self-made-man is such an oxymoron. The concepts on maximizing happiness are not new. The Buddha laid them out thousands of years ago. But it's taking a long while for the ideas to spread because a lot of people think they have something to lose.

In every human society there are type A personalities and type B personalities. There are successful people and their are people who fail. But even if there were some magic government that tried to play Robin Hood they would have to make those who have been called greedy unhappy to make those that aren't happy. And no one will govern if there is no authority over others to do that governing. No one will enforce for that government if they aren't rewarded and given authority to enforce. So you get back to those who can will achieve and gain some happyness and those who can't who settle for a different happyness.

It is the one glairing flaw in a total socialistic government. At some point half of the people will be working to support the other half. It is just how people are. look at just about any primitive culture we can study. The guy that had two stone axes and two spears was better off than someone that only had one. The guy with one tended to feel the guy with two was rich and living to excess. How was happier? In the Navajo culture sheep were a status symbol and some families had massive flocks. The US government came in and limited the number of sheep, including killing off some of them, and I can promise you that even if it made the status more equal it didn't make the people that lost the sheep happy. It didn't make the people that didn't have the sheep in the first place any happier either.

Just my opinion. But I don't think anyone can put flesh on the idea and explain how it could work and that the government could support itself and conduct commerce with other governments.

What is happiness in the first place? My 2 cents, take it with a grain of salt.

Happiness is impossible because happiness is all in the eye of the beholder. Only the observer of their reality can create happiness in them selves. And the idea of "happiness" has been diluted into the sea of other emotions an example being lust.

Case in point: A child lusts over a toy for a solid week, he needs that toy. Upon receiving that toy the child is in joy that he has obtained his object of lust. But that joy is not happiness, it is simply the appeasement of the lust and the toy suddenly lost its extreme interest.

Can we determine such an emotion and response as happiness? What is happiness? Is the happiness in the act of want or in the act of appeasement of that want? now replace child with adult, and toy with money.

Is happiness some where in the word safety? Are the two interchangeable? They say laughter was created as a sign that danger has passed. Maybe being secure and safe is happiness? But some people find happiness in problem solving. Being safe can be boring and unfulfilled.

So is happiness even something that can be "obtained" if it can be obtained then can it be given? And for how long do you keep it?

I don't agree with the notion that there would be no innovation were happiness our primary concern. Innovative people innovate because that makes them happy.

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?: Absolutely not. If people thought of nothing but happiness, we wouldn't have innovative companies, since no one is happy working 90 hours per week to start the next big thing. We wouldn't have cures to diseases, because working tirelessly for 20-30 years for the chance at big money.
...



I take exception to your first point. A great many people happily work 60-90 hour weeks even without the promise of exorbitant future compensation. Have you ever seen what goes on behind the scenes at University research facilities? Many of us are simply driven to "solve the next puzzle". I suppose it simply makes us happy to do so. By the way, many of those "next big thing(s)" originated in government funded research facilities and were created by folks who don't even earn overtime for their extra hours.

By the way, while I have never been on a jet ski, I believe I would frown while riding one. I don't care much for those sort of toys. Thankfully, no one is forcing me to play with one.

I take exception to your first point. A great many people happily work 60-90 hour weeks even without the promise of exorbitant future compensation. Have you ever seen what goes on behind the scenes at University research facilities? Many of us are simply driven to "solve the next puzzle". I suppose it simply makes us happy to do so. By the way, many of those "next big thing(s)" originated in government funded research facilities and were created by folks who don't even earn overtime for their extra hours.

By the way, while I have never been on a jet ski, I believe I would frown while riding one. I don't care much for those sort of toys. Thankfully, no one is forcing me to play with one.

Do the researchers work for free? Do they ever quit because of pay issues? Do the take weekends off to relax. Do they vacation somewhere other than where they work? Does someone expect to get paid for the results of that research? That is a economy. Are the researchers happy when the director messes with their research? Do they complain about the "management"?

I am not picking on you but I have worked in education for many years and I have never seen these Happy carefree workers you speak of. I have been to get togethers and listened to them talk about how hard a problem is and how hard it is to see funds cut and facilities closed. I have sat in contract negociations and no one is happy after that. Maybe we need a defination of being happy. If an economy was ever built on happyness how would we trade that with others? How would we fund the police who aren't there to make some people happy. How would the society protect itself from those who only want to take what others have to make them happy. (Think the Mongols, Alexander, Germany and Japan in the 40s? ) It is a nice thought but even in research facilities people expected to be rewarded for a job well done and a simple pat on the back will not keep people working 60 to 90 hours a week for free. Government can't ever fix that I don't believe. At least I have never seen anywhere or any society where it has.

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?: Absolutely not. If people thought of nothing but happiness, we wouldn't have innovative companies, since no one is happy working 90 hours per week to start the next big thing. We wouldn't have cures to diseases, because working tirelessly for 20-30 years for the chance at big money.
What would change if we based our economy on happiness?: Our society would collapse....
Does having more stuff make people happier?: Yes, to an extent. As Daniel Tosh said: just try to frown when riding a jet ski
What can a nation do to make its people happier?: It isn't the nation's business to make its people happier. It is the nation's business to protect people's right to make themselves happy
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?: Yes, but not because of anything to do with cycling. People would be happier if they exercised more, which is obviously a side effect of cycling


Let me guess--you're a Republiocan!

Well, whatever makes you happy... :)

If an economy was ever built on happiness how would we trade that with others?

By giving it away. :D

The term self-made-man is such an oxymoron. The concepts on maximizing happiness are not new. The Buddha laid them out thousands of years ago. But it's taking a long while for the ideas to spread because a lot of people think they have something to lose.
One thing the Buddha pointed out was that the more you have, the more you can lose. This is why affluence has never made anybody happy. It's nice to have material possessions, but the stress and anxiety of ownership usually cancels out the joy people find in wealth.

"If you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Recently, some family members have had enormous tragedies that were beyo9nd their control. I decided to give them all my money to help them through their difficulties. I've been struggling with the feelings of insecurity that having nothing can cause. (Buddha said that both excessive wealth and extreme poverty contribute to human misery.) I don't have that cushion of savings that we are taught to rely on. But I do have a cushion in my human relationships. I know that the family members that I helped will do anything they can to help me, if the shoes are ever switched. To put it more bluntly, I knowI won't die alone. And both the Buddha and Jesus said that if you do something for others, you will be repaid in some way.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think it's a coincidence that the country that came up with a National Happiness Index is a Buddhist society.

In every human society there are type A personalities and type B personalities. There are successful people and their are people who fail. But even if there were some magic government that tried to play Robin Hood they would have to make those who have been called greedy unhappy to make those that aren't happy. And no one will govern if there is no authority over others to do that governing. No one will enforce for that government if they aren't rewarded and given authority to enforce. So you get back to those who can will achieve and gain some happyness and those who can't who settle for a different happyness.

It is the one glairing flaw in a total socialistic government. At some point half of the people will be working to support the other half. It is just how people are. look at just about any primitive culture we can study. The guy that had two stone axes and two spears was better off than someone that only had one. The guy with one tended to feel the guy with two was rich and living to excess. How was happier? In the Navajo culture sheep were a status symbol and some families had massive flocks. The US government came in and limited the number of sheep, including killing off some of them, and I can promise you that even if it made the status more equal it didn't make the people that lost the sheep happy. It didn't make the people that didn't have the sheep in the first place any happier either.

Just my opinion. But I don't think anyone can put flesh on the idea and explain how it could work and that the government could support itself and conduct commerce with other governments.

Why do you think that happiness is a zero sum game? What governing principle says that one person becoming happier means that another person must become less happy?

I don't think that a socialist government is necessary for happiness. We do need to teach people that looking out only for yourself will NOT make you happy in the long run. (Mainly because you always have to worry about all the other people who are thinking only of themselves.) We also need to stress that takiing more than your fair share, at the expense of others, is a no-no--whether you're a banker or a bank robber.

Do the researchers work for free? Do they ever quit because of pay issues? Do the take weekends off to relax. Do they vacation somewhere other than where they work? Does someone expect to get paid for the results of that research? That is a economy. Are the researchers happy when the director messes with their research? Do they complain about the "management"?

I am not picking on you but I have worked in education for many years and I have never seen these Happy carefree workers you speak of. I have been to get togethers and listened to them talk about how hard a problem is and how hard it is to see funds cut and facilities closed. I have sat in contract negociations and no one is happy after that. Maybe we need a defination of being happy. If an economy was ever built on happyness how would we trade that with others? How would we fund the police who aren't there to make some people happy. How would the society protect itself from those who only want to take what others have to make them happy. (Think the Mongols, Alexander, Germany and Japan in the 40s? ) It is a nice thought but even in research facilities people expected to be rewarded for a job well done and a simple pat on the back will not keep people working 60 to 90 hours a week for free. Government can't ever fix that I don't believe. At least I have never seen anywhere or any society where it has.

I think you need to fine tune your definition of happiness. It isn't a zero sum game, it isn't the same as socialism, and it doesn't involve letting people walk all over you.

I wonder if we could judge our economy on the basis of Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product?...
What do you think?

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama says that it is, and I'm very much inclined to agree. The wish to be happy, and to not suffer, is what lies at the heart of almost all our actions. But people fall into a belief that happiness depends on external phenomena -- a good job, material wealth, social status, desirable relationships, the adulation of other people, intoxicants. But that's mistaken; happiness is a way of seeing.

What would change if we based our economy on happiness?

I don't think it would be possible to base an economy on happiness in the same sense as it can be based on money. The concept of economy implies trading things with others who want those things, and to do that, you must have a limited supply of said things. Happiness is infinite in nature, and is multiplied by giving it away freely, so it would make a terrible currency!

Does having more stuff make people happier?

No. Having stuff that enables you to do things you enjoy might be considered an indirect cause of happiness. But often, possessions seem to enslave people. They spend most of their lives working to obtain and maintain these things, losing sight of the fact that possessions have no inherent value.

What can a nation do to make its people happier?

It's more a question of culture than national politics. A change of values would be needed. Kids would need to grow up in a structure that emphasized cooperation rather than competition. We would need to weave the awareness that all that lives is interdependent into the very fabric of our society. From that would grow a culture that placed caring for each other above selfish gain.

Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?

Probably somewhat happier. Driving is rather dehumanizing; it seems to foster a sense of isolation from other people and from the world around you. I think this is more costly, mentally and spiritually, than we generally realize. Cycling brings transportation to a much more human scale, and feels much more connected with your surroundings.

I think you need to fine tune your definition of happiness. It isn't a zero sum game, it isn't the same as socialism, and it doesn't involve letting people walk all over you.

Then I ask you to define it. An economy based on Happyness that is. We may agree that from a religious point of view mankind sould be more selfless. But point out the society where happyness is an economy. I have worked with the underemployed before and sat with people in the corporate world. I can't even tell you how many in the first group would rather be in the second. But I can tell you how many in the latter want to have less.

I take exception to your first point. A great many people happily work 60-90 hour weeks even without the promise of exorbitant future compensation. Have you ever seen what goes on behind the scenes at University research facilities? Many of us are simply driven to "solve the next puzzle". I suppose it simply makes us happy to do so. By the way, many of those "next big thing(s)" originated in government funded research facilities and were created by folks who don't even earn overtime for their extra hours.

By the way, while I have never been on a jet ski, I believe I would frown while riding one. I don't care much for those sort of toys. Thankfully, no one is forcing me to play with one.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I know there are some people out there who work long hours for the fun of it, but the majority of people who do very essential jobs to our economy do so because of the money. If we had an economy based on happiness, how many people who work 9 hours a day in 120 degree heat laying down roads? How many people would work in a factory on a line that makes steel? Very basic jobs that are essential to a functioning society are simply not fun. Take away hard compensation, and those jobs are not completed.

When it comes to managing people, if the job itself is not inherently rewarding, hard compensation is the only motivating factor. Many, many absolutely critical jobs are not rewarding in and of themselves.

Following the strategy in that article would result in a society of dreamers who are happily watching the infrastructure of their world crumble around them.


Let me guess--you're a Republiocan!

Well, whatever makes you happy... :)

I have never voted for a republican in my life. I am libertarian. I understand the concept behind what the article is saying but to be frank, I just think it is extremely naive and unrealistic. It seems like something some 19 year old college student who has never seen the real world would write.

It is hard to make any comment here without triggering a political rant. But you could say appropriate economic and political goals in a free society are the attempt to REMOVE the things that prevent happiness from being achieved by most people. And, that list might include, fear of violence, fear of financially devasting illnesses, fear of no access to education, fear of discrimination, fear of corruption, fear of exercising free thought and opinion, fear of poverty, and on and on.

So society protects you from facing all these fears without some regulation and a societal safety net, and economic opportunity, but the rest of the happiness equation is up to you.

Obviously, there is no concensus that this is the correct focus of our economy and government.

Do the researchers work for free? Do they ever quit because of pay issues? Do the take weekends off to relax. Do they vacation somewhere other than where they work? Does someone expect to get paid for the results of that research? That is a economy. Are the researchers happy when the director messes with their research? Do they complain about the "management"?

This is all true, but is simply an indication that the economy under which their efforts are taking place is not ideally suited to them. It is the economy that causes their problems. Change the economy and these problems would go away.

(The obvious answer then is change the economy to what? And the reality is that no theoretical economic systems actually exist that are at all faithful to the theory. "Capitalism", "Communism" and other theoretical systems are pure theory and cannot exist in the real world. All real world systems have to make accommodations for the behavior of human beings and that behavior doesn't follow the theory. The flaw of every system is man. On paper, they all work fine.)

The flaw of every system is man. On paper, they all work fine.

Very true.
Oh so very true.

I think unhappiness drives change, and often progress.

If that were always true, I'd be very progressive. :(

I have never voted for a republican in my life. I am libertarian. I understand the concept behind what the article is saying but to be frank, I just think it is extremely naive and unrealistic. It seems like something some 19 year old college student who has never seen the real world would write.

Well, an extreme conservative then. There have been studies showing that conservatives and liberals have very different views on happiness. Liberals believe it is the most important value, conservatives don't even believe that it is a value. I think this is the ultimate difference between the two ideologies--and not something intellectual or "political" at all.

As to the 19 year old, with all the unnecessary misery in this world, it's hard to imagine that the kids would do any worse at running things.

The amount of money one has isn't what makes one happy. It is having plenty of money for one's situation with some big reserves. That might be just $200,000 for me and for somebody else it might be five times that amount. Unless somebody is living in an Amazon rainforest for their entire life, money is the foundation for happiness.


Actually, the amount is $75,000. At least it was in 2010. Probably closer to $80k thanks to inflation...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html

You can fly if you find your happy thought, Peter. ;)

Following the strategy in that article would result in a society of dreamers who are happily watching the infrastructure of their world crumble around them.

This is just plain wrong. People who value happiness believe that long-range planning and positive action are required to acheive it. In fact, many large scale human projects were acheived by people trying to attain happiness. And not just social programs like Medicare, but even things like the railroads, interstates, World War II were supposed to make peoploe happier.

And certainly the best way to make money is to provide a product or service that makes people happy.

The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that only money (or fame or power) will make them happy. Many other things make people as happy, or happier, as others pointed out on this thread.

Another mistake is that people think money will make them only happy, whereas wealth also brings many negative feelings with it. (Studies of big lottery winners show that almost all of them were less happy a couple years after they won the money.)

A third error is believing that people will work only for money. There have been a couple posts here that point out why this view is mistaken. Yes, money is a very powerful motivator, but there are others.

As an extremist (libertarian) I think you want to look at only the extreme ends of an issue. Buddha (and Plato, and many other great thinkers) said that we should seek a middle way. I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.

ADD: AS a utilitrian philosopher (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/documents/issue1-2.pdf), St. Adam Smith would have agreed that happiness is the ultimate good.

It is hard to make any comment here without triggering a political rant. But you could say appropriate economic and political goals in a free society are the attempt to REMOVE the things that prevent happiness from being achieved by most people. And, that list might include, fear of violence, fear of financially devasting illnesses, fear of no access to education, fear of discrimination, fear of corruption, fear of exercising free thought and opinion, fear of poverty, and on and on.

So society protects you from facing all these fears without some regulation and a societal safety net, and economic opportunity, but the rest of the happiness equation is up to you.

Obviously, there is no concensus that this is the correct focus of our economy and government.

No consensus, but the Founders did give us the notion that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. The fact that they enshrined this in the Declaration of Independence suggests that they thought government is supposed to either protect or extend happiness, or both. (How very un-Libertarian of them!)

You can fly if you find your happy thought, Peter. ;)

Now you are somebody whose opinion I value. What are your thoughts on this topic?

So you get back to those who can will achieve and gain some happyness and those who can't who settle for a different happyness. That's a false dichotomy. Many people choose and prefer a less materialistic lifestyle. It's not that they "can't" achieve, and have to "settle", it's that their achievements are of a different type.

Now you are somebody whose opinion I value. What are your thoughts on this topic?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

nuff said ;)


Of course, if it had been me, I would have included the "pursuit of tail", but note that the capitalists didn't manage to get "pursuit of money" in there either. Both are covered nicely by Happiness tho. :D

Do the researchers work for free? Do they ever quit because of pay issues? Do the take weekends off to relax. Do they vacation somewhere other than where they work? Does someone expect to get paid for the results of that research? That is a economy. Are the researchers happy when the director messes with their research? Do they complain about the "management"?

This is all true, but is simply an indication that the economy under which their efforts are taking place is not ideally suited to them. It is the economy that causes their problems. Change the economy and these problems would go away.

(The obvious answer then is change the economy to what? And the reality is that no theoretical economic systems actually exist that are at all faithful to the theory. "Capitalism", "Communism" and other theoretical systems are pure theory and cannot exist in the real world. All real world systems have to make accommodations for the behavior of human beings and that behavior doesn't follow the theory. The flaw of every system is man. On paper, they all work fine.)

Yes, with that I can agree. It is the term economy or dispensation or value system that we are working with. Individuals can seek happiness but the government can't use that as an economic system. It has never worked in any major society I have ever read about. Because as you say we have people to deal with. What things make some of us happy anger others. How do you trade happyness credits? How much happiness will it cost you to buy my bread? Will people be happy to clean the streets because it makes them happy? Not likely. There ae people like Mother Teresa but they are the exception. Even in a Theocracy some people do not achieve happiness and the government is powerless to do anything about it.

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be? no, to be better off than those around me is the ultimate human goal.
What would change if we based our economy on happiness? if economies were based on happiness, then no one would be happy since it would be required.
Does having more stuff make people happier? depends on what it is and in what quantities.
What can a nation do to make its people happier? not attempt to micromanage the populace. i know that would make ME happier.
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less? no, but it would nip the diabetes "epidemic" in the butt.

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be? no, to be better off than those around me is the ultimate human goal.


I think you've hit on something here. Like planning on being better off than children or grandchildren....

I think you've hit on something here. Like planning on being better off than children or grandchildren....

drill, baby, drill, screw the danged kids!

I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.
Oh, so the question "What would change if we based our economy on happiness?" wasn't intended to be interpreted literally. While it doesn't seem possible to actually use happiness as the basis of an economy (like a currency), it would certainly be possible to use it as a metric for how well a country's economic policies were working, provided you could devise a way to quantify how happy each individual considered their life to be.

Oh, so the question "What would change if we based our economy on happiness?" wasn't intended to be interpreted literally. While it doesn't seem possible to actually use happiness as the basis of an economy (like a currency), it would certainly be possible to use it as a metric for how well a country's economic policies were working, provided you could devise a way to quantify how happy each individual considered their life to be.

Which goes back to my original response...if you can find your happy thought, you can fly. Lot's of flying people is a good indicator of happiness, no? ;)

Maybe we should base the economy on horniness. We'd all be RICH!

Well, an extreme conservative then. There have been studies showing that conservatives and liberals have very different views on happiness. Liberals believe it is the most important value, conservatives don't even believe that it is a value. I think this is the ultimate difference between the two ideologies--and not something intellectual or "political" at all.

As to the 19 year old, with all the unnecessary misery in this world, it's hard to imagine that the kids would do any worse at running things.

Do you have links to those studies? I would be interested in reading them.


This is just plain wrong. People who value happiness believe that long-range planning and positive action are required to acheive it. In fact, many large scale human projects were acheived by people trying to attain happiness. And not just social programs like Medicare, but even things like the railroads, interstates, World War II were supposed to make peoploe happier.

And certainly the best way to make money is to provide a product or service that makes people happy.

The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that only money (or fame or power) will make them happy. Many other things make people as happy, or happier, as others pointed out on this thread.

Another mistake is that people think money will make them only happy, whereas wealth also brings many negative feelings with it. (Studies of big lottery winners show that almost all of them were less happy a couple years after they won the money.)

A third error is believing that people will work only for money. There have been a couple posts here that point out why this view is mistaken. Yes, money is a very powerful motivator, but there are others.

As an extremist (libertarian) I think you want to look at only the extreme ends of an issue. Buddha (and Plato, and many other great thinkers) said that we should seek a middle way. I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.

ADD: AS a utilitrian philosopher (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cspt/documents/issue1-2.pdf), St. Adam Smith would have agreed that happiness is the ultimate good.

With respect, Budda and Plato did not have ideas that could build the physical infrastructure of a society. It is all well and good to have programs intended to make people happier, however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts. Legislating values is never a good idea.

Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.

Look - I am not saying there isn't value in happiness, there absolutely is! I am saying that happiness is a very poor thing on which to base an economy. I think that is a very short sighted and very selfish way of thinking. I am also saying I don't think the government should have any role in this. If the government protects our freedom to do what we please, it is up to us to create an economy and society. Legislating 'happiness' is a poor decision.

Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not. In a society where people were happy we wouldn't need so much pavement.

Do you have links to those studies? I would be interested in reading them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/31/book-club-republican-war-on-science.html




With respect, Budda and Plato did not have ideas that could build the physical infrastructure of a society. It is all well and good to have programs intended to make people happier, however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts. Legislating values is never a good idea.

Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.

Look - I am not saying there isn't value in happiness, there absolutely is! I am saying that happiness is a very poor thing on which to base an economy. I think that is a very short sighted and very selfish way of thinking. I am also saying I don't think the government should have any role in this. If the government protects our freedom to do what we please, it is up to us to create an economy and society. Legislating 'happiness' is a poor decision.

Well, so much for the Declaration of Indepenndence!

I do think your definition of what makes people happy is much too narrow. Money is one thing, but not the only thing. We evolved as a species that cooperates and helps others as well as ourselves. The brain rewards this behavior with a pleasant set of feelings that we call happiness. It's a drive similar to sex and hunger. Why not acknowledge this and try to form a society that makes people happier?

Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.

Never been to an Amish barn raising have you. ;)

Money is just one means to acquire the things you need to survive. Indeed, with today's fiat money, there is little difference between that piece of paper called a dollar and a promise to help out a neighbor in the future for his/her help with some project today. Indeed, I dare say that a barter exchange doesn't suffer from monetary devaluation.

IMO part of the problem with our mainstream American society today is the emphasis on rugged individualism rather than on community. We want that paper so we can live under some facade of independence from needing help from our community.

however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts.

This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.

however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts.

This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.

Having been in both government and private industry, I would agree. The only real difference between a large corporation and the federal government is that at least the government has the facade of accountability.

It seems we can pretty much agree there is no practical way to base an economy on happiness, but how about the rest of the questions?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.

2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?

3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.

4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".

5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?

What do you think?

Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?
What would change if we based our economy on happiness?
Does having more stuff make people happier?
What can a nation do to make its people happier?
Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?

If I follow my passions, I'll be a lot happier than if I follow the money. If I follow my passions, I'll be more likely to work long and hard to accomplish something which satisfies me and also makes a positive difference in the world around me. Some find that passion in the arts. Others find it in manual work, especially in skilled manual work. Some are driven by the joy of creating or improving a business. No one of these is better or worse than another. We are all different.

As far as basing an economy on happiness, none of us can do that. What each of us can do is base our own personal economies on happiness. I can build a life based on what is important to me, which might not be what is important to the rest of our society. I can choose to do the things that are important to me instead of the things others would have me doing and I can choose to acquire the things which have meaning for me instead of the things which someone else says I should desire.

It's not about creating an economy based on happiness; it's about choosing to live my own life, not the life which is dictated by those who do not understand me or my values.

It seems we can pretty much agree there is no practical way to base an economy on happiness, but how about the rest of the questions?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.

2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?

3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.

4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".

5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?

1. Maybe the answer here is that people strive for material prosperity because they think it will generate happiness. Unfortunately, almost all of them discover that they were mistaken. Now that psychologistys and economists are studying happiness scientifically, it's becoming clear that people are happiest when they have enough to provide some security and the basics of life. There are no marginal returns on greateer wealth, however.

2. I think the Amish derive three benefits from the barn raising: a0 self insurance, b)spending tiime with the guys, same as the football game and beer, and c)they like hard work. All of those could contribute to happiness, with no cash transaction.

3. Of course people like stuff. Or rather they like getting stuff. Those scientists I mentioned earlier have found that people are rarely happy with their purchases a short time after buying them, and most people really don't like most of the stuff they own.

4. Police and the military exist to protect society. But for what purpose does society exist? (I think the answer would be the same for an ant or a bee as it is for humans.)

5. China is already cutting back on cars and moving more to rail. They are also encouraging a return to bicycles in the big cities. It's probably too soon to know, but maybe they tried cars for a while and decided they weren't really that happy with them--similar to another crowded country (the Netherlands).

1. Maybe the answer here is that people strive for material prosperity because they think it will generate happiness. Unfortunately, almost all of them discover that they were mistaken. Now that psychologistys and economists are studying happiness scientifically, it's becoming clear that people are happiest when they have enough to provide some security and the basics of life. There are no marginal returns on greateer wealth, however.

2. I think the Amish derive three benefits from the barn raising: a0 self insurance, b)spending tiime with the guys, same as the football game and beer, and c)they like hard work. All of those could contribute to happiness, with no cash transaction.

3. Of course people like stuff. Or rather they like getting stuff. Those scientists I mentioned earlier have found that people are rarely happy with their purchases a short time after buying them, and most people really don't like most of the stuff they own.

4. Police and the military exist to protect society. But for what purpose does society exist? (I think the answer would be the same for an ant or a bee as it is for humans.)

5. China is already cutting back on cars and moving more to rail. They are also encouraging a return to bicycles in the big cities. It's probably too soon to know, but maybe they tried cars for a while and decided they weren't really that happy with them--similar to another crowded country (the Netherlands).

You do have a lot of questions. None address the actions that have already taken place.

1. Maybe is a question not an answer. People strive for prosperity because they believe it will help provide security and continued survival. If that makes them happy all the better. But it is not clear that they are not happy with that prosperity because they continue to strive for it. If almost all of them "discovered" they were mistaken they would quit striving for it. Unless you are saying most people don't realize they aren't happy?

2. I wasn't talking about the benifits of barn raising I was talking about their base motivation, from their own mouth it is how they honor God in the community. That is the reason that if someone decided not to accept the benifits you suggest they provide a punishment for the offender not participating and deciding to stay at home and be happy in their own way.

3. Still the people getting stuff seem happier that people without stuff. The scientist you mention don't study for free and most of them aquire stuff themselves. If a scientist "knew" getting stuff was a worthless effort wouldn't they in turn eschew the aquiring of stuff themselves? But they don't they tend to buy nice suits rather than used levis. They drive nice cars work in nice offices and tend to eat at nice resturants. Do as I say not as I do doesn't work well for most of us.

4. Whatever reason the police and military exist I contend they would not be happy to risk their life for a pat on the back and a warm feeling.

5. What China is now doing may or may not be cutting back. But what they have done is rejected your suggested "The Nation would be happier with more bikes" if they already had more bikes and they moved away from it. India, Japan, Korea are in the same boat. You might have a point that they could be better off nationally but if we agree that people can choose their own way of being happy a lot of their population have already made the choice. It doesn't matter if we understand why they gave up that old lifestyle the only evidence we have to look at is they did. And it happened without a mandate from the government.

I totally agree we as individuals should take a look at what we have and how we use it. But I don't accept a minimalist suggestion that everyone would be happier if they live like Buddist Monks. And I don't think most Americans would be happy living without a real economy either.