What do France and Bhutan have in common?

From ForeignPolicy.com. What do you think? Is it valid, good or reasonable to measure Gross National Happiness? Well-Being per Capita?

Nicolas Sarkozy's government is rolling out a "revolutionary" new economic indicator:

France plans to include happiness and well-being in its measurements of economic progress, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday, beckoning other countries to join in a "revolution" in the way growth is tracked after the global economic crisis. [...]

France — whose growth has lagged its peers in recent decades according to standard measures — will also try to convince other governments to change their economic tracking, Sarkozy said

"A great revolution is waiting for us," he said. "For years, people said that finance was a formidable creator of wealth, only to discover one day that it accumulated so many risks that the world almost plunged into chaos."

"The crisis doesn't only make us free to imagine other models, another future, another world. It obliges us to do so," he said.

One minor quibble: Sarkozy should really give some credit to King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan, the true pioneer of gross national happiness.

Skeptics can (and will) look at this new innovation as a ploy for France to "juke the stats," since its short workweek and social benefits look a lot more impressive than its GDP growth.

That aside, the transformation of Sarkozy's economic message has been pretty astounding. The president came to power promising privitization and economic modernization and was lambasted by French left-wingers for his attachment to "Anglo-Saxon" economic models. But since the economic crisis (and his own popularity crisis) he's made a habit of attacking the Anglo-Saxons for their free-market orthodoxy and consulting with market-skeptics Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz on new economic indicators.

Where have you gone, Sarko l'Américain?

Happiness in Business

This was developed for entrepreneurs building their companies, but I think it is applicable for everyone.

Homage to simplicity

It seems that it's the fashion in these lean times to discuss how much richer one's life is without money. This is quite a delightful example by Pico Iyer, who is one of my favorite travel writers:

I still live in the vicinity of Kyoto, in a two-room apartment that makes my old monastic cell look almost luxurious by comparison. I have no bicycle, no car, no television I can understand, no media — and the days seem to stretch into eternities, and I can’t think of a single thing I lack.

I’m no Buddhist monk, and I can’t say I’m in love with renunciation in itself, or traveling an hour or more to print out an article I’ve written, or missing out on the N.B.A. Finals. But at some point, I decided that, for me at least, happiness arose out of all I didn’t want or need, not all I did. And it seemed quite useful to take a clear, hard look at what really led to peace of mind or absorption (the closest I’ve come to understanding happiness). Not having a car gives me volumes not to think or worry about, and makes walks around the neighborhood a daily adventure. Lacking a cell phone and high-speed Internet, I have time to play ping-pong every evening, to write long letters to old friends and to go shopping for my sweetheart (or to track down old baubles for two kids who are now out in the world).

When the phone does ring — once a week — I’m thrilled, as I never was when the phone rang in my overcrowded office in Rockefeller Center. And when I return to the United States every three months or so and pick up a newspaper, I find I haven’t missed much at all. While I’ve been rereading P.G. Wodehouse, or “Walden,” the crazily accelerating roller-coaster of the 24/7 news cycle has propelled people up and down and down and up and then left them pretty much where they started. “I call that man rich,” Henry James’s Ralph Touchett observes in “Portrait of a Lady,” “who can satisfy the requirements of his imagination.” Living in the future tense never did that for me. [NY Times]

Consumption = Life?

I'm passing along a reference from my friend's very good blog, Thoughts in the Days of an Economist, from Andrew Sullivan on the economy:

Why is a lower standard of living unimaginable for us for a while? Why is it essential that income keeps rising? Why can't we do more with less?...

This is why our problem is not just economic; it's spiritual. We have mistaken consuming for living.

Innocence vs. Experience

In 1972, the King of Bhutan proposed the concept of Gross National Happiness as a measure to be maximized in his country, rather than, say, Gross Domestic Product or Per Capita Income.

Indeed, you could say that someone with extensive medical needs going through an expensive court case would contribute greatly to the GDP, but that person certainly is not high on the measure of Gross National Happiness. I've read studies that say that happiness is correlated with income up to a certain basic level, about $40K/family in the US. After that, happiness and income are not well correlated.

On another angle, in the last 5 years or so, Bhutan has opened up to the outside world, allowing television, internet, and travel. I think we would at first assume that this would be a good thing. Greater access to knowledge, news, other ways of being and the global market. While GDP has increased with this openness, Gross National Happiness has decreased.

It brings to mind Blake's dichotomy of Innocence and Experience. Each have their pros and cons. Perhaps as a culture, as a country, Bhutan is making that transition from Innocence with its optimistic happiness to experience with its wisdom/sadness.

So, I have two questions:

1. Do you prefer innocence or experience?
2. Does more money make you happier?
   

Cooking for One

I recently picked up a book called, "Alone in the Kitchen with an Eggplant: Confessions of Cooking for One and Dining Alone." There's great freedom in cooking for yourself - you have no one to please, you don't have to sit at the table, use a fork or turn on the stove.

When I'm alone I eat one of the following:

• Pasta, with a sauce made from what's in the cupboard or freezer
• Bread and cheese
• A huge pan of roasted asparagus

One time I had some hard boiled eggs on hand, so I spent the entire evening making empanadas to use them up. (I'm sure there's an easier way.)

So, what do you eat/cook when no one else is looking?

Happiness, and how to achieve it

Happiness, perhaps it's a trite topic. On the other hand, maybe we talk about it because we experience such a lack of it. Can you aim for happiness? Or should you shoot for satisfaction? Meaning? Accomplishment? and hope that happiness comes along as a side benefit?

I'm contemplating this because of a conversation I had last night with my darling, George. He loves his work. He's a chaired professor, so his motivation is not tenure. He simply loves what he does. He works for at least half the day each day of the weekend because he love it. He doesn't actually talk about his work much, but if he's away from it for too long he starts to miss it.

I wish I loved my work that much. Don't get me wrong, I like my job. In fact, just this week I turned down an offer from a big company you've all heard of to stay where I am, in a tiny little consulting company. But, I wish I loved it as much as George loves his. I suppose most of the people I know work to pay the rent, hopefully in something they don't find too objectionable, but to be faced with someone who loves his work makes me realize there could be more.

Is it a matter of creating it? Is it a matter of being busy enough that I don't have time to think about happiness? I recognize that I'm always happiest at work when I've got a deadline and I'm juggling stuff. Is that just because I don't have time to navel-gaze?