| Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum. New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join The Arab League! If you're already a member please log in: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Wealth Of A Nation; Happiness V GDP | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 14 2010, 09:32 PM (2,171 Views) | |
| whatsthatonyourback | Nov 14 2010, 09:32 PM Post #1 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sarkozy has already started using happiness to measure France's wealth, which is understandable when you think of why people like France so much. Now, Cameron is proposing the same for the UK. As if that wasn't enough to gnaw on, I'm intrigued by how keen Cameron is to lift ideas wholesale, often irrespective of their origin. And why are we having this sort of idea promoted by fairly right wing governments rather than left wingers? Has the left lost its relevance?
|
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Nov 14 2010, 10:47 PM Post #2 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always get nervous about mentions of happiness factors or social stuff. Sustainiblity and environmental factors also. I don't know what they actually mean. Any time there's reports, and you look at the actual measures of 'happiness' or 'healtiness', they can seem a bit rubbish and not focussed, and can be misleading. At least with GDP, you know what it means, and it's a lot clearer. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Nov 14 2010, 10:50 PM Post #3 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just because it's easy to measure doesn't mean it's worth measuring. And conversely - if something is difficult to measure it doesn't mean it's not important. |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Nov 14 2010, 10:55 PM Post #4 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
GDP is worth measuring though, even if easy. It's not the final answer, but it is important to know and increase. Sure, some things are difficult. Others are impossible. As someone who's probably more closely linked to money and happiness, it's maybe easier for me... |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Nov 15 2010, 07:03 AM Post #5 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry - did someone suggest replacing GDP with a sentiment indicator? That'd be dumb. But I don't think it's likely. We already have plenty of privately polled confidence surveys, such as UMich Sentiment in the US, whose findings inform government policy. Given the importance there's some logic to nationalising a consumer survey (note the main UK measures are done by Nationwide and GfK, neither of which can be trusted to be here next decade), though it doesn't suddenly become a Stiglitz model of social economics just by getting rid of the word "consumer". To recap, that Guardian article's pish. |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Nov 25 2010, 05:15 PM Post #6 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It'll cost us £2m to find out. BBC That makes me unhappy. |
![]() |
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Nov 25 2010, 05:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why does it make you unhappy? £2m is peanuts for a more comprehensive and useful measure of national wellbeing. While I'm not particularly happy with it being labeled a "happiness" indicator, for me it's a sensible and necessary way of measuring how we're all feeling. Not how "confident" we are, which tends to be used as a indicator of where we think we are going rather than where we are. An example of why environmental & sustainable measures are important: let's say a new source of something very valuable is found in Perthshire. Let's call it diamondberries. Suddenly, the handful of large farms who own the land are sitting on valuable real estate, and big companies move in to extract the diamondberries from the earth. It's messy and polluting work, but those involved become very very rich as a result. However, it's well known that there is a limited supply of diamondberries, and at the rate of extraction, they will run out in 20 years. However, GDP is boosted significantly in that time - making a few billionaires in the process - but Perthshire becomes less bonny, villages are cleared, heavy traffic clogs the surrounding roads and everyone experiences pollution and noise as a result. Most of the well-paid labour used is imported, and that expertise will disappear, along with the multinational companies, once the diamondberries run out. In the meantime, these billionaires and multinationals spend a lot of time and money undermining and neutralising local objections to the negatives of the diamondberry mines, causing disharmony and fears that the area will be permanently disfigured and abandoned with no lasting benefit once the mines close down. Is the increased GDP the best way to measure this new diamondberry natural resource business, or should the other factors, including sustainability and social cohesion be included to measure how the nation, or indeed Perthshire, is doing? |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Nov 25 2010, 06:06 PM Post #8 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nowhere in that BBC story does it qualify the £2m figure in the lead. Is that annually? Or the total cost of introducing a new dataset? If it's the latter then that's exceptionally cheap. (The Office of National Statistics already costs £213m a year to run, employing 3400 people.)
f*ck yeah. f*cking moaning farmers. If they don't like it they can f*ck off back to Russia. Load up on diamondberries, people. We're saved. Fill your motherf*cking boots. |
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Nov 25 2010, 06:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unhappy as I think it's a waste of money. I don't think it is comprehensive and useful. And as above, it's not the cost for the measure, it's the cost to find out about the measure. I get the example, and I'm sure there would be a lot of people who would be unahppy as a result despite and financial benefit. Then again, there are plenty of people who are unhappy when Tesco comes to their town / village. I think it's more a political thing. Nonthing there would make me unhappy, but others would be. But financially, it's clear. |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Nov 26 2010, 11:15 AM Post #10 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How about the many people who are happy or unhappy regardless of their general circumstances. Joe Bloggs has a decently paid, secure job, lives in a nice area, and doesn't really have much to complain about, but is far from happy. Jane Bloggs has a hard life, gets hardly any sleep, works long hours for low wages, and lives on a rough council estate, but is content and happy with her lot. Many people will be moaning f*ckers no matter how 'good' things get for them. Similarly, many people will be happy f*ckers no matter how 'bad' things get for them. |
![]() |
|
| YazooArab | Nov 26 2010, 11:39 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Paul Sturrock
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Splendid illustration there Eggman.
|
![]() |
|
| Setenza | Nov 26 2010, 12:00 PM Post #12 |
|
Knitting with only one needle
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It sounds relative. When have change - advancing or stepping up - happy, even if it's only a little bit. |
![]() |
|
| Naebody | Nov 26 2010, 12:40 PM Post #13 |
|
Twat
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Look. For f*ck sake. This is not reinventing the wheel. There are lots of "happiness" surveys, it's just they're usually called "consumer" something because they're put together by people who view us as consumers rather than citizens. For example, Nationwide. I'm baffled as to why people are upset that the data's being insourced for the same cost as electing police commissioners in the West Country. |
![]() |
|
| The Eggman | Nov 26 2010, 12:47 PM Post #14 |
|
Tommy McLean
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Obviously that's silly as well. |
![]() |
|
| findus | Nov 26 2010, 08:08 PM Post #15 |
|
Jerry Kerr
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Studies* have shown that people judge themselves relative to their peers, such that someone earning a million quid a year living/working/socializing among people earning 5 million quid a year is likely to be unhappy. Certainly considerably unhappier than if they were mixing with people earning a hundred grand a year. And so on up and down the scale. My main point of contest with any study like this is this - what are they going to do with the results? I'm unconvinced that you can artificially apply 'happiness policies' to make the country happier. It sounds gimmicky to me, something well short of the substantial social/economic changes needed. *no links available, just read it a number of times over the years, and it makes pretty good sense to me |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




4:35 PM Jul 13