Oh sure, if you're married to Carla Bruni then it's easy to
argue that happiness matters.
"I'm a short guy in a low-paying profession in a country
that was last considered a dynamo at the time of Montgolfier brothers first
balloon flight," you think, "but my wife is chaud,
chaud, chaud and in my country everybody gets five weeks off and all the pain chocolat they can eat. Bien
sur we need a new way to keep score."
So, if you're Nicolas Sarkozy, president of a country that
knows something about little men who want to change the world, of course you
embrace a new report from a group of economists led by Nobel Prize winner
Joseph Stiglitz that argues that we ought to be measuring the progress of
countries by how happy their people are.
But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to make
of this crazy idea that there is a better way to measure the economic success
of a country than GDP growth? Something
more important than a tally that primarily measures the value created by a
country's businesses? Something more important than a measure that can be
strongly positive while inequality grows and the few are cashing in on the
labors of the many?
How very French. But come to think of it when we live in an
age when China's is flashing nearly double digit growth in the middle of a
recession while we're busy trying to convince all the girls that 2 percent is
the new 4 percent, maybe Sarkozy is on to something. (Certainly the new
approach would make the concept of a global depression that much more
accurate.)
Oh, that what Stiglitz and company are recommending is a
metric that is more aligned with the interests of people than businesses and
would offer governments a measurement of success that actually reflects the aspirations
of their citizens ... well, that's easy to dismiss because happiness doesn't seem
that serious, does it? I mean, after
all, didn't our founders specify that the purpose of our country was to
guarantee the right of all of us (well, white men anyway) to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of constant growth in "the total market values of goods and services
produced by workers and capital within a nation's borders during a given period
(usually 1 year)."
Even better than any redirecting of our priorities that might come of
shooting for a different set of goals is the fact that totally extraneous
things might conspire to raise our national level of happiness even while other
economic measures are faltering, thus making us feel better at the times we
most need to feel better (like now). Thus, while it might take a while for
Barack Obama's economic reforms to restore growth to America his mere arrival
on the scene would almost certainly have accounted for a net rise in terms of
our gross national happiness (to use the accepted Bhutanese metric.) Heck, just
mentioning the Bhutanese metric does it for me because it reminds me of a post
this site had over the summer on Bhutan which was written by my very
happy-making eldest daughter. (Both my daughters would make me a huge
contributor to America's well-being by these new measures. Although come to
think of it, they are making a not insubstantial contribution to GDP growth as
it is.)
Or you could pick up a paper and read the right kind of story and
bing-bing-bing, our collective score rises. Like it did today while reading
Obama was on Wall Street pushing for long-overdue financial reforms. Or better
yet, because he
called Kanye West a "jackass." Or -- because sometimes all it takes is a
goofy story about nutty officials -- when I read about Evo Morales's plan to
nationalize the Bolivian national soccer team because it didn't make the cut
for the World Cup. Or when I read about Venezuela's announcement of its new
nuclear program. (I know, that doesn't sound so great. But I've been predicting this problem for so
long that it gives me a little lift even if it is a potential calamity for
millions of others. Take note: that's what narcissism makes possible.)
On the other hand, the happiness pendulum could swing in the direction of the usual litany of
disasters and indefensible policy moves. We could say, extend the Cuba embargo for one more year -- as Obama just did -- and trigger a near-depression
(recession?). It's a good example of the kind of pathetic failure of imagination that passes for an excuse to
keep repeating our mistakes. But I guess that was the point Sarkozy and
Stiglitz were trying to make ... and why their effort, even if it is utterly
unrealistic, makes me so dang happy.
JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE