4 ms·

We should really be trying to maximize a human happiness metric with the _minimum_ amount of GDP. Quantifying that is a challenge, but if we don’t start, we’ll

• The28thDuck 3y ago
  A free gaming console for every household!
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• SantalBlush 3y ago
  The problem is, how do we accurately measure that happiness? Economists would be first in line to use that measure. They know GDP is flawed--unpaid domestic work isn't included, for example--but it's the best they have. There is a ton of econ literature stating as much. Using dollars spent as a measure of happiness is unfortunately the best we can do (so far).
  • elashri 3y ago
    The failure of this metric as measure of happiness is very obvious. I can be rich person (relatively rich not that rich) and are spending a lot of money on my health problems who are making my life hell. With such metric this indicates that I'm living my best days.
    • jmye 3y ago
      I don’t think GDP is meant to be used on a personal level to measure happiness, nor do I think anyone is suggesting that as a valid use.
      • tonyedgecombe 3y ago
        It can apply across a whole economy though. You could argue half of the population is obese thanks to economic policies that improve GDP. That will impact gross national happiness.
        • jmye 3y ago
          But you can’t argue that a one off really sad rich person has meaning. Nor can you argue that that’s a common occurrence that wouldn’t immediately be lost in the noise. I’m also unconvinced that obesity is caused by “the economic policies that improve GDP”.
  • somenameforme 3y ago
    The answer to this always seemed self evident - ask people. Obviously this will be exceptionally subjective, but the entire point of all of these ostensibly "objective" metrics is to work to maximize the subjective metrics. Nobody gives a fly fark if a GDP is 37 or 38201784, but everybody cares about which place offers a more pleasant life. When those objective metrics do map strongly to the subjective metrics, then it's awesome. But the problem is that in practice near to any objective metric can be completely and utterly gamed in, more or less, "honest" ways. Essentially, a government can find ways to increase it without increasing the things that it's supposed to represent. But you can't game how people themselves perceive things without outright lying and fraud. The subjective metrics would also measure things objective metrics fail on hard. For instance war, as the aggressor or 'backer', is absolutely awesome for near to every economic metric. And national "defense" was one of the big winners in this GDP report. But do these wars provide a subjective quality of life improvement, or deterioration, for people? Basically I don't think the goal of the government should be to provide value to shareholders. That's the point of private industry and capitalism at large. The point of the government is to create a desirable state of life for people living within a country.
    • lmm 3y ago
      > When those objective metrics do map strongly to the subjective metrics, then it's awesome. But the problem is that in practice near to any objective metric can be completely and utterly gamed in, more or less, "honest" ways. Essentially, a government can find ways to increase it without increasing the things that it's supposed to represent. But you can't game how people themselves perceive things without outright lying and fraud. Subjective metrics are even easier to game though. Just dope everyone up, or tell them every other country is worse off, or.... And it's harder to prove lying or fraud because it's all subjective ideas, whereas when you have an objective number then at least if someone actually lies about the number that's provable. > And national "defense" was one of the big winners in this GDP report. But do these wars provide a subjective quality of life improvement, or deterioration, for people? The point of defense spending is so that you don't get invaded. Getting invaded tends to cause a major deterioration in quality of life.
• reissbaker 3y ago
  I agree with maximizing human happiness, but why with a minimum amount of GDP? What's the goal of having low GDP?
  • virgildotcodes 3y ago
    Seems like the idea is to minimize consumption in a finite world.
    • akhosravian 3y ago
      While the world’s resources are finite I think it is excessively pessimistic to suggest we’re consuming anywhere near all that is available to us. It’s possible to call out externalized costs (eg greenhouse emissions, many plastics) and be optimistic about our ability, as a species, to produce more.
    • Aloisius 3y ago
      GDP is a measure of value produced. An increase in GDP does not require an increase in consumption of finite materials.
• jorisboris 3y ago
  Not sure if correlated to happiness, but I wonder if we can measure the % of population who gives a f** in a country. In some countries people seem totally disconnected and frustrated (France, Italy come to mind), in others people feel a personal responsibility to make their country a success (Scandinavian countries come to mind) That to me seems a better indicator for the future
• nradov 3y ago
  GDP has issues, but happiness isn't a sensible metric to optimize either. If you take heroin then you'll be happy ... for a while.