20120510 Follow Me Don't Worry (About GDP), Be Happy

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

Don't Worry (About GDP), Be Happy
With the economy slow and joblessness high, the feds want a new way to measure well-being.
By JAMES BOVARD   
Updated May 6, 2012, 7:31 p.m. ET      http://online.wsj.com

In recent years, numerous experts have declaimed that the gross domestic product is a flawed measure of whether citizens are truly thriving. President Obama's designee（被指派者） for World Bank president, Jim Yong Kim, for example, warned that "the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men."
In light of this growing concern, the Obama administration is financing research to devise a new measure of happiness. A National Academy of Sciences panel is analyzing proposals for surveying Americans' "subjective well-being" to guide federal policy making. But constructing a federal happiness index would be a tricky undertaking.
The Census Bureau（人口普查局） is advising the happiness survey panel. Measuring moods is far more difficult than counting people, but Census doesn't even do a good job of that—as I learned working for the bureau in southern Illinois in 1980. As long as census takers didn't get arrested for drunkenness or public indecency and returned at the end of the day with a stack of filled-out forms, the bosses were satisfied.


There are other perils to be considered. Would the feds manipulate happiness statistics like they jigger the unemployment rate? If someone failed to actively seek joy during the previous six-month period, would they be formally excluded from the official count? Would government officials invent "seasonal adjustments" to disregard month-to-month swings in reported despondency?
Another question worth pondering: Is there any reason to expect a federal happiness index to be more credible than the inflation rate? Would official mood surveys disregard any unhappiness felt by middle-aged men losing their hair—the same way the Consumer Price Index often ignores jumps in housing and food prices?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics now reduces the official inflation rate by "hedonic adjustments（用户体验调整)" purportedly related to the rise in quality of consumer products. Perhaps the feds could then ratchet up the reported happiness rate by imputing the extra contentment that would exist if people actually recognized all the wonderful things government did for them.
At a Brookings Institution（布鲁金斯学会） workshop last November, leading happiness-survey experts (including National Academy of Science panelists) suggested that "policy makers may want to educate the public and present metrics so that a growth in well-being from, say, 7.2 to 7.4 provides as much meaning as would a 2 percent growth in GDP." Could the presentation of such metrics "educate" people to the point that it distracted them from the misery they suffered in recessions? Probably not, unless accompanied by massive doses of Prozac（一种抗抑郁药）.


Anyone who still reveres federal statistics should remember the "multipliers" of the past few years. We were told that every dollar spent on the 2009 stimulus package would produce $1.57 in economic activity. That every dollar of food stamps "generates $1.84 in economic activity." That every dollar of unemployment benefits begets a $2 increase in economic activity. According to those formulas, a robust recovery arrived two years ago.
With "subjective well-being" surveys to guide federal policy-making, might we be assured that deficit spending automatically has a "happiness multiplier" of 2.4? The proliferation of such multipliers would be limited only by the number of social scientists eager to receive federal grants to produce them.
Politicians will use happiness surveys as a trump card against any attempt to limit spending. Suppose an inspector general's report obliterates any sober justification for a program's existence. Congressmen can respond by invoking survey results showing that lofty rhetoric about the program's noble intentions spurs a wave of mass contentment. Make-work boondoggles like AmeriCorps could be magically transformed into "make happiness" triumphs.
A common saying during the 1930s was that "we cannot squander（挥霍） our way to prosperity." Similarly, we cannot statistically delude ourselves to national happiness.



了解Follow Us版
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1130480-1-1.html
英文网址，欢迎补充！
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1410923-1-1.html
Follow Us 发帖指南、常见问题及意见征集
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1131076-1-1.html
关于Follow Us 版面建立官方群
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1212960-1-1.html

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：follow worry About Happy Bout corporate president domestic example experts

PS:As is known to all,GDP is called the best single measure of the economic well-being of a society. And GDP was once used as the only index by our government to assess official's work, which leads the bubble of real estate market.What's more, GDP exclude the cost of pollution, which may offset the gain from increase of GDP. So it's rather essential to pay attention to other index.
Ihe irony is this author emphasizing the flaws of a new index, the sense of happiness.His annalysis is terrific. And he points out that the new measure of will-being is easily desorted by the government. So the truth of data is very important.
This topic is not new, but I appreciate the analysis. That we cannot statistically delude ourselves to national happiness suits our country,too.



Measures of well-being is not fresh.Let's us share a picture.

收了，晚上研究

GDP number is a goal, which unites the whole nation to strive for. On the other hand, although it is somewhat a general measurement, it's not scientific in some aspects, such as the potential cost to achieve it. Besides, foreign investment is counted as foreigners'  GDP, although it may bring wealth and happiness to domestic citizens.

GDP is at first a statistical term rather than a Economic measurement. Let's go back to its definition, the sum up of any domestic product. It is instinct action for the National Bereau of Statistic to sum up all production results of all apartment, once he want to tell us what was going on for economy in a fiscal year. GDP is easy to catch, possible to trace its component and of course, vulnerable to critics.

I'd like to brief the history of GDP. I am not sure since when NBS starts to creat this measure, but it must be long ago. GDP was gain momentum in economics since 1950, after Solow Growth and burst of growth theory after that, partly because it is most convincing measure of growth in macro empirical study. Critics pour after nealy 30 years later, since it reflects things way betraying the essence of human life: happiness. As you can see, it is a measure accepted by economist for its accuracy in growth theory, not for so called hapiness. Even today, GDP is, without any debates among Macro studies, enjoying its popularity. Hence, never those critics aim to attack its wide application in economics.

The real problem is, it is taken by governor to evaluate the performance of state, therefore the state policy is accused of way astray from average citizens' happiness. The extreme case is China, GDP is the score of every mayor and their destiny is determined by. Well, I don't take it a big issue, the government will easily to alter the measure and again to manipulate its servants, GNP or enhanced GDP or something.

For the happiness index mentioned by the author, I totally agree it is a joke. Such idea is hardly innovative, as is being compiled by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, under the name of United Nation. Some study, not empirical Macro is already adopting this to measure nation level happiness. But hardly it could be considered by politicians, it is too whimsical and specific, naturally against the need for a general rule to fairly judge every mayor. Politician will look readily to talk about the usage of happiness index, then turn around, to creat GDP for his promotion.