제프리 색스 경제학교수의 "행복의 경제학(The Economics of Happiness)"

copied.

 

컬럼비아 대학 제프리 D. 색스 경제학 ( Jeffrey David Sachs) 교수가 ‘행복의 경제학(The Economics of Happiness)’이라는 칼럼을 썼습니다. 행복을 추구하는 올바른 태도를 연구한 결과로 Project Syndicate에 발표했습니다.

 

제프리 D. 색스 교수는 세계는 지금 역사상 최고의 부를 만들었지만 사람들은 불안정하고 걱정이 많고 삶에 만족하지 못한다면서, 미국의 대다수는 미국이 잘못된 길을 가고 있다는 회의를 하고 많은 다른 나라도 같은 상황이라고 했습니다.

 

경제생활에서의 근본을 다시 생각하게 되는 지금, 고소득을 추구하는 게 행복과 만족을 주지 않고 오히려 불평등과 근심을 키운다고 했습니다. 경제과정은 그 과정이나 인생의 질을 높이는 데 중요한데, 다른 목표들과 병행해 추구해야 한다고 강조합니다.

 

 

색스 교수는 경제발전과 행복을 균형 있게 추구하는 나라는 히말라야 왕국 부탄으로, 부탄은 40년 전 네 번 째 왕이 탁월한 선택을 했다고 지적했습니다.

부탄의 국가 목표는 국가 총생산(GNP)보다는 ‘국내 총 행복’ 추구라고 전했습니다. 40 년 전부터 부탄은 경제개발에만 치중하지 않고 정신 건강과 온정적 마음, 커뮤니티도 생각하는 대안을 따랐다고 했습니다.

최근 수 십 명의 전문가들이 부탄의 수도 팀푸에 모여 부탄이 추구한 길에 대한 결과를 돌아봤는데 자신은 지그미 틴리 부탄 수상과 공동 주최자로 참여했다고 했습니다.

 

그 자리에 모인 전문가들은 모두 국가 수입 추구보다는 행복 추구의 중요성에 동의한 사람들이었고, 문제는 도시화와 대규모 미디어, 세계 자본주의화, 환경의 황폐화가 신한 현대에 경제활동과 환경이 어떻게 다시 믿음과 안정으로 돌아갈 수 있는가 라고 전제했습니다.

 

결론은 다섯 가지인데

 

첫째, 경제성장을 과소평가하지 않는 것이라고 했습니다.
배가 고프면, 깨끗한 물이 없고 의료 시설과 교육이 뒷받침되지 않으면, 일자리가 없으면 고통스럽기 때문에 경제개발이 빈곤을 없앨 때 행복의 길로 접어든다고 강조합니다.

둘째, 국가 총생산(GNP)을 최고의 목표로 삼으면 행복으로 가는 길이 아니다는 결론입니다. 미국은 지난 40년 동안 국가 총생산이 크게 늘어났지만 행복지수가 비례하지 않았다고 지적하고, 국가 총생산에 집중하면 부의 불균등이 생겨 수많은 어린이들이 가난해지고 환경 재앙이 온다고 했습니다.

 

셋째, 행복은 개인과 사회의 균형이 있을 때 이뤄진다고 결론 내렸습니다.
기본 수입이 안되면 행복하지 않지만 반대로 수입이 커도 가족과 커뮤니티, 온정심 등이 희생되면 행복할 수 없다는 지적입니다. 그 점에서는 경제정책이 중요한데 미국은 기업이윤을 지나치게 강조해서 공정함, 정당함, 믿음, 신체, 정신 건강과 환경이 훼손됐고 연방 대법원의 판결도 그 같은 훼손을 만들어 냈다고 지적합니다.

 

넷째, 세계 자본주의 가 행복을 헤친다는 결론입니다.
대규모가 된 세계 자본주의는 자연환경을 기후변화와 오염으로 이끌었고, 그 같은 환경 훼손은 오일 회사의 캠페인 등으로 지속되며 결국 사회는 신뢰가 깨지고 개인의 정신적 안정도 깨져 우울증 환자도 늘어난다고 강조합니다.   미디아는 과학적인 증명 없이 물건을 파는 기업의 메세지를 홍보하게 됐고 결국 미국은 지금 소비 중독증으로 고통 받고 있다고 강조합니다.

예를 들어 훼스트 후드업계의 성장은 오일 소비를 기본으로 하고, 지방이나 설탕, 다른 중독성 재료로 건강하지 않는 음식을 만들어 비만을 늘려 지금 미국인의 3분의 1이 비만이 됐으며 기업의 태도가 바뀌지 않으면 다른 나라도 미국을 따라갈 것이라고 경고합니다. 어린이의 미래에 막대한 위협이라는 경고입니다.

 

 

다섯 번 째로 행복을 추구하기 위해서는 국가 총생산 이외에 위에 지적한 여러 조항을 행복을 추구하는 과정으로 장려해야 한다고 강조합니다. 사람들이 훼스트 후드 섭취가 얼마나 나쁜 지를 알면, 텔레비젼 시청이 삶의 질을 얼마나 낮게 떨어뜨리는 지를 확실하게 알면 기업의 이윤에 반대하는 행동이 따를 것이라고 지적합니다.

 

 

제프리 D. 색스 교수는 지나친 기업의 이윤추구는 모드에게 위협이라고 강조합니다.

경제성장과 개발은 지지하지만 환경 안정과 정직, 사회의 신뢰 아래 이뤄질 때 행복의 추구가 이뤄질 수 있다고 했습니다.

행복 추구는 아름다운 산 속의 나라 부탄에 한정되서는 안된다고 결론 내렸습니다.

 

 

The Economics of Happiness

Jeffrey D. Sachs
2011-08-29

 

NEW YORK – We live in a time of high anxiety. Despite the world’s unprecedented total wealth, there is vast insecurity, unrest, and dissatisfaction. In the United States, a large majority of Americans believe that the country is “on the wrong track.” Pessimism has soared. The same is true in many other places.

Against this backdrop, the time has come to reconsider the basic sources of happiness in our economic life. The relentless pursuit of higher income is leading to unprecedented inequality and anxiety, rather than to greater happiness and life satisfaction. Economic progress is important and can greatly improve the quality of life, but only if it is pursued in line with other goals.

In this respect, the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan has been leading the way. Forty years ago, Bhutan’s fourth king, young and newly installed, made a remarkable choice: Bhutan should pursue “gross national happiness” rather than gross national product. Since then, the country has been experimenting with an alternative, holistic approach to development that emphasizes not only economic growth, but also culture, mental health, compassion, and community.

Dozens of experts recently gathered in Bhutan’s capital, Thimphu, to take stock of the country’s record. I was co-host with Bhutan’s prime minister, Jigme Thinley, a leader in sustainable development and a great champion of the concept of “GNH.” We assembled in the wake of a declaration in July by the United Nations General Assembly calling on countries to examine how national policies can promote happiness in their societies.

All who gathered in Thimphu agreed on the importance of pursuing happiness rather than pursuing national income. The question we examined is how to achieve happiness in a world that is characterized by rapid urbanization, mass media, global capitalism, and environmental degradation. How can our economic life be re-ordered to recreate a sense of community, trust, and environmental sustainability?

Here are some of the initial conclusions. First, we should not denigrate the value of economic progress. When people are hungry, deprived of basic needs such as clean water, health care, and education, and without meaningful employment, they suffer. Economic development that alleviates poverty is a vital step in boosting happiness.

Second, relentless pursuit of GNP to the exclusion of other goals is also no path to happiness. In the US, GNP has risen sharply in the past 40 years, but happiness has not. Instead, single-minded pursuit of GNP has led to great inequalities of wealth and power, fueled the growth of a vast underclass, trapped millions of children in poverty, and caused serious environmental degradation.

Third, happiness is achieved through a balanced approach to life by both individuals and societies. As individuals, we are unhappy if we are denied our basic material needs, but we are also unhappy if the pursuit of higher incomes replaces our focus on family, friends, community, compassion, and maintaining internal balance. As a society, it is one thing to organize economic policies to keep living standards on the rise, but quite another to subordinate all of society’s values to the pursuit of profit.

Yet politics in the US has increasingly allowed corporate profits to dominate all other aspirations: fairness, justice, trust, physical and mental health, and environmental sustainability. Corporate campaign contributions increasingly undermine the democratic process, with the blessing of the US Supreme Court.

Fourth, global capitalism presents many direct threats to happiness. It is destroying the natural environment through climate change and other kinds of pollution, while a relentless stream of oil-industry propaganda keeps many people ignorant of this. It is weakening social trust and mental stability, with the prevalence of clinical depression apparently on the rise. The mass media have become outlets for corporate “messaging,” much of it overtly anti-scientific, and Americans suffer from an increasing range of consumer addictions.

Consider how the fast-food industry uses oils, fats, sugar, and other addictive ingredients to create unhealthy dependency on foods that contribute to obesity. one-third of all Americans are now obese. The rest of the world will eventually follow unless countries restrict dangerous corporate practices, including advertising unhealthy and addictive foods to young children.

The problem is not just foods. Mass advertising is contributing to many other consumer addictions that imply large public-health costs, including excessive TV watching, gambling, drug use, cigarette smoking, and alcoholism.

Fifth, to promote happiness, we must identify the many factors other than GNP that can raise or lower society’s well-being. Most countries invest to measure GNP, but spend little to identify the sources of poor health (like fast foods and excessive TV watching), declining social trust, and environmental degradation. once we understand these factors, we can act.

The mad pursuit of corporate profits is threatening us all. To be sure, we should support economic growth and development, but only in a broader context: one that promotes environmental sustainability and the values of compassion and honesty that are required for social trust. The search for happiness should not be confined to the beautiful mountain kingdom of Bhutan.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals.

 

 

 

========================

 

Jeff Sachs and the Economics of Happiness

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/30/jeff-sachs-and-the-economics-of-happiness/

Jeffrey Sachs chases after the Easterlin Paradox and so claims that we should all be running the economy to increase happiness not just to increase the economy.

“Here are some of the initial conclusions. First, we should not denigrate the value of economic progress. When people are hungry, deprived of basic needs such as clean water, health care, and education, and without meaningful employment, they suffer. Economic development that alleviates poverty is a vital step in boosting happiness.

Second, relentless pursuit of GNP to the exclusion of other goals is also no path to happiness. In the US, GNP has risen sharply in the past 40 years, but happiness has not. Instead, single-minded pursuit of GNP has led to great inequalities of wealth and power, fueled the growth of a vast underclass, trapped millions of children in poverty, and caused serious environmental degradation.

Third, happiness is achieved through a balanced approach to life by both individuals and societies. As individuals, we are unhappy if we are denied our basic material needs, but we are also unhappy if the pursuit of higher incomes replaces our focus on family, friends, community, compassion, and maintaining internal balance. As a society, it is one thing to organize economic policies to keep living standards on the rise, but quite another to subordinate all of society’s values to the pursuit of profit.

In one sense what he’s saying is obviously true. We shouldn’t try to run the economy with the sole goal of increasing the size of the economy, of course not. Which is why we don’t run either society or the economy in that manner. Maximising the size of the economy would mean, among other things, maximising working hours (even with diminished productivity 80 hour work weeks will produce more than 40 hour ones). That we do have leisure, vacations, retirement, is proof perfect that we already don’t run the economy in order to maximise the size of the economy.

In another sense what he’s saying is vile and pernicious.

This idea that as we all get richer we don’t get happier is known as the Easterlin Paradox. And the thing about the Easterlin Paradox is that it isn’t in fact true. From Wikipedia:

“In 2003 Ruut Veenhoven and Michael Hagerty published a new analysis based on including various sources of data, and their conclusion was that there is no paradox and countries did indeed get happier with increasing income.[2] In his reply Easterlin maintained his position, suggesting that his critics were using inadequate data.[3]

In 2008, economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, both of the University of Pennsylvania, published a paper where they reassessed the Easterlin paradox using new time-series data. They conclude like Veenhoven et al. that, contrary to Easterlin’s claim, increases in absolute income are clearly linked to increased self-reported happiness, for both individual people and whole countries.[2][4][5][6] The statistical relationship demonstrated is between happiness and the logarithm of absolute income, suggesting that above a certain point, happiness increases more slowly than income, but no “saturation point” is ever reached. The study provides evidence that happiness is determined not only by relative income, but also by absolute income.

Rising income becomes less important as a determinant of our income as we become richer, sure. This is something an economist like Professor Sachs should be able to grasp, the entire subject being built upon behaviours at the margins and declining marginal happiness of income isn’t a tough thing to fit into the general theoretical framework.

Where we get to vile and pernicious is what happens after we’ve accepted the Paradox: that we should not only take the advice from the Good Professor about how our lives could be made better, we should be forced to do so. We must give up that search for more lucre which makes us happier and take the path that the Professor thinks will (or even “should”) make us happier, one more concerned with inter-personal relationships.

You see, the thing is, different things make different people happy in different ways at different times. That’s why there is no “one path”. That’s why the Constitution promises to protect the “pursuit of happiness”, in the acknowledgement that there are both different forms of it and different paths to it.

We should no more be forced to spend time with our families (mine’s fine but there are enough misery memoirs out there to show that not all are) than we should be forced to spend more time at the office.

There’s also one very amusing little side point:

“Mass advertising is contributing to many other consumer addictions that imply large public-health costs, including excessive TV watching, gambling, drug use, cigarette smoking, and alcoholism.

Do you know, I’ve not in fact seen any adverts at all for decent drugs? I do agree that being able to get pure and known strength heroin, cocaine that you know what it’s been cut with and hash conveniently packaged and delivered would increase many peoples’ pleasure and happiness. But I have to admit, unless something very strange has happened that I don’t know about, they’ve not yet been legalised and they’re not as yet advertised in prime time.

However, this does give us a clue to what I think would in fact be the one single thing we could do in order to increase happiness in our modern day society. We could stop doing the most stupid and cruel thing we currently do: stop fighting the War on Drugs. Legalise the things and if people want to get high then good luck to them. We’d also save a few hundred billion $ a year, be able to raise a few hundred billion $ more in taxes and all the while have fewer people dying and clogging up the prison and justice system.

If we’re really going to pursue the economics of happiness then why not?