June 16, 2009

Come on, Let's Get Happy!

Turns out, we may not be able to. I just read this really great book called Happiness: The Science Behind Your Smile, by David Nettle, which explores what makes people happy and unhappy.  It was really quite interesting, a little scientific at parts, but overall pretty eye opening.

Here’s what I learned from this book.

People will never be completely happy. It is in our nature to look at better looking alternatives – status, beauty, money, etc – and pursue them, thinking that if we only had those circumstances, we would be much happier. And we all think we will be happier at some point in the future. But basically, you’ll never be happier than you are right now.  Sure, things may get better, but you’ll adapt quickly to the positive changes and return to your previous state of satisfaction. This was demonstrated by economist Richard Easterlin. He has an ongoing survey across America where he asks people to go down a list of consumer goods/events that people spend their money on - like a home, car, tv, swimming pool, second home, traveling abroad, etc, and check off the items that form their idea of the good life. Then click off the ones they already had. Sixteen years later, the same group was asked to perform the same task.  Over the 16 years, the average amount of items that people already had on the list increased from 1.7 to 3.1, but “the good life” went from consisting of 4.4 items to 5.6 items. The participants were always two items short of where they wanted to be – both at the beginning of the survey and at the end.

So I guess we’ll always be striving for more. Nettle says this is in our nature. “Evolution has given us a strong implicit theory of happiness,” he argues. It “hasn’t set us up for the attainment of happiness, merely its pursuit.”

Studies show that women report to be happier than men, but also more miserable than men, experiencing more fear, anxiety, sadness, shame, and guilt than do men.  So how are they both happier and more miserable than men? Well, women just experience emotion to a greater intensity. (surprised?)

People who are married are happier than those who are not. Now this does not necessarily mean that marriage makes one happy, but rather, perhaps happier people get married and stay married longer. Next in line based on marital status are those cohabiting, single, separated, divorced, and, finally, widowed. The study on widowhood suggests that the old adage, ‘tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all’ may just be false. Rather, losing something you have is worse than not having it in the first place.

Interestingly, marital status accounts for much more of the variation in life satisfaction that does social class.

And money.. well, there appears to be no relationship between income and life satisfaction (to a certain degree). Yet we continue to choose to working hard for a promotion or a raise when we would most likely attain more satisfaction spending that time with people or hobbies.

So there’s my book report. There’s a lot more to it, so check it out for yourself. It’s quite an interesting read!

Also, if you missed The Atlantic’s article, What Makes Us Happy?, which chronicles what they call the longest running and most exhaustive study of mental and physical well being, check it out.

June 12, 2009
This is an interesting graphic that tells the story of the culprits behind our budget deficit.
The NYT article from a couple days ago breaks it down in further detail, as shown below.

Just thought I’d share.

This is an interesting graphic that tells the story of the culprits behind our budget deficit.

The NYT article from a couple days ago breaks it down in further detail, as shown below.

Just thought I’d share.

June 10, 2009
I love how Pixar incorporates my old stomping grounds into its films. Carl and Ellie’s house from Up was inspired by a string of houses just off of Sixth Street in Berkeley. The SFGate may have found it. (thanks davidcho)
I love how Pixar incorporates my old stomping grounds into its films. Carl and Ellie’s house from Up was inspired by a string of houses just off of Sixth Street in Berkeley. The SFGate may have found it. (thanks davidcho)
June 9, 2009

Tuesday TARP Day

The big news of today was all about the repayment of the TARP funds.

If you recall, the Troubled Asset Relief Program was part of the $700 billion Bailout Plan whereby the government saved our troubled banks by injecting about $200 billion in return for equity shares. That was back in October 2008 and initial estimates held that only about $25 billion would be repaid in 2009.

But today 10 banks announced they will pay back $68.3 billion of it. Each raised enough capital and/or passed the “stress tests” (which determine how much money the bank will need to survive in the event of economic collapse), and the Treasury has thus granted them permission to repay.

Apparently, this repayment is a signal of improving conditions and that the new financial recovery plans are working (or so they tell us).

But The Big Picture takes another view:

The rush to repay TARP monies gives us another opportunity to consider why the hell this absurd financial giveaway ever happened in the first place. A close inspection suggests some dishonesty on the part of the prior Treasury Secretary.From its inception, the TARP never made much sense. Forcing banks that did not need money to accept government bailouts was simply irrational.

In Bailout Nation, we discuss the possibility that The TARP was all a giant ruse, a Hank Paulson engineered scam to cover up the simple fact that CitiGroup (C) was teetering on the brink of implosion. A loan just to Citi alone would have been problematic, went this line of brilliant reasoning, so instead, we gave money to all the big banks.

I love conspiracy theories. Except when they involve my money!

GM’s sphere of influence. wow. (via Carpe Diem)
GM’s sphere of influence. wow. (via Carpe Diem)