The role of money in creating or facilitating happiness is a subject of great interest to me. I find every individual has their own unique relationship with money. Here are some fascinating excerpts from a recent Wall Street Journal article on this topic:

"During the holidays, we will give thanks for the important things in our lives. For most people, money is not one of these things -- at least this is what we would like others to think. We are after all constantly reminding each other that "money doesn't buy happiness." Economists aren't so sure.

They note that people with a lot of money tend to express a higher subjective happiness than people with very little. According data from surveys by the National Opinion Research Center, for example, people in the top fifth of income earners are about 50% more likely to say they are "very happy" than people in the bottom fifth, and only about half as likely to say they are "not too happy."

There is, however, generally very little change in the average level of happiness in populations getting richer over the years. For instance, the percentage of the U.S. population saying it was "very happy" in 1972 was exactly the same as it was in 2002: 30.3%. Social critics of "consumerism" explain this by claiming that what makes rich people happy is not money per se, but rather the fact that they have more of it than others -- so if everybody gets richer, happiness remains unchanged.

...beyond earning, taxing and spending, there is an even clearer link between money and happiness: charity. The evidence is unambiguous that donating money (and time) is one of the best ways to buy happiness. People who donate to charity are 40% more likely to say they are "very happy" than non-donors. Psychologists have even tested whether charity makes people happy using randomized, controlled experiments -- the same procedure used for testing pharmaceuticals, except that, instead of administering a drug to one group and a placebo to the other, researchers randomly assign one group to act charitably toward another. The results are clear: Givers of charity earn substantial mental and physical health rewards, even more than do the recipients of charity -- empirical evidence that it is indeed more blessed to give than to receive.

The bottom line is that the old axiom about money and happiness, properly understood, is quite wrong."

(Mr. Brooks (the author) is an associate professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs)

So what do I think? When I was younger, I focused more on the negatives of money....and tended to notice when rich people were also unhappy. Over the years, after many courses on economics taught by compelling 'free marketers', after seeing the enormous positive impact economic liberalization has had on the India I am familiar with, and after getting practical experience making and spending it - I've come to view money as a powerful facilitator and enabler...and financial independence as a critical positive step in everyone's life.

I'm getting ready to write some checks for my favorite charities before year end. It's that time of year. Act now to get that tax break in the 2005 tax year....it can only help the way you feel.

I was reading an article about the french riots and the core liberal philosophy underlying french society and government. The french believe (rightly) that all people are equal and that race, color, ethnicity shouldn't matter. As a result, they don't measure any of their social outcomes by race, color or ethnicity.

No data on whether there are particular ethnic or racial segments of society that are having major problems? No way to fix these problems. If you've read the papers at all in the last few weeks, you know what I'm talking about.

Not sexy, but true (to me anyways). You achieve what you articulate and focus on. You fix problems you see. You improve metrics you measure and report regularly.

So why the hell is this the subject of a blog? Well, I'm not sure this is going to be a crowd-puller, but I was reading an article my boss sent me from the Wall Street Journal and I'm feeling validated (enough to share anyways!). The article is about Michael Walker, founder of the Fraser institute in Canada. A few snippets from the article which I totally agree with:

"A debate about government policy isn't likely to be settled around values. But when there is objective measurement, resolution emerges"

"The dirty little secret of Canada's single payer health system: that care is rationed through time rather than price"

"I firmly believe that you become what you think about, and that is as true for countries as it is for individuals"

"A five-bedroom river-view house sold three years ago for $45,000. Two years ago it sold for $80,000. It sold a third time in August for $300,000. Who would have guessed it was in Baghdad? The place is a disaster, and keeps getting worse. Despite the violence, property values have increased close to 1,000% in the past three years in parts of town. Go figure."

I was struck by the above quote (and information)in a real estate newsletter I recently received.

Besides providing a fascinating peek into an Iraq dynamic I wasn't aware of, this quote brought to my mind an issue that is popping up more and more for me.

Where does one go for the real story nowadays? The world is globalizing...but the media seems incapable of providing a balanced view of 'reality'. Is it time for a brand new non-profit, non-political, non-partisan global news organization?

I just received my latest edition of the McKinsey Quarterly, a pretty interesting business journal mailed regularly to me by my former employer. I get about 6 a year, which I loyally place on a bookshelf at home for future knowledge seeking moments. But this one caught my attention: Fulfilling India's Promise.

The various articles analyze (and offer a ton of facts about) many business/economic aspects of India: the view of foreign and indian executives, the indian consumer, marketing to the masses, when to make india a manufacturing base, india's offshoring future, reforming india's financial system, securing india's energy needs, an interview with manmohan singh (the prime minister) on india's economic agenda. the recommendations in the aggregate could transform the economy i.e., the lives of the population!

The sheer power of the knowledge creation I was witnessing amazed me. Echoing Gotham's recent optimistic post, although problems do sometimes seem to abound, there are some things that are amazing about what's going on in this new, developing, evolving world of ours!

Some on this blog have complained about the use of labels to denote 'bundles of opinions'. Liberal. Conservative. Democrat. Republican. Gay. Straight. Pro or Anti-Hindu. These complaints struck a cord with some of the feelings I have on this issue. Why do we need someone else...a political party, a social group etc to tell us which opinions and views 'belong together'?

I have a practical answer to this question: most people don't have or want to take the time to think through how they really feel about each issue that is important to our society, particularly if their own life is 'OK' in that particular area. So, they align broadly with a group or party...and vote based on this broad choice, thinking most of the time they will vote 'right' (i.e., consistent with a more thought through personal choice on any particular topic).

This practical consideration, however, doesn't make me feel better about the choices available, as I believe they significantly (and potentially adversely) impact legislation 'on the margin' (i.e., active legislation today).

A few examples:

1. Why does a pro-free trade stance belong with an anti-gay rights stance? Trade doesn't have much to do with religion.
2. Why can't you be pro-teacher and pro meritocracy and pay-for-performance in education (charter schools in America)?
3. Why can't you be pro-Hindu (one of the greatest, and most flexible religions in the world!) without being anti-Muslim?
4. Why can't you be pro-business and pro-gay rights or pro-choice? Who do you vote for if this is the case?

I think it's time we started voting for issues, not parties!!

Almost everything I, and we, do at work or in life revolves around people and our relationships with them. I am fascinated by what makes relationships meaningful and what makes some people more successful than others in life. I have come to the conclusion that separating people's actions from their words is the key to answering some of these questions. In fact, I believe actions are all that matter!

Having said that, I'll caveat my statement by acknowledging the importance of communication, and education in our lives and for society. But at the end of the day, I've found that the only way to 'cut through the crap' and get to the heart of what's right and valuable is to look at actions not words.

How many of you know people who claim to be bleeding heart liberals and who are vehemently anti-globalization? I know a few, who immigrated to America and stay here. How many of these folks have moved back to India (if that's their home country) and stopped working their high paying corporate jobs? None.

How many people do you know who go to the temple everyday and discuss the importance of religion in their lives and decision making? I know a few. Many of these folks drive lavish cars and have a lot of money but would pass by a hungry homeless person without offering them a bite to eat. Also, most don't engage in any significant charitable activity.

How many people do you know who are against allowing legal rights for same sex couples in multi-year relationships (as they believe this is anti-family) but are divorced or engaged in extra marital affairs themselves? I know many...and know there are even more I don't know..most of whom voted for Mr Bush.

I can't help but offer an alternate view to the 'critique of capitalism' posted here a few days ago. Many critics of capitalism (including the author of the post above) compare the outcomes of capitalism (quoting the various ills in the world today e.g., inequality) to an imagined 'ideal state' that has never existed in the history of the world.

I'm a realist, focused on practical executable solutions (i.e., what should we do differently based on what we have learned) and believe the current outcomes of capitalism should be compared to the outcomes of pre-capitalistic and non-capitalistic socieities and economies.

This, more real, analysis reveals that although capitalism is by no means perfect (there are winners and losers in capitalism, just as there have been winners and losers in the evolution of our world. I believe the role of government is to mitigate the brutal 'survival of the fittest' results of capitalism), it is by far the best option available to countries and socieities seeking to improve their peoples standard of living.

Just go ask any Indian who tried to improve his or her families lot in life in the pre-1991 'socialist-democracy' era and who has been trying to do the same post the 1991 liberalization of India's economy. I think the answer is crystal clear. Non-capitalistic societies end up being extraordinarily political, with power, opportunity and information controlled by a few. Capitalism is an objective, fair system with the best (although not perfect) outcomes. I believe the best answer economically is a capitalist economy, balanced by government supported equality of opportunity (as much as possible - e.g., by ensuring equal access to education) and government provided 'safety nets' for those that fall to the bottom of the totem pole in capitalism.