a solution to happiness stagnation in properous countries? - Rated 
Like all comments in all other reviews the book is an easy read about a complex subject. The subject: why is happiness stagnating since 1950 and what can be done about it.
The author presents some inconvenient truths about the causes of this stagnation being (1) broken families, increases in divorces and single parent families (2) decrease in trusting others (3) increase in women working with less time for children (4) television with negative impact on social life (5) Violence in TV (6) TV showing wealth and "beautiful people" (7) decline in religious beliefs (8) increased mobility. These are not opinions but proven by facts by analysing criminality levels, depression, life expectancy and suicide rates.
The author presents the policies that governments should implement to stop these negative trends being (1)monitor happiness statistics, (2) education in morality (3) more help to the poor, (4) better help with serious depressions, (5) flexible working hours, (6) subsidise community development, (7) make people understand that ever increasing wants lead to unhappiness,. (8) establish taxes at a level that people spend more time with the family. Each of these points is extensively explained and thought provoking. The author advised the UK government and has policy making experience.
The author recommends that the overall objective, the "end" should be to maximise total happiness, the idea of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) This subject is extensively covered with rebuttals of criticisms. Buddhism is described in a few pages. Buddhism recognises that all people want to be happy and that therefore suffering should be reduced as much as possible. The " means" is the "Right View". That is acting with the right intentions, recognising that nothing is permanent, we depend on each other and we must understand causes and effects to find solutions. You can also say that the "end" is for people to adapt the "Right View". When actions are based on "Right View",happiness will increase.
Wonderful, thought-provoking treatise on what economics should be about - Rated
'M ODonnell', commenter below, needs to read this book more carefully. Quite clearly on page 33 it says that at the height of Communism Russians were amongst the most miserable people on earth - hardly a marxist undertone here!
The wider point here is that this book is wonderful in its seeming simplicity but with far-reaching ideas. Economics is not just about money and this text argues powerfully, succinctly and simply why this should be the case.
It is an intensly interesting and though-provoking book. It is not perfect; I think that there would be very difficult issues between short-term and long-term happiness for example. However, it is a very important book and those who are trying to knock it or ignore it need to explain why "the greatest sum of human happiness" is not the best public policy goal. In my opinion it makes a lot more sense than lets increase GDP solely for its own sake.
Simplistic and idealistic - Rated 
This book is certainly easy to read, but I found overall that its arguments were weak. There is a subtle Stalinist message with this book as well. To argue that equality improves happiness would condemn us all to a flat society and would tend to lead to the sort of authoritarianism that got out of control with Marxism.
Similarly, CBT can be very effective, but is not an easy therapy to give, and there are many people who claim to do it, but actually just sit and listen to their clients and so continue to affirm their negative beliefs. To simply argue that we need 10,000 trained CBT therapists is just simplistic. I would argue that it would be much better to teach all people engaged in treating people how to communicate better with their clients so as not to either dismiss them or magnify harmful health beliefs. To give therapy after people have adopted adverse health behaviours is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Thought-provoking and worth a read, but don't take it too seriously
The effects of the consumer society on happiness - Rated 
This book is a very easy read. I read well over half the book in a couple of hours. If you have read books from a psychological perspective then this book will give another view. It links very well with the Seligman, Authentic Happiness view in that we need to have challenges, feel engaged, have loved ones to be happy.
Just like other reviewers, I am not convinced that people go round and measure themselves against their peers. I think there are some people who do and it may depend upon their age etc.
I really liked that Layard considered lots of external activities and trends in his book, with supporting evidence that will promote thinking about how we use our TVs, the clubs and groups to which we belong and the relevance of our material possessions in our pursuit of happiness.
A very good book, but not as good as it thinks - Rated
I happily give this book four stars because I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact I thought his findings were immensely interesting and his conclusions always thought provoking.
In particular his (inarguable, I think) conclusion on mental health spending is alone worth the cover price.
Some of his other conclusions are rather dubious - or are at least seen through the lens of an over-eager redistributionist and knee-jerk leftie (who while eager to seize on any findings which support high taxation is noticeably less eager to propose the highly conservative social measures which many of his findings would suggest).
He is too ready to accept that people are resentful of the success of others - and uses this to justify punitive taxation, since he refers to the enrichment of an individual as polluting the happiness of his neighbours. This is surely sanctifying envy. Is it not likely that one of the reasons religious or philiosophical people are seemingly happier is that they are unconcerned by the prosperity of others?
Similarly, while suggesting generous welfare for the poor, he fails to account for the rather more jusifiable resentment this may cause among their neighbours, who may be working 40 hours a week for little more money.
Ultimately I don't quite accept his Benthamite axiom, either. Is everyone's happiness equally important? If so, we should surely be redistributing money to Africa, not Tyneside. And could you not thereby argue that entertaining villains such as The Great Train Robbers increased the net sum of human happiness?
|
