<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;happiness&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:16:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should We Be Measuring Happiness As An Economic Measure?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/16300321941/should-we-be-measuring-happiness-as-economic-measure.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/16300321941/should-we-be-measuring-happiness-as-economic-measure.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A lot of people have finally realized that traditional economic measures have all sorts of problems.  Things like GDP mismeasure a ton of things, and by presenting an aggregate set of data, often obscure lots of issues.  Also, things like GDP don't handle disruption very well.  I've discussed in the past how you could argue that, purely on a GDP basis, something like Craigslist has been horrible.  It effectively undercut newspaper classifieds, which was a multi-billion dollar business, and turned it into a much smaller business.  If you measured such things purely by GDP, you'd say that it was bad.  But, of course, Craigslist also created tons of value, enabling people to make transactions that couldn't have been made before, while also allowing other transactions to be made more efficiently and with less friction.  Much of that will never show up in GDP, even if, intrinsically, most people recognize that something like Craigslist provided a lot more value to the world than it took away.
<br /><br />
In trying to deal with that, we've started to see new forms of economic measurements pop up.  One popular one is "happiness."  There's even been some talk about using "Gross National Happiness" as a key economic measure.  There's a great book from a couple of years ago by Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, with Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595585192/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1595585192&linkCode=as2&tag=techdirtcom-20" target="_blank"><i>Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up</i></a>.  It was actually the result of a request from then French President Nicolas Sarkozy to explore how useful (or not) GDP was, including looking into alternate measurements, such as this idea of Gross National Happiness.  If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it.
<br /><br />
Recently, the folks at Planet Money also did a report on the growing interest in <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/08/171414674/how-happy-is-america" target="_blank">measuring happiness, particularly as an official stat for American economic health</a>.  There appears to be growing interest in establishing a happiness index for the US, not unlike the unemployment index.  Of course, you can think of the immediate problem.  Just how do you measure happiness:
<blockquote><i>
But once you get into the details, there's a lot of debate over the happiness data. One big divide: Should you ask people how they're feeling right now, or how they feel about their life in general?
<br /><br />
You get different answers depending on what you ask. Which one is more important is a squishy, philosophical question.
</i></blockquote>
The difference between asking about "right now" or "their life in general" can be massive.  It shows up clearly in the data about how happy parents are vs. non-parents.  There are tons of studies that suggest parents are miserable compared to non-parents.  But nearly all of those studies are based on questions about "how happy are you now" type questions.  Not surprisingly, the parent changing a diaper is probably going to report slightly less current happiness compared to the non-parent who's out at the bar with some friends, for example.  But... it's not that simple.  When other studies are done that ask parents and non-parents about how happy their overall lives are or how fulfilled their lives are, parents frequently report much higher feelings of fulfillment/happiness on a grand scale, while non-parents often report more regret.  In other words: time frame makes a huge difference.
<br /><br />
Of course, as the Planet Money report points out, just because something is difficult to measure, or involves highly subjective concepts, doesn't mean it can't be done.  For example, unemployment data.  You might think that this involves a nice, simple objective question, but when you look at the details, it's actually pretty subjective as well.
<blockquote><i>
In the U.S, in order to be counted as unemployed, you have to be out of a job and looking for work. But what counts as looking for work? Checking Craigslist? Sending out three resumes a week? Five?
<br /><br />
"It's actually kind of a hard question," says Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan. "It's very subjective."
<br /><br />
Yet every month, a single unemployment number is released.
</i></blockquote>
So, you could see why a "Happiness Index" might be a compelling bit of economic data -- especially if you believe (as I do) that GDP is misleading.  After all, if people are happier, isn't that a pretty important thing?  Well, yes and no.  Even as I find the topic interesting, I also worry a lot about the embrace of "Happiness" as an economic measure beyond the reasons laid out in the Planet Money report.  Yes, it's difficult to calculate, but perhaps you can get past that so long as the calculation is done the same way over time.  The real problem, for me, is that when you choose to make something a key economic number like that, you are guaranteed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/01011920321/clotheslines-black-swans-bad-measurements.shtml">start optimizing for it</a>.  That's what happens when you create metrics.  Whether they're important or not, whether they're accurate or not, once you have a number, you naturally try to optimize for it.
<br /><br />
It shouldn't be difficult, then, to quickly come up with scenarios for why a National Happiness Index could create significant problems as people optimize for it.  First off, you encourage the kinds of short-term rewards that lead people to say they're happier, even if that creates massive costs down the road.  Want to see governments leverage the present and put the costs on the future?  Start using a happiness index.  Second, if the focus is on maximizing present-day happiness, then you just focus on <i>drugging the population</i>.  Yes, that's an extreme example, but hopefully it gets the point across.  In economics, you need to measure the costs and benefits to things.  You can "maximize happiness" in all sorts of ways if you ignore the costs to it.  Put happy drugs in the water, and let everyone be thrilled.  The Happiness index fails to take into account all of the consequences of doing something like that.
<br /><br />
So while it's encouraging to see more of an exploration into alternative metrics, and getting beyond some of the older metrics that clearly "mismeasure" important aspects of our lives, we need to be careful to not just leap to the "next great thing" without realizing that it, too, likely has downsides.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/16300321941/should-we-be-measuring-happiness-as-economic-measure.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/16300321941/should-we-be-measuring-happiness-as-economic-measure.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130210/16300321941/should-we-be-measuring-happiness-as-economic-measure.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-makes-me-sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130210/16300321941</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Happiness Is...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10563511891/dailydirt-happiness-is.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10563511891/dailydirt-happiness-is.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The topic of death and suicide has been floating around the media lately -- from the gun control proposals to try to prevent future school shootings to the prominent suicide of internet activist, Aaron Swartz. So to fight some of these negative thoughts, here are just a few articles on happiness.

<ul>
 
<li> <a title="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/theres-more-to-life-than-being-happy/266805/" href="http://bit.ly/W4Sm3I">Gallup polls say that American happiness levels are at four-year highs, but at the same time, 40% of Americans have not (yet) found a satisfying life purpose.</a> Happiness can be elusive, and perhaps striving for a meaningful life, instead of a happy one, will have better outcomes. [<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/theres-more-to-life-than-being-happy/266805/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.fastcompany.com/3003982/formula-creating-happiness-work" href="http://bit.ly/SGncTE">There are so many books on happiness, and how to achieve it... and happiness itself isn't a single thing.</a> Good-day happiness, good-life happiness and peak happiness are just three examples of different kinds of happiness (and there are probably more). [<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/3003982/formula-creating-happiness-work">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/01/04/it-pays-to-be-happy/" href="http://on.wsj.com/W4Sssd">Money can't buy happiness, but it certainly correlates pretty well.</a> Having more money not only seems to correlate with higher levels of satisfaction, but people who are happy also seem to earn more money. [<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/01/04/it-pays-to-be-happy/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10563511891/dailydirt-happiness-is.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10563511891/dailydirt-happiness-is.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10563511891/dailydirt-happiness-is.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101116/10563511891</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:46:53 PST</pubDate>
<title>Data Says Money Might Buy Happiness, But Happiness Might Not Be What You Want</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/21181513409/data-says-money-might-buy-happiness-happiness-might-not-be-what-you-want.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/21181513409/data-says-money-might-buy-happiness-happiness-might-not-be-what-you-want.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another excellent podcast from the folks at Planet Money, this time an interview with economist Justin Wolfers, who's been <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/03/08/134370052/the-tuesday-podcast-money-buys-happiness" target="_blank">studying the data on money and happiness</a>.  First up, he debunks the previously held notion concerning money and happiness.  A much older study had found that, within countries, people generally were happier with more money, but oddly that didn't translate across borders: so people in "rich" countries weren't any happier than people in "poor countries."  The classic explanation for this was that it's all relative.  People in poor countries are happy knowing that, relatively, they're better off than their neighbors.  It turns out, that's simply not true -- at all.  The data (and Wolfers has a lot of it) doesn't support that in any way and he offered a key experiment to prove it: if that were the case, wouldn't those who were doing just okay in the US move to Mexico where they could be -- relatively speaking -- super wealthy compared to everyone around them... and wouldn't those doing okay in Mexico not want to move to the US where, at least initially, they were likely to be much poorer than others?  And yet, the reality doesn't match up with that theory.
<br /><br />
Instead, the aggregate data suggests that there's a very strong correlation between wealth and happiness.  People in wealthier countries are happier.  People in poorer countries are less happy.  Of course, this appears to be aggregate data and aggregate data can hide all sorts of important details.  On top of that, this appears to be based on self-reporting levels of happiness, and some could question how accurate that is.  Also, obviously, correlation does not mean causation, but it certainly can provide some fairly interesting tidbits of information.  At the very least, there does appear to be some connection, at the macro level, between money and happiness.  That said, the data does seem to show this across different levels of income as well.  So, as he said, the data absolutely appears to debunk that once people hit a certain level of wealth their happiness stops increasing as their wealth increases. 
<br /><br />
However, as the interview continues, you realize that it's a lot more complicated than just "money causes happiness."  Of course, when it comes to money and happiness, it should be no surprise that there's a fair bit of complications.  I won't necessarily go through all of the details, but Wolfers points out that happiness might not really be the way people judge things -- and even people, who are generally wealthy and consider themselves happy, might not be content in other areas of their lives.  He notes that the specific question asked makes a really big difference.  All of the data discussed above is about how people respond to surveys about their general level of satisfaction.  Different questions -- such as asking people how much they smiled the day before may result in different answers.  In that case, the numbers of smiles increased with wealth, but plateaued at a certain level, beyond which people were smiled out.
<br /><br />
But what the rest of the report suggests is the classic situation where correlation may be misleading: because there may be other variables that have impact.  He notes that wealth can mean less worry, pain and stress -- and <i>that</i> can lead to greater satisfaction.    Towards the end, the interviewer, Adam Davidson, points out that for some people, personal happiness might not be that important.  Instead, he points to examples of people he's known from less-developed countries who put more value on family connections (and highlights two examples of translators who have worked with him -- one in Iraq and one in Haiti -- who came to NYC, and rather than be impressed by the city, were upset that "the people seem so lonely.").  Wolfers then asks: "is happiness what we really care about?"  He then uses the widely discussed studies that have said that parents tend to be less happy than non-parents -- and yet most parents say they would absolutely have their kids again if they were to do it all over again.  He points out that many people find <i>other important values</i>, beyond happiness, in something like being a parent.  For example, some people "find meaning" in it, even if it doesn't make them "happier."  In other words, as Davidson suggests, perhaps people value things outside of just straight happiness.
<br /><br />
I'm reminded of a fascinating article from last summer in New York Magazine that <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/" target="_blank">explored that relationship between happiness and parenting</a>.  It goes through all of the same data that Wolfers is clearly discussing, and for much of the article, leaves you thinking that being a parent is a pretty depressing experience.  But towards the end, it notes that when you change the question around a bit, things become quite different.  Parents in studies tend to say that their lives were more "rewarding" overall.  That's different than the "moment-to-moment" happiness that is often surveyed.  At the very end, it notes some key significant findings that parents actually tend to be less <i>depressed</i> than non-parents -- but that single fathers, who are often away from their children -- can be the most depressed.  As they note, if being a parent really makes you unhappy, being spared of that duty should make you happier, but it does not.
<br /><br />
That article concludes, then, with a point similar to what Wolfers states above:
<blockquote><i>
But for many of us, purpose is happiness--particularly those of us who find moment-to-moment happiness a bit elusive to begin with. Martin Seligman, the positive-psychology pioneer who is, famously, not a natural optimist, has always taken the view that happiness is best defined in the ancient Greek sense: leading a productive, purposeful life. And the way we take stock of that life, in the end, isn't by how much fun we had, but what we did with it.
<br /><br />
[...]
"I think this boils down to a philosophical question, rather than a psychological one," says Gilovich. "Should you value moment-to-moment happiness more than retrospective evaluations of your life?" He says he has no answer for this, but the example he offers suggests a bias. He recalls watching TV with his children at three in the morning when they were sick. "I wouldn't have said it was too fun at the time," he says. "But now I look back on it and say, 'Ah, remember the time we used to wake up and watch cartoons?'" The very things that in the moment dampen our moods can later be sources of intense gratification, nostalgia, delight.
</i></blockquote>
And, I think this highlights the key to the original question about the relationship between money and happiness.  It almost certainly drives some element of happiness, which is important.  But it -- alone -- may not be enough to drive a different kind of happiness.  Wolfers and Davidson suggest these other things -- meaning, spirituality, connectedness, altruism, etc. -- are <i>not</i> happiness, but I'm not sure I agree.  To some extent, going back to the economics of things, we define things in terms of marginal benefit, which is too often denominated solely in terms of currency.  And that leads people to equate the monetary value to the "benefit."  But happiness lives at a variety of levels.  There is the immediate forms of happiness, and there are deeper levels of contentment, including what Wolfers suggests above, as well as many other areas of life.  I would argue that all of that -- anything that creates long term benefit for the person --  <i>is</i> a form of happiness, even if they might not judge it as such at the moment.
<br /><br />
So, in the end, there still isn't a good answer to the initial question: "does money buy happiness?"  The answer is, in some ways, both yes and no.  It may buy certain forms of happiness, but not others.  And, in the end, it depends on what you measure in terms of what comes out in these studies and economists' reports.  Happiness itself is so vaguely defined that a slight change in the question will give you different answers.  But, I think that most people -- implicitly -- have a measure of overall contentment that they consider, and while that might not equate to day-to-day happiness, perhaps people are starting to realize that the important things in life are not short-term happiness, but longer-term contentment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/21181513409/data-says-money-might-buy-happiness-happiness-might-not-be-what-you-want.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/21181513409/data-says-money-might-buy-happiness-happiness-might-not-be-what-you-want.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/21181513409/data-says-money-might-buy-happiness-happiness-might-not-be-what-you-want.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>or-we've-just-defined-happiness-incorrectly</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110308/21181513409</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:39:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Creativity, Innovation And Happiness</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/0417397561.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/0417397561.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, for our final post of the year, I wrote a message <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml" target="_blank"><i>On Staying Happy</i></a>.  It seems, at time, that people think that I am filled with anger or <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10351205-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">rage</a>, because of all the annoying or "bad" stories that show up here all the time.  Of course, for folks who know me, this is pretty funny.  I'm pretty laid back and quite happy and content for the most part -- which was the point of last year's post.
<br /><br />
This year, for my final post of the year, I wanted to take that a step further, and point out how in <i>awe</i> I am of the continued amazing creativity we've been seeing.  In just the last year alone, we've seen and written about so many incredible stories of creativity and innovation in a sea of negative from those who insist that it can't be done.  We've heard that music and movies are "dying" because of piracy, even as we've seen incredible new music and movies being created by people who are embracing new and innovative business models.
<br /><br />
We've seen things like how Amanda Palmer <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/1920485735.shtml">connected with her fans</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090623/2337095343.shtml">gave them a reason to buy</a>, allowing her to create some fantastic new music.  We've seen how a guy in Israel by the name of Kutiman, that no one had ever heard of probably broke all sorts of copyright laws to create <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090304/1710523995.shtml">create an amazing album</a> (one of my favorites of the year).  We've seen how Nina Paley went from being <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090105/0221333286.shtml">stifled</a> by copyright to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0218454004.shtml">embracing alternatives</a> and how she's used that to build a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090824/1723375986.shtml">different kind of business model</a>.  We've seen how the business models we talk about are suddenly being applied widely to things like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/2137115307.shtml">books</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1035566636.shtml">photography</a> and even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090709/0242355497.shtml">everyday objects</a>.  It's been an incredible year for amazing creativity both in content creation and in business models.
<br /><br />
As a part of that, I've personally been blown away at the reception I've received (sometimes from initially "hostile" audiences) when I've been granted the opportunity to go out and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">present</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090410/1359174465.shtml">discuss</a> these <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/1626125300.shtml">business models</a> and how they're working.
<br /><br />
Finally, as a result of all this, we've had a lot of fun running our own <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml">experiments</a>, from which we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091028/0348476705.shtml">learned a ton</a> and were able to work with some amazing and talented partners and content creators.  Seeing all this happen even as the stories (without any evidence) of doom and gloom get louder and louder from those who aren't willing to embrace change is even more exciting and encouraging.  The pace with which these ideas are being adopted (and adapted) is breathtaking and exciting.  We're looking forward to the pace of this activity to only increase in 2010, and we've got a bunch of surprises in store as we look to not only continue discussing these concepts but to really help more people join in the fun as well.
<center><i><b>
Thanks to everyone here for making it yet another fun year.  We've been at this for over a dozen years now, and each year is more exciting than the previous one -- in large part due to the amazing community of folks who spend at least some of their free time here.  We hope that you had a wonderful and exciting year as well, and look forward to more opportunities in 2010...
</b></i></center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/0417397561.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/0417397561.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/0417397561.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thanks-to-everyone</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091231/0417397561</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>On Staying Happy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks ago, we got an email sent to the feedback box that asked how we can possibly stay upbeat.  I have to apologize because I can't find the email anymore -- so I don't remember who sent it -- but he pointed out that while he really enjoyed reading Techdirt and liked what we had to say, the stories about corporate cluelessness, political corruption and short-sighted thinking were so consistently frustrating and depressing that there were times he considered giving up on reading Techdirt -- if just to keep himself from banging his head against the wall.  He wanted to know how we possibly stayed upbeat, and kept positive enough to avoid giving ourselves heart attacks.  I didn't get a chance to email him back, but wanted to address the question here as my final post of 2008.
<br /><br />
Techdirt has been going strong since 1997, so it's not like we're new to covering these sorts of things.  But, in the end, I personally stay extremely happy and optimistic because I see <i>how far we've come</i> -- and I recognize the inevitable outcome of most of these debates.  Yes, we point out plenty of bad stuff, but it's not about complaining about how terrible things are -- but about trying to help open some eyes to the possibilities of moving forward, adapting and embracing new technological possibilities.  And, while there are some extremely loud and public holdouts, every day we're seeing examples of it <i>working</i>.  We see the inevitable results of technological change in enabling new and powerful business models that greatly expand markets, provide consumers with much more than before, and enable new innovations that you might never have thought were possible before.
<br /><br />
The internet is a phenomenal communications tool that very few people had even heard of not so long ago.  The world wide web only came into being slightly more than fifteen years ago.  The ability to go online and find just about anything you need in seconds is a brand new phenomenon.  The fact that you can talk to people, easily, in far away places -- make new connections, share stories, exchange ideas, debate, argue and connect, well beyond your local community -- is all simply amazing.  Beyond online communications, the internet has provided new and amazing tools for business, commerce, entertainment and information that were nearly impossible to imagine by all but the most visionary people just a few decades ago.
<br /><br />
How can you not be optimistic and excited when you look back at how far we've come in such a short time, and think about how much further we can go?
<br /><br />
Yes, we're in the midst of a brutal financial mess -- but that won't stop innovation.  Yes, incumbent forces, with short-sighted plans and a desire to hold back the tides are annoying and disruptive (not in a good way) in the short run.  But even they are finding they can't hold back progress.  Robert Friedel has a wonderful book called <i>A Culture of Improvement</i> that details how we, as a society, are constantly looking to improve on what we already have.  We add ideas and ingenuity to old concepts and build something better -- not because of the desire to grab some "intellectual property," but because of the desire to improve our own lot, to build a better tool that we want to use.  Incumbent short-sighted players have been able to hinder and harm progress, but they can't keep it down completely.  That culture of improvement can't be stopped entirely.
<br /><br />
There is, of course, plenty to be vigilant about, of course.  Bad and corrupt political moves can seriously stunt economic improvement, but history has shown that such periods are often short-lived, as the need for continued economic growth and advancement is impossible to stomp out completely -- and as it seeps out through the cracks, legacy businesses crumble, and outdated political rules and short-sighted policies are pushed to the side.  Yes, more come along, often as the innovators of yesterday seek to stop the innovators of tomorrow, but the march of innovation hasn't been stopped yet.
<br /><br />
So, yes, we rant and rage against short-sighted policies, and efforts that hinder and delay the inevitable, but we're excited and optimistic and <i>happy</i> about what we see as the eventual possibilities from that advancement and innovation.  Any "anger" or "unhappiness" we might display is more frustration at ourselves for not being able to clearly paint a picture -- for those seeking to hold back progress -- of just what opportunities moving forward provides.
<br /><br />
As we move into 2009, there are plenty of things to be worried about, but look around at what progress has brought to us already, and look at the trends and the obvious direction in which technology is taking us -- there's so much to look forward to, it's hard to let any depression seep into the discussion at all.
<center><i>
Happy New Year to all of the many readers of Techdirt, whether you agree with us or disagree with us, and we look forward to seeing what great new things come about in the new year and beyond.</i></center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/2351323263.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>happy-new-year</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081230/2351323263</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>