search 2010 arsearchot Http onsearchA Projections r Exhaust Pdf E Exhaust hsearchu Http t 17m Http gsearchr Http isearchci Exhaust np NPA i Nanpa 
Pdf dsearch Exhaust 
Projections f Loveofmoneyisrootofallprosperity tsearche Projections n17wP NRUF i Loveofmoneyisrootofallprosperity e
Msearchn NRUF s Pdf e55 Surayud Chulanont is to make the Thai people not only richer but happier as well.[3] Much like GDP results, Thailand releases monthly GNH data.[26] The Thai GNH index is based on a 1-10 scale with 10 being the most happy.[26] As of May 13, 2007, the Thai GNH measured 5.1 points.[26] The index uses poll data from the population surveying various satisfaction factors such as, security, public utilities, good governance, trade, social justice, allocation of resources, education and community problems.[26]
Australia, Canada,[25] China, France[27] and the United Kingdom[28] are also coming up with indexes to measure national happiness.[3] North Korea also announced an international Happiness Index in 2011 through Korean Central Television. North Korea itself came in second, behind #1 China.[29]
Ecuador's and Bolivia's new constitutions state the indigenous concept of "good life" ("buen vivir" in Spanish, "sumak kawsay" in Quichua, and "suma qamaña" in Aymara) as the goal of sustainable development.
Under neo-classical economic theory happiness, subjectively defined, has long been the standard of measurement used interchangeably with utility as well as the general welfare.
Modern classical economics no longer attempts to quantify happiness or satisfaction through measurements in consumption and profits. Instead, modern neoclassical framework argue that individual's preference is revealed through choice. Therefore, if an individual decided to purchase an apple over orange, the satisfaction one derived from apple is revealed to be greater than an orange. Similarly, modern economics also consider that work/leisure balance is also matter of individual choice.
The idea that modern neoclassical economics define happiness on the basis of consumption is widely disputed. The basis of utility has been defined as revealed preference.
The assumption within neoclassic economics that satisfactions are highly subjective found expression in the work of Vilfredo Pareto, whose definition of optimal allocation in the nineteenth century was a crucial contribution that allowed further development of the mathematical precision of the discipline. Pareto argued that because satisfactions are subjective, we cannot know for certain that we have increased the amount of satisfaction in the system if we take a dollar from a billionaire and give it to a starving person to buy food; for all we know, the billionaire might have derived as much satisfaction from that dollar as the starving person does in spending it on food.
This counter-intuitive result is the cornerstone of Pareto Optimality: a system is in Pareto Optimality when no one can be made better off (in their own estimation) without making someone worse off (in their own estimation). In practice, "better off" and "worse off" are defined by consumption: by definition, it is always better to consume more. Thus, Pareto Optimality led to the bias in standard economics toward perpetual growth models—models that are increasingly being called into question, as being impractical (and dangerously destructive) in a finite world (see, for instance, limits to growth).
The most fundamental criticism of happiness economics lies in its dependence on the concept of cardinal utility -- that is, that personal preferences are measurable and comparable in an objective fashion by an outside observer. Cardinal utility is, however, a discredited and largely discarded concept in economics.[30]
Some have suggested that establishing happiness as a metric is only meant to serve political goals.[3] Recently there has been concern that happiness research could be used to advance authoritarian aims.[3] As a result, some participants at a happiness conference in Rome have suggested that happiness research should not be used as a matter of public policy but rather used to inform individuals.[3]
In addition, survey findings can lead to subjective interpretations. For example, a happiness study conducted in Russia during the 1990s[2] indicated that as unemployment grew, the well-being of both those employed and unemployed rose. The interpretation of this could be that it resulted from diminished expectations and respondents who were less critical of their own situation when many around them were unemployed,[2] or it could be interpreted as being the result of everyone benefitting from the unpaid work that the unemployed were able to do for their families and communities with their increased time resource.