http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/02/25/carl-jungs-five-key-elements-to-happiness/

My interpretation of “The more you deliberately seek happiness the more sure you are not to find it” is that "deliberation suggests" expected result which is happiness. But since you cannot guarantee that someone will reach the level of happiness that is deemed satisfactory to them because of changes or variation in life or that each person's standard is purely subjective, there is a high likelihood of disappointment due to the aforementioned factors.

For some, it may be that only the first element contributes to their happiness.

Being reasonable

The main reason why we feel frustrated is how we perceive others' behaviour to be unreasonable. When we ask other people to do something for us and they do not which we interpret it to be unreasonable. That causes frustration. When other people ask you to do something. You think they are being ridiculously unreasonable in what they ask or in the timescale they ask you to do it in. When you explain to them and they don't want to listen to you. You are frustrated. They are also frustrated because they can't get what they want from you.

If people can be objective about what is considered reasonable or unreasonable disputes would be resolved by applying tan equation to calculate whether someone acts reasonably or not or how reasonable they are on the scale of 1-100. Then people wouldn't be frustrated. Unless it is human nature to get what they can't have and we are doomed to forever be frustrated because we are never satisfied with what there is here and now.

Graduates and the job market

Employers surveyed by Personnel Today claim that today's graduates' quality is too poor for them to be recruited. They cite three areas that graduates lack: skills, knowledge and attitude. If such is definitely the case inspite of high graduate unemployment then there is some clear missing link here. Assuming that the employers genuinely have high standard in their recruitment criteria, we have to question why degree education fails to equip graduates with the skills, knowledge and attitude they need to become employable.

Arguably, degree education does not have to purely cater for the job market. People may enter into a higher education establishment in pursuit of knowledge. With the degree, they have the option to choose between a graduate or non-graduate career. On the other hand, EUA in their Aarhus Declaration 2011 insists that (European) countries must invest in their higher education, especially in the economic crsis "...by striving for excellence in teaching, research and innovation, by offering opportunities to diverse groups of learners, and by providing the optimal creative environment for the talented young researchers that Europe needs universities are increasingly central to future growth and to the consolidation of Europe's knowledge society." Sure, there is demand from the society for qualified individuals to help progress its social and economic agenda which can be fulfilled by those with graduate calibre but can anyone tell how many degree-holding citizens we need to generate a per cent growth?.

Perhaps the survey result combined with graduate unemployment rate merely reflect the fact that the needs for population with higher education in the UK has been artificially inflated either by Britain's aspiration to catch up with Scandidavia's HE-educated population or by Labour governments' policies and their obsession with targets and results. Or maybe this is a natural process for a society weeding out redundancy in its higher education sector as Ian Jack of the Guardian anecdotally offered his observation about a "sports journalism" degree.

Nationalism and national debts?

When Thailand went bust in the 1997, it seemed straightforward what the Thais had to do to fix the problem. They were drowned by massive amount of foreign debt due to unscrupulous public spending, large construction projects which were not needed and not conservatively funded, mostly through foreign borrowing made worse by the devaluation of the Thai currency. It was clear that the government and the people had to live within their means, spend less, work harder, export more and save up to pay off the debt. Luxury goods were (and still are mainly) mostly imported so it made sense for Thais to cut down on this type of spending. Many tour operators that organised foreign holidays went out of business. There is a whole generation of people growing up with campaigns for Thais to eat, buy and holiday locally to keep the money in the country. 15 years on the mood for patriotism for economic reason is still in around. People learned their lesson, for now at least.

Britain, however, relies heavily on imported products - basic and luxurious. Its manufacturing capacity is not competitive, making local goods more expensive that the imported equivalent. People want things cheap, even at the expense of the economy and social impact. The country still has faith in its service industry and believes its debt can be controlled by being able to sell these services to other countries. It will be a tough ride as long as in national psyche, people still consume the way they have done which contributed to the economy tanking. They will continue to buy clothes made in China, fruit grown in and flown from South Africa and holiday in Florida or Australia whilst the government gives contracts to foreign firms with the cheapest bid, buys trains made outside of the UK and pays non-UK-based doctors to come over for a weekend so that NHS targets are met.