Ten features of a good relationship

Indeed guys! This post is anything but ground-breaking. Around the Internet you might find hundreds of such lists, all serving as guidelines what a happy romantic relationship should stand for. But since human being vary between one another and for each of them different aspects of relationship are of importance, I am taking the liberty of sharing ten features that matter to me.

1. Communication, construed as frequent conversations with a partner, articulating your expectations. Casual talks on how your day was are not enough. In order to built a lasting relationship one must not have inhibitions to put across what they need, what they want, but also what infuriates them. A partner ought to be your best friend, your shoulder to cry on. Besides, good communication means you can argue, even clash, but must not involve raising your voice or offending a partner. Not being on speaking terms for a period longer than a few hours does not bode well for a relationship as well.

2. Empathy, which seems crucial since in the long run friendship is what remains, while desire slowly burns out and daily routine drags romantic memories down. Being able to step into your partner’s shoes, imagining how they feel, what quandaries they tackle, what problems they need to overcome is a foundation of a satisfying relationship. The task is sometimes more than difficult, especially if your partner finds themselves in a situation you have never encountered, e.g. bereavement, job loss, etc.

3. Reliability, something totally basic, yet indispensable. The gut feeling that if things go wrong your partner will be the first person you can turn to and will not leave you out in the cold. Relationship is not built through common pleasant moments of carefree dating. It takes shape when you are ill, broke, when you suffer and the other person grabs your hand and does not let go.

4. Respect to your partner’s autonomy. Being together does not mean being together all the time. I believe it is healthy for a relationship if each of the partners has an area of their own – their job (which means working together is not the best option), their friends, their hobby. Taking a break (within limits) from your partner makes you appreciate them and decreases the risk of being fed up with them.

5. A common ground. Though differences between partners are inevitable, something must keep them together. Quite often people meet and get to know each other better because of a common hobby, common interests, something that turns them on both. I realise this point is arguable and equally well you could have partner who has dissimilar interests, but something cherished by both partners brings them together.

6. Sexual intimacy, the aspect of relationship which works like a glue, also one of the best barometers of a relationship’s quality. If things are going well, your sexual life will thrive. Nearly all problems in this sphere, unless caused by the lousy external factor called stress, mirror unresolved disagreements and other strains between partners.

7. Common approach to money. This is the first of down-to-earth things on which a mature relationship rests. Couples too frequently row over stance towards money and spending habits, to make it a negligible part of life. Also psychologists and couple counsellors underline importance of this little thing that can tear two people apart so easily.

8. A common stance towards raising children. Upbringing your offspring is a process in which both parents ought to participate and which should be carried out in an uniform manner (the sentence could be picked out as an example of academic twaddle). If your partner and you differ fundamentally in any areas, I believe you should talk it over how you will compromise or overcome differences before you decide to bring up children. A child who receives dissimilar messages from parents usually suffers and I suppose its psyche should be spared such experiences.

9. Sharing duties, the mundane ones. In the era of equal rights and opportunities gone is the model in which a woman runs a house while a man is the breadwinner. Today both females and males fulfil their professional potential, therefore washing, cooking, ironing and cleaning (let alone looking after children) are the duties they both ought to be taught to fulfil and share between each other. Even if you afford to hire somebody to clean your house, iron your shirts and get other things done, you should not forget how do handle the down-to-earth stuff, since you never know when you either no longer afford to have a third-part housekeeper or for some other reasons you will have no choice but to embark on it.

10. The healthy balance between accepting your partner they way they are and going beyond your comfort zone to meet your partner’s expectations and make the relationship better is an art. Striking such balance without overstraining oneself does more good than harm, but based on what I have observed around, is a challenge few people dare to accept.

Meanwhile, on my own front. Still less than a year of being together, less than two months under one roof. There are ups and downs, better and worse days. I have never expected a bed of roses. Each day I fear the worst and hope for the best, sometimes I ease off and lower the bar, sometimes I clam up in my own shell. But all the time I bear in mind loneliness, though filled with sadness, is a whole lot better than an awful relationship.

On broken promises

In 1990, before presidential election, Lech Wałęsa promised to turn Poland into “second Japan”. In 2007, before parliamentary election, Donald Tusk promised Poland would follow the path of Irish economic miracle and would become “second Ireland”. Both politicians have gone back on their promises and Poland has not taken a leaf from Japanese, nor Irish book. Now do not grumble, we should be grateful they have failed to put those economic miracles into practice.

What do those two countries have in common? The lie on different continents, both experienced periods of long lasting economic growth, both were held up as examples of excellent economic performance, both made quantum leaps, both have been going through severe crises and even despite being hit by them are now far higher developed then the moment they were in “square ones” of their growth path.

Japan got up of its knees over ten years after WW2. Thanks to easy borrowing terms, support from the government and protectionist measures Japan’s industry began to grow rapidly. Japan corporations relied on cutting-edge technologies and were highly efficient what helped the country boost its exports and flood markets of developed countries with high-quality and reasonably-priced products. In 1960s annual GDP-growth rate was running at above 10%, in 1970 it slowed down due to oil crisis, but Japanese economy soon adjusted to rising demand on energy-saving technologies and not only rode out the crisis, but even emerged from it stronger. The period when interest rates were low, pace of economic growth remained high and inflation low lasted until 1990. The last five years of boom were marked by surging stock and property prices – both tripled between 1985 and 1990. Companies and individuals eagerly borrowed money from banks to buy assets, since interest rates on loans were far lower than returns on stocks or properties. The bubble burst in 1990 and the economy of Japan slipped into a period of sluggish growth for a decade. Banks were hardly hit by write-offs on non-performing loans, individuals and companies struggled to repay the debts they had run up in the times of speculative frenzy. Customers were reluctant to spend, what caused the domestic demand to decline. Firms instead of investing in capital stock were paying back its debts. Interest rates were slashed to near zero to stimulate the economy, but neither banks could grant new loans, nor were the enterprises keen to take them out. GDP growth rate averaged out 1% in the 1990s. Adverse effects of bursting of sizeable economic bubble are felt until now.

Ireland in a relatively short period of time turned from backward agricultural country into one a modern, fast-growing economy. The economic miracle is often put down to Social Partnership under which government, employers and trade unions settled on taking a concerted effort move the country forward. They did bring it off, inflation was on decline, growth rate was on the rise, the country attracted outward direct investments owing to corporate tax cuts. For many years Ireland ran budget surpluses and consequently its public debt was decreasing. Good economic performance was fostered by low interest rates and deregulated financial industry, which caused the property bubble to arise. Banks were lending recklessly and bubble grew splendid before it burst. From then Irish banks reported huge numbers of defaults among borrowers, their capitals shrunk as a result of losses on non-performing loans, the government had to bail out most banks and the bail-out programme has caused the public debt to mount. Now not only Irish banks but also the Irish state is on the verge of insolvency.

So what do they have in common? Economies of both countries have been hurt by bursting bubbles. In both countries interest rates were abnormally low for an extended period of time (there was no need to raised them as there was no threat of rising inflation), banks loosened their lending criteria and foisted loans upon almost everyone. In both countries prosperity was brought to a halt by bursting bubbles.

But brush aside economic aspects of economic bubbles, take a look at them from psychological perspective. Bubble (as any other misfortune) inflates when people take for granted nothing bad can happen. Japanese and Irish banks took for granted the property prices would only go up, so even if a borrower failed to repay their debt, they would foreclose a property and recover the money. Individuals and firms also took for granted asset prices would only go up. When an economic bubble is robust almost everyone believes the boom will last forever. Voices of sceptics who claim the disaster is imminent are drowned out.

It is very hard to crack down on the bubble, because as long as it swells, it is convenient to everyone. Government gets higher proceeds from property taxes, property developers count up sky-high profits, banks make lots of money on mortgage loans, property owners are happy because their wealth is increasing, flat broke non-owners are over the moon because banks are leaning over backwards to give them 40-year mortgage for a tiny, dilapidated 30-square-metre flat. And the unemployment is falling, because construction sector needs more workers, who do not get paid worse than qualified workforce. And bear in mind efficiency in construction sector is low, so economic growth generated by it is in a way delusive.

Lessons to be learnt? Do not let property bubbles happen. In the long term they always do more harm than good. Imbalance in an economy will sooner or later cause a turmoil and those to pay for any possible bailouts will be taxpayers. Interest rates on mortgages should not be low (cheap corporate loans have positive impact on the economy in the long run)! Lending for housing purposes should be under supervision! Poland escaped the scenario of bursting property bubble. Property prices did double in some cities between late 2005 and late 2007, but the boom was not followed by bust. Interest rates were never too low, Polish financial supervision did its best to curb lending, particularly in foreign currencies. Banks’ profits in boom period were not as high as they could be, some applicants had their mortgage applications rejected, but Poland averted a much worse scenario. May we never try to repeat any country’s path to economic miracle. Mr Wałęsa and Mr Tusk did not know what they were saying. Their promises were made just before bubbles in Japan and Ireland burst.

Funnily enough, Poland was going through a property boom when Prawo i Sprawiedliwość was in power…

More on economic bubbles in 2011, after I graduate (in my MA thesis I explore the topic, some excerpts to be translated into English and published here after I “defend” it).

Where you stand depends on where you sit

So why should they check if the third time is really lucky, if the second was twice as enough? The Irish voters chose on Friday to adopt the Lisbon Treaty, which they rejected in the previous referendum, held on 12th June 2008. Their decision, this time totally predictable doesn’t necessarily prove their support for the further integration within the European Union (though the framework of the process was vastly abridged in comparison to the draft of European Constitution), but it’s an excellent evidence for the old, but still up-to-date Polish saying: “Punkt widzenia zależy od punktu siedzenia”. In the last months before the outbreak of the financial crisis Irish citizens were definitely reluctant to embrace the document. Now, after their country has been hit be the crisis (the rapid rise in unemployment may serve as the best indicator) and its financial sector has been bailed out by the government they simply seek more security, which in their view can be given by the EU.

People’s views quite often depend on their situation. The disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed usually tend to support socialists, whereas entrepreneurs and the well-off back liberals. My generation more and more often gives lie to that tendency. Some of my friends from university come from poverty-stricken families but their favour liberal solutions. The group of the ones from wealthy families eager to share their income with the poorer is still rather sparse, but the society is drifting in a good direction. That road will be long and rough unless the public figures realise they should serve as an example in this respect. How can an ordinary citizen stick to his views if the politicians change their minds according to the PR needs or if many biggest figures of financial sector claim less regulation when the business goes well (like in 2006 or 2007 in banks) and when they face serious troubles, they submissively queue up and beg for help from the public purse?

I could write more about those partly moral choices. Unfortunately, I’m short of time this weekend. My school, after the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection levied the fine of 270 thousand złoty on it, has launched a new austerity programme under which students are obliged to give lectures instead of lecturers and I have to prepare for the first one I’m delivering on Thursday. Well, to be precise it’s not a new internal regulation, but more and more lecturers shift the unpleasant duty of giving a lecture onto the students. It takes on a form of blackmailing – if you don’t do it, you won’t get a credit… I think it’s the third time within my course of studies when the teacher just sits and watches the presentations of students without making a substantial contribution. Is this the way the “leading” Polish school of economics” wants to catch up with the western universities. It’s a downfall…