Posted on 12/24/2006 8:23:18 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
Affluence
Capitalism can make a society rich and keep it free. Don't ask it to make you happy as well
HAVING grown at an annual rate of 3.2% per head since 2000, the world economy is over half way towards notching up its best decade ever. If it keeps going at this clip, it will beat both the supposedly idyllic 1950s and the 1960s. Market capitalism, the engine that runs most of the world economy, seems to be doing its job well.
But is it? Once upon a time, that job was generally agreed to be to make people better off. Nowadays that's not so clear. A number of economists, in search of big problems to solve, and politicians, looking for bold promises to make, think that it ought to be doing something else: making people happy.
The view that economics should be about more than money is widely held in continental Europe. In debates with Anglo-American capitalists, wily bons vivants have tended to cite the idea of “quality of life” to excuse slower economic growth. But now David Cameron, the latest leader of Britain's once rather materialistic Conservative Party, has espoused the notion of “general well-being” (GWB) as an alternative to the more traditional GDP. In America, meanwhile, inequality, over-work and other hidden costs of prosperity were much discussed in the mid-term elections; and “wellness” (as opposed to health) has become a huge industry, catering especially to the prosperous discontent of the baby-boomers.
Much of this draws on the upstart science of happiness, which mixes psychology with economics (see article). Its adherents start with copious survey data, such as those derived from the simple, folksy question put to thousands of Americans every year or two since 1972: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?” Some of the results are unsurprising: the rich report being happier than do the poor. But a paradox emerges that requires explanation: affluent countries have not got much happier as they have grown richer. From America to Japan, figures for well-being have barely budged.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities—bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed. But the flip side of this genius is that people come to take for granted things they once coveted from afar. Frills they never thought they could have become essentials that they cannot do without. People are stuck on a treadmill: as they achieve a better standard of living, they become inured to its pleasures.
Capitalism's ability to take things downmarket also has its limits. Many of the things people most prize—such as the top jobs, the best education, or an exclusive home address—are luxuries by necessity. An elite schooling, for example, ceases to be so if it is provided to everyone. These “positional goods”, as they are called, are in fixed supply: you can enjoy them only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to grab them depends on how much your rivals are putting in.
Some economists think the results cast doubt on the long-held verities of their discipline. The dismal science traditionally assumes that people know their own interests, and are best left to mind their own business. How much they work, and what they buy, is their own affair. A properly brought-up economist seeks to explain their decisions, not to quarrel with them. But the new happiness gurus are much less willing to defer to people's choices.
Take work, for instance. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes imagined that richer societies would become more leisured ones, liberated from toil to enjoy the finer things in life. Yet most people still put in a decent shift. They work hard to afford things they think will make them happy, only to discover the fruits of their labour sour quickly. They also aspire to a higher place in society's pecking order, but in so doing force others in the rat race to run faster to keep up. So everyone loses.
Yet it is not self-evident that less work would mean more happiness. In America, when the working week has shortened, the gap has been filled by assiduous TV-watching. As for well-being, other studies show that elderly people who stop working tend to die sooner than their peers who labour on. Indeed, another side of happiness economics busies itself studying the non-monetary rewards from work: most people enjoy parts of their work, and some people love it.
As for capitalism's wasteful materialism, even Adam Smith had a problem with it. “How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility?” he complained. It is hard to claim that pyramid-shaped tea-bags (developed at great expense over four years) have added much to the sum of human happiness. Yet if capitalism sometimes persuades people to buy stuff they only imagine they want, it also appeals to tastes and aptitudes they never knew they had. In the arts, this is called “originality” and is venerated. In commerce it is called “novelty” and too often dismissed. But without the urge for material improvement, people would still be wearing woollen underwear and holidaying in Bognor rather than Bhutan. Would that be so great?
The joys of niche capitalism
If growth of this kind does not make people happy, stagnation will hardly do the trick. Ossified societies guard positional goods more, not less, jealously. A flourishing economy, on the other hand, creates what biologists call “a tangled bank” of niches, with no clear hierarchy between them. Tyler Cowen, of George Mason University, points out that America has more than 3,000 halls of fame, honouring everyone from rock stars and sportsmen to dog mushers, pickle-packers and accountants. In such a society, everyone can hope to come top of his particular monkey troop, even as the people he looks down on count themselves top of a subtly different troop.
To find the market system wanting because it does not bring joy as well as growth is to place too heavy a burden on it. Capitalism can make you well off. And it also leaves you free to be as unhappy as you choose. To ask any more of it would be asking too much.
Cue the Beatles:
Artist: The Beatles Lyrics Song: Can't Bye My Love Lyrics
Can't buy me love, love Can't buy me love
I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright 'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love
I'll give you all I got to give if you say you love me too I may not have a lot to give but what I got I'll give to you I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love
Can't buy me love, everybody tells me so Can't buy me love, no no no, no
Say you don't need no diamond ring and I'll be satisfied Tell me that you want the kind of thing that money just can't buy I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love
No worries, the Democrats will make us all happy.
Ask anybody if they are happier having the things they want or happier not being able to afford them.
Being rich and free is ALWAYS better than than being poor and oppressed. There is NOTHING to debate here.
.
SUCCESS is getting the things that you want.
HAPPINESS is appreciating what you have.
So,
...have no Fear,
...for you are all very dearly LOVED
...by the LOVE Itself
...and by that same LOVE
...that's carried in the
...Hearts of those around you who
...really do care for you =
THE ANSWER.
.
Try that question in North Korea and see what you get. Debate, is seldom free, or open anywhere.
"I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright 'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love"
Amazing how rich the Beatles got off of songs like this ...
Then again, they did do the "Taxman" song a few years later.
Can't buy me love...
to buy sh#t we don't need....
Happiness is within, not without.
True,its always better to be rich than poor.
Yet I have known quite a few rich people and for them its never enough.They are continually buying more toys yet they are never satisfied.
Meanwhile,their kids rarely see them anymore and they are subject to high blood pressure and heart attacks since they never exercise or eat right.
I like being COMFORTABLE.Rich?Great if it happens but I don't strive for it.
Great looking TV set.
Now if there were ONLY some quality programs to watch on it!
You dispute this? And for evidence you cite one of the world’s most moronic philosophers (assuming these are Lennon’s words)? Maybe possessions don’t bring happiness, but honestly acquired big bank accounts and the freedom they give one to say “take this job and shove it” certainly do.
NFL Network!
Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities—bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed.
---
This is done despite the growing so called-'inequality'. :)
Inequality, the lovechild of the left is useless and its increase parallels increasing propserity, IMO.
What a wonderful post.
Thank you, dear Ronnie.
She just doesn't measure it often enough to suit me.
L
Happiness is a state of mind. Anyone can have it if they choose to.
I grew up middle class, in my early married years, I was dirt poor and I'm now an millionare on paper and I've always been happy. It's nice to be able to pay the rent but it's also quite an adventure trying to figure out how to do it. I've been close to bankruptcy a few times and that is when you pull harder together than ever before. Hard times are the cement that holds you together with friends and family when the gravy comes.
I'm always amused by lib publications that preach to the choir about the dangers of over-consumption. Many of the habitues of this forum, Free Republic, tend to have more of the religious types than people on oh say...ah..DummyUnderground. That would mean we know that money isn't everything. The lib stooges write these articles like they are the first people to have discovered this. It's only been known for about five thousand years.
The trick here is to understand how God has blessed you can recognize how wonderful it is you aren't living in some forsaken hell hole where you cannot provide any hope or comfort for your loved ones. That ability to help keep your loved ones safe and provided for provides a significant level of meaning and translates directly into happiness when considering the bounty the Lord has permitted you.
Anyone who has a meaningful relationship with God can usually make the correlation. Those possessed of only a desire for embracing pursuit of happiness via materialism usually find it to be an empty and unfulfilled promise. That 60" HD TV won't love you back, it won't thank you, and it will never show gratitude nor share the joy of salvation through our Lord and Savior.
Materialism supported by profiteering/capitalism in itself is pursuit of nothing in the end, and that's what you go back to.
Inalienable rights...bump.
I don't necessarily agree. I think the author thinks that the readers think that there is a correlation. Or, the articles premise is that people generally believe that wealth and happiness are correlated.
What is happening here is a highly respected, fairly conservative, economics-oriented publication is starting to believe that there are limits to the amounts of material resources to be exploited on the planet. This type of thought process about "happiness" eventually leads to the outcome that human beings require more time with loved-ones and human interactions rather than more material possessions.
Our current economic system, however is predicated on convincing people they need more stuff, even though this might actually make them less happy. And, in earning the money and taking care of the stuff, they actually have less of what actually makes them happy i.e. family and friends.
Realistically, this is a message that is quite clear and obvious in the Bible and most other major religions too.
Since not everyone on the planet actually can drive an SUV in its current state, it is also economic reality.
The redefinition of wealth to include free-time and other things are all well and good;however there are at least 3 flaws: 1. There is no universal definition. An hour of time with my family or friends might be worth more or less to me than someone else; 2. Until everyone has their basic needs filled (see Maslow) it is irrelevant to talk about more complex needs and 3. The current definition of wealth is most certainly correlative to the ability to fight wars. So until the world is a more peaceful place, fewer resources means greater weakness.
If you want to be happy find your own, "golden middle". If you listen to Madison Avenue and Hollywood you will find idolatry. The bible is a much more reliable source. But at FR people generally know this. Which is why there is so much concern for the rest of America.
Happiness is realizing you have what you need.
When I reached adulthood it made me very happy to know I could buy an ice cream sundae anytime I wanted to without asking parental permission.
Several years later it made me very happy to know that I could afford to buy an ice cream sundae anytime I wanted to.
Several years after that it made me happy to know that an important someone in my life was very happy to buy me an ice cream sundae any time I wanted one.
Now even though I can have an ice cream sundae anytime I want one, except the arteries and waisteline say "no."
But, I just remember back to all the ice cream sundaes I had through the years, and I am happy.
Merry Christmas, Y'all.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
There was an article in New York Magazine recently that described happiness and the happiness industry. One of the interview subjects theorized that a person's relative wealth is what causes unhappiness, once necessities are fulfilled. Many of the unhappy people (Libs) I know have the irritating habit of whining about how much others have.
Check out http://give-n-go.blogspot.com
Ah, but I think the person who knows a personal relationship with Christ in a forsaken hell hole will have just as much happiness knowing there is a better tomorrow; have happiness in the peace of that relationship. Maybe moreso than someone in the USA, where things come too easily to us.
I've been close to bankruptcy a few times and that is when you pull harder together than ever before. Hard times are the cement that holds you together with friends and family when the gravy comes.
I've been close to bankruptcy a few times and that is when you pull harder together than ever before. Hard times are the cement that holds you together with friends and family when the gravy comes.
Let's consider this in another direction....
In our society we are seldom allowed - or allow ourselves - unalloyed happiness.
As we sit at the Thanksgiving/Christmas/or other holiday table with those we love, eating our fill...we are asked to never forget those who have less.
When we buy a new coat, we are asked to remember those who have no coats at all.
As we sprint down the street, we are asked to always remember those who are shutin or in wheelchairs, etc.
Whenever we are happy, we are always asked to feel a certain amount of hesitation (which often translates into guilt) for others who are not happy.
I do understand the need to care for others (it is a basic tennet of the Judeo/Christian view) - but is it healthy to always be sked to have a guilty spot in the midst of happiness?
Is there no time when we can just enjoy what is happening - at that moment in time - without these other shades casting a shadow?
What do you think?
To think of others less fortunate, even while enjoying your own good fortune, is perfectly healthy. Feeling guilty about success is not. What really causes unhappiness and hostility is living what is by all objective standards "the good life", but looking at others that have more. I've seen it firsthand.
An acquaintance of mine told me, teary eyed, about the hellish childhood he had because his was the poorest family in a wealthy neighborhood. "Back in the 60s my father only made $32,000 a year," he whined. I started laughing. My father never made more than $7,500 a year and I was a happy kid.
Good decision.
New Year's Resolution #1: Avoid all negative influences.
interesting article.
i think happiness is something measured by each individual.
sometimes, the simplest things bring the most happiness.
there's nothing like the hug from a little one, or a special guy,
who loves you. :)
I prefer hugs from girls, thanks. ;)
yeah, well, we prefer hugs from our guys :D
Happiness is a well-known word that is very shadowy in common usage. However, the origin and true meaning of the word can be obtained. While it is true that being in poor health can easily eliminate the choices of happiness, that does not mean that feeling good is happiness. Also, having plenty of money or power or family makes happiness possible, but is not happiness itself. The so-called science of happiness, BTW, is ethics.
That is a garden variety power trip.
Yup, a power trip/extremely immature tool of manipulation.
Yeah,you right!
I DO watch sports and some news shows.I was really talking about the salacious trash where grown adults are supposed to laugh at dirty jokes that were old back when I was in Seventh Grade.
Liberals around here in Cali are the MOST status conscious,materialistic,money grubbing folks I have ever seen.
I'm talking about "My"generation born in the late Forties.I even looked up some of my old white "radical"acquaintances from days of Sixties yore and found many of them firmly ensconsed in the Berkeley hills or San Ramon.
Then there are the black"militants"who screamed the loudest about"whitey"and"picking up the gun"who are now Sociology professors at major universities and who hobnob with white dilletantes at cocktail parties in the hills.
Like the Beatles said,"well I just had to laugh,I saw the photograph"
Right on about the ice-cream sundaes!When I lived at home,I SWORE when I got out on my own I would eat all the ice cream I wanted.
When I finally did get out there by myself and had the time and the means,I no longer DESIRED ice cream sundaes!
Like the 5TH Dimension said,"And now I can have the things I always wanted-cause I don't really want them anymore"
Bears repeating. Well said. Look at Mother Teresa...
You got it, Ronnie.
Food in my belly
Clothes on my back
shoes on my feet
and a warm place to sleep.
But best of all,
it's not just me
That and more for my family.
All I really want and more
God Provides.
de Montaigne on money:
At first he had a modest income and was free in loaning and borrowing and didn't worry about if he had a few coins at any given time or was short a few coins. Then he got into serious money and became highly concerned with protecting it, which was worrisome back in 1600; he was not happy at all. Then he passed into a third phase where he had a substantial income and more or less regulated his expenditures to match income so he didn't have to borrow but was otherwise back in phase one, and happy.
He also told of a friar who had substantial funds and hated managing all of it so gave it free and clear to one of the gardeners who had always complained of having no money to get married, with the understanding that the friar was to be well fed and have a roof over his head forever. Both were very happy from that time on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.