An economy based on happiness?
04-04-12, 11:44 AM
#26
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
I have never voted for a republican in my life. I am libertarian. I understand the concept behind what the article is saying but to be frank, I just think it is extremely naive and unrealistic. It seems like something some 19 year old college student who has never seen the real world would write.
As to the 19 year old, with all the unnecessary misery in this world, it's hard to imagine that the kids would do any worse at running things.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
04-04-12, 11:53 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The amount of money one has isn't what makes one happy. It is having plenty of money for one's situation with some big reserves. That might be just $200,000 for me and for somebody else it might be five times that amount. Unless somebody is living in an Amazon rainforest for their entire life, money is the foundation for happiness.
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...019628,00.html
04-04-12, 12:02 PM
#28
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
You can fly if you find your happy thought, Peter. 
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-04-12, 12:02 PM
#29
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
And certainly the best way to make money is to provide a product or service that makes people happy.
The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that only money (or fame or power) will make them happy. Many other things make people as happy, or happier, as others pointed out on this thread.
Another mistake is that people think money will make them only happy, whereas wealth also brings many negative feelings with it. (Studies of big lottery winners show that almost all of them were less happy a couple years after they won the money.)
A third error is believing that people will work only for money. There have been a couple posts here that point out why this view is mistaken. Yes, money is a very powerful motivator, but there are others.
As an extremist (libertarian) I think you want to look at only the extreme ends of an issue. Buddha (and Plato, and many other great thinkers) said that we should seek a middle way. I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.
ADD: AS a utilitrian philosopher, St. Adam Smith would have agreed that happiness is the ultimate good.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 04-04-12 at 12:08 PM.
04-04-12, 12:15 PM
#30
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
It is hard to make any comment here without triggering a political rant. But you could say appropriate economic and political goals in a free society are the attempt to REMOVE the things that prevent happiness from being achieved by most people. And, that list might include, fear of violence, fear of financially devasting illnesses, fear of no access to education, fear of discrimination, fear of corruption, fear of exercising free thought and opinion, fear of poverty, and on and on.
So society protects you from facing all these fears without some regulation and a societal safety net, and economic opportunity, but the rest of the happiness equation is up to you.
Obviously, there is no concensus that this is the correct focus of our economy and government.
So society protects you from facing all these fears without some regulation and a societal safety net, and economic opportunity, but the rest of the happiness equation is up to you.
Obviously, there is no concensus that this is the correct focus of our economy and government.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
04-04-12, 12:20 PM
#31
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
04-04-12, 01:02 PM
#32
Prefers Cicero
That's a false dichotomy. Many people choose and prefer a less materialistic lifestyle. It's not that they "can't" achieve, and have to "settle", it's that their achievements are of a different type.
Last edited by cooker; 04-04-12 at 03:44 PM.
04-04-12, 01:13 PM
#33
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Of course, if it had been me, I would have included the "pursuit of tail", but note that the capitalists didn't manage to get "pursuit of money" in there either. Both are covered nicely by Happiness tho.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-04-12, 04:59 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
Do the researchers work for free? Do they ever quit because of pay issues? Do the take weekends off to relax. Do they vacation somewhere other than where they work? Does someone expect to get paid for the results of that research? That is a economy. Are the researchers happy when the director messes with their research? Do they complain about the "management"?
This is all true, but is simply an indication that the economy under which their efforts are taking place is not ideally suited to them. It is the economy that causes their problems. Change the economy and these problems would go away.
(The obvious answer then is change the economy to what? And the reality is that no theoretical economic systems actually exist that are at all faithful to the theory. "Capitalism", "Communism" and other theoretical systems are pure theory and cannot exist in the real world. All real world systems have to make accommodations for the behavior of human beings and that behavior doesn't follow the theory. The flaw of every system is man. On paper, they all work fine.)
This is all true, but is simply an indication that the economy under which their efforts are taking place is not ideally suited to them. It is the economy that causes their problems. Change the economy and these problems would go away.
(The obvious answer then is change the economy to what? And the reality is that no theoretical economic systems actually exist that are at all faithful to the theory. "Capitalism", "Communism" and other theoretical systems are pure theory and cannot exist in the real world. All real world systems have to make accommodations for the behavior of human beings and that behavior doesn't follow the theory. The flaw of every system is man. On paper, they all work fine.)
04-04-12, 05:42 PM
#35
Day trip lover
Join Date: May 2009
Location: capital city of iowa
Posts: 813
Bikes: '16 Giant Escape 3 (fair weather ride), Giant Quasar (work in progress), 2002 saturn vue (crap weather ride)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
- Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be? no, to be better off than those around me is the ultimate human goal.
- What would change if we based our economy on happiness? if economies were based on happiness, then no one would be happy since it would be required.
- Does having more stuff make people happier? depends on what it is and in what quantities.
- What can a nation do to make its people happier? not attempt to micromanage the populace. i know that would make ME happier.
- Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less? no, but it would nip the diabetes "epidemic" in the butt.
04-04-12, 07:13 PM
#36
In the right lane
04-04-12, 07:27 PM
#37
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
drill, baby, drill, screw the danged kids!
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-04-12, 11:44 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 799
Bikes: Pacific Reach, Strida
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Oh, so the question "What would change if we based our economy on happiness?" wasn't intended to be interpreted literally. While it doesn't seem possible to actually use happiness as the basis of an economy (like a currency), it would certainly be possible to use it as a metric for how well a country's economic policies were working, provided you could devise a way to quantify how happy each individual considered their life to be.
04-05-12, 06:11 AM
#39
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Oh, so the question "What would change if we based our economy on happiness?" wasn't intended to be interpreted literally. While it doesn't seem possible to actually use happiness as the basis of an economy (like a currency), it would certainly be possible to use it as a metric for how well a country's economic policies were working, provided you could devise a way to quantify how happy each individual considered their life to be.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-05-12, 07:39 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well, an extreme conservative then. There have been studies showing that conservatives and liberals have very different views on happiness. Liberals believe it is the most important value, conservatives don't even believe that it is a value. I think this is the ultimate difference between the two ideologies--and not something intellectual or "political" at all.
As to the 19 year old, with all the unnecessary misery in this world, it's hard to imagine that the kids would do any worse at running things.
As to the 19 year old, with all the unnecessary misery in this world, it's hard to imagine that the kids would do any worse at running things.
This is just plain wrong. People who value happiness believe that long-range planning and positive action are required to acheive it. In fact, many large scale human projects were acheived by people trying to attain happiness. And not just social programs like Medicare, but even things like the railroads, interstates, World War II were supposed to make peoploe happier.
And certainly the best way to make money is to provide a product or service that makes people happy.
The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that only money (or fame or power) will make them happy. Many other things make people as happy, or happier, as others pointed out on this thread.
Another mistake is that people think money will make them only happy, whereas wealth also brings many negative feelings with it. (Studies of big lottery winners show that almost all of them were less happy a couple years after they won the money.)
A third error is believing that people will work only for money. There have been a couple posts here that point out why this view is mistaken. Yes, money is a very powerful motivator, but there are others.
As an extremist (libertarian) I think you want to look at only the extreme ends of an issue. Buddha (and Plato, and many other great thinkers) said that we should seek a middle way. I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.
ADD: AS a utilitrian philosopher, St. Adam Smith would have agreed that happiness is the ultimate good.
And certainly the best way to make money is to provide a product or service that makes people happy.
The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that only money (or fame or power) will make them happy. Many other things make people as happy, or happier, as others pointed out on this thread.
Another mistake is that people think money will make them only happy, whereas wealth also brings many negative feelings with it. (Studies of big lottery winners show that almost all of them were less happy a couple years after they won the money.)
A third error is believing that people will work only for money. There have been a couple posts here that point out why this view is mistaken. Yes, money is a very powerful motivator, but there are others.
As an extremist (libertarian) I think you want to look at only the extreme ends of an issue. Buddha (and Plato, and many other great thinkers) said that we should seek a middle way. I think a society can value happiness while still following a basic capitalist economy. AFAIK, this is what they have done in Bhutan. They still have currency and markets, but they're saying this isn't the only function of society and government.
ADD: AS a utilitrian philosopher, St. Adam Smith would have agreed that happiness is the ultimate good.
Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.
Look - I am not saying there isn't value in happiness, there absolutely is! I am saying that happiness is a very poor thing on which to base an economy. I think that is a very short sighted and very selfish way of thinking. I am also saying I don't think the government should have any role in this. If the government protects our freedom to do what we please, it is up to us to create an economy and society. Legislating 'happiness' is a poor decision.
Last edited by hnsq; 04-05-12 at 07:43 AM.
04-05-12, 10:02 AM
#42
Prefers Cicero
In a society where people were happy we wouldn't need so much pavement.
04-05-12, 10:36 AM
#43
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
With respect, Budda and Plato did not have ideas that could build the physical infrastructure of a society. It is all well and good to have programs intended to make people happier, however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts. Legislating values is never a good idea.
Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.
Look - I am not saying there isn't value in happiness, there absolutely is! I am saying that happiness is a very poor thing on which to base an economy. I think that is a very short sighted and very selfish way of thinking. I am also saying I don't think the government should have any role in this. If the government protects our freedom to do what we please, it is up to us to create an economy and society. Legislating 'happiness' is a poor decision.
Can you please explain your plan to motivate someone to lay concrete in 100 degree heat for 9 hours/day without money? Certain jobs have motivating factors beyond money, but certain ones absolutely do not.
Look - I am not saying there isn't value in happiness, there absolutely is! I am saying that happiness is a very poor thing on which to base an economy. I think that is a very short sighted and very selfish way of thinking. I am also saying I don't think the government should have any role in this. If the government protects our freedom to do what we please, it is up to us to create an economy and society. Legislating 'happiness' is a poor decision.
I do think your definition of what makes people happy is much too narrow. Money is one thing, but not the only thing. We evolved as a species that cooperates and helps others as well as ourselves. The brain rewards this behavior with a pleasant set of feelings that we call happiness. It's a drive similar to sex and hunger. Why not acknowledge this and try to form a society that makes people happier?
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
04-05-12, 11:00 AM
#44
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Money is just one means to acquire the things you need to survive. Indeed, with today's fiat money, there is little difference between that piece of paper called a dollar and a promise to help out a neighbor in the future for his/her help with some project today. Indeed, I dare say that a barter exchange doesn't suffer from monetary devaluation.
IMO part of the problem with our mainstream American society today is the emphasis on rugged individualism rather than on community. We want that paper so we can live under some facade of independence from needing help from our community.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-05-12, 11:32 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts.
This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.
This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.
04-05-12, 11:39 AM
#46
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
however the vast majority of government programs are economically much more inefficient than private counterparts.
This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.
This is an age old truism that doesn't really hold water. First of all, there are few programs that are actually comparable. Secondly, anyone who believes that private industry has a great efficiency edge over government has never looked real hard at the processes within major corporations in the US. I've worked with Boeing and I've worked with the Air Force and neither has anything to brag about in terms of efficiency.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
04-05-12, 03:04 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
It seems we can pretty much agree there is no practical way to base an economy on happiness, but how about the rest of the questions?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.
2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?
3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.
4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".
5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.
2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?
3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.
4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".
5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?
Last edited by Mobile 155; 04-05-12 at 03:07 PM.
04-05-12, 04:38 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
What do you think?
- Is happiness the ultimate goal of humans, or should it be?
- What would change if we based our economy on happiness?
- Does having more stuff make people happier?
- What can a nation do to make its people happier?
- Would a nation be happier if people cycled more and drove less?
As far as basing an economy on happiness, none of us can do that. What each of us can do is base our own personal economies on happiness. I can build a life based on what is important to me, which might not be what is important to the rest of our society. I can choose to do the things that are important to me instead of the things others would have me doing and I can choose to acquire the things which have meaning for me instead of the things which someone else says I should desire.
It's not about creating an economy based on happiness; it's about choosing to live my own life, not the life which is dictated by those who do not understand me or my values.
Last edited by Newspaperguy; 04-05-12 at 04:43 PM.
04-05-12, 04:45 PM
#49
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
It seems we can pretty much agree there is no practical way to base an economy on happiness, but how about the rest of the questions?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.
2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?
3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.
4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".
5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?
1.The ultimate goal of humans is survival. During that effort there may be times of happiness but that wasn't the goal. Even in the most impoverished societies people have times of happiness. Happiness may be a result but isn't the goal.
2. We can't base an economy on happiness because happiness can't be traded, taxed, passed on or even identified. Using the example someone made about Amish barn raising we can take it a bit farther. They help raise the barn not because it is a trade good but because it honors God. If however you decided to stay home and have a beer while watching the game because that makes you happy you can get shunned or at the very least visited by several elders and convinced your happiness is less important than raising that barn. Just how many here would be happy with that?
3. Having some stuff seems to make people happy. After all why would people work so hard to get that stuff if they didn't want it and they weren't happy to have it? Better yet why would others steal that stuff if the owner left it out? How much stuff seems to be up to the individual? Still you can't trade your happiness for some other person's stuff so it still doesn't matter.
4. A nation can't do much to make people happy. It can protect them and give them a chance to survive. It has to do that with something more than a smile and a "I wish you well" it most often has to use force with things like the police and military and they will not risk survival for, "don't worry be happy".
5. Would a nation be happier if people drove less and cycled more? How can we tell? China was once a nation where hardly anyone drove and almost everyone cycled or walked. Today that is no longer true it seems so they must not have been all that happy cycling. Or have we defined what happier is?
2. I think the Amish derive three benefits from the barn raising: a0 self insurance, b)spending tiime with the guys, same as the football game and beer, and c)they like hard work. All of those could contribute to happiness, with no cash transaction.
3. Of course people like stuff. Or rather they like getting stuff. Those scientists I mentioned earlier have found that people are rarely happy with their purchases a short time after buying them, and most people really don't like most of the stuff they own.
4. Police and the military exist to protect society. But for what purpose does society exist? (I think the answer would be the same for an ant or a bee as it is for humans.)
5. China is already cutting back on cars and moving more to rail. They are also encouraging a return to bicycles in the big cities. It's probably too soon to know, but maybe they tried cars for a while and decided they weren't really that happy with them--similar to another crowded country (the Netherlands).
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
04-05-12, 05:28 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
1. Maybe the answer here is that people strive for material prosperity because they think it will generate happiness. Unfortunately, almost all of them discover that they were mistaken. Now that psychologistys and economists are studying happiness scientifically, it's becoming clear that people are happiest when they have enough to provide some security and the basics of life. There are no marginal returns on greateer wealth, however.
2. I think the Amish derive three benefits from the barn raising: a0 self insurance, b)spending tiime with the guys, same as the football game and beer, and c)they like hard work. All of those could contribute to happiness, with no cash transaction.
3. Of course people like stuff. Or rather they like getting stuff. Those scientists I mentioned earlier have found that people are rarely happy with their purchases a short time after buying them, and most people really don't like most of the stuff they own.
4. Police and the military exist to protect society. But for what purpose does society exist? (I think the answer would be the same for an ant or a bee as it is for humans.)
5. China is already cutting back on cars and moving more to rail. They are also encouraging a return to bicycles in the big cities. It's probably too soon to know, but maybe they tried cars for a while and decided they weren't really that happy with them--similar to another crowded country (the Netherlands).
2. I think the Amish derive three benefits from the barn raising: a0 self insurance, b)spending tiime with the guys, same as the football game and beer, and c)they like hard work. All of those could contribute to happiness, with no cash transaction.
3. Of course people like stuff. Or rather they like getting stuff. Those scientists I mentioned earlier have found that people are rarely happy with their purchases a short time after buying them, and most people really don't like most of the stuff they own.
4. Police and the military exist to protect society. But for what purpose does society exist? (I think the answer would be the same for an ant or a bee as it is for humans.)
5. China is already cutting back on cars and moving more to rail. They are also encouraging a return to bicycles in the big cities. It's probably too soon to know, but maybe they tried cars for a while and decided they weren't really that happy with them--similar to another crowded country (the Netherlands).
1. Maybe is a question not an answer. People strive for prosperity because they believe it will help provide security and continued survival. If that makes them happy all the better. But it is not clear that they are not happy with that prosperity because they continue to strive for it. If almost all of them "discovered" they were mistaken they would quit striving for it. Unless you are saying most people don't realize they aren't happy?
2. I wasn't talking about the benifits of barn raising I was talking about their base motivation, from their own mouth it is how they honor God in the community. That is the reason that if someone decided not to accept the benifits you suggest they provide a punishment for the offender not participating and deciding to stay at home and be happy in their own way.
3. Still the people getting stuff seem happier that people without stuff. The scientist you mention don't study for free and most of them aquire stuff themselves. If a scientist "knew" getting stuff was a worthless effort wouldn't they in turn eschew the aquiring of stuff themselves? But they don't they tend to buy nice suits rather than used levis. They drive nice cars work in nice offices and tend to eat at nice resturants. Do as I say not as I do doesn't work well for most of us.
4. Whatever reason the police and military exist I contend they would not be happy to risk their life for a pat on the back and a warm feeling.
5. What China is now doing may or may not be cutting back. But what they have done is rejected your suggested "The Nation would be happier with more bikes" if they already had more bikes and they moved away from it. India, Japan, Korea are in the same boat. You might have a point that they could be better off nationally but if we agree that people can choose their own way of being happy a lot of their population have already made the choice. It doesn't matter if we understand why they gave up that old lifestyle the only evidence we have to look at is they did. And it happened without a mandate from the government.
I totally agree we as individuals should take a look at what we have and how we use it. But I don't accept a minimalist suggestion that everyone would be happier if they live like Buddist Monks. And I don't think most Americans would be happy living without a real economy either.