[grassroots1]

The study was based on Americans, meaning they were not comparing starvation to extreme wealth.

I'd say that's a pretty glaring flaw in the study.

Crime does not count, as wealth is gained illegitimately.

I appreciate your Econ 101 definition of value, but I'm making the point that people's real conception of value is different, it's subjective. Dick Cheney may live like a king, but it doesn't mean I value him or the role he played in society.

Fine, you are in the minority.

I think you're wrong.

Again, fine, live your life however you want, just don't punish me for it by introducing and inefficient economic system.

Fair enough, I'll introduce an efficient one.

[NYYS]

I'd say that's a pretty glaring flaw in the study.

Why? We're discussing Americans, and the study was based on Americans.

I appreciate your Econ 101 definition of value, but I'm making the point that people's real conception of value is different, it's subjective.

Actions speak louder than words, and we as a society continue to financially reward those meeting my definition of value, while not rewarding those who labor under your definition.

I think you're wrong.

Good to know academic studies can be invalidated by "I think you're wrong."

Fair enough, I'll introduce an efficient one.

A) You won't do anything
B) Leftism is highly inefficient. It doesn't attempt to be efficient, it has entirely different goals.

[grassroots1]

Why? We're discussing Americans, and the study was based on Americans.

It can't be extrapolated to the point of 'relative wealth makes people feel better/worse about themeselves,' there need to be many more qualifications than that.

Actions speak louder than words, and we as a society continue to financially reward those meeting my definition of value, while not rewarding those who labor under your definition.

You're still only thinking in terms of monetary rewards.

Good to know academic studies can be invalidated by "I think you're wrong."

You don't have a study which proves that I'm in the minority of people when I say that happiness and social ties are more important than material wealth.

A) You won't do anything
B) Leftism is highly inefficient. It doesn't attempt to be efficient, it has entirely different goals.

A) I appreciate the motivation.
B) "Leftism" is not an economic system.

[Beren]

You don't have a study which proves that I'm in the minority of people when I say that happiness and social ties are more important than material wealth.

Security is the most important thing to the most of the ordinary people and material wealth can give you security in capitalism. You need some material wealth to raise your family. If you want to enjoy life instead of just vegetating then you need some material wealth too. And if you want to be happy in a capitalist society then you also need money. That's why people living in capitalism think and say material wealth is so important to them. If they were bushmen somewhere in the African desert, they would think and talk otherwise. It's dead cert most people don't enjoy capitalism, so people enjoying it are minority for sure. It doesn't mean capitalism is a bad or a good thing, I guess it's a necessary thing and we need it till it becomes outdated. Just like feudalism became outdated in Europe in the 16th century. However, till we cannot create another socio-economic system which can give people more material wealth than capitalism, it will stand. Or till they change material wealth to something else to believe in, for example solidarity, technological development, etc. It is a matter of social maturity. Till we are not mature enough to change, we'd better keep capitalism.

[grassroots1]

Security is the most important thing to the most of the ordinary people and material wealth can give you security in capitalism. You need some material wealth to raise your family. If you want to enjoy life instead of just vegetating then you need some material wealth too. And if you want to be happy in a capitalist society then you also need money. That's why people living in capitalism think and say material wealth is so important to them.

It's a means to happiness. Happiness is the goal. Of course a foundation is necessary, and that's why I propose one be provided. But money is just a means, and not an end, and when the two are confused we see some pretty despicable things as a result.

It doesn't mean capitalism is a bad or a good thing, I guess it's a necessary thing and we need it till it becomes outdated. Just like feudalism became outdated in Europe in the 16th century. However, till we cannot create another socio-economic system which can give people more material wealth than capitalism, it will stand. Or till they change material wealth to something else to believe in, for example solidarity, technological development, etc. It is a matter of social maturity. Till we are not mature enough to change, we'd better keep capitalism.

Sure, change will come when it comes.

[NYYS]

It can't be extrapolated to the point of 'relative wealth makes people feel better/worse about themeselves,' there need to be many more qualifications than that.

There are other things that are important to people, obviously. But relative income clearly comes near the top (2nd, according the study).

You're still only thinking in terms of monetary rewards.

That's because that's what's important here, and how the rest of society thinks.

You don't have a study which proves that I'm in the minority of people when I say that happiness and social ties are more important than material wealth.

First of all, you just said that happiness is important to being happy - which I'm left forced to agree with.
"Social ties" are not listed on the page I posted earlier (probably because it's unbelievably vague), but education and marriage are both listed as less important than income in determining happiness.

B) "Leftism" is not an economic system.

Of course not, but since all leftist economic systems are wildly inefficient I have no qualms with pretending it is.

[Beren]

It's a means to happiness. Happiness is the goal. Of course a foundation is necessary, and that's why I propose one be provided. But money is just a means, and not an end, and when the two are confused we see some pretty despicable things as a result.

Long-range happiness is quite fictional I think, be realistic. You can be happy when you see your new-born child first anyway, no matter which socioeconomic system you live in. The problem with capitalism is that it is a class-society. There is exploitation and there can be no true democracy in it and this makes any existing capitalist republic a joke. On the individual level the (material) capitalistic circumstabces enmesh among others even love, friendship and family life. Warfare can create economic growth and material wealth in capitalism, so the system and its masters are really interested in generating wars. That is quite freakish in my opinion. And it is not fictional, but realistic indeed.

[Icon]

You don't have a study which proves that I'm in the minority of people when I say that happiness and social ties are more important than material wealth.

Is such a study necessary? 'Happiness' in the context of economics is utility, and there are all kinds of things that can create utility, including things that don't have a price in dollars.

But let's also not rule out that wealth can create utility as well.

[Beren]

things that don't have a price in dollars.

What things do you mean? As far as I know money is the general equivalent, so everything has a price in dollars according to economics. If you can really measure all kinds of utilities, then you can compare all kinds of utilities to each other too. And you will find at the end that every utility can be expressed in dollars. Including love, friendship, respect, etc., there is no exception.

[grassroots1]

There are other things that are important to people, obviously. But relative income clearly comes near the top (2nd, according the study).

The point is money is a means to obtain things which will sustain us, and those things which sustain us are what we truly desire. Money is merely a medium. And the study is flawed for reasons I've already mentioned.

That's because that's what's important here, and how the rest of society thinks.

I don't see any need to debate with someone who believes they know 'how the rest of society thinks.'

First of all, you just said that happiness is important to being happy - which I'm left forced to agree with.
"Social ties" are not listed on the page I posted earlier (probably because it's unbelievably vague), but education and marriage are both listed as less important than income in determining happiness.

I did not... I said that happiness itself is more important than material wealth. Someone with excessive material wealth is not necessarily happy, showing that they are not the same thing.

Long-range happiness is quite fictional I think, be realistic.

What do you mean by this?

You can be happy when you see your new-born child first anyway, no matter which socioeconomic system you live in.

Absolutely, but it'll return quickly to misery if you can't find food to feed yourself or that child, or if you have to spend all your time away from it just to provide it with what it needs.

Is such a study necessary? 'Happiness' in the context of economics is utility, and there are all kinds of things that can create utility, including things that don't have a price in dollars.

Money is a means to happiness, but it does not guarantee it. Excessive wealth, I'd argue, can even push people further away from it.

[Beren]

What do you mean by this?

I mean happiness is just a moment usually. Socialism or communism cannot make you happy for a long time either, however, maybe it would be easier than it is in capitalism.

I don't see any need to debate with someone who believes they know 'how the rest of society thinks.'

Without money there is no happiness, that's what people think. That's what we all think individually, because we live in capitalism, and cash is king in capitalism. The real question is why we live in capitalism? It is obviously not an individual decision, it is a social decision. So the individual approach is wrong. Individual crying about the lack of our personal happiness will never help, collective crying about the social unfairness will ever help only.

[grassroots1]

I mean happiness is just a moment usually. Socialism or communism cannot make you happy for a long time either, however, maybe it would be easier than it is in capitalism.

I'm not looking for life-long euphoria, I think you're right that this is unattainable, and even undesirable. But to be a stable human being, to be able to find yourself: what you love to do, what gives you enjoyment and satisfaction... these are things which can greatly improve one's life. And I think, even in capitalism, if every single person were to be provided with a basic foundation... that is, food, shelter, health care, and education, this would be a much more attainable goal.

Without money there is no happiness, that's what people think. That's what we all think individually, because we live in capitalism, and cash is king in capitalism. The real question is why we live in capitalism? It is obviously not an individual decision, it is a social decision. So the individual approach is wrong. Individual crying about the lack of our personal happiness will never help, collective crying about the social unfairness will ever help only.

Yeah, people probably would agree that without money it would be difficult to be happy. But we all know for a fact that money does not equate to happiness (NYYS seems to have trouble accepting this), so clearly money is a means and not an end.

And you say it is a social decision, but our society is of course composed of individuals, so wouldn't we need to see a change in each of them before we could make such a 'social decision?' Individual crying won't help certainly, but spreading awareness about our collective situation certainly will. In fact, it is the only concrete step I have found toward the kind of system I believe in and promote.

[Beren]

Individual crying won't help certainly, but spreading awareness about our collective situation certainly will. In fact, it is the only concrete step I have found toward the kind of system I believe in and promote.

[Icon]

What things do you mean? As far as I know money is the general equivalent, so everything has a price in dollars according to economics.

In theory, yes. Everything has a price in dollars. For goods that are bought and sold in markets, it's easy to know what those prices are.

But for goods that aren't bought and sold, there really isn't any way to monetize it.

What is the price of a loving relationship?
What is the price of good government?
What is a uterus worth?
What is the price of having good parents?
What is national defense worth?
What is the value of clean air?
What is a human life worth?
What is the value of having a workplace that you feel safe in?

Find me an economist that can answer any of those questions with the level of confidence we'd get with a market and I'll give you a cookie.

If you can really measure all kinds of utilities, then you can compare all kinds of utilities to each other too.

We can't measure utility in the real world. We can only infer utility by measuring income and pareto-efficiency.

[grassroots1]

What is the value of clean air?

That's a good one.

[NYYS]

The point is money is a means to obtain things which will sustain us, and those things which sustain us are what we truly desire.

The fact that society deems your skills valuable enough that you can buy those things gives utility to most people.

And the study is flawed for reasons I've already mentioned.

I wasn't aware you were even attempting to show that the study was flawed.

I don't see any need to debate with someone who believes they know 'how the rest of society thinks.'

Why? Because you don't like that a) it comes from sound reasoning and b) you disagree with it.

I did not... I said that happiness itself is more important than material wealth.

What are you saying? Money is a means to happiness, obviously, either because of things it can buy you or the status it grants you.

Someone with excessive material wealth is not necessarily happy, showing that they are not the same thing.

Obviously. If they're deathly ill and going through a brutal divorce they'll probably be pretty miserable. However, having money makes you far more likely to be happy, all else equal.

[FullMetalJacket]

Here is one study showing that happiness is more-or-less stable in individuals.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/509679/

From what I remember from my basic psychology course, people who experienced a sudden loss such as becoming handicapped tended to be just as happy afterward, given a little time. I am trying to find the study for this.

[grassroots1]

I wasn't aware you were even attempting to show that the study was flawed.

It was in one of my above posts, I said the study was flawed because it only takes Americans into account, and as you pointed out, income disparity is not as extreme as if we don't take world society into account. I believe society as a whole should be taken into account because the actions of the United States have a world-wide influence, and I would even go so far as to say that the level of affluence we have on this country is dependent on the exploitation of the labor and resources of the third world.

Obviously. If they're deathly ill and going through a brutal divorce they'll probably be pretty miserable. However, having money makes you far more likely to be happy, all else equal.

True. Having excessive wealth, as I said, may have the opposite effect. I've said what I need to say.

[NYYS]

It was in one of my above posts, I said the study was flawed because it only takes Americans into account, and as you pointed out, income disparity is not as extreme as if we don't take world society into account. I believe society as a whole should be taken into account because the actions of the United States have a world-wide influence, and I would even go so far as to say that the level of affluence we have on this country is dependent on the exploitation of the labor and resources of the third world.

People don't see that poverty in other countries, and thus don't care.

True. Having excessive wealth, as I said, may have the opposite effect.

What's excessive? I agree in some people it may have the opposite effect, especially those that simply inherited and didn't earn anything (but then again, that's not talking about income).

[grassroots1]

People don't see that poverty in other countries, and thus don't care.

Thus, a flaw in your conclusion (or the conclusion that was drawn by the study... frankly I never even looked at it).

What's excessive? I agree in some people it may have the opposite effect, especially those that simply inherited and didn't earn anything (but then again, that's not talking about income).

The line itself is hard to draw, but, correct me if I'm wrong, people have a sense of what degree of wealth is too little, enough, a lot, and excessive. They may not be the same, but there's some sense of it, isn't there?