Benjamin Wallace: Does happiness have a price tag?
http://www.ted.com Can happiness be bought? To find out, author Benjamin Wallace sampled the world’s most expensive products, including a bottle of 1947 Chateau Cheval Blanc, 8 ounces of Kobe beef and the fabled (notorious) Kopi Luwak coffee. His critique may surprise you.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, and ”Lost” producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10
Duration : 0:14:41
[youtube 7_XAMm_TBJk]
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
You are looking at …
You are looking at this in SUCH a black and white way, and not considering other variables that come into play.
People who are very poor spend an indordinate amount of time and energy JUST TRYING to gain primary needs. So tell me, how could they be happier in that regard? However, if there primary needs could be met easier, health care more accessible, as well as education, this hypothesis could lend to more credibility.
Pseudoscience sucks.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The question of …
The question of feeding starving children is anyway complex. I consider it unethical for example to support religious charities that help the poor but oppose birth control. They are doing good in the short run, but harm in the long run, because the world is already overpopulated. Ending poverty and preserving the environment both rest on limiting population growth, which requires birth control in poor countries. In rich countries, natural population growth is no longer a problem.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is something …
This is something entirely different. It would go against /my/ ethical norms to buy such things (even one car unless I lived in the countryside without good public transport) and not give to poor countries. However, it would also go against my ethical norms to force others to behave this way. Forced redistribution is only valid as part of the social contract in a free, democratic society. If some choose to give only the minimum required by society (ie taxes), that is their right.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Your umptions …
Your umptions are wrong, so your conclusion is invalid. The rich are happier on average than the poor. However, social spending is also positively correlated with happiness, which is a justification for a large welfare state. Most people who support capitalism, at least in Scandinavia, are not against the large welfare state (over half the economy in fact). You should not confuse opposition to Marxist pseudo-science with radical libertarianism. I am no libertarian.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Yes, I know of this …
Yes, I know of this research. However, statistical analyses almost invariably find that within a society, richer people are significantly happier on average than poorer people, and usually also that richer societies are significantly happier on average than poorer ones. The idea that more wealth is not ociated with higher happiness is not supported by the evidence.
All of this is in any case irrelevant to the destructive and unfounded Marxist dogma that the rich are the cause of poverty.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
A general question …
A general question must be answered generally. There is a clear consensus in the scientific literature that trade/investment from rich countries/corporations tends in general to be ociated with significantly higher GDP and lower poverty in poor countries. Researchers have even shown that in some cases, investment is the causal factor in this relationship. The hypothesis that rich countries/corporations cause poverty is thus very unlikely, and can be rejected by way of statistical inference.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I shall try to …
I shall try to explain. You have made a general claim that rich countries/corporations cause poverty. You have then tried to ‘prove’ this with statistically insignificant anecdotes about specific actions by specific corporations in specific poor countries. In science, this is called ‘arguing from the specific to the general’, which is not a scientifically valid form of reasoning.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
In what of your …
In what of your argument are you referencing to science?
I adhere to science and the scientific method. I don’t take things at face value either. Again, what part of your argument regarding “Capitalism” is based on science?
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Yet in capitalist …
Yet in capitalist societies this elementary moral truism is ignored.
Tax the rich and you will be depriving them merely of useless luxuries, while saving millions of lives.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I suggest you look …
I suggest you look at the scientific research of Dan Gilbert. He shows that a paraplegic and a lotto winner are about equally happy, in the not-so-long term. Therefore, spending a million dollars on redundant luxuries will not actually make you much happier, while it would save lives in a poorer country.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Let me ask you a …
Let me ask you a simpler question:
Do you think it’s ethical to have multiple cars, a mansion, expensive furniture etc. while instead of purchasing those things you could spend the money to save the lives of starving children in Sudan?
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
No no, my view is …
No no, my view is based on scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions in such research rely on statistical inference and verifiable data, which is a scientifically valid approach. Argument by anecdote (or from the specific to the general) is not scientifically valid. It is often used by politicians, journalists, activists and others who do not understand the scientific method, but such arguments have no value to scientists. They prove nothing.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
You’re analyzing it …
You’re analyzing it from a “propoganda” prospective. You need to research to understand.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
If a worker works …
If a worker works harder to get a pay rise, he is producing more. The value of this higher output, not someone else, is where the pay rise comes from. Even Marx would have accepted this much.
If, as you say, workers and businesses could only prosper at the expense of others, then any growth in total output/income would by definition be impossible. I’m sorry, but this idea is absurd, even by Marxian standards.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
But the capitalist …
But the capitalist system depends on exploitation of the proletariat. Economics in a capitalist system is a zero sum game. If you get the promotion that means someone else isn’t getting it, meaning you are benefiting at the cost of someone else.
In capitalism, if my business prospers, it is at the expense of another business. In socialism, I’m taxed the difference, therefore the benefit is to the society itself and not me alone.
You need to abandon your myopic obsession with proximate causation.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Again, I never said …
Again, I never said getting a good job causes poverty, but that “every man is guilty of all the good he [doesn't] do.”
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
If you read the …
If you read the scientific literature, you will find that the poorest regions are those with the least involvement by Western corporations. Anecdotes do not refute scientifically valid statistical inference.
You’re right about bombing and sanctions, but I don’t see the relevance. Working hard so you get a pay rise won’t make your neighbour poor. Hacking into his bank account and stealing his money will. Do you see an equivalence between these two things? I don’t.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
My main point …
My main point anyway is that wealth does not cause poverty, because economics is not a zero-sum game. Marxists tend to hate the rich because of a zero-sum mindset, but if you can get past this incorrect umption, you can see the whole ideology is rubbish, and there’s no reason to hate anyone. We who are relatively rich have a duty to help the poor because it is right (if we were poor, we’d want the rich to help us), not because we ’cause’ poverty, which in general we don’t.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
If global income …
If global income was divided evenly, everyone would be a bit poorer than the average Romanian. I could live with that, but by Western standards, that’s poor. More than that, a major cause of poverty is lack of family planning. In many poor countries, the population expands to the available resources, so when you increase resources, you don’t get less poverty, just more poor people.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
There is enough in …
There is enough in the world for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed. No more needs to be said. And stop insulting each other when you make your point - like it makes your arguments better???
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
People here can …
People here can bash capitalism all they want, but if you go to any poor/developing country they will say that they want to have steady jobs, houses, healthcare, safe transportation, a reliable source of food, and so on. They don’t want to destroy first world countries; they want to become like them.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
blaziermissy is …
blaziermissy is correct.
Corporations deliberately marginalize the masses and prevent them from meaningfully participating in the management of their own affairs.
So elites have a very active role in causing poverty.
This is distinct from the rich who merely don’t care about poverty and human suffering.
“over-consumption” does not “cause” poverty but allows it to continue.
On the other hand, bombing another country, or imposing sanctions that starve the masses, does directly “cause” poverty.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Wealth and …
“Wealth and overconsumption in the rich countries are not the causes of poverty and starvation in the poor countries.”
Maybe they’re not the “cause”, but if we gave all the money and resources and time we use on insignificant luxuries, poverty would be non-existent in less than a week.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Nice try. Keep it …
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. yuiu
July 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
It makes me laugh …
It makes me laugh what stupid people buy for so much. I feel sorry for them. I think it makes them feel knowledgeable, savvy and established or something. I have the most expensive crap ever! YAY!