In fact, says Gilbert, happiness comes from small satisfactions that stay with us longer, things that are often so subtle we barely even think about them. He explains:
When really bad things happen to us, we defend against them. 'People, of course, predict the exact opposite. If you ask, 'What would you rather have, a broken leg or a trick knee?' they'd probably say, 'Trick knee.' And yet, if your goal is to accumulate maximum happiness over your lifetime, you just made the wrong choice. A trick knee is a bad thing to have.In other words, you’re better off with a temporary big loss – say, the loss of a loved one – than a long-lasting small one, such alienation from said loved one. Conversely, people who, say, get comfortable salaries for decades at a time are happier than those who win the lottery.
The political implications of this are obvious. There’s far greater merit in helping those at the bottom than giving more to the ones who already have so much.
Basic healthcare for everyone is better than the best healthcare for a few.
Public education for all does more good than private education for those who can afford it.
The guy who works at MacDonald’s gets a lot more joy from a $2 increase in the minimum wage than your average CEO would get from a new Ferrari.
As Gilbert says:
Windfalls are better than pratfalls, A’s are better than C’s, December 25 is better than April 15th, and everything is better than a Republican administration.Words to live by.
6 comments:
why does socialised healthcare have a lower survival rate than privatised healthcare?
becuase government can never do as well as the private market.
Whoah, where are you getting that from?
Canada, Britain, Sweden, and Japan - all countries with socialized mediicne - have higher life expectancies than the US.
And it doesn't answer the basic premise of what I'm saying. I don't want this to devolve into another back-and-forth onhealth care.
Its the government taking more control of our cash that is the hang up with most of this. Most people don't mind helping those at the bottom. But government forcing it causes me heartburn, especially considering some of the decisions they make on how to use it.
http://www.harrysnews.com/tgDieinBritain.htm
have a look
Tran sient probably said it better than i could, its about the governments ability to manage the public money that is disturbing. and govnerments aren't known for their effective decision making and effeicency.
as for your main article it would be ideal to have society creating both hapiness and wealth, but i don't quite think it'll work. This is utilitarian theory and its just another argument for socialism at the end of the day govnerment will be deciding what hapiness is for the rest of society instead of the individual deciding what makes his or her happy
happiness is. not happy
(sorry lazy proofing)
So... essentially that article says British health care would be better if more money would be spent on it; as much money as it spent on private American health care. Can't say I disagree.
But I think there's an obsession with 'efficiency' that I find troubling. I don't care about 'total surplus value' or whether free trade actually generates more money than socialism. I care about how many people end up in poverty, unemployment, and hunger, noy how long you have to wait in line at the DMV.
Second of all, there's a general denial of how essential the government is in propping up business. If Uncle Sam didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on subsidies, handouts, and other favors to American industry, the whole US eocnomy would collapse tomorrow. Time and time again, our corporate leaders have shown themselves incredibly incompetent and unnacountable in any way. When business people are given free reign to act in their own self-interest, they simply run their companies into the ground and make off with the cash. That's not very efficient, is it?
Besides, if we really had 'free markets', all major corporations would disappear and most workers would recongize the impossibility of surviving in a libertarian capitalist society and simply organize themselves into syndicates.
The constant refrain is 'It's my money, i earned it." Did you? Ask yourself where that money came from and whether your job is valuable enough to merit the pay you get. Look at the upper classes and see how useful they really are to the continued survival of the nation; not very.
Of course, when money is given from the poor to the rich, that's just economics. When money goes from the rich to the poor, that's socialism.
Post a Comment