We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day It is not the level of wealth that makes us happy. Instead, it is the process of betterment – the pursuit of it – that makes us happy. Whether we are twice as rich today as in 1971 has little bearing on our happiness, because it is in the past. Whether people can see their lives improving in the future is what counts. That is why economic growth remains a key component in happiness, despite what the happiness researchers might tell us.
– Alex Singleton, Comment is Free
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I totally agree. It is not what ACTUALLY happens in the future, it is what COULD happen. People’s perceptions of their status, and life are what are important. The reality has little effect, if their perceived wealth is great.
Thiiiiings
Can only get
Bed-eeeerrrrr
Can only get
Bed-eeeerrrrr
Can only get
Can only get
sorry.
Indeed, economic growth is vital to happiness. But it matters who gains the wealth from that growth. We may not care how rich or poor people were in the 70s, but we certainly care how rich or poor we are compared to others in our society. In that sense GDP, for example, will not necessarily be a good indicator of a nation’s happiness quotient.
I don’t know, I’d say a lot of people would be happy with nothing much changing and big wadge of cash. Maybe von Mises is right and this makes them more akin to beasts than men, but, hey we can’t all be Prometheus. Diversity is the spice of life and all that.
The argument that we don’t need to economic growth is currently fadish on the Left and it is, of course, silly, but their enemies should not respond by fetishising it themselves. Let’s not forget that in times past it has been the modus operandi of the Left to subordinate everything else to temporary high GDP growth rates, whether it be long term financial stability (Keynes), the American constitution (FDR) or everything worthwhile and decent about human existence (Stalin). Indeed, the expansion of the money supply that’s got us in the current mess was done for precisely that reason.
Hmmm.
This would imply that during periods of human history where there was little or no significant growth, people were all unhappy – I can’t really believe that – not everything is down to economics you know. Sunny days, the crops coming in, good food, beer, music, dancing, a new baby etc etc
Also, progress is made through life, hopefully one gets better off as one gets older, pays off the mortgage, says goodbye to the kids etc, which also does not require economic growth.
It may be that economic growth adds to happiness in some ways, but it can also subtract, as anyone near proposed new economic developments like motorways or runways can testify.
What about Eminent Domain, another weapon in the arsenal of increased economic growth, that won’t make YOU happy if you’re on the receiving end.
Not everything can be reduced to $ or a line in an accounting ledger, at least, I hope not.
Yeah, speak for yourself. Give me a wodge of cash, I’ll buy a house, a piano and feel nice and secure until I die. I value security. The pursuit of wealth might make some people happy, but not everyone. Nothing pleases everyone.
Sorry for OT guys, but how the bloody hell
do I view older posts? Getting to archives seems impossible. I catch up to the blog once a couple of weeks and I just can’t seem to read older posts in a breeze like I can with EUreferendum.
Thanks
One thing that doesn’t get better is the BBC’s reflexive political line. Their article on the first flight of the restored Vulcan bomber, a magnificent plane now flying again thanks to an incredible volunteer effort, is a masterpiece of BBCThink.
The piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7351628.stm) calls the plane a ‘symbol of destruction’ in its title, says it “looked every inch a sinister reminder of the Cold War” and said its purpose was not to protect Britain by deterring aggression by the Soviet Union but to “to launch an attack which could so easily have resulted in mutual destruction”.
Incredibly the piece by saying “The debate over whether a symbol of destruction should be restored will continue”. A debate which seems only to exist in the CND addled mind of the writer. Long may the Vulcan fly, anything which annoys the BBC has to be a good thing.
GDP and happiness bear no proportion to one another.
Happiness belongs exclusively to, and is realized only by, man’s ego. Thus, the pursuit of happiness can only be an individual affair–there is no aggregate happiness. Therefore, happiness cannot be defined without reference to the individual.
GDP is a measure of aggregate ‘product.’ It contains no reference to the individual. This makes GDP a contradiction in itself, as the very concept of ‘product’ is indeterminate outside of the context of the individual. The concepts of productive achievement and ‘product’ presuppose the concept of value, which is only recognized by that sole happiness-seeking agent, the individual.
By the fact that nothing can be learned about the individual by studying the collective, it is not difficult to see why economists are so utterly clueless about human happiness.
By the fact that nothing can be learned about the individual by studying the collective, it is not difficult to see why economists are so utterly clueless about human happiness. – n005
An excellent point. Economists are clueless about human happiness because they think everything can be reduced to a mathematical formula. I think the field of economics ran off the rails when they tried to turn it into a quantitative “science”. Correctly understood, economics is the study of human interactions. It’s a social science (if I may use that term), which is how it was understood by pre-20th Century economists. That’s why it’s original name was “political economy”, and why some of the most important historical books on economics contain no (or very little) mathematics. It’s unfortunate we’ve gotten away from that, because it led us down the path to Keynesian-ism and the other foolishness that passes for economics today.