3 ms·

Let's reframe the question: Why does society today not attempt to maximize happiness among all citizens? Resources are expended to make those with more resour

by jwatte 10y ago

Let's reframe the question: Why does society today not attempt to maximize happiness among all citizens? Resources are expended to make those with more resources marginally more happy, rather than someone with less resources comparatively much more happy. Market economy says that this is the most "efficient" distribution of resources, but the assumption there is that the happiness of the rich is more important than the happiness of the poor. Is this what we want our societal values to be? And if so, how much more important? And if not, is a domestic happy person more valuable than a foreign happy person? The ethics and morals that come out of defining these answers are quite strikingly different.

jpttsn 10y ago
Who are "we?" “The sooner we learn not to think or utter sentences such as “the United States should do . . . ”or “the American people want . . . ” or “China’s government ought to do . . . ,” the better we will understand government, business, and all other forms of organization. When addressing politics, we must accustom ourselves to think and speak about the actions and interests of specific, named leaders rather than thinking and talking about fuzzy ideas like the national interest, the common good, and the general welfare” Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. “The Dictator's Handbook.”
dmix 10y ago
> Market economy says that this is the most "efficient" distribution of resources. Focusing on the rich sounds like you're referring to "trickle down economics" which is not a real thing in economics and is largely a fabrication of the media and partisan politics: https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/ https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-d... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-lie-thomas-sowell http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-li... Saying that 'market economies' only favours or benefits the wealthy is a mischaracterization and/or a drastic over-simplification of supply-side economics. Also I'm with Arthur Schopenhauer in questioning the premise of happiness as the basic goal in life. Although you're probably just referring to maximizing the general 'quality of life' rather than the emotional state, which I do agree with.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by jwatte 10y ago

jpttsn 10y ago

Who are "we?" “The sooner we learn not to think or utter sentences such as “the United States should do . . . ”or “the American people want . . . ” or “China’s government ought to do . . . ,” the better we will understand government, business, and all other forms of organization. When addressing politics, we must accustom ourselves to think and speak about the actions and interests of specific, named leaders rather than thinking and talking about fuzzy ideas like the national interest, the common good, and the general welfare” Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. “The Dictator's Handbook.”

dmix 10y ago

> Market economy says that this is the most "efficient" distribution of resources. Focusing on the rich sounds like you're referring to "trickle down economics" which is not a real thing in economics and is largely a fabrication of the media and partisan politics: https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/ https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-d... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-lie-thomas-sowell http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367682/trickle-down-li... Saying that 'market economies' only favours or benefits the wealthy is a mischaracterization and/or a drastic over-simplification of supply-side economics. Also I'm with Arthur Schopenhauer in questioning the premise of happiness as the basic goal in life. Although you're probably just referring to maximizing the general 'quality of life' rather than the emotional state, which I do agree with.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]