> While I appreciate the Stoic-style appraisal of what really brings happiness, economically, this analysis seems precisely backward. It amounts to saying that

> While I appreciate the Stoic-style appraisal of what really brings happiness, economically, this analysis seems precisely backward. It amounts to saying that in an age of industrialization and globalism, when material goods are cheaper than ever, we should avoid partaking of this abundance. Instead, we should consume services afflicted by Baumol’s cost disease, taking long vacations and getting expensive haircuts which are just as hard to produce as ever. This seems like a silly argument. People don’t hear that aphorism and stop shopping. The genesis of that aphorism is people buying into the lifestyle that modern advertising sells to you and feeling unsatisfied. Like something is missing. Turns out, having a ton of crap that was sold to you as being life changing is seldom so. But take a walk in the park on a good day; meet up with friends to just hang out makes you feel better. That said, I do agree that the economy has “caught up” on that and is now selling experiences too. A vacation experience. A cruise experience. And so on. The right attitude seems to be skeptical of anything advertised and try to find your own thing. Not to just give in to rampant consumerism. I would also challenge the notion that city dwellers are setting the tone for this conversation. Very few Americans live in apartments willingly; it seems like a temporary thing; the goal is always to get a house. I doubt the apartment dwelling Americans are significant enough to set the cultural mores.