I'll have to admit, going into lecture yesterday I was skeptical about how economics and happiness could correlate. When we were discussing, I can't say my suspicions were dispelled. In fact, I would agree even more that economics don't really influence genuine happiness. There was a fundamental assumption that buying goods brings someone happiness, and quite frankly, I don't think that's true. Perhaps it's safer to say that there is a misconception that consumption brings contentment, but I cannot believe happiness is that shallow. Now of course, there's a certain amount of "things" people need in order to live and thrive. Some people may draw that line more towards clutter than sparsity, but no matter how much you buy to fill your life with "worth", I feel like happiness comes from a cognisance, not an object. More on that later.
But I wonder how much people believe that buying will bring them happiness. One may frequently object material culture. Yet I still find myself thinking that buying a new waterbottle will make me happier, or that if I had a nicer car my life would be smooth sailing. And there is a certain degree of satisfaction that comes from buying that beautiful pair of boots that you just really want, but it fades. That, I would say, is the fundamental flaw with consumption being the root of happiness- objects and their associated emotions fade.
This is why I think positive psychology is a much better approach to finding happiness. If we address how we view happiness, or create patterns of behavior that allow us to create our own happiness regardless of situation we create a much more sustainable emotion. With nothing but out own minds we can appreciate the happiness we do have better. While it may not always work, it is the process that is part of the joy as well. Perhaps that could be considered the process I've mentioned in conversing with other students.
I think the hardest bit for me was in the very beginning when Prof. Becker wrote: happiness = utility.
ReplyDeleteThat took me the whole class period to get over.
I was the exact same way, Petra.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat if utility = happiness? That is, what if everything in life is directed toward, at a minimum, avoiding pain and in the best case, securing the opposite which is pleasure understood as the basis of happiness? Then economists might help us to understand the factors that contribute to this goal, not only by their analysis of actual, tangible goods (e.g. cars, clothing, and cake) but also by the application of their analysis to intangible goods (e.g. justice, love, security, and the like). In some instances these intangible goods require financial transactions, but even when that is not so, there are costs of some sort which might be time or willingness to forfeit a certain amount of status.
ReplyDeleteI do see what you're getting at DeAne. I suppose, like Petra, I just had hard time adjusting to his fundamental claim. Also, having never taken an econ course in my life didn't help with comprehending the social aspects of the barrage of terms that were introduced along the way.
ReplyDelete