Sunday, 24 December 2006

"Money doesn't buy you happiness". Or does it?

"Money doesn't buy you happiness" is a common catch-phrase used by members of the left. It is used to (supposedly) tell people that money is never ever going to make you happy.

I partially agree with that. Money, by itself, is a worthless material. However, this worthless material is currency in every nation in the world. Therefore, money can be used to buy goods, services, and probably most importantly when it comes to happiness, experiences.

So, because money can buy you these goods, services and experiences, it is a necessary, if worthless, material. You need money to travel the world. You need money to buy the beautiful house on the hill. You need money to do just about anything.

Because you need money to do these things that make us happy, money does actually buy us happiness.

Also, another stupid part of their argument is the belief that people in the Third World-people that literally live in cardboard boxes, eat off the ground, and have to walk a total of perhaps 20 miles a day just to get water for their families are just as happy, if not happier, than us in the Western World. Yet, it is the left that runs most of the campaigns for more aid to the Third World. How are they happy if they need money? The thing that doesn't help at all for getting a better life?

Therefore, the left contradicts their policies of aid to the Third World and welfare to the poor in the West when it makes this argument. They are only contradicting their other worthless policies and beliefs (it is well known that production, not aid and welfare, is better at getting the poor out of poverty, amongst many smart people. The left completely ignores this in their policies of aid and welfare).

5 comments:

Kane Bunce said...

Well, said Callum. As Howard Roark said in The Fountainhead, money is the means to an end. That end is happiness and survival.

Callum said...

Exactly. Money is not an ends as many people stupidly believes, it's a means of happiness.

Nick said...

Hi Callum, I would disagree with the idea that you can buy happiness. Money is an enabler, yes, but the things you buy with it are only hygiene factors. That house on the hill is not going to make you unhappy, but if you are living in it all by yourself with no one to talk to, how happy would that make you? Given that we've just had Christmas, what do you think of the idea that family is an even greater enabler of happiness?
Nick (living in Ireland)

Callum said...

Hi Nick,

In my opinion, whether family is required for happiness is a matter of your personality. For instance, you could be a solitary person who would rather not be around other people. Therefore, family would not be necessary. Money, however, is the world's currency and therefore is used to make your life better. For instance, in the Third World people have huge families, of perhaps 10 children or more. But these people aren't happy because they don't have money, which is the means, and therefore don't have happiness, which is the ends.

One of the factors you forgot to point out is that money can be used to buy experiences. These can be a whole range of things, like overseas trips (I see you've recently been to Southern France)or simpler things, like horse riding or kayaking.

So, factors like family are a matter of who you are. However, evidence from the past 200 years of industrial civilisation have shown us that money is required in order for us to have a better life.

Kane Bunce said...

Nick, with money I can buy a book, a movie, a computer, a game, and many other leisure goods. Are you telling me leisure goods don't bring happiness? If so you are wrong. Money can buy leisure goods and activities and therefore can buy happiness. Money can also buy survival (food, roof, clothes, etc) and just being alive makes me happy, thus money buys me happiness.

That house on the hill is not going to make you unhappy, but if you are living in it all by yourself with no one to talk to, how happy would that make you?

I don't need others to be happy. Having people that deserve my love makes me happier than not having them but I don't need them to be happy. They just add to the happiness that is already there. Simply being alive makes me happy. If you don't have that first you cannot get happiness from being with others.

Given that we've just had Christmas, what do you think of the idea that family is an even greater enabler of happiness?

Family doesn't enable happiness. Love that is earned does (so-called family "love" isn't earned, it's based on genetic similarities."

I'll also second Callum's reply.