The question is whether someone has “enough” money. Until you can live comfortably, more money DOES buy more happiness. Once someone can comfortably live and engage with interests, more money doesn’t buy more happiness.
When someone says, “money doesn’t buy happiness.” what they’re actually saying is they have enough money and they do not understand how poverty works.
Well, as a society we could solve the problem with money. We’re all too happy to print more money for people who already have lots of it, why not do so for people who don’t?
Because overtime, ppl that already have a lot will get all the money from the poor again cause they can make money from our necessities. Is necessary to give money to the poor in the short therm, but it does not fix the issue.
Sure, but if we’re constantly shuffling the deck, then won’t more people get opportunity to be successful?
People blame a lot of problems on capitalism (or communism, or whatever), but really these are just neutral systems. The problem is people.
People are irrational and selfish. Once their core needs are met, their desire to want things becomes overriding - but they treat it like a need. We need to win, otherwise we feel bad and feel worthless, even if we’re doing pretty ok objectively. Capitalism allows people to pursue these wins, but it doesn’t do enough to curtail people after they win what they need, and then make them work harder for the things they want.
With capitalism, the big con is value exchange. You want to pay as little as possible, or at its core put in as little effort as possible, but at the same time you want to sell your output for as much as possible. So, in order to game the system, people lie about value. An employer pays their workers a pittance, but then sells their output as a luxury. A trader haggles down the sale price of what they buy, then inflates the price of what they sell. The price is never actually truly representative of work (which can ultimately be defined in time, ie 'man hours) but instead is controlled by what the buyer is willing to pay.
These systems aren’t inherently wrong, they just assume that people will always play by certain rules. They don’t account for people figuring out the rules and trying to beat them.
If the system resets every so often then this can help mitigate people gaming the system. It won’t stop people from playing the game, but it will give new players a chance, while incumbants have to stop dragging their feet.
Systems function vastly differently. Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships. Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, is simply obstructing meaningful possibilities for change.
Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed
That’s not what I’ve said, at all. I didn’t say any system wasn’t different, I just said that none of them have addressed the real problem. Also, I in no way said that human behaviour is inflexible and prescribed; the point I’m making is that people are flexible, and that these systems do not adequately account for that ingenuity when it is applied maliciously.
Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships.
If anything, you are implying that human behaviour is prescribed here. I think it is more accurate to say that social structure influences people. It doesn’t direct them, any more than a lone person with a stick can herd a sheep.
Shuffling up the system influences people to work harder when they grow complacent, and simultaneously gives those who have little a better chance to build something greater. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than the status quo, and encourages further change.
You seem to be framing argument around the premise that the driving force behind human behavior is seeking to harm others for fulfilling selfish ends, transcending personal experience and social environment.
I am challenging your underlying premise, as collapsing harmful outcomes into a singular cause, not strongly substantiated or thoughtfully conceived.
You seem to be trying to box me into some sort of scarecrow, so you can argue that instead, rather than actually reading and considering what I’m saying.
You have not presented any challenge here. You haven’t even addressed any point that I’ve made. If it isn’t people causing the problem, then what is it? What is the problem?
To some degree money is creating problems and obstructing solutions, but as long as our society is based on money, it is necessary to antagonize wealth consolidation and to support universal income.
Money might not buy happiness, but it sure as hell solves a lot of problems that make people unhappy.
The question is whether someone has “enough” money. Until you can live comfortably, more money DOES buy more happiness. Once someone can comfortably live and engage with interests, more money doesn’t buy more happiness.
When someone says, “money doesn’t buy happiness.” what they’re actually saying is they have enough money and they do not understand how poverty works.
A billionaire doesn’t buy billion times as much clothes or food more than a comfortable middle class person.
They buy sweatshops and meat packing plants.
Try not to nitpick the difference.
They travel the world in their private jet instead.
False equivalency. Nice tactic, but it isn’t quite overt enough to draw out the anger in people that you crave.
Maybe next time try throwing in an insult? A good troll needs to have good bait, man.
Money solve a lot of problems we aren’t trying to solve (as society) collectively.
Well, as a society we could solve the problem with money. We’re all too happy to print more money for people who already have lots of it, why not do so for people who don’t?
Because overtime, ppl that already have a lot will get all the money from the poor again cause they can make money from our necessities. Is necessary to give money to the poor in the short therm, but it does not fix the issue.
Sure, but if we’re constantly shuffling the deck, then won’t more people get opportunity to be successful?
People blame a lot of problems on capitalism (or communism, or whatever), but really these are just neutral systems. The problem is people.
People are irrational and selfish. Once their core needs are met, their desire to want things becomes overriding - but they treat it like a need. We need to win, otherwise we feel bad and feel worthless, even if we’re doing pretty ok objectively. Capitalism allows people to pursue these wins, but it doesn’t do enough to curtail people after they win what they need, and then make them work harder for the things they want.
With capitalism, the big con is value exchange. You want to pay as little as possible, or at its core put in as little effort as possible, but at the same time you want to sell your output for as much as possible. So, in order to game the system, people lie about value. An employer pays their workers a pittance, but then sells their output as a luxury. A trader haggles down the sale price of what they buy, then inflates the price of what they sell. The price is never actually truly representative of work (which can ultimately be defined in time, ie 'man hours) but instead is controlled by what the buyer is willing to pay.
These systems aren’t inherently wrong, they just assume that people will always play by certain rules. They don’t account for people figuring out the rules and trying to beat them.
If the system resets every so often then this can help mitigate people gaming the system. It won’t stop people from playing the game, but it will give new players a chance, while incumbants have to stop dragging their feet.
Systems function vastly differently. Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships. Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, is simply obstructing meaningful possibilities for change.
That’s not what I’ve said, at all. I didn’t say any system wasn’t different, I just said that none of them have addressed the real problem. Also, I in no way said that human behaviour is inflexible and prescribed; the point I’m making is that people are flexible, and that these systems do not adequately account for that ingenuity when it is applied maliciously.
If anything, you are implying that human behaviour is prescribed here. I think it is more accurate to say that social structure influences people. It doesn’t direct them, any more than a lone person with a stick can herd a sheep.
Shuffling up the system influences people to work harder when they grow complacent, and simultaneously gives those who have little a better chance to build something greater. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than the status quo, and encourages further change.
You seem to be framing argument around the premise that the driving force behind human behavior is seeking to harm others for fulfilling selfish ends, transcending personal experience and social environment.
I am challenging your underlying premise, as collapsing harmful outcomes into a singular cause, not strongly substantiated or thoughtfully conceived.
You seem to be trying to box me into some sort of scarecrow, so you can argue that instead, rather than actually reading and considering what I’m saying.
You have not presented any challenge here. You haven’t even addressed any point that I’ve made. If it isn’t people causing the problem, then what is it? What is the problem?
To some degree money is creating problems and obstructing solutions, but as long as our society is based on money, it is necessary to antagonize wealth consolidation and to support universal income.
Can’t agree more.
deleted by creator