here's the thesis: all socioeconomic systems eventually necessitate that the individual find happiness in society.
here were my thoughts last evening. take a person independent of society. she may have certain hobbies that bring her a certain level of happiness (economists, lets call this X utils.)
it seems that society tends to either kill hobbies or maintain hobbies.
let 'girl' be my representative case girl.
case 1: girl is a below average guitar player, gets discouraged by others, decreases playing time.
case 2: girl is an above average guitar player, gets encouraged by others, increases playing time.
case 3: girl is not encouraged or discouraged by others, continues to independently determine allocation of time to guitar play.
now it seems that case 3 is pretty rare. it is also an ideal in my mind. however, it seems unattainable, and i don't even think that it can be proven to be attainable. we can all say, "sure, i can a hobby that i loved regardless of any social feedback." but how do you know that all social feedback had absolutely no impact on your allocation of resources supporting the hobby?
now, if you look at this a bit differently, you see that this is almost a model of competition (or even a market). those that are below the norm of guitar players drop out of the game, those that are above the norm stay in the game.
so, is it possible to find happiness completely in yourself and in your own activities in a capitalistic society? this leads me to believe that the answer is "no."
this is also a very basic concept in economics. activities that benefit society as a whole are given incentive to continue (in the absence of market failures).
you think of the mutual gains to trade, and you see that your incentive to make the trade is up to how much someone else wants to make the trade.
suppose you produce Q units of something at price P.
broseph wants to give you P+20 for all Q units.
notice that you'd be willing to produce Q units ...
and i just lost myself. but see if you can make any sense out of this post.
here were my thoughts last evening. take a person independent of society. she may have certain hobbies that bring her a certain level of happiness (economists, lets call this X utils.)
it seems that society tends to either kill hobbies or maintain hobbies.
let 'girl' be my representative case girl.
case 1: girl is a below average guitar player, gets discouraged by others, decreases playing time.
case 2: girl is an above average guitar player, gets encouraged by others, increases playing time.
case 3: girl is not encouraged or discouraged by others, continues to independently determine allocation of time to guitar play.
now it seems that case 3 is pretty rare. it is also an ideal in my mind. however, it seems unattainable, and i don't even think that it can be proven to be attainable. we can all say, "sure, i can a hobby that i loved regardless of any social feedback." but how do you know that all social feedback had absolutely no impact on your allocation of resources supporting the hobby?
now, if you look at this a bit differently, you see that this is almost a model of competition (or even a market). those that are below the norm of guitar players drop out of the game, those that are above the norm stay in the game.
so, is it possible to find happiness completely in yourself and in your own activities in a capitalistic society? this leads me to believe that the answer is "no."
this is also a very basic concept in economics. activities that benefit society as a whole are given incentive to continue (in the absence of market failures).
you think of the mutual gains to trade, and you see that your incentive to make the trade is up to how much someone else wants to make the trade.
suppose you produce Q units of something at price P.
broseph wants to give you P+20 for all Q units.
notice that you'd be willing to produce Q units ...
and i just lost myself. but see if you can make any sense out of this post.
I read an article about global warming in National Geographic that I think applies here. It was essentially a critique on American life--we are the most hyper-individualized society ever to exist, and while capitalism has made us far more prosperous the percentage of people claiming they are "very happy" has not changed since the 50's (while average home size has tripled, consumption skyrockets, etc.). I guess the link I am trying to make here is that happiness comes from relationships/social feedback just as much or more than accomplishment/money.