The One and Only writes:
Quote:
|
However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.
|
You assume that the 'amount' of pleasure one can have towards something is unbounded, like wealth. But you haven't shown me that this is a valid assumption. To a degree it makes sense to say that a person's pleasure (or time etc.) could be exchanged for money but only to a limit. Does it make sense to say that a billionaire like Warren Buffett has 1000000000 more pleasure 'units' than say, me? Or that he would be 100000000x unhappier if he had a middle class salary, compared to me, who would be 1000x happier? Not to mention, there are many more people who would love to make 100 grand a year, than people who make over 1 million. If you can't back up your assumption, then all talk of 'net losses of happiness', in an utilitarian sense, become nonsense. People can't 'contain' unlimited repositories of 'pleasure units'.
More generally, you model capitalism in this particular case as a static tool that simply sorts out 'pleasure units' in a more efficient way. But capitalism is much more than a 'static tool'. It is generative, socially transformative, dynamic. It not only sorts out needs and wants, it creates them. It's not like some of us had a latent desire in our minds for a DVD player or a Britney album that was satisfied when they were invented and introduced to us. Hardly. New wants, new needs, new dependencies. It upheaves social institutions that have been satisfactory for many years and creates new ones. Our notions of vacation time etc. are -created- by a capitalist system. It creates and reinforces a culture of materialism. For the better? Regardless of the answer, that was not your point - you said it makes people happier. And you haven't demonstrated this.
Hybrid Mode
