Costa Rica, Vietnam si Cuba, cele mai fericite si echilibrate state din lume

Institutul New Economics Foundation a lansat la 4 iulie raportul/studiu „The Happy Planet Index 2.0: Why good lives don't have to cost the earth”. The New Economics Foundation a prelucrat date din 143 de tari ale lumii (reprezentand 99% din populatia globala) privind nivelul de satisfactie al locuitorilor, dar si speranta de viata si politicile privind mediul inconjurator. Cea mai mare medie a celor trei factori esentiali este obtinuta de urmatoarele sapte state: 1. Costa Rica (durata de viata de 78,5 ani, satisfactie de viata de 8,5 puncte si o amprenta ecologica de 2,3) 2. Republica Dominicana, 3. Jamaica, 4. Guatemala, 5. Vietnam (durata de viata 73,7 ani, satisfactie 6,5, amprenta ecologica 1,3), 6. Columbia, 7. Cuba (durata de viata 77,7, satisfactie 6,7, amprenta ecologica de 1,8).

Cateva concluzii generale au fost trasate de catre realizatorii studiului, dupa cum urmeaza:
* Latin America tops the Index with Costa Rica the 'greenest and happiest' country. Nine of the ten highest-scoring nations are Latin American
* The USA, China and India were all 'greener and happier' twenty years ago than today
* The World's richest plummet from 1960s to late 1970s, with scores still lower today than 1961
The UK comes 74th, USA 114th out of 143 nations surveyed.

* OECD nations' HPI scores plummeted between 1960 and the late 1970s. Although there have been some gains since then, HPI scores were still higher in 1961 than in 2005. Life satisfaction and life expectancy combined have increased 15 per cent over the 45-year period, but it has come at an earth-shattering cost - an increase in ecological footprint per head of 72 per cent.
* Of a group of 36 major nations it was possible to track over time in detail, around two-thirds increased their HPI scores marginally between 1990 and 2005, but the three largest countries in the world China, India and the USA (all aggressively pursuing growth-based development models) have all seen their HPI scores drop in that time.

* Rich, developed nations fare poorly. The highest placed Western nation is the Netherlands - managing only 43rd out of 143. The UK still languishes midway down the table - 74th, well behind Germany, Italy and France. It is just pipped by Georgia and Slovakia, but ahead of Japan and Ireland. The USA fares particularly poorly, in 114th place out of 143.

Pe scurt, SUA, China si India erau mai fericite si mai in armonie cu mediul inconjurator in urma cu 20 de ani decat acum, chiar daca averea lor a sporit considerabil intre timp; tarile Occidentale au obtinut rezultate mediocre in privinta duratei de viata, satisfactiei populatiei si dezvoltarii durabile, Italia aflandu-se pe locul 61, Franta pe 71, Marea Britanie aflandu-se pe locul 74, SUA pe locul 114 etc. Astfel, studiul realizat de NEF dovedeste cu prisosinta, o data in plus, imbecilitatea urmaririi dezvoltarii economice si cresterii consumului, fapt subliniat si de Nic Marks, unul dintre fondatorii NEF:

„As the world faces the triple crunch of deep financial crisis, accelerating climate change and the looming peak in oil production we desperately need a new compass to guide us. Following the siren's song of economic growth has delivered only marginal benefits to the World's poorest whilst undermining the basis of their livelihoods. What's more, it hasn't notably improved the well-being of those who were already rich, or even provided economic stability. Now we must use the Happy Planet Index to break the spell and chart a new course for a high well-being low-carbon economy before our high-consuming lifestyles plunge us into the chaos of irreversible climate change”.

Criza financiara, incalzire globala si imputinarea resurselor energetice, in acestea consta performanta statelor dezvoltate, care nu au reusit sa imbunatateasca satisfactia de viata a propriilor cetateni.

Urmarile catastrofale ale economiilor capitaliste dezvoltate Cum subiectul capitalismului consumerist in exces prezinta un interes aparte pe acest blog, sa urmarim ce rezultate au avut, in practica, economiile statelor vestice puternic dezvoltate:

„Despite 60 years of constant economic growth, in 2005, more than half of the world’s population (56.6 per cent) lived on less than the equivalent of $2.50-a-day. The benefits of growth have been wildly disproportionate. For every $100 worth of growth, only $0.60 contributes to reducing poverty for the more than one billion people living below $1-a-day.15 Worldwide, one in thirteen children dies before the age of five. For people living in twenty-two of the poorest countries, this rate is over one in seven.

Even in rich countries, our system has not been a constant tale of success. Inequality has been rising in OECD countries over the last 20 years – before the recession kicked in, disparities in income in the UK were highest since records began in the 1960s. Real median incomes have actually remained stagnant in many countries, including the USA. People do not report being any happier or more satisfied with life than they did 20 or even 40 years ago. Commentators on both the left and right talk of a ‘social recession’. In the UK, child poverty still remains a shameful reality, and the Government has abandoned its ambitions to halve child poverty by 2010. Our model of progress has failed to deliver even what it claims to deliver best: money in people’s pockets.”

Asadar, inegalitati monstruoase, saracie alarmanta in randul copiilor, si o stagnare, in cel mai buna caz, a satisfactiei de viata a populatiior occidentale de 20, daca nu chiar 40 de ani. Ceea ce a reusit cu prisosinta modelul neo-liberal a fost sa murdareasca Pamantul cu un adevarat dezastru ecologic, menit sa pericliteze viitorul generatiilor viitoare:

„And where it does worst, the current model has done very badly indeed. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found 60 per cent of the world’s ecosystems to be degraded. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at 387 parts per million (ppm) in 2008. This is the highest they have been for the last 650,000 years. With the annual rate of CO2 emissions actually increasing in recent years, it is no wonder that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the ‘most likely’ global increase in temperature, in a ‘business as usual’ scenario, would be 4˚C above 1990 levels – double the 2˚C target that climate scientists and indeed the EU have strived to meet to avoid positive feedback loops leading to the climate spiralling out of control. Indeed, many scientists, including NASA’s top climatologist Jim Hansen, now feel that only by returning to a level of 350 ppm can we prevent this happening. In other words, to preserve the climatic conditions which human civilisation has enjoyed since it began, not only do we need to stop emitting fast, we also need to physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”

Concluzia cade ca o sentinta asupra nebuniei capitaliste: „The dogmas of the last 30 years have been discredited. The unwavering pursuit of economic growth – embodied in the overwhelming focus on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – has left over a billion people in dire poverty, and has not notably improved the well-being of those who were already rich, nor even provided us with economic stability. Instead it has brought us straight to the cliff edge of rapidly diminishing natural resources and unpredictable climate change. No wonder that people are desperately seeking an alternative vision to guide our societies.”

In acest context sumbru, o tara precum Costa Rica ii lasa undeva departe, in urma, pe locuitorii super-puterii americane, atat ca durata de viata, cat si ca satisfactie si armonie cu natura: „Costa Ricans also live slightly longer than Americans, and report much higher levels of life satisfaction, and yet have a footprint which is less than a quarter the size.”

Studiul NEF 2009 demonstreaza, o data in plus, ca durata de viata, satisfactia de viata si minimizarea influentei nocive asupra mediului nu au nimic de-a face cu mania progresului si dezvoltarii economice. Capitalismul, cu inegalitatile si consumerismul poe care le aduce, are rezultate in cel mai bun caz mediocre, in cel mai rau dezastruoase pe termen lung. Socialismul, prezent in tari precum Cuba sau Vietnam, victime ale unor evenimente extrem de neplacute pe plan extern, precum embargouri impuse, sunt in primele zece cele mai fericite tari din lume.

Colectivism si fericire

Colectivismul este definit ca „Trăsătură a relaţiilor sociale în care se exprimă colaborarea, unitatea şi solidaritatea oamenilor, spiritul tovărăşesc, comunitatea de interese şi devotamentul faţă de cauza generală comună; principiu exprimând colaborarea, solidaritatea, comunitatea de interese faţă de cauza generală comună.”

Se intelege ca privind lucrurile prin prisma curentului downshiftingului, egalitarismului si, logic, anti-capitalismului si inegalitatilor sociale, colectivismul este net preferabil in fata individualismului. Stiinta de ultima ora demonstreaza ca, intr-adevar, colectivistii sunt mai fericiti decat individualistii, aratand totodata ca o atmosfera de echipa, dominata de spiritul de tovarasie, este un mediu propice de lucru si de viata.

In acest sens voi cita din studiul „How individualism–collectivism orientations predict happiness in a collectivistic context”, realizat de universitarii Arménio Rego si Miguel P. Cunha, publicat in Journal of Happiness Studies, la 26 mai 2007.

Observatii generale despre persoanele cu orientari colectiviste

„Individualistic people place a greater emphasis on self-interest and personal achievement, whereas collectivist people consider the subordination of one’s personal goals for the sake of collective welfare and the goals of the larger collective to which they belong. The first are more inclined to compete, be assertive and place low emphasis on group harmony, while the latter are more willing to cooperate, avoid conflict and emphasize harmony. Individualists may cooperate with other group members to the extent that such a work group is instrumental to the attainment of individual goals that cannot be obtained by working alone. The difference is that while collectivists cooperate and place group interests ahead of personal goals as a paramount end to be attained, individualists cooperate as a means to get satisfaction for their individual interests and goals.”

Pe scurt, individualistii, cei care sunt mai bine adaptati la realitatile societatii capitaliste, sunt competitivi, putin interesati de bine comun si armonia sociala, pe cand colectivistii sunt mai inclinati spre cooperare, evitarea conflictelor si pastrarea armoniei de grup. Mai departe, cei doi autori anticipeaza, inainte de studiul-experimental propriu-zis, faptul ca atitudinea colectivista este favorabila fericirii personale si a ceea ce ei numesc „affective well-being”, adica buna-starea afectiva:

„With this in mind, we suggest that in a (...) collectivistic culture, collectivistic employees experience greater AWB than do the individualistic ones. One possible reason would be that collectivistic employees adopt more pro-social and interpersonal helping behaviors. Working in a collectivistic culture, they can expect reciprocity from those people they help to therefore cooperate, thus experiencing the sense of gratitude and such positive emotions as joy, comfort and pleasure. On the contrary, because they are less prone to cooperate, to help and to nurture interpersonal harmony, individualists are less likely to receive these reciprocal acts. Collectivists, in comparison with individualists, are more able to “absorb” the available caring from other people in collectivistic contexts, thus being more able to cope with the stress and to experience greater personal well-being.”

Asadar, oamenii invatati sa lucreze in echipa si sa puna binele general deasupra celui personal au o atitudine mai prietenoasa, mai apropiata fata de semenii lor, bucurandu-se, drept urmare, de un tratament afectiv pozitiv din partea celorlalti, ceea ce le sporeste buna-starea afectiva, bucuria si siguranta personale. Spiritul tovarasesc care apare in grupurile si societatile dominate de mentalitatea colectivista ajuta la randul sau la imbunatatirea starii subiective a fiecaruia, pe cand aparitia individualismului deterioreaza intreaga atmosfera de grup si echipa:

„It is also likely that collectivist employees experience greater AWB when they perceive their organizational climates as rich in spirit of camaraderie. This may occur because they gain access to the “resources” they value, namely interpersonal harmony, helping and cooperating behaviors, and positive relationships with the leaders. Feeling that cooperation is valued and promoted, experiencing the gratitude of receiving reciprocal reactions from other organizational members, and perceiving a climate of interpersonal harmony, it is likely that they feel happy cooperating with other employees. On the contrary, when they sense that they are working in climates poor in the spirit of camaraderie, a “misfit” may occur between organizational climate and their individual values. It is possible that they retract from adopting cooperative behaviors, due to the fear that free riders will emerge and benefit from cooperation without making sufficient cooperative contributions. By avoiding cooperation and not helping others, they go against their values and beliefs, thus feeling frustration, discomfort, displeasure and other negative emotions. If they “risk” helping and cooperating, they can feel “victims” of others’ opportunistic behavior, thus experiencing lower self-esteem which, in turn, decreases PWB. At the very least, it is unlikely that they feel as happy as when working in more harmonious interpersonal climates.”

Concluzia studiului intreprins de Arménio Rego si Miguel P. Cunha este evidenta:„Our findings suggest that employees who express preferences for group work (i.e. collectivists) are happier than those who have solitary work preferences. (...) the evidence contradicts literature showing that individualists tend to experience greater personal well-being and points out the plausibility of our previous reasoning: when working in a collectivistic culture, collectivists are more able to access the social and emotional resources they value and feel aligned with their environment, thus experiencing greater affective well-being.
For organizations, this is a relevant finding. Promoting employees’ PWB is good in itself, but is also a way of leveraging performance. According to the broaden-and-build model, happier employees are more easily able to “broaden-and-build” themselves, becoming more creative, resilient, socially connected, physically and mentally healthy, and more productive. Emotions are contagious, which means that the positive emotions of some individuals may spill over to the rest of the team, thus improving interpersonal cooperation, contributing to “broaden-and-build” employees’ strengths (and not “narrow-and-destroy” themselves), and increasing employee and group performance.
Our findings also indicate that the perceptions of spirit of camaraderie have direct and moderating effects on AWB. We start by discussing the direct effects. Individuals who perceive their organizations as richer in spirit of camaraderie report higher comfort, enthusiasm, pleasure and placidity.”

Un climat social caracterizat de colectivism si spirit tovarasesc este unul net superior din punct de vedere al bunastarii personale si eficientei muncii. Sa respingem deci gandirea ingusta, individualisto-egoista promovata de capitalism, inamicul fericirii fara bani, si sa incepem sa punem binele societatii mai presus de cel personal, in acest fel avand inclusiv fiecare dintre noi mai mult de castigat.

Capitalismul ca mutilare a naturii umane

Dr. Necati Aydin este „Director of Neuroeconomics and Well-being Program at Florida State University”. Intr-un remarcabil articol intitulat „Global Financial/Happiness Crisis and End of Capitalism”, Aydin explica de ce capitalismul e incapabil sa sporeasca fericirea populatiilor din tarile avute si de ce este predestinat la crize precum cea din 1928 si cea prezenta. Ne vom limita aici la a prezenta doar prima parte a demonstratiei sale, legata de fericire. Pe scurt, Aydin arata ca acest sistem economico-social se bazeaza pe o perspectiva trunchiata, incompleta, mutilata a naturii umane, de aici slabele sale rezultate.

Capitalism vs. fericirea umana
„It was Easterlin (1974) who first recognized that capitalism fails to bring promised happiness. In his study which covered the years between 1946-1970, he found that despite a great increase in the real income per capita, there was not a significant change in subjective wellbeing.
He later did a similar study for Japan and found that the average self-reported happiness level did not increase in Japan between 1958 and 1987 despite a fivefold increase in real income.
Since this study, we have seen a surge in studies on happiness. Most of them confirm Easterlin’s
findings in terms of the impact of monetary wealth on happiness. A recent study shows that the case is not quite different for China which has been experimenting with consumer culture for the last two decades. The study found that remarkable economic growth from 1994 to 2005, with eal income per capita increase of 250 percent, ownership of color television sets rose from 40 percent of households to 82 percent, and the number of people with a telephone jumped from 10 ercent to 63 percent. Yet, this did not translate into higher life satisfaction. Rather, the percentage of people who say they are dissatisfied has increased, and the percentage who says they are satisfied has decreased (Kahneman and Krueger, 2006).
Real income per capita has doubled or even tripled in many developed countries. Goods and ervices are available to a poor person now which were not possible for kings a few centuries ago. However, paradoxically, the increase in wealth and consumption has not brought happiness to people. For instance, in the U.S., according to subjective wellbeing surveys, people have not seen any positive change in their level of subjective wellbeing even though their real income per capita has tripled since 1960 (Myers, 2001). In other words, for an American, the ability to
purchase car, refrigerator, washing and drying machines or going restaurants has tripled since then. On the other hand, the divorce rate has doubled, the youth suicide rate has tripled, and the umber of depressed people has increased ten times (Newsweek, September 16, 2002). In short, eople in the developed countries are not happier. Actually, they are experiencing a growing happiness crisis”. Tremendous increases in stress, suicide, crime, alcohol and drug use, and epression are an indication of this happiness crisis. In the happiness literature, this is known as progress paradox” or the “American paradox”. Perhaps, it is better to call it a “capitalist aradox”, because it is not limited to the United States. It is common across all developed capitalist countries.
It is like a growing “tsunami” destroying human happiness despite enormous increase in material consumption.”

Asadar, in ciuda unor cresteri ale veniturilor de pana la trei ori, rata divorturilor s-a dublat, cea a sinuciderilor in randul tinerilor s-a triplat,, numarul celor deprimati a crescut de zece ori. Unele economii capitaliste progreseaza, insa in paralel fericirea si starea de satisfactie a populatiilor scade dramatic. Cum se explica acest paradox capitalist? Conform lui Aydin, capitalismul nu se bazeaza pe o vedere de ansamblu a naturii umane, ci doar pe o singura componenta a sa, cea a lacomiei si animalitatii. Care sunt, deci, componentele „universului uman”, asa cum il numeste autorul?

Componentele naturii umane:
1) Regele: Iubirea, intelegerea si generozitatea: regele interior
„Metaphorically speaking, spiritual heart is like a king in a human palace. The king has almost infinite capacity to love. He needs a lover with beauty, perfection, and generosity. This is because the nature of love, which is satisfied with beauty, perfection, and benefit (gift). The king uses his capital of love to make attachments in his search of the true lover. Indeed, in one way,
our life is just a journey of making attachments to satisfy the king. The spiritual heart resembles to king because without his satisfaction life would become torture. Indeed, without any eaningful attachment, it would be hard to justify life over death. Therefore, the king should be given a high priority. Indeed, all other residents should ultimately serve the king. First and foremost, we should take care of the needs and desires of our inner king. We should know what he desires. We should also protect him from any danger.”

2) Constinta
„Conscience, which is defined as ability distinguishes right from wrong, is like an inner judge in a human palace. He makes judgment about the decisions we make in our life. If we treat
someone unfairly, the inner judge makes us to be aware it. He makes us to feel guilty for doing unfairness to others. Furthermore, the inner judge is affected by unfairness in society as well. He is bothered to live in a corrupted society. He wants to feel safe from dangers (or unfairness) coming from other people. He wants to trust others in order feel true peace. The inner judge
makes us feel inner peace and pleasure if we treat others fairly and live with trustworthy people. In this regard, in order to make the inner judge happy, we should consider fairness in our actions.
We should avoid the feeling of guilt by acting fairly to others. Also, we should create a fair and trustworthy society which makes the inner judge feels better.”

3) Elefantul: Animalitatea
„The elephant is addicted to pleasure. She pursues instant gratification. Therefore, she prefers the little present pleasure to much greater one which will come later. She is blind to the
future. She wants to gain pleasure and avoid pain now. She has no means to conduct long term
cost and benefit analysis. She is never satisfied with what she has. She has a greedy nature and
always asks for more. Indeed, there is no way to fully satisfy the elephant. Due to the adaptation principle”, she always looks for new and different gratifications. She does not want be restricted in any way. If left alone, she goes complete mad and consumes anything, which provides her instant gratification. Indeed, according to Haidth, the elephant cares about instant pleasure and prestige, not happiness” (Haidth, 2005, p.22).”

4) Ratiunea
„Mind is an advisor to the ruler of human palace. If the elephant is in power, the advisor will serve him by providing guidance on available choices for pleasure. The mind also advises the king (heart) and the judge (conscience). However, if he is too busy with helping the elephant, he might not find time to serve the king and the judge. The advisor is capable of exploring about outer and inner universes if requested. Indeed, he is thirsty of knowledge and meaning. He asks some enduring questions and enjoys learning their answers. He is capable of making rational decisions for other senior residents such as king, elephant, and judge.”

5) Ego-ul
„Ego or self is like a commander or guard in the human palace. He is in charge of the palace. He is aware of all possessions. He protects them from intruders. He directs all residents of the palace to serve to the elephant and the king. He enjoys working for the elephant because of recognition he receives from the activities of the elephant. He is the reference point to know other people and the outer universe.”

Pe scurt, universul interior al omului este alcatuit din nevoia de iubire, de apropiere de ceilalti; din continta care ne ajuta sa diferentiem binele de rau; din animalitate, care reprezinta pornirile de joasa speta, lacomia, materialismul, pornografia, degenerarea etc; din ratiune, cu statul instrumental si care poate fi supusa atat dorintelor spirituale cat si a celor materiale; si din eu, constinta de sine a fiecaruia. Aydin argumenteaza ca esecul capitalismului in termenii fericirii umane este ca el acorda o importanta practic explusiva animalitatii din noi, neglijand celelalte componente ale fiintei noastre.

Cauza esecului capitalist: materialismul si consumerismul
„Free market capitalism uses money to fulfill the desires of the king. The system turns everything into commodities. (...)
Capitalism commercializes everything including human values and relationships because of its lack of understanding of true human nature. It replaces authentic and lasting love with fake and fast love. It kills friendship for the sake of making more money. It replaces long-lived family
life with short-lived dating. However, what the free market capitalism offers is far from satisfying the king. The king also enjoys real or authentic attachments rather superficial ones. It is not the king; it is the elephant wanting sensual and sexual love. The king wants emotional and eternal love. Indeed, some ancient philosophers hate sensual and sexual love because they think (…) love is attachment. Attachments, particularly sensual and sexual attachments, must be broken to permit spiritual progress” (Haidth, 2005, p.128) They think the love of self is an impediment to love of neighbors, love of truth, love of God, love of beauty. “They all know that virtue resides in a well-trained elephant” (Haidth, 2005, p.160)
Free market capitalism does not recognize the desires of the inner judge. Therefore, the system does not consider fairness in determining price and wage. However, the lack of fairness and confidence hurts people and diminish their subjective wellbeing. It is one key factor driving both financial and happiness crisis. Akerlof and Kranton (2005, 2002, 2000) conducted several studies to find out what people think about fairness. They report that living up to what they think they should be doing to make people happy. People generally consider it an insult if others think they are not fair. At the same, they get upset if others do not act fair to them. People could not reach authentic happiness if fairness and confidence are missing.
Free market capitalism not only recognizes the elephant, it does everything to further excite him or consumption. Indeed, the system makes all other residents a slave to the elephant.
As argued by Haidth, it is not mind; it is the elephant in control of the human palace. However, due to the lack of rational guidance, the elephant becomes addicted to many pleasures which ultimately damage or even kill his owner.
Free market capitalism has turned people to selfish creatures. (...)

True and lasting happiness could be possible if the needs and desires of all residents were met in a balanced way. As Jonathan Haidt found in his experimental studies, in consumer
culture, the elephant is in charge of the palace. Indeed, all other residents work hard to please the elephant. People become the slave of their desires. They generally pursue their sensual pleasure. They think life is “just” fun. They sacrifice virtues for their instant pleasures if their virtues contradict their animal desires. The problem is that the elephant is greedy, and therefore never satisfied. It is also blind to the future, and therefore, it focuses on short-term pain and pleasures, rather than the long-term ones. Furthermore, some of its desires could be harmful to other residents. Therefore, pleasing the elephant alone cannot bring anyone happiness.”

Deci oamenii au nevoie de o apropiere sincera si autentica de ceilalti, de altruism, cooperare, spirit de colectiv, de dreptate si tratament just si echitabil, pe cand capitalismul ignora din start, din constitutie, aceste nevoi firesti si se ocupa cu precadere de cele materiale, animalice si egoiste. Sociatetea de consum este o mutilare a fiintei umane spirituale, pe care o mentine in dezechilibru si superficialitate.

„Capitalism makes people the slave of their desires. A capitalist consumer views the ultimate goal in life to be the fulfillment of his/her desires. As a matter of fact, the common saying of “life is fun” in capitalist American society reflects this philosophy of life for many people. The overwhelming majority who embraces this philosophy works very hard during the week days in order to have fun opportunities over the weekend. That is why some of them end their lives once they lose their ability to gain expected pleasures.”

Simplitatea si moderatia materiale: drumul spre adevarata fericire
„Money does matter until the basic needs are fulfilled. Beyond that, it has very minimal impact. In other words, money could buy happiness for the poor, but not for the rich. Furthermore, those who have money are more likely to embrace extrinsic values instead of intrinsic values.
Some studies clearly show that those who follow extrinsic values are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, narcissism, and addiction compared those who follow intrinsic values (Duriez, 2006). Also, studies on aspirations and subjective wellbeing reveal that in the long-run pursuing wealth or fame does not bring happiness. Paradoxically, those who pursue wealth and fame are less happy than those who do not have such ambition (Kasser and Ryan, 1996). A large body of research thus far has supported the negative impact of materialistic (or extrinsic) values on subjective well-being. For example, extrinsically oriented teenagers, college students, and adults report lower rates of self-actualization and positive experience, and higher rates of depression, anxiety, narcissism, and substance abuses (Kasser &Ryan, 1993, 1996,
2001; Kennon & Kasser, 2008; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995, 1998; Williams, Cox, Hedger, Deci, 2000). Some consumer researchers also confirm the findings (Richins &Dawson, 1992; Sirgy, 1998). They found the opposite case for intrinsically oriented people. They argue that, compared to those who are low in materialism, those who are high in materialism have an underlying feeling of insecurity, poor interpersonal relationships, and low or contingent sense of self-esteem. Therefore, those who are high in materialism tend to ignore psychological need-satisfying behaviors, such as social engagement and affiliation (Duriez, 2006).
Some studies measured the relationship between a voluntary simplicity lifestyle and subjective life satisfaction. They found that those who prefer intrinsic goals over extrinsic goals have higher life satisfaction (Elgin, 1993; Pierce 2000). Kasser and Ryan (1996) put all goals and values into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. They argue intrinsic values for self-acceptance, affiliation, and community feeling increase psychological well-being, while extrinsic values for material success, fame and image experience decreased personal well-being.”

In concluzie, capitalismul, acolo unde reuseste, nu face decat sa exacerbeze trairile si dorintele de joasa speta, inferioare. Necesare si veridice si ele, dar mult sub celelalte nevoi ale naturii umane, pe care le ignora cu cinism. Egalitarismul este solutia de a taia din start, abrupt si imediat, acest drog, aceasta iluzie promovata de ideologia „pietei libere„, pregatind eficient terenul pentru o sociatate ce va asigura o atentie egala tuturor nevoilor omanesti, precum a celor iubitoare de oameni si frumos, de ratiune si dreptate sociala. Consumerismul si inegalitatea nu vor face decat sa ne departeze si mai mult de acest firesc ideal, coborandu-ne tot mai aproape de nivelul animal.

Despre natura umana si socialism, poate fi citit in romana acest articol.

Un studiu nou confirma ceea ce am sustinut pana acum

Edward Deci

Edward Deci este profesor de psihologie la Universitatea din Rochester. Intr-un studiu recent, efectuat alaturi de un alt expert in psihologie, Richard Ryan, si de doctorandul Cristopher Niemiec, Deci arata ca, intr-adevar, numai scopurile non-materiale, intrinseci, merita urmarite de cei ce doresc sa devina fericiti. Faima, bogatia, frumusetea fizica, nu doar ca nu vor aduce niciodata fericirea celui preocupat de ele, ci de multe ori vor avea efectul diametral opus: ne predispun la anxietate, frica, rusine. Dezvoltarea personala, relatiile calduroase inter-umane, preocuparea pentru comunitate si voluntariatul sunt adevaratele, demonstratele, verificatele cai spre satisfactia de durata.

Studiul celor trei va aparea in numarul viitor al revistei academice Journal of Research in Personality , insa pe saitul Universitatii din Rochester a aparut o prezentare a sa, intitulata sugestiv Achieving Fame, Wealth, and Beauty are Psychological Dead Ends, Study Says din care spicuim:

„"People understand that it's important to pursue goals in their lives and they believe that attaining these goals will have positive consequences. This study shows that this is not true for all goals," says author Edward Deci, professor of psychology and the Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University. "Even though our culture puts a strong emphasis on attaining wealth and fame, pursuing these goals does not contribute to having a satisfying life. The things that make your life happy are growing as an individual, having loving relationships, and contributing to your community," Deci says.

The research paper, to be published in the June issue of the Journal of Research in Personality, tracked 147 alumni from two universities during their second year after graduation. Using in-depth psychological surveys, the researchers assessed participants in key areas, including satisfaction with life, self-esteem, anxiety, physical signs of stress, and the experience of positive and negative emotions.
Aspirations were identified as either "intrinsic" or "extrinsic" by asking participants how much they valued having "deep, enduring relationships" and helping "others improve their lives" (intrinsic goals) versus being "a wealthy person" and achieving "the look I've been after" (extrinsic goals). Respondents also reported the degree to which they had attained these goals. To track progress, the survey was administered twice, once a year after graduation and again 12 months later.
This post-graduation period was selected because it is typically a critical developmental juncture for young adults, explains lead author Christopher Niemiec, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University. "During this formative period, graduates are no longer in the home or at the university. For the first time, they are in a position to determine for themselves how they want their lives to proceed." (...)

What's "striking and paradoxical" about this research, Niemiec says, is that it shows that reaching materialistic and image-related milestones actually contributes to ill-being; despite their accomplishments, individuals experience more negative emotions like shame and anger and more physical symptoms of anxiety such as headaches, stomachaches, and loss of energy. By contrast, individuals who value personal growth, close relationships, community involvement, and physical health are more satisfied as they meet success in those areas. They experience a deeper sense of well-being, more positive feelings toward themselves, richer connections with others, and fewer physical signs of stress. (...)

Intrinsic aspirations make people happy because they fulfill these foundational needs, conclude the authors. "Intrinsic aspirations seem to be more closely related to the self, to what's inside the self, rather than to what's outside the self," Niemiec explains.
Striving for wealth and adulation, on the other hand, does little to satisfy these deep human requirements, at least within this early career stage of life. In addition, this was a well-educated sample, and the authors stress the need for research in other demographics and age ranges. Yet for this young adult group, the authors suggest that time devoted to extrinsic pursuits, like working long hours, often crowds out opportunities for psychologically nourishing experiences, such as relaxing with friends and family or pursuing a personal passion. Craving money and adoration also can lead to a preoccupation with "keeping up with the Joneses"—upward social comparisons that breed feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. And unlike the lasting benefits of caring relationships and hard-earned skills, the thrill of extrinsic accomplishments fade quickly; all too soon, the salary raise is a distant memory and the rave review forgotten.”

Componentele non-pecuniare ale fericirii, esentiale

In postarea „Averea adusa de imbunatatirea relatiilor sociale” aratam ca imbunatatirea relatiilor inter-umane aduce pentru fiecare o fericire echivalenta cu cea adusa initial de un castig banesc de zeci de mii de lire sterline, azi vom vedea o confirmare a acelei analize. Autorii pe care ii vom citi mai jos, Richard Ball si Kateryna Chernova, arata in lucrarea lor „Absolute Income, Relative Income, and Happiness”, publicata in Social Indicators Research, Volume 88, Number 3 / September, 2008, doua adevaruri clare: banii sporesc nesemnificativ fericirea, care este in screscuta puternic de factori non-pecuniari.

„Although we have found strong evidence that, ceteris paribus, larger absolute incomes and larger relative incomes both tend to make people happier, and that changes in relative income tend to have a greater effect on happiness than do changes in absolute income, the results presented in this section show that the effects on happiness of several nonpecuniary factors are greater by many orders of magnitude than the effects of either income measure. Money can buy some happiness, but compared to the happiness people derive from personal relationships, employment and good health, it can not buy much.”

Deci da, atat averea absoluta cat si cea relativa la altii aduc un plus de fericirea. Dar acest plus este nesemnificativ. Mai mult, aspecte legate de viata personala si sociala aduc o fericirea mult mai intensa si de durata, cu mult superioara celei aduse de castigul financiar. Mai exact:

* For a median individual who is single, getting married or finding a domestic partner would increase happiness as much as an increase in her absolute income of 767 percent (regression 1) or 1,948 percent (regression 2).

Un individ mediu, singur, care se casatoreste sau isi pur si simplu gaseste perechea, fericirea sporeste pe cat ar creste in urma unui castig financiar de 767% din castigul absolut pe care il are deja.

* For a median individual who is single, getting married or finding a domesticpartner would increase happiness as much as an increase in her relative income from the 50th to the 88th percentile (regression 1), or from 100 percent to 219 percent of her country’s median income (regression 2).

Un individ mediu, singur, care se casatoreste sau isi pur si simplu gaseste perechea, fericirea sporeste pe cat ar creste in urma unui castig financiar de la 100% la 219% din venitul mediu al tarii in care traieste.

* For a median individual who is unemployed, finding a full-time job for pay would increase happiness as much as an increase in her absolute income of 1,583 percent (regression 1) or 24,118 percent (regression 2).

Un individ mediu care este somer, isi va spori fericirea cu echivalentul a 1,583% in plus fata de castigul sau financiar daca reuseste sa se angajeze.

* For a median individual who is unemployed, finding a full-time job for pay would increase happiness as much as an increase in her relative income from the 50th to the 99.6th percentile (regression 1), or from 100 percent to 418 percent of her country’s median income (regression 2).

Un individ mediu care este somer, isi va spori fericirea de la 100% la 418% fata de venitul mediu al tarii in care traieste daca reuseste sa se angajeze.

* For a median individual who (on a 1 to 5 integer scale) gives her health a rating of 3 (the 25th percentile of our sample), an improvement in her health that increased her rating to 4 (the median of our sample) would increase happiness by as much as an increase in her absolute income of 6,531 percent (regression 1) or 163,650 percent (regression 2).

Un individ mediu care isi imbunatateste relativ putin starea de sanatate, devine mai fericit cu 6,531% mai mult fata de venitul sau absolut din prezent.

* For a median individual who (on a 1 to 5 integer scale) gives her health a rating of 3 (the 25th percentile of our sample), an improvement in her health that increased her rating to 4 (the median of our sample) would increase happiness more than an increase in her relative income from the 50th to the 100th percentile (regression 1), or as much as an increase in her relative income from 100 percent to 687 percent of her country’s median income (regression 2).

Un individ mediu care isi imbunatateste relativ putin starea de sanatate, devine la fel de fericit ca atunci cand ar castiga cu 687% mai mult fata de venitul mediu din tara sa.

Asadar, perechea, serviciul si sanatatea sunt aspectele esentiale ale fericirii, nu banii. Egalitarismul este cel mai potrivit sistem social care poate asigura aceste deziderate, cu accentul sau pus pe viata sociala, combaterea somajului dar si a muncii in exces, atat de daunatoare sanatatii.

Alergand pe loc

Hung-Lin Tao si Shih-Yung Chiu sunt profesori universitari de economie, unul la Soochow University, respectiv Tsing Hua University, ambele din Taiwan. In articolul lor „The Effects of Relative Income and AbsoluteIncome on Happiness”, aparut in Review of Development Economics, 13(1), 164–174, 2009, cei doi demonstreaza ca incercarea de a gasi fericire in sporirea averii e lovita de nulitate din doua motive: 1. comparatiile inter-sociale si 2. cresterea aspiratiilor odata cu cresterea veniturilor.

Cresterea simultana a veniturilor si aspiratiilor materiale:
„The problem is that income and aspiration are not independent. An increase in aspiration is associated with an increase in income. The increase in happiness due to an increase in income counteracts the corresponding increase in aspiration. This is what aspiration level theory elucidates. The interpretation of aspiration level theory is similar to the “preference drift” proposed by van Herwaarden et al. (1977). No matter how rich people are, they are always in need of something. Therefore, what they regard as “sufficient” income is always more than their actual income.This means that an individual’s utility function is conditional upon his or her sufficient income. As the amount of sufficient income changes, his or her utility function shifts, and this leads to preference drift.”

Explicatia:
„However, it needs to be asked what changes people’s perceived sufficient income. The first answer is that actual income pushes up sufficient income. Actual income enables a person to fulfill his or her old desires. In the meantime, the fulfillment of old desires creates new desires, and these need more income in order to be fulfilled. Second, peering at other people changes perceived sufficient income. The formal words “other people” in the literature refer to the “reference group.” Van de Stadtet al. (1985) used educational attainment, age, and employment status to define the reference group.”

Pe scurt, aspiratiile materiale cresc odata cu veniturile din doua motive: in primul rand, acest mecanism functioneaza independent de alti factori exteriori, pur si simplu atunci cand avem un anumit venit se creaza impresia ca o suma si mai mare ne-ar face cu adevarat mai fericiti. In al doilea rand, comparatiile cu cei de langa noi si asemenea noua, atat din punct de vedere regional cat si al pregatirii, al varstei si castigului duc la tendinta de a incerca sa-i depasim in avere.

Concluzia studiului:
Trecand la rezultatele obtinute de cei doi autori, acestia concluzioneaza:
„It appears that the upward comparison and downward comparison are no less important as factors than absolute income in terms of influencing subjective well-being, and a longitudinal comparison and parallel comparison function simultaneously. Because the absolute income effect and the three types of relative income effects counteract each other, the effect of income growth on subjective well-being is likely to be negligible. The result provides a piece of empirical evidence as to why income growth usually does not improve societal subjective well-being as economists have observed.”

Ce vor sa spuna Hung-Lin Tao si Shih-Yung Chiu? Ca oamenii se compara, in termeni de avere si venit, atat cu cei mai bogati decat ei, cat si cu cei mai saraci. Chiar daca ei devin ceva mai fericiti atunci cand vad ca i-au intrecut pe unii, sunt nefericiti ca au fost intrecuti de altii. Aceste doua efecte se anuleaza reciproc, astfel incat oricat de mult vom acumula, per total, fericirea noastra este cel mai probabil ca va stagna. Astfel se explica si de ce populatiile din tarile bogate nu sunt mai fericite decat in urma cu cateva decenii. Ele au continuat sa se imbogateasca, dar din moment ce intotdeauna vor aexista altii si mai bogati decat ei, tot efortul e in zadar. Este o alergare pe loc, un efort risipit.

Mitul succesului individual

Capitalismul presupune o mentalitate individualista, o atitudine care subordoneaza interesele obstesti celor individuale. Capitalistul este elitist, in sensul ca i se pare normal ca unii indivizi sa detina averi si pozitii sociale mult mai inalte fata de majoritatea populatiei. Piatra de temelie a acestei gandiri este ca rasplata trebuie sa fie proportionala cu meritele. Persoanele iesite din comun, exceptionale, merita sa se imbogateasca, chiar daca astfel se creaza problematicile inegalitati sociale.
Una din problemele cu acest mod de a gandi este ca insisi bogatasi recunosc ca isi datoreaza in cea mai mare parte averilor muncii si eforturilor colective, ale intregii societati. Ideologia succesului si meritului individual devine astfel un mit si suntem cu un pas inainte spre justificarea deplina a egalitarismului: daca individul nu are decat o contributie modesta, si aceea de multe ori datorata norocului si/sau unui sistem social stramb croit, cum se mai poate justifica existenta claselor, a saracilor pe de o parte si, mai ales, bogatilor, pe de alta.

Ca este asa, ne-o demonstreaza raportul "I Didn't Do It Alone: Society's Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success," publicat in 2004 de Responsible Wealth si United for a Fair Economy. Iata mai jos cum bogatii insisi recunosc ca nu isi merita in mare parte averile:

Bogatii, intr-un moment de sinceritate:
„My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me. I received a good public school education, and used free libraries and museums paid for by others. I went to college under the GI Bill. I went to graduate school to study computers and language on a complete government scholarship, paid for by others. While teaching at Syracuse University for 25 years, my research was supported by numerous government grants – again, paid for by others. (...)
Upon my death, I hope taxes on my estate will help fund the kind of programs that benefited me and others from humble backgrounds: a good education, money for research and targeted investments in poor communities. I’d like all Americans to have the same opportunities I did.”
Martin Rothenberg

„Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don’t have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don’t have my wealth because I’m so brilliant. Luck has a lot to do with it.”
Eric Schmidt

„Most wealth comes out of the commons and individuals add a little bit on top of that. But because of the way capitalism is set up, for adding that little bit, you get to grab an enormous share of what comes out of the commons.”
Petern Barnes

„I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil. I will be struggling 30 years later. I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well – disproportionately well. (...)
If you’re a marvelous teacher, this world won’t pay a lot for it. If you are a terrific nurse, this world will not pay a lot for it...I do think that when you’re treated enormously well by this market system, where in effect the market system showers the ability to buy goods and services on you because of some peculiar talent – maybe your adenoids are a certain way, so you can sing and everybody will pay you enormous sums to be on television or whatever – I think society has a big claim on that.”
Warren Buffet

„There’s no way I would be here if I hadn’t worked at a national lab. It was the best place in the world to learn how to do this. I probably wouldn’t have gotten that job if I hadn’t had a master’s degree from a public university. I wouldn’t have had that master’s or a bachelor’s degree if
there weren’t financial aid, and an assistantship in grad school. And had I not gone to a good public school, I probably wouldn’t have gotten into the university. So you just keep stepping back. Heck, if my mother hadn’t had the right pre-natal care, I could have been 28 IQ points less
intelligent! So where does it start?
It all builds. In this country there is more opportunity and mobility than anywhere else in the world. But it’s very rare that a lot of factors beyond the individual haven’t contributed, a lot of stars haven’t aligned properly to create someone’s success.”
Jerry Fiddler

„The opportunities to create wealth are all taking advantage of public goods--like roads, transportation, markets--and public investments... We are all standing on the shoulders of all that came before us, and creating a society for our children and those that come after us. We have obligations as part of that.”
Jim Sherblom

„This is the land of opportunity because we took off economically around the industrial revolution. And the New England revolution in the textile industry was heavily
subsidized by unpaid labor, making the cotton cheap. Even someone far down the economic ladder, just working in a textile mill, benefited indirectly. His or her job depended on someone not being paid for picking the cotton. Our land of opportunity, this place that people all over the
world migrate to, was made economically vibrant by slave labor.”
Katrina Browne

„I know a lot of people who believe their success is only due to their hard work, their ingenuity, their energy and their willingness to take risks. They say ‘I made it, it’s mine and I’m going to hold onto it.’ That thought process profoundly influences their views about many other issues
such as taxes or charitable giving. My response is that a lot of factors go into building a successful business. For instance, did they go to a public high school or a taxsupported college? A lot of folks forget the help they got.”
David Lewis

Ce reiese de aici daca nu faptul ca bogatasii insisi recunosc ca averile lor colosale se datorea norocului, muncii altora, ajutoarelor primite din partea societatii. Cu ce drept moral se mai poate apara atunci ideea de bogatie individuala? Nu cumva acea avere apartine intregii colectivitati, iar redistribuirea devine si mai clar o masura necesara de echitate sociala?

Ce sta in spatele succesului individual
Autorii documentului citat enumera cateva dintre cauzele care au dus ca unii indivizi sa se imbogateasca. Vom observa cat de putine au acestea de-a face cu meritul personal.

1. Locatia
„This individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. One was location. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if they didn’t live in a booming commercial center like New York City, Boston or Philadelphia, or an ascendant industrial town like Lawrence, Lowell or Rochester, they didn’t become rich.”

2. Exproprieri, sclavagism, rasism
„Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed then thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The US was conquering and expropriating land from native people, and distributing it to railroads, white homesteaders and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil and timber. Even P.T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in The Art of Money-Getting that “in a new country, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.” He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be white. People of color were explicitly excluded from federal largesse. Alien land laws, for example, prohibited most non-whites from owning land.”

3. Norocul de a te naste la momentul favorabil
„Then there was the luck of timing. Those born in the first half of the 19th century who survived the Civil War caught the wave of resource exploitation and industrial expansion. This was a time akin to the 1990s technology boom. Wyllie notes that from a statistical point of view, being born in 1835 was “the most propitious birth year for a poor boy who hoped to rise into the business
elite.”8 Andrew Carnegie hit this lottery perfectly. He was born in 1835, held a desk job during the Civil War and reached business maturity after the fighting ceased.”

4. Efortul colectiv
„Colleagues and Co-workers. For anyone engaged in a large endeavor to state “I did it alone” renders invisible all the contributions of co-workers, colleagues and those who went before in a given field. Ideas, products and books do not emerge in a vacuum. Other people’s creativity, labor, feedback and suggestions are always involved. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt remarked, Wealth in the modern world resulted from a combination of individual efforts. In spite of the great importance in our national life of the...ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. Unfortunately, the contribution of the team, the helper, the editor and the laborer are often undervalued in measuring wealth and achievement.”

5. Mosteniri
„Among the very wealthy, inherited privilege is often a guaranteed catapult to continued wealth. Almost a third of the Forbes 400, for instance, are born onto the list (149 members in 2001, with an average net worth of $2.6 billion). Using baseball imagery, they essentially were born rounding third base and heading for home. And at least another quarter were born standing on the base path, meaning they were fortunate enough to inherit a small business, a piece of
land with oil under it, or an investment of “parental equity” on flexible terms. They combined this legacy with their own skill and effort, and built it into a successful enterprise. For example:
• Kenneth Field inherited the Ringling Brothers Circus in 1920 when it was worth tens of millions. He now has a net worth of over $650 million.
• Donald Trump inherited a real estate business valued at more than $150 million and built it into an empire.
• In 1998, the Forbes 400 listed Philip Anschutz (net worth $5.2 billion) as ‘self-made’ even though he inherited an oil and gas field worth $500 million. Not a bad head start in life!”

6. Investitii publice
„The federal government spends tens of billions a year on research, mostly in grants to universities. Without that investment, there would be no Internet, no human genome research and few medical wonder drugs. We should not underestimate the role of this research in creating the bedrock for wealth creation and the quality of life we enjoy. Martin Rothenberg, for example, believes he would be nowhere without the government’s investment in technological advancement. Government investment in technology research also helps businesses to operate
more efficiently. According to economist Lester Thurow, over half of the growth in the economy each year results from technology-induced productivity gains. Many of these gains result from publicly funded research as well.”

In concluzie, marile averi nu sunt datorate decat marginal individualitatilor si talentelor remarcabile ale celor ce le detin. In realitate, ele se datoreaza sansei, exploatarii si exproprierii altora, norocului, eforturilor colective, banilor de la stat (adica ale intregii societati), discriminarii etc. Observam deci ca bogatasii, dupa propriile lor standarde si consfesiuni, ar trebui sa detina o avere considerabil mai mica decat in prezent. Astfel, ideologia individualismului si elitismul meritocratic se dovedesc a fi mituri, minciuni.
Egalitarismul este astfel justificat nu doar pe temeiuri utilitariste (banii nu sporesc fericirea peste o limita modesta, dar o sporesc consistent pana la acea limita) dar si pe temeiuri deontologice, principiale si etice: bogatasii nu ar trebui sa existe pentru ca averile lor apartin de drept poporului, colectivitatilor, nu unui singur individ. Spre redistribuirea marilor averi asadar, spre colectivismul egalitarismului deplin!

Pretins avantaj al capitalismului, in realitate defect

In postarile „Prosperitatea nefericirii” si „Ce e mult, dauneaza” aratam cum multitudinea de optiuni (in domeniul produselor de consum, de pilda) nu este un avantaj, scazand multumirea si satisfactia personala. Un nou studiu a aparut recent care demonstreaza acelasi lucru.

„Google provides almost 100 million results for the query ”Britney Spears”. Researchers at Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT showed that users get overwhelmed with an increasing number of results. They are more satisfied with their choice when they are only given a few items.
In numerous everyday domains, it has been demonstrated that increasing the number of options beyond a handful can lead to paralysis and poor choice. That can decrease subsequent satisfaction with the choice. Research in psychology has shown that, for example, passersby are more likely to be drawn to jams on display, more likely to buy them, and more satisfied as customers when there are six jams to choose from than 24.
Researchers Antti Oulasvirta and Janne Hukkinen at HIIT, Finland and Barry Schwartz at Swarthmore College, USA, ran an experiment where 24 participants did normal information search tasks with Google. Half of the trials were done with 24 items on a page, and the rest with 6 items on a page. Having to choose from six results yielded both higher subjective satisfaction with the choice and greater confidence in its correctness than when there were 24 on the results page. The implication of the research to search engine design is that there are situations and users who might benefit from a reduced set of result items.”
Sursa aici.

In studiul intitial, autorii subliniaza:
„We know from cognitive psychology that choice overload can have three unfortunate effects: it can paralyze, it can lead to poor choices, and it can lead to dissatisfaction with even good choices. The power of modern search tools is extraordinary, but if they result in users feeling paralyzed and powerless, they becomeself-defeating. Putting “all the world’s information” in front of people may solve one problem, but it creates another. Virtually all of the research on choice overload done thus far has been in connection with consumer goods. The present study extendsthe phenomenon to the domain of information.
We found that a six-item search result list was associated with higher satisfaction, confidence, and perceived carefulness than a 24-item list. The effect was robust; it held for all three task types and for 22 out of the 24 participants, although none was a maximizer.Why the effect has not been reported before may be due to theeffect size: Our effect size analysis revealed that the phenomenonis perhaps too small to be obvious to the naked eye, though it stillis large enough to have ecological significance.”

Asadar, prea multe optiuni cauzeaza o paralizie a consumatorilor, carora le este din ce in ce mai greu sa se hotarasca asupra alegerii; de multe ori, sunt facute alegeri mai putin optime; consumatorul poate fi nemultumit chiar si daca a reusit sa faca o alegere buna.
Aceleasi efecte sunt de acum verificate si in cazul internetului si a rezultatelor date de motoarele de cautare.
Aceste descoperiri arata ca nu avem nevoie de o cantitate mare de produse pentru a fi multumiti si nici de eforturi de creatie in domeniul marketingului iesite din comun; se probeaza inca o data ca pretinsul avantaj al capitalismului, de a oferi o varietate de produse sporita este in fapt o problema a lui.
In concluzie, dupa cum spuneam cu o alta ocazie, limitarea tipurilor de sortimente de pe piata nu doar ca inseamna mai putina munca si mai mult timp liber pentru fiecare, dar este in sine un izvor de multumire si satisfactie.

Fundamentalismul consumerist

Merita prezentat aici un foarte bun articol semnat de Bruce Levine si intitulat Fundamentalist Consumerism and an Insane Society, publicat in numarul din februarie 2009 al revistei Z Magazine.
Originalitatea demersului sau rezida in faptul ca asociaza consumerismul cu fundamentalismul religios. Astfel, aceasta manie capitalista se dovedeste o credinta necoroborata de stiinta, irationala, cu efecte dintre cele mai nocive asupra individului si societatii. sa-l urmarim deci pe Levine.

„At a giant Ikea store in Saudi Arabia in 2004, three people were killed by a stampede of shoppers fighting for one of a limited number of $150 credit vouchers. Similarly, in November 2008, a worker at a New York Wal-Mart was trampled to death by shoppers intent on buying one of a limited number of 50-inch plasma HDTVs.
Jdiniytai Damour, a temporary maintenance worker was killed on "Black Friday." In the predawn darkness, approximately 2,000 shoppers waited impatiently outside Wal-Mart, chanting, "Push the doors in." According to Damour's fellow worker Jimmy Overby, "He was bum-rushed by 200 people. They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me." Witnesses reported that Damour, 34 years old, gasped for air as shoppers continued to surge over him. When police instructed shoppers to leave the store after Damour's death, many refused, some yelling, "I've been in line since yesterday morning."
The mainstream press covering Damour's death focused on the mob of crazed shoppers and, to a lesser extent, irresponsible Wal-Mart executives who failed to provide security. However, absent in the corporate press was anything about a consumer culture and an insane society in which marketers, advertisers, and media promote the worship of cheap stuff.
Along with journalists, my fellow mental health professionals have also covered up societal insanity. An exception is the democratic-socialist psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900-1980). Fromm, in The Sane Society (1955), wrote: "Yet many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself."

Autorul evidentiaza in primul rand decesele a doua persoane, cauzate de fanaticii consumerismului. E vorba despre doi paznici ai unor supermarketuri, calcati in picioare si zdrobiti de multimea insetata de consum. Asemenea fundamentalismului religios, si cel consumerist fac asadar victime omenesti. Levine puncteaza pertinent insa ca nu e vorba doar de nebunia celor aflati la fata locului, ci de un simptom al intreghii societati, posedate de dogma materialista.

Efectele fundamentalismului consumerist
Levine insira sase efecte pe care dogma materialismului capitalist le are asupra societatii.

1. Cresterea aspiratiilor materiale
„These expectations often go unmet and create pain, which fuels emotional difficulties and destructive behaviors. In a now classic 1998 study examining changes in the mental health of Mexican immigrants who came to the United States, public policy researcher William Vega found that assimilation to U.S. society meant three times the rate of depressive episodes for these immigrants. Vega also found major increases in substance abuse and other harmful behaviors. Many of these immigrants found themselves with the pain of increased material expectations that went dissatisfied and they also reported the pain of diminished social support.”

Cresterea asipratiilor materiale, tipica propagandei consumului excesiv, duce la dificultati emotionale si comportamente daunatoare. de aceea imigrantii care adopta stilul de viata american ajung de trei ori mai depresivi decat cei care nu isi insusesc valorile materialismului. Depresia duce apoi la abuz de substante, alienare sociala, nefericire.

2. Degradarea legaturilor inter-umane
„A 2006 study in the American Sociological Review noted that the percentage of Americans who reported being without a single close friend to confide in rose in the last 20 years from 10 percent to almost 25 percent. Social isolation is highly associated with depression and other emotional problems. Increasing loneliness, however, is good news for a consumer economy that thrives on increasing numbers of "buying units"—more lonely people means selling more televisions, DVDs, psychiatric drugs, etc.”

Numarul americanilor fara un singur prieten apropiat a crescut in ultimii 10 ani de la 10% la 25%. oamenii singuri si nefericiti se refugiaza in bunurile materiale care sa le tina companie, exact ce isi propun agentii de marketing.

3. Promovarea egoismului
„Self-absorption is one of many reasons for U.S. skyrocketing rates of depression and other emotional difficulties—and self-absorption is exactly what a consumer culture demands. The Buddha, 2,500 years ago, recognized the relationship between selfish craving and emotional difficulties, and many observers of human beings, from Spinoza to Erich Fromm, have come to similar conclusions.”

4. Pierderea auto-suficientei
„The loss of self-reliance can create painful anxiety, which fuels depression and other problematic behaviors. In modern society, an increasing number of people—women as well as men—cannot cook a simple meal. They will never know the anti-anxiety effects of being secure in their ability to prepare their own food, grow their own vegetables, hunt, fish, or gather food for survival. In a consumer culture, such self-reliance makes no sense. At some level, people know that should they lose their incomes—not impossibilities these days—they have no ability to survive.”

Din ce in ce mai multi oameni se dezobisnuiesc de efectuarea de catre ei insisi a anumitor treburi casnice, de pilda, depinzand de servicii de pe piata. Exemplul cu gatitul este relevant. Pierderea autonomiei personale ajuta doar economia de piata si cheltuirea banilor, dar slabeste increderea in puterile proprii.

5. Alienarea sociala
The priests of consumer culture—advertisers and marketers—know that fundamentalist consumers will buy more if they are alienated from such normal reactions as boredom, frustration, sadness, and anxiety. If these priests can convince us that a given emotional state is shameful or evidence of a disease, then we will be more likely to buy not only psychiatric drugs, but also all kinds of products to make ourselves feel better. When we become frightened and alienated from a natural human reaction, this "pain over pain" creates more fuel for depression and other self-destructive behaviors and harmful actions.

O critica asemanatoare celei de la punctul 2. Evitarea emotiilor negative, firesti in viata, este incurajata prin consum si materialism.

6. Speranta desarte
„The false hope of fundamentalist consumerism is that we will one day discover a product that can predictably manipulate moods without any downsides. Modern psychiatry is a full member of consumer culture. Its "Holy Grail" is a search for the antidepressant that can take away the pain of despair, but not destroy life. In the late 19th century, Freud thought he had found it with cocaine. In the middle of the 20th century, psychiatrists thought they had found it with amphetamines, and later with tricyclic antidepressants like Tofranil and Elavil. At the end of the 20th century, there were the SSRIs, such as Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft, which were ultimately found to create dependency and painful withdrawal and to be no more effective than placebos. Whatever the antidepressant drug, it is introduced as taking away depression without destroying life. Time after time, it is then discovered that when one tinkers with neurotransmitters, there is—as there is with electroshock and psycho-surgery—damage to life.”

Scopul societatii de consum e sa vanda produsul perfect, prin care orice nemultumire, nefericire, anxietate ori teama a consumetorului sa dispara instantaneu si fericirea sa fie gasita. Toate incercarile de acest fel au esuat lamentabil insa, dovedindu-se sperante desarte. Fericirea nu vine din achizitionarea unui produs, ci din interiorul psihicului uman. Fericirea dependenta de exterior nu e fericire, in orice caz, nu de lunga durata.

Dogma fundamentalista
„Fundamentalists reject both reason and experience. Fundamentalists are attached to dogma and if their dogma fails, they don't give it up, but instead resolve to deepen their faith and double down on their dogma. (...)
Breaking free of fundamentalist consumerism means thinking of alternatives and it also means an active defiance: choosing to experience the various dimensions of life that have been excluded by the dogma.”

Consumerismul este o dogma, ale carei efecte sunt asemanatoare cu a oricarei alta dogma. Ea produce inchistare si limitare. Avem nevoie sa depasim ideologia superstitioasa a consumului si trebuie sa intelegem ca viata ne ofera multe alte surse de fericire. Cautarea nirvanei prin materialism este o pista falsa, iar preotii capitalismului s-au dovedit de prea multe ori deja ca fiind profeti falsi.

Capitalismul, cauza muncii in exces si a consumerismului, inamicul vietii sociale

Jeffrey Kaplan a publicat in numarul din mai-iunie 2008 al revistei Orion un excelent articol numit „The Gospel of Consumption and the better future we left behind”. Kaplan subliniaza importanta pe care o are consumul exacerbat pentru marile afaceri si cum de aici porneste munca in exces, deterioararea vietii sociale, consumerismul si exploatarea muncitorilor din tarile sarace, alaturi de distrugerea rapida a resurselor naturale.

Marii capitalisti si cresterea consumului

„Despite the apparent tidal wave of new consumer goods and what appeared to be a healthy appetite for their consumption among the well-to-do, industrialists were worried. They feared that the frugal habits maintained by most American families would be difficult to break. Perhaps even more threatening was the fact that the industrial capacity for turning out goods seemed to be increasing at a pace greater than people’s sense that they needed them.
It was this latter concern that led Charles Kettering, director of General Motors Research, to write a 1929 magazine article called “Keep the Consumer Dissatisfied.” He wasn’t suggesting that manufacturers produce shoddy products. Along with many of his corporate cohorts, he was defining a strategic shift for American industry—from fulfilling basic human needs to creating new ones.”

Iata ca Charles Kettering, director de cercetari la general Motors, a fost printre primii care sa vina cu ideea, in 1929, de a-i tine pe consumatori nesatisfacuti. Astfel industria americana, capitalista, s-a reorientat de la satisfacerea nevoilor umane de baza la creearea de nevoi noi.

„In a 1927 interview with the magazine Nation’s Business, Secretary of Labor James J. Davis provided some numbers to illustrate a problem that the New York Times called “need saturation.” Davis noted that “the textile mills of this country can produce all the cloth needed in six months’ operation each year” and that 14 percent of the American shoe factories could produce a year’s supply of footwear. The magazine went on to suggest, “It may be that the world’s needs ultimately will be produced by three days’ work a week.”

Secretarul de stat al muncii din 1927, James Davis, a recunoscut ca industria textila a SUA putea produce toate textilele necesare in jumatate de an, iar 14% dintre fabricile americane de pantofi erau suficiente pentru a satisface intreaga cerere interna de pantofi. Se nastea astfel posibilitatea ca nevoile intregii umanitati sa fie satisfacute intr-un timp record, ceea ce ar fi insemnat munca extrem de putina pentru intreaga societate.

„Business leaders were less than enthusiastic about the prospect of a society no longer centered on the production of goods. For them, the new “labor-saving” machinery presented not a vision of liberation but a threat to their position at the center of power. John E. Edgerton, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, typified their response when he declared: “I am for everything that will make work happier but against everything that will further subordinate its importance. The emphasis should be put on work—more work and better work.” “Nothing,” he claimed, “breeds radicalism more than unhappiness unless it is leisure.””

Cine au fost insa deranjati de o asemenea posibilitate? Afaceristii, ingrijorati de scaderea profiturilor si de „radicalismul” populatiei, care ar fi putut sa se multumeasca cu un consum redus in paralel cu un timp liber de multe zeci de ori marit.

„By the late 1920s, America’s business and political elite had found a way to defuse the dual threat of stagnating economic growth and a radicalized working class in what one industrial consultant called “the gospel of consumption”—the notion that people could be convinced that however much they have, it isn’t enough. President Herbert Hoover’s 1929 Committee on Recent Economic Changes observed in glowing terms the results: “By advertising and other promotional devices . . . a measurable pull on production has been created which releases capital otherwise tied up.” They celebrated the conceptual breakthrough: “Economically we have a boundless field before us; that there are new wants which will make way endlessly for newer wants, as fast as they are satisfied.””

Asadar, spre sfarsitul anilor 20, advertisigul a inceput sa fie vazut ca „salvarea” marilor afaceri, creand nevoi artificiale.

Pericolele consumerismului, observate de timpuriu

„FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS of the Age of Consumerism there were critics. One of the most influential was Arthur Dahlberg, whose 1932 book Jobs, Machines, and Capitalism was well known to policymakers and elected officials in Washington. Dahlberg declared that “failure to shorten the length of the working day . . . is the primary cause of our rationing of opportunity, our excess industrial plant, our enormous wastes of competition, our high pressure advertising, [and] our economic imperialism.” Since much of what industry produced was no longer aimed at satisfying human physical needs, a four-hour workday, he claimed, was necessary to prevent society from becoming disastrously materialistic. “By not shortening the working day when all the wood is in,” he suggested, the profit motive becomes “both the creator and satisfier of spiritual needs.” For when the profit motive can turn nowhere else, “it wraps our soap in pretty boxes and tries to convince us that that is solace to our souls.””

Arthur Dahlberg observa pe buna dreptate ca in cazul in care ziua de lucru nu va fi redusa la patru ore, vor aparea efecte secundare dezastruoase precum industrializarea excesiva, risipa adusa de competitie, advertisingul sufocant, imperialismul economic, implementarea ideologiei materialiste.

O lume mai buna era posibila: cazul W. K. Kellogg

„ There was, for a time, a visionary alternative. In 1930 Kellogg Company, the world’s leading producer of ready-to-eat cereal, announced that all of its nearly fifteen hundred workers would move from an eight-hour to a six-hour workday. Company president Lewis Brown and owner W. K. Kellogg noted that if the company ran “four six-hour shifts . . . instead of three eight-hour shifts, this will give work and paychecks to the heads of three hundred more families in Battle Creek.”
This was welcome news to workers at a time when the country was rapidly descending into the Great Depression. But as Benjamin Hunnicutt explains in his book Kellogg’s Six-Hour Day, Brown and Kellogg wanted to do more than save jobs. They hoped to show that the “free exchange of goods, services, and labor in the free market would not have to mean mindless consumerism or eternal exploitation of people and natural resources.” Instead “workers would be liberated by increasingly higher wages and shorter hours for the final freedom promised by the Declaration of Independence—the pursuit of happiness.”
To be sure, Kellogg did not intend to stop making a profit. But the company leaders argued that men and women would work more efficiently on shorter shifts, and with more people employed, the overall purchasing power of the community would increase, thus allowing for more purchases of goods, including cereals.
A shorter workday did entail a cut in overall pay for workers. But Kellogg raised the hourly rate to partially offset the loss and provided for production bonuses to encourage people to work hard. The company eliminated time off for lunch, assuming that workers would rather work their shorter shift and leave as soon as possible. In a “personal letter” to employees, Brown pointed to the “mental income” of “the enjoyment of the surroundings of your home, the place you work, your neighbors, the other pleasures you have [that are] harder to translate into dollars and cents.” Greater leisure, he hoped, would lead to “higher standards in school and civic . . . life” that would benefit the company by allowing it to “draw its workers from a community where good homes predominate.”
It was an attractive vision, and it worked. Not only did Kellogg prosper, but journalists from magazines such as Forbes and BusinessWeek reported that the great majority of company employees embraced the shorter workday. One reporter described “a lot of gardening and community beautification, athletics and hobbies . . . libraries well patronized and the mental background of these fortunate workers . . . becoming richer.”
A U.S. Department of Labor survey taken at the time, as well as interviews Hunnicutt conducted with former workers, confirm this picture. The government interviewers noted that “little dissatisfaction with lower earnings resulting from the decrease in hours was expressed, although in the majority of cases very real decreases had resulted.” One man spoke of “more time at home with the family.” Another remembered: “I could go home and have time to work in my garden.” A woman noted that the six-hour shift allowed her husband to “be with 4 boys at ages it was important.”
Those extra hours away from work also enabled some people to accomplish things that they might never have been able to do otherwise. Hunnicutt describes how at the end of her interview an eighty-year-old woman began talking about ping-pong. “We’d get together. We had a ping-pong table and all my relatives would come for dinner and things and we’d all play ping-pong by the hour.” Eventually she went on to win the state championship.
Many women used the extra time for housework. But even then, they often chose work that drew in the entire family, such as canning. One recalled how canning food at home became “a family project” that “we all enjoyed,” including her sons, who “opened up to talk freely.” As Hunnicutt puts it, canning became the “medium for something more important than preserving food. Stories, jokes, teasing, quarreling, practical instruction, songs, griefs, and problems were shared. The modern discipline of alienated work was left behind for an older . . . more convivial kind of working together.”
This was the stuff of a human ecology in which thousands of small, almost invisible, interactions between family members, friends, and neighbors create an intricate structure that supports social life in much the same way as topsoil supports our biological existence. When we allow either one to become impoverished, whether out of greed or intemperance, we put our long-term survival at risk.”

Astfel, in 1930, Compania Kellog a venit cu ideea reducerii programului zilnic de munca la 6 ore si angajarii unui numar mai mare de muncitori. Initiativa a fost primita cu entuziasm de colectiv, oamenii fiind mutumiti cu plata mai mica dar, in acelasi timp, cu sporirirea timpului liber. In acest fel viata sociala, comunitara, a inflorit.

Unde s-a ajuns in realitate

„Our modern predicament is a case in point. By 2005 per capita household spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) was twelve times what it had been in 1929, while per capita spending for durable goods—the big stuff such as cars and appliances—was thirty-two times higher. Meanwhile, by 2000 the average married couple with children was working almost five hundred hours a year more than in 1979. And according to reports by the Federal Reserve Bank in 2004 and 2005, over 40 percent of American families spend more than they earn. The average household carries $18,654 in debt, not including home-mortgage debt, and the ratio of household debt to income is at record levels, having roughly doubled over the last two decades. We are quite literally working ourselves into a frenzy just so we can consume all that our machines can produce.”

Aproximativ 70 de ani mai tarziu, lumea capitalista a facut alegerea gresita, alegand munca in exces si consumerismul in dauna timpului liber si socializari. Rezultatele? In 2005, cheltuielile casnice erau de 12 ori mai mari decat in 1929. Americanii cheltuiesc de 30 de ori mai mult pe bunuri precum automobilele; 40% dintre familiile americane cheltuiesc mai mult decat isi permit; familiile obisnuite au datorii si credite de aproape 19.000$.

„Yet we could work and spend a lot less and still live quite comfortably. By 1991 the amount of goods and services produced for each hour of labor was double what it had been in 1948. By 2006 that figure had risen another 30 percent. In other words, if as a society we made a collective decision to get by on the amount we produced and consumed seventeen years ago, we could cut back from the standard forty-hour week to 5.3 hours per day—or 2.7 hours if we were willing to return to the 1948 level. We were already the richest country on the planet in 1948 and most of the world has not yet caught up to where we were then.”

Kaplan are dreptate sa scrie ca am fi putut munci mult mai putin si trai perfect confortabil. In 1991, cantitatea de bunuri produse in Aaerica era dubla fata de cea din 1948. Astfel, ar fi fost suficienta ziua de munca de 2,7 ore ca sa fie mentinut nivelul material american din 1948, moment la care SUA era cea mai bogata natiune si ar fi fost in top chiar si in zilele noastre.

„Rather than realizing the enriched social life that Kellogg’s vision offered us, we have impoverished our human communities with a form of materialism that leaves us in relative isolation from family, friends, and neighbors. We simply don’t have time for them. Unlike our great-grandparents who passed the time, we spend it. An outside observer might conclude that we are in the grip of some strange curse, like a modern-day King Midas whose touch turns everything into a product built around a microchip.””

In final, mania muncii in exces a insemnat distrugerea vietii sociale implinite, din moement ce oamenii au ales sa munceasca in loc sa socializeze. materialismul, promovat de marile afaceri, este cauza fundamentala a acestui declin uman.

Precizare

„Of course not everybody has been able to take part in the buying spree on equal terms. Millions of Americans work long hours at poverty wages while many others can find no work at all. However, as advertisers well know, poverty does not render one immune to the gospel of consumption.
Meanwhile, the influence of the gospel has spread far beyond the land of its origin. Most of the clothes, video players, furniture, toys, and other goods Americans buy today are made in distant countries, often by underpaid people working in sweatshop conditions. The raw material for many of those products comes from clearcutting or strip mining or other disastrous means of extraction. Here at home, business activity is centered on designing those products, financing their manufacture, marketing them—and counting the profits.”

Kaplan face bine sa precizeze ca nu toate familiile americane au luat parte la nebunia comercialista, milioane muncind in exces doar pentru a-si asigura nevoile de baza. Totodata, consumerismul american e sprijinit in mare masura de exploatarea la care sunt supusi de marile firme muncitorii din tarile sarace, cu forta de munca ieftina.

Strategiile diavolului

„The new managers saw only costs and no benefits to the six-hour day, and almost immediately after the end of the war they began a campaign to undermine shorter hours. Management offered workers a tempting set of financial incentives if they would accept an eight-hour day. Yet in a vote taken in 1946, 77 percent of the men and 87 percent of the women wanted to return to a thirty-hour week rather than a forty-hour one. In making that choice, they also chose a fairly dramatic drop in earnings from artificially high wartime levels.
The company responded with a strategy of attrition, offering special deals on a department-by-department basis where eight hours had pockets of support, typically among highly skilled male workers. In the culture of a post-war, post-Depression U.S., that strategy was largely successful. ”

Iata deci ca in 1946, 77% dintre barbati si 87% dintre femei isi doreau revenirea la saptamana de lucru de 30 de ore, preferand salariile mai mici. managerii companiilor i-au atras insa cu cresteri salariale, impiedicandu-i astfel sa aleaga optiunea corecta. Dezastru a urmat:

„Despite the enormous difference in societal wealth between the 1930s and the 1980s, the language the mavericks used to explain their preference for a six-hour workday was almost identical to that used by Kellogg workers fifty years earlier. One woman, worried about the long hours worked by her son, said, “He has no time to live, to visit and spend time with his family, and to do the other things he really loves to do.”
Several people commented on the link between longer work hours and consumerism. One man said, “I was getting along real good, so there was no use in me working any more time than I had to.” He added, “Everybody thought they were going to get rich when they got that eight-hour deal and it really didn’t make a big difference. . . . Some went out and bought automobiles right quick and they didn’t gain much on that because the car took the extra money they had.””

Asadar, cresterea veniturilor nu a adus decat beneficii iluzorii, in schimb a deteriorat serios viata familiala si sociala.

E timpul ca populatia sa realizeze situatia in care se afla si sa spuna un NU hotarat muncii in exces si consumerismului. Marii patroni sunt singurii care vor avea de pierdut, in acest fel slabindu-se acest sistem infernal si anti-uman numit „capitalism”. Frugalitatea, satisfacerea nevoilor materiale fundamentale, timpul liber si socializarea sunt caile spre fericirea autenmtica, nu munca in exces si materialismul.

Consumerismul, infectia produsa de corporatii

Profesorii Gary Ruskin si Juliet Schor explica in articolul Every Nook and Cranny: The Dangerous Spread of Commercialized Culture aparut in Multinationl Monitor vol. 26, nr. 1/2005 modul in care corporatiile actioneaza cu agresivitate in scopul promovarii consumerismului si comercializarii a cat mai multe aspecte ale vietii.

Infectia corporatista, prezentare generala
„The rise of commercialism is an artifact of the growth of corporate power. It began as part of a political and ideological response by corporations to wage pressures, rising social expenditures, and the successes of the environmental and consumer movements in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Corporations fostered the anti-tax movement and support for corporate welfare, which helped create funding crises in state and local governments and schools, and made them more willing to carry commercial advertising. They promoted “free market” ideology, privatization and consumerism, while denigrating the public sphere. In the late 1970s, Mobil Oil began its decades-long advertising on the New York Times op-ed page, one example of a larger corporate effort to reverse a precipitous decline in public approval of corporations. They also became adept at manipulating the campaign finance system, and weaknesses in the federal bribery statute, to procure influence in governments at all levels.
Perhaps most importantly, the commercialization of government and culture and the growing importance of material acquisition and consumer lifestyles was hastened by the co-optation of potentially countervailing institutions, such as churches (papal visits have been sponsored by Pepsi, Federal Express and Mercedes-Benz), governments, schools, universities and nongovernmental organizations.
While advertising has long been an element in the circus of U.S. life, not until recently has it been recognized as having political or social merit. For nearly two centuries, advertising (lawyers call it commercial speech) was not protected by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that states could regulate commercial speech at will. But in 1976, the Court granted constitutional protection to commercial speech. Corporations have used this new right of speech to proliferate advertising into nearly every nook and cranny of life.”

Asadar, corporatiile s-au infiltrat si au pus mana pe institutiile cheie din societatea capitalista, precum scoli, biserici, guvern si organizatii non-guvernamentale, promovand advertisingul si, in subsidiar, consumerismul.

Infectia ajunge in scoli
„During most of the twentieth century, there was little advertising in schools. That changed in 1989, when Chris Whittle’s Channel One enticed schools to accept advertising, by offering to loan TV sets to classrooms. Each school day, Channel One features at least two minutes of ads, and 10 minutes of news, fluff, banter and quizzes. The program is shown to about 8 million children in 12,000 schools.
Soda, candy and fast food companies soon learned Channel One’s lesson of using financial incentives to gain access to schoolchildren. By 2000, 94 percent of high schools allowed the sale of soda, and 72 percent allowed sale of chocolate candy. Energy, candy, personal care products, even automobile manufacturers have entered the classroom with “sponsored educational materials” — that is, ads in the guise of free “curricula.” ”

In general, advertisingul a devenit din ce in ce ai axat pe publicul tanar si foarte tanar, calcand in picioare orice scrupul sau norma etica:

„For a time, institutions of childhood were relatively uncommercialized, as adults subscribed to the notion of childhood innocence, and the need to keep children from the “profane” commercial world. But what was once a trickle of advertising to children has become a flood. Corporations spend about $15 billion marketing to children in the United States each year, and by the mid-1990s, the average child was exposed to 40,000 TV ads annually.
Children have few legal protections from corporate marketers in the United States.
This contrasts strongly to the European Union, which has enacted restrictions. Norway and Sweden have banned television advertising to children under 12 years of age; in Italy, advertising during TV cartoons is illegal, and toy advertising is illegal in Greece between 7 AM and 11 PM. Advertising before and after children’s programs is banned in Austria.”

Advertisingul se raspandeste in ritm sufocant
„Advertisers have long relied on 30-second TV spots to deliver messages to mass audiences. During the 1990s, the impact of these ads began to drop off, in part because viewers simply clicked to different programs during ads. In response, many advertisers began to place ads elsewhere, leading to “ad creep” — the spread of ads throughout social space and cultural institutions. Whole new marketing sub-specialties developed, such as “place-based” advertising, which coerces captive viewers to watch video ads. Examples include ads before movies, ads on buses and trains in cities (Chicago, Milwaukee and Orlando), and CNN’s Airport channel. Video ads are also now common on ATMs, gas pumps, in convenience stores and doctors’ offices.
Another form of ad creep is “product placement,” in which advertisers pay to have their product included in movies, TV shows, museum exhibits, or other forms of media and culture. Product placement is thought to be more effective than the traditional 30-second ad because it sneaks by the viewer’s critical faculties. Product placement has recently occurred in novels, and children’s books. Some U.S. TV programs (American Idol, The Restaurant, The Apprentice) and movies (Minority Report, Cellular) are so full of product placement that they resemble infomercials. By contrast, many European nations, such as Austria, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom, ban or sharply restrict product placement on television.
Commercial use of the Internet was forbidden as recently as the early 1990s, and the first spam wasn’t sent until 1994. But the marketing industry quickly penetrated this sphere as well, and now 70 percent of all e-mail is spam, according to the spam filter firm Postini Inc. Pop-ups, pop-unders and ad-ware have become major annoyances for Internet users. Telemarketing became so unpopular that the corporate-friendly Federal Trade Commission established a National Do Not Call Registry, which has brought relief from telemarketing calls to 64 million households.
Even major cultural institutions have been harnessed by the advertising industry. During 2001-2002, the Smithsonian Institution, perhaps the most important U.S. cultural institution, established the General Motors Hall of Transportation and the Lockheed Martin Imax Theater. Following public opposition and Congressional action, the commercialization of the Smithsonian has largely been halted. In 2000, the Library of Congress hosted a giant celebration for Coca-Cola, essentially converting the nation’s most important library into a prop to sell soda pop.”

Advertisingul fiind o unealta indispensabila in raspandirea consumerismului, a inceput astfel sa fie implementat in cele mai diverse aspecte ale vietii publice si private. Reclamele sunt postate in locuri in care publicul este practic fortat sa le vada, fiindu-i din ce in ce mai greu sa le ignore: statii si geamuri de autobuze, gari, canale de televiziune cu circuit inchis precum cele din supermarketuri si aeroporturi, 70% din totuluri mailurilor trimise si primite consta in reclame, pana si Biblioteca Congresului din SUA, cea mai importanta biblioteca din Sate devenind o trambulina de lansare pentru produsele unei firme de bauturi carbo-gazoase.

Suferintele cauzate de infectia propagata de corporatii:
„Because the phenomenon of commercialism has become so ubiquitous, it is not surprising that its effects are as well. Perhaps most alarming has been the epidemic of marketing-related diseases afflicting people in the United States, and especially children, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and smoking-related illnesses. Each day, about 2,000 U.S. children begin to smoke, and about one-third of them will die from tobacco-related illnesses. Children are inundated with advertising for high calorie junk food and fast food, and, predictably, 15 percent of U.S. children aged 6 to 19 are now overweight.”

Deci printre efectele consumerismului cauzat de advertisingul sustinut de corporatii se numara epidemia prezenta de obezitate, diabet, boli legate de fumat. 2000 de copii doar din SUA se apuca zilnic de fumat, iar 15% dintre copiii de acolo sunt obezi „gratie” promovarii hranei nesanatoase tip junk si fast food.

„Excessive commercialism is also creating a more materialistic populace. In 2003, the annual UCLA survey of incoming college freshmen found that the number of students who said it was a very important or essential life goal to “develop a meaningful philosophy of life” fell to an all-time low of 39 percent, while succeeding financially has increased to a 13-year high, at 74 percent. High involvement in consumer culture has been show (by Schor) to be a significant cause of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and psychosomatic complaints in children, findings which parallel similar studies of materialism among teens and adults. Other impacts are more intangible. A 2004 poll by Yankelovich Partners, found that 61 percent of the U.S. public “feel that the amount of marketing and advertising is out of control,” and 65 percent “feel constantly bombarded with too much advertising and marketing.” Is advertising diminishing our sense of general well-being? Perhaps.”

Neajunsurile cauzate de campaniile de advertising includ sporirea importantei „valorilor” materiale, succesul financiar contand pentru 74% dintre elevi, pe cand a avea o filosofie sanatoasa asupra scopului in viata a scazut la 39%, ambele valori reprezentand recorduri negative. 61% din populatia SUA considera ca volumul de marketing si advertising e scapat de sub control iar 65% se simt bombardati pana la sufocare de mesajele publicitare.

„The purpose of most commercial advertising is to increase demand for a product. As John Kenneth Galbraith noted 40 years ago, the macro effect of advertising is to artificially boost the demand for private goods, thereby reducing the “demand” or support for unadvertised, public goods. The predictable result has been the backlash to taxes, and reduced provision of public goods and services.
This imbalance also affects the natural environment. The additional consumption created by the estimated $265 billion that the advertising industry will spend in 2004 will also yield more pollution, natural resource destruction, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.”

E cat se poate de sugestiv ca se cheltuie anual in jur de 265 miliarde de dolari pe publicitate. Printre alte efecte ale acestei campanii se afla cresterea poluarii, distrugerea resurselor naturale, sporirea emisiilor de CO2 si intensificarea incalzirii globale.

„Finally, advertising has also contributed to a narrowing of the public discourse, as advertising-driven media grow ever more timid. Sometimes it seems as if we live in an echo chamber, a place where corporations speak and everyone else listens.
Governments at all levels have failed to address these impacts. That may be because the most insidious effect of commercialism is to undermine government integrity. As governments adopt commercial values, and are integrated into corporate marketing, they develop conflicts of interest that make them less likely to take stands against commercialism.”

Treptat, corporatiile devin din ce in ce mai puternice, punand stapanire pe institutii cheie precum guvernul. Cum putem lupta impotriva acestui pericol? Reducandu-ne la maxim volumul de cumparaturi, refuzand sa consumam atat pe cat isi doresc aceste creatii capitaliste numite corporatii. E clar ca pentru ele, consumul sporit al populatiei este vital, de aceea investesc de buna voie aproape 300 de miliarde $ anual in reclame. Sa nu ne lasam asadar amagiti si sa activam pentru o lume sanatoase, iesita din ghearele marilor capitalisti. O corporatie buna e o corporatie falimentara!

Promovare in cariera vs Downshifting

Spre diferenta de adeptii downshiftingului, filosofie ce promoveaza un stil de viata axat pe placerile simple, pe relaxare si activitati de timp liber, multi considera ca o viata activa, centrata pe ascensiunea sociala si imbogatirea materiala este cheia fericirii.
Vom vedea acum ca ascensiunea pe scara sociala, sub foma promovarii la locul de munca, nu numai ca nu sporeste fericirea, dar determina o scadere a sanatatii mentale si fizice.
Aceasta este concluzia studiului cu titlul “Do People Become Healthier after Being Promoted”, realizat de cercetatorii Chris Boyce si Andrew Oswald de la Universitatea din Warwick. Mai exact, cei doi arata ca promovarea, cresterea in cariera, duce la o deteriorare a sanatatii mentale de aproximativ 10% si la rarirea vizitelor la medic.
Intr-o prezentare a studiului scrie:

„A long-held assumption by researchers is that an improvement to a person’s job status, through a promotion, will directly result in better health due to an increased sense of life control and self-worth.
The researchers tested this. They drew upon the British Household Panel Survey data set, collected annually between 1991 and 2005, with information on approximately 1000 individual promotions. They found no evidence of improved physical health after promotion – nor that self-assessed feelings of health declined.
What they did find, however, was significantly greater mental strain. After a job promotion, there was on average a 10% decrease in people’s mental health measured in a standardized way across the British population. Intriguingly, those promoted at work also reported on average a 20% fall in their visits to a Doctor following their promotion. On first sight this drop in Doctor visits does not match the lack of change in the reported health of promoted individuals. But the increased stress levels of promoted workers may provide an explanation -- part of the stress on promoted people may be more constraints on their time and they simply have less time to visit a doctor.
University of Warwick researcher Chris Boyce said:
“Getting a promotion at work is not as great as many people think. Our research finds that the mental health of managers typically deteriorates after a job promotion, and in a way that goes beyond merely a short-term change. There are no indications of any health improvements for promoted people other than reduced attendance at GP surgeries, which may itself be something to worry about rather than celebrate.”

In textul studiului, cei autorii conclud: „We cannot find persuasive evidence that promotion improves a person’shealth. We conclude in the full sample that after being promoted the mental health ofmanagers typically deteriorates, and in a way that goes beyond merely a short-termchange.” De remarcat si faptul ca venitul crescut ce acompaniaza de obicei o promotie nu schimba cu nimic datele problemei: „Does inclusion of income change anything? In the main analysis, it was excluded, since an income rise is likely to accompany a promotion. The introduction of income, in Table 10, adds almost nothing to the effect of the promoted dummy.”

Unde cap nu e, e consumerism

Consumerismul poate fi explicat in buna masura printr-un calcul superficial si eronat al consumatorilor. Anume ca satisfactia oferita de un anume produs cumparat va fi mai longeviva decat este in realitate. Daca ne-am gandi catusi de putin, vom realiza ca de cele mai multe ori, un obiect achizitionat va ajunge in timp sa ne plictiseasca ori, in cel mai bun caz, sa nu ne ofere decat foarte putin din multumirea initiala, de dupa momentul cumpararii. Ca este asa, e dovedit de studiul "Anticipating Adaptation to Products", realizat de trei cercetatori de la Yale University, Jing Wang, Nathan Novemsky si Ravi Dhar, ce urmeaza sa fie publicat in laugust 2009 in Journal of Consumer Research.

Dintr-o prezentare pe scurt a studiului, publicata de University of Chicago Press, aflam:

"That fancy iPod or car with a sunroof might seem appealing when you’re about to
buy it, but chances are the enjoyment will be short-lived. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, enjoyment of products decreases over time, but people are not often aware of this process.
Authors Jing Wang (Singapore Management University), Nathan Novemsky, and Ravi Dhar (both Yale University), examine why predictions of future product enjoyment don’t tend to match reality. “We show that consumers overestimate the long-term enjoyment from various products including toys, cars, stereos, iPods, and digital cameras when making a purchase decision, even though when asked directly, they seem to know that they will enjoy these products less over time,” write the authors.
In one experiment, participants were asked to make a choice between two cars: a base model and the same care with a sunroof for an additional $900. “Before choosing a car, one group predicted how much they would enjoy the sunroof several months after purchase, while another predicted enjoyment at two points, both immediately after purchase and several months later, to simulate the progression of time,” write the authors. “The latter group accurately expected their enjoyment of the sunroof to diminish over time, while the former group overestimated their enjoyment level for the sunroof several months after purchase.”
It seems when people pay attention to how long they will use a product and think about the way their enjoyment will change over time, preferences shift from higher-priced items with extra features to cheaper, simpler options. In the sunroof study, only 26 percent of the participants who thought about their enjoyment over the duration of time wanted to buy the car with the sunroof, while 61 percent of the other participants said they would purchase it. “These findings may help explain why people overspend on frivolous items or expensive extra product features whose enjoyment will be short-lived,” the authors write."

Asadar, simplul act de a ne gandi realist la durata folosirii unui anumit produs si la satisfactia pe care ne-o va da el in timp e suficienta incat sa reduca drastic impulsurile consumeriste. Intr-adevar, doar 26% dintre cei care au luat in calcul existenta adaptarii hedonice au cumparat produsul), pe cand dintre cei care nu s-au gandit la acest aspect, peste 60% au efectuat achizitia. Consumerismul dovedeste asadar un calcul personal extrem de limitat si superficial, daca nu chiar o lipsa completa de gandire.

Dupa cum scriu cei trei cercetatori in introducerea studiului lor,

"Since many consumer products deliver their utility over time, the decision to purchase such products often depends on predictions of future product enjoyment. The present research shows that consumers often fail to predict hedonic adaptation to products and explores the antecedents and consequences of this prediction error. We demonstrate that the failure to predict diminishing enjoyment with a product arises because of a failure to spontaneously consider adaptation and apply correct intuitive beliefs about adaptation."

Progres economic si deteriorare sociala

Maurizio Pugno este profesor de economie la Universitatea din Cassino. Pugno este autorul unui excelent articol numit "THE HAPPINESS PARADOX: A FORMAL EXPLANATION FROM PSYCHO-ECONOMICS".
Lucrarea sa nu aduce nimic radical nou fata de ceea ce am prezentat pe acest blog in nenumarate randuri deja legat de relatia dintre succesul economic si fericire, insa autorul rezuma foarte bine cateva dintre principalele concluzii si, in plus, subliniaza pertinent importanta relatiilor sociale pentru fericire si diluarea lor in societatea contemporana, capitalista.
Sa-l urmarim deci punct cu punct.
Dovezi ca banii in exces nu produc fericire: Paradoxul fericirii
"The happiness paradox was first raised by Easterlin (1974). By measuring happiness by means of self-reported ratings on subjective well-being (SWB), he shows that in the US happiness has not exhibited a definite rising trend since WWII, whereas real income per head has instead done so.
The evidence from recent econometric studies reinforces the paradox and makes it even more puzzling. In fact, the trend of SWB between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s in the US is clearly downwards, and the same pattern emerges for Belgium and for the young component of the population of the UK. This strengthening of the paradox is not emphasised by the literature, although the SWB index has been successfully tested for reliability and validity by various methods.
Easterlin‘s finding of no significant trend of SWB has been recently confirmed for the EU and for many European member-states. Japan has also been often cited as a striking case, because real income per head rose sixfold in that country between 1958 and 1991, while proportion of people rating themselves as ”very happy‘ did not seem to change over the same period.
The strong version of the paradox is also supported by other well-known facts, like the recent increase in mental depression, which has been tested as strictly inversely correlated with SWB. Several studies show that depression has significantly increased in the US and other major developed countries since WWII, sometimes specifying that the phenomenon recurs across generations.
Particularly worring is the rise in other mental sufferings among children and adolescents as evidenced by the threefold increase in their psychotropic medication, and in particular in treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder between 1987 and 1996 in the US. Worrying rises in the incidence of —pervasive developmental disorder“, depression, and suicides among young people have also been found in the UK.
An even more dramatic index of declining well-being in various countries is the
suicide rate. Strictly speaking, this concerns only a small amount of the population, but it may represent the deeper-lying malaise of a larger fraction of it, insofar as suicide may be attempted or even seriously considered but not committed (Oswald 1997). The suicide rate increased for the US, the EU and Japan from the mid-1960s until the 1980s. Lester-Yang‘s (1997) survey of several studies shows that the correlation between income per head and suicide rates has been positively significant for the US since WWII, and for a cross-section of the European countries.
The picture appears less bleak since the 1980s, in that suicide rate has declined for the US, Japan, and for many European countries. However, it has risen for Ireland and Spain, and the suicide rate among adolescents and young adults has also risen in the US, and in the four major European countries (Putnam 2000:262; Lane 2000:23). The striking difference in the dynamics of the suicide rate between age groups suggests that the deterioration of well-being takes place across successive generations, although the passage to adulthood may enable each generation to improve its well-being with more efficacy."

Pana aici, retinem din expunerea lui Pugno:
1. Paradoxul fericirii, descoperit de Richard Easterlin, arata ca in ciuda cresterii economice a unei tari, fericirea populatiei ramane constanta sau scade.
2. Paradoxul a fost confirmat de numeroase ori, atat pentru SUA cat si pentru tari europene precum Belgia si alte state bogate, ca Japonia.
3. Cresterea economica e insotita de cresterea depresiei psihice si a numarului de sinucideri.

Progresul tehnic = munca in exces:
"Technical progress and improved material well-being have not induced people to
reduce their working time, as one would expect. In the US both average annual and average weekly hours for men, but especially for women, have risen in the past two decades. Since the late 1970s, overtime has increased as well (Golden 1998). However, Americans do not appear to be satisfied; rather they exhibit stress due to overwork. In the EU working time per employee has declined, mainly because of the introduction of regulations on the standard workday. However, the dynamics have decelerated in recent decades, and women‘s participation especially has greatly increased, so that the average rate of the working age population has increased as well. Canada seems to exhibit the same pattern. A detailed study conducted in Germany between 1985 and 1994 reveals that people, on aver age, would like to work less hours than they actually do. The study is interesting because it also reveals that the constraint on people‘s desire to work less does not lie in the labour market, since macroeconomic conditions worsened between the two years considered, and mobility towards greater participation by women and part-time jobs for all greatly increased. It seems to lie instead in familiar conditions at home."

Asadar, progresul tehnologic, in loc sa conduca la un numar scazut de ore de munca, a avut efectul diametral opus. Relevent e si faptul ca oamenii isi doresc sa munceasca mai putine ore.

In continuare, Pugno vorbeste despre importanta pentru fericire a relatiilor interpersonale, explicat ca deterioararea lor, cuplata cu o crestere a apetentei pentru materialismul financiar, au dus la nefericita situatie din prezent, descrisa de paradoxul amintit mai sus. Fara a intra in detalii, citez cateva dintre afirmatiile sugestive facute in articol:

Importanta relatiilor inter-personale pentru fericire
"The importance of personal r elationships, especially of intimate ones, for well-being
has been documented not only by several subfields of psychology but also by psychiatry, sociology and anthropology, and, very recently, by economics. The research methods employed for this purpose include surveys, experiments, cross-cultural comparisons, case studies and, finally, econometrics.
On surveying a wide spectrum of the psychology literature on almost 300 items, Baumeister-Leary (1995) conclude that the desire for interpersonal attachments is a
fundamental human motivation. [...]
The importance of personal relationships has also been recently confirmed by various
econometric studies. These show that marital status is the single most important (partial) correlate to self-r eported SWB index. Easterlin (2004) further points out
that the change in marital status is not completely eroded by adaptation. However, marital status is not the best proxy for evaluating the importance of personal relationships. In fact, —home life“ seems an even stronger partial correlate, depriving marital status of significance, while associationism, civic virtue, trust, democratic participation also capture significant positive effects of relationships on well-being."

Deteriorarea relatiilor inter-personale in societatile actuale:
"Unfortunately, several studies in sociology, psychology, and epimediology show that
social and personal relationships have deteriorated in recent years for significant groups of people. All the indices used incur some bias, but the quantity and the variety of evidence for deterioration is substantial indeed.
Despite the increasing frequency of divorce, whose incidence shows no signs of
diminishing even recently in the US, the marriages that survive appear to be less happy, especially if marital interaction and time spent together are considered across generations. Increasing cohabitation, from 10% to 50% during 1972-94 in the US, which would imply that getting married is a more informed choice, appears instead to have worsened the quality of marriage, and to have destabilised it. [...]
On the contrary, the evidence available from econometric studies shows a significant, although small, negative correlation both for the US and for Europe. Within family tragedies occur with increasing frequency in the US. The homicide rate of babies aged 1 year or less rose from 51 per million-population in 1974-78 to 84 in 1995-99.
Equally worrying are the data on increased homicides among adolescents. Sociologists observe that loneliness is a typical malaise of recent times, while psychologists point out that loneliness crucially correlates with suicide as well as with depression."

Iata asadar ca in anii de boom economic, relatiile inter-umane se deterioreaza vizibil si in mod grav. Astfel, rata divorturilor e in crestere, fericirea in interiorul casniciilor care dureaza e in scadere, coabitarea si relatiile mai putin stabile incep sa ia locul casatoriei, numarul agresiunilor asupra nou-nascutilor s-a dublat in ultimii 30 de ani, omuciderile in randul adolescentilor sunt in crestere, la fel ca si singuratatea.

Materialismul ia locul valorilor sociale
"This paper argues that the deterioration of relational goods induces people to shift
their expectations from relational goods to market goods. This shift is confirmed by a large body of psychology and sociology literature that discusses the issue under the heading of ”materialism‘. For example, poll-surveys on the values expressed by successive cohorts of college freshmen in the US show a rise from about 40% in the late 1960s to 75% in the late 1990s of those who rated —being very well off financially“ as a very important personal objective.
A specific stream in the psychology literature adduces ample empirical evidence on
two effects of the orientation to materialism. The first effect is a worse disposition to
relationships, less co-oper ation, and a lower quality of relationships. The second effect is described thus by Ryan-Deci‘s (2001:153) survey: —people who place a strong value on wealth relative to goals such as close relationships, [and] personal growth […] should show lower well-being“, more depression, more anxiety, less vitality, and an even greater propensity for mental illness."

Rezultatele expuse de Pugno nu ar trebui sa surprinda pe nimeni: in societatile dominate de obsesia cresterii economice, e normal ca totul, inclusiv timpul si atentia necesare construirii si pastrarii relatiilor personale sa fie sacrificate pe altarul hei-rupismului general, ceea ce duce la deteriorarea acestor relatii, fundamentale pentru fericire, si aparitia pasiunii materialiste, opuse fericirii. Astfel se explica si existenta Paradoxului fericirii: progresul economic necontrolat, considerat ca un bun in sine, nu face decat sa ne departeze de adevaratele surse de fericire si sa ne iluzioneze ca vom gasi fericirea in domenii complet nepotrivite.

Concluziile lui Pugno, confirmate doi ani mai tarziu:
In 2007, a aparut un alt studiu, intitulat "Did the Decline in Social Capital Decrease American Happiness? A Relational Explanation of the Happiness Paradox", coordonat de S. Bartolini de la Universitatea din Siena, la care a participat si Pugno.
Aici se confirma concluziile studiului prezentat anerior: scaderea fericirii in ciuda progresului material se explica prin deterioarea capitalului social, care masoara gradul de implicare civic si social. Dintr-o prezentare sumara a studiului, aflam:

"Based on General Social Survey (GSS) gold-standard data from 1975-2004, Steven Bartolini and 2 other researchers presenting a paper at Italy’s Siena University blamed America’s decline in happiness on declines in social capital (our civic and social engagement).Reuters reports that they “concluded a person with no friends or social relations with neighbours would have to earn $320,000 more each year than someone who did to enjoy the same level of happiness.

“And while the average American paycheck had risen over the past 30 years, its happiness-boosting benefits were more than offset by a drop in the quality of relationships over the period. “‘The main cause is a decline in the so-called social capital — increased loneliness, increased perception of others as untrustworthy and unfair,’ said Stefano Bartolini, one of the authors of the study.”"

Din articolul propriu-zis:

"Most popular explanations of the happiness paradox cannot fully account for the lack of growth in U.S. reported well-being during the last thirty years (Blanchflower and Oswald (2004)). In this paper we test an alternative hypothesis, namely that the decline in U.S. social capital is responsible for what is left unexplained by previous research. We provide three main findings. First, we show that the inclusion of social capital does improve the account of reported happiness. Second, we provide evidence of a decline in social capital indicators for the period 1975-2004, confirming Putnam's claim to a large extent. Finally, we show that failed growth of happiness is mostly due to the decline of social capital and, in particular, to the decline of its relational and intrinsically motivated component."

IN CONCLUZIE, ne-am convins o data in plus ca progresul economic e incapabil de a spori fericirea si ca aceasta poate fi gasita in domenii care nu se pot dezvolta armonios intr-o societate axata de competitie, consum si idei materialiste. Ceea ce castiga aceasta societate este, pe de o parte, in mare lipsit de importanta si, pe de alta parte, contrar altor surse de fericire, pe care le marginalizeaza.

Despre criza capitalista din prezent

La 17 martie 2009 am citit in Gandul ca „Americanii din marile orase se muta la cort si cresc gaini”. Citez de acolo: „În timp ce administraţia americană pompează sute de miliarde de dolari pentru refacerea economiei şi a încrederii în sistemul bancar, americanii de rând încearcă să găsească metode concrete de supravieţuire. În metropole precum New York sau Los Angeles, oamenii ajunşi deja la sapă de lemn s-au apucat să crească animale pe lângă bloc, relatează Le Figaro. California, ce întruchipa împlinirea visului american, devine, pe zi ce trece, un coşmar: şomajul a atins cote alarmante (de peste 15% în anumite zone ale statului zeci de mii de oameni şi-au pierdut deja casele.

Mulţi dintre cei care nu şi-au mai permis să îşi plătească ratele la bănci s-au mutat la cort, chiar în centrul unor oraşe precum Sacramento (capitala statului California).

Însă oraşul de corturi din Sacramento este doar unul din cele câteva zeci care au împânzit America. În Santa Barbara, municipalitatea a cedat celor rămaşi fără case un parc de maşini şi camionete vechi. Din statul Washington şi până în Nevada, Georgia şi chiar Florida, grupurile care militează pentru cei fără adăpost şi agenţiile guvernamentale raportează cea mai mare creştere de zeci de ani încoace a numărului oamenilor ce se instalează în tot felul de locuinţe improvizate.”

Intr-un alt text pe o tema similara, publicat in Adevarul, citim ca „Recesiunea, care a început ca o criză a locuinţelor, în care mulţi americani nu îşi mai puteau plăti ipotecile, s-a împrăştiat în toate sectoarele economice. Numai în februarie, 650.000 de americani şi-au pierdut locurile de muncă, şomajul înregistrând cea mai mare cotă din ultimii 25 de ani, 8,1%. Circa 12,5 milioane de oameni caută de lucru, adică mai mulţi decât întreaga populaţie a statului Pennsylvania. Nimeni nu este imun la criză, nici măcar cei cu o pregătire universitară. Rata şomajului între absolvenţii de facultate a atins şi ea un punct maxim. Lucrătorii organizaţiilor de caritate spun că cei care au ajuns fără locuinţe sau în pragul acestei situaţii disperate nu sunt numai din clasa muncitoare săracă, aşa cum se întâmpla până acum doi ani. Au început să fie afectate persoane din clasa mijlocie, oameni care câştigau bine înainte de criză, însă nu aveau economii. Este vorba uneori de familii întregi de trei sau patru persoane.”

Nici Romania nu a fost ocolita de acest tsunami economic, afland de curand ca pana la sfarsitul lui 2009, vom avea 800.000 de someri.

Cum s-a ajuns la dezastrul economic din prezent?

1. Eronata ideologie capitalist-liberala

Joseph Stiglitz, castigator al Premiului Nobel pentru economie in 2001 si profesor de Stiinte Economice la Universitatea Columbia, USA, cuprinde explicatia intr-un singur paragraf al articolului sau din ianuarie 2009 intitulat simbolic „Capitalist Fools”.

„The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, “I have found a flaw.” Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working.” “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan said. The embrace by America—and much of the rest of the world—of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today.”

Criza din prezent a inceput de la o masura a lui Alan Greenspan, fostul presedinte al Rezervei Federale, cat se poate de liberala (el insusi un minarhist convins), anume deregularizarea instrumentelor financiare derivate. Ca si cum masura sa nu era indeajuns, a mai si luptat din rasputeri impotriva Commodity Futures Trading Commission, condusa de Brooksley E. Born, cand a incercat sa impuna limitari in acest sens. De altfel, Greenspan nu a facut decat sa raspunda in disperare de cauza in fata unei recesiuni care se prevestea la inceputul anilor 2000.

In articolul numit „What Went Wrong”, Anthony Faiola, Ellen Nakashima and Jill Drew subliniaza din nou influenta daunatoare a lui Greenspan si a gandirii sale libertariene in aparitia crizei economice globale de azi:

„In private meetings and public speeches, Greenspan also argued a free-market view. Self-regulation, he asserted, would work better than the heavy hand of government: Investors had a natural desire to avoid self-destruction, and that served as the logical and best limit to excessive risk.. Besides, derivatives had become a huge U.S. business, and burdensome rules would drive the market overseas.”
Alan Greenspan insusi si-a admis vina, recunoscandu-se uimit in fata impotentei pietei libere: `Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Thursday he is "shocked" at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and said he was "partially" wrong to resist regulation of some securities. [...] Greenspan softened his longstanding opposition to many forms of financial market regulation, acknowledging in an exchange with Waxman that he was "partially" wrong in his belief that some trading instruments, specifically credit default swaps, did not need oversight. Waxman cited a series of public statements by Greenspan saying the market could handle regulation of derivatives without government intervention.`

(sursa aici.)

Observam deci ca dezastrul economic de proportii globale pe care il resimtim in prezent este rezultatul ideologiei economice liberale, profund capitaliste, nimic altceva decat un adevarat fundamentalism al pietei libere. Al carei paroxism s-a inregistrat inca de pe vremea lui Reagan, cu rezultate dintre cele mai dezastruoase. Dupa cum caracterizeaza acelasi Stiglitz aceasta credinta in laissez faire, aceasta nu e nimic altceva decat o religie, o superstitie:

`Economic theory—and historical experience—long ago proved the need for regulation of financial markets. But ever since the Reagan presidency, deregulation has been the prevailing religion. Never mind that the few times “free banking” has been tried—most recently in Pinochet’s Chile, under the influence of the doctrinaire free-market theorist Milton Friedman—the experiment has ended in disaster. Chile is still paying back the debts from its misadventure. With massive problems in 1987 (remember Black Friday, when stock markets plunged almost 25 percent), 1989 (the savings-and-loan debacle), 1997 (the East Asia financial crisis), 1998 (the bailout of Long Term Capital Management), and 2001–02 (the collapses of Enron and WorldCom), one might think there would be more skepticism about the wisdom of leaving markets to themselves.” (sursa aici)

2. Capitalismul, un sistem neputincios

Richard Wolff, profesor de economie la Universitatea din Massachusetts, a publicat la 26 septembrie 2008 in Monthly Review un articol denumit „Capitalist Crisis, Marx's Shadow”. Conform lui Wolff, capitalismul contine in el insusi germenii propriei distrugeri, fiind cşladit pe contradictii si conflicte interne ireparabile:

„The so-called financial crisis today is a symptom. The underlying disease is capitalism: an economic system that weaves implacable and destructive conflict into its production and distribution of goods and services. Employers and employees need to cooperate to make the economy work, but they are forever adversaries whose conflicts periodically burst into crises. So it is today. Capitalism also locks employers into those endless struggles with and against one another that we call competition. It too periodically erupts into conflicts and crises. And so it is today.
Employer-employee conflict contributed to today's global capitalist meltdown as follows. In the 1970s, employers found a way to stop the long-term slow rise in real wages of their employees. By outsourcing jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper wages, by drawing US women into the labor force, by substituting computers and other machines for workers, and by bringing in low-wage immigrants, employers drove down their employees' wages even as they produced ever more commodities for sale. The results were predictable. On the one hand, company profits soared (after all, workers produced ever more while not having to be paid any more). One the other hand, after a few years, stagnant workers' wages proved insufficient to enable them to buy the growing output of their labor. Given how capitalism works, employers unable to sell all that they produce lay off their own employees. And of course, that only compounds the problem.”

Intr-adevar, capitalismul este cladit pe conflicte permanente, intre angajator si angajati pe de o parte, si agajator si restul angajatorilor pe de alta (procesul numit competitie). In plus, trebuie sa remarcam sursele prosperitatii marilor capitalisti: goana dupa munca ieftina din afara (de obicei din tarile Lumii a Treia), angajarea imigrantilor, inlocuirea muncitorilor cu masini si roboti, cresterea numerului de ore muncite pe zi etc. In acest fel, salariile lucratorilor chiar din tari avansate precum SUA au fost tinute sub control, ele nemai crescand din aproximativ anul 1970.

Cum se explica insa faptul ca din 1970 societatea americana a inregistrat progrese economice relevante? Wolff o spune clar: imprumutul de bani, creditarea.

„Thus, in the 1970s, another capitalist crisis loomed as a bad recession hit hard. But that crisis was kept short because US capitalism found a way to postpone it: massive debt. Since employers succeeded in keeping wages from rising, the only way to sell the ever-expanding output was to lendworkers the money to buy more. Corporations invested their soaring profits in buying new securities backed by workers' mortgages, auto loans, and credit-card loans. Owners of such securities were thereby entitled to portions of the monthly payments workers made on those loans. In effect, the extra profits made by keeping workers' wages down now did double duty for employers who earned hefty interest payments by loaning part of those profits back to the workers. What a system!
Postponing the solution to crisis of the 1970s only prepared the way for the bigger one now. Booming consumer lending in the 1980s, 1990s, and since 2000, especially in the deregulated financial world of Reagan and Bush America, provoked wild profit-driven excesses and corruption (the stock market "bubble" and then the real estate "bubble”). It also loaded millions of Americans with unsustainable debts. By 2006, the most stressed borrowers -- "sub-prime" -- could no longer pay what they owed. This house of debt cards then began its spiraling descent.”

Pe scurt, capitalistii au dorit in acelasi timp sa vanda din ce in ce mai multa marfa pentru a-si spori profiturile, insa nu au fost dispusi nici sa creasca salariile angajatilor, acestia fiind determinati sa apeleze la creditele bancare. Milioane s-au imprumutat astfel sub impulsurile consumeriste, insa a venit vremea cand nu au mai reusit sa-si achite datoriile. Ceea ce a cauzat prabusirea bancilor, fapt ce a antrenat la randul sau caderea economiilor.

Solutia: economia condusa de muncitori in avantajul muncitorilor, in care proprietatea privata este abolita

Wolff nu ezita cand propune o solutie radicala pentru iesirea din impasul economiei capitaliste. Conflictele dintre patronat si angajati, adica lupta de clasa, in termeni marxisti, nu pot fi inlaturate decat prin inlaturarea patronatelor, ceea ce se rezuma la inlaturarea proprietatii private asupra mijloacelor de productie. Si, am putea aduga noi, redistribuirea averilor, asigurarea traiului decent, dar deloc luxos, pentru toti membrii societatii, in paralel cu imlementarea egalitarismului pentru descurajarea consumului exagerat, sunt solutii ce pot impiedica pe viitor crize precum cea de azi.

„For example, if workers in each enterprise became their own collective boards of directors, the old capitalist conflicts between employers and employees would be overcome. If state agencies coordinated enterprises' interdependent production decisions, the remaining enterprise competition could be limited to focus on rewards for improved performance. The US government might not just bail out huge financial institutions but also require them to change into enterprises where employers and employees were the same people and where coordination and competition became the major and minor aspects of enterprise interactions. The US government took over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, it changed neither the organization of these enterprises nor the destructive competition among them. That was a tragically lost opportunity. If the political winds continue to change far enough and fast enough, solutions responding to the current crisis by moving beyond capitalism might yet be tried.”

3. Rolul inegalitatilor socio-economice in aparitia crizei

Dedrick Muhammad a publicat la 28 septembrie 2008 pentru saitul Extreme Inequality articolul „The Fundamental Problem with the Economy”. Autorul subliniaza corect importanta monstruoaselor inegalitati socio-economice in aparitia dezastrului prezent:

„Our current financial crisis and the subprime crisis are both symptoms of a larger economic problem: an economy that no longer sustains a middle class and instead, allows the wealthiest elite to gamble massive fortunes regardless of its possible impact. Historically, what has made the US economy strong has been an economy that fed and strengthened the middle class. Over the last 30 years we have seen the American economy go in the wrong direction. Instead of a growing and prosperous middle class, wealth has become concentrated in the hands of the rich, leaving middle class and working class America cash poor.

Today the wealthiest 10% control 70% of America’s wealth. In the last 35 years, the richest one percent of Americans witnessed a 62% drop in their federal tax rate, while their incomes have increased over 80%. Meanwhile, payroll taxes that directly affect middle and working class Americans has increased 25%, while their wages have remained stagnate. The average American has used debt to try to compensate for stagnate wages and increasing health care, education, energy, and other basic costs. Wall Street bought and sold this debt, making billions for themselves, but leaving the financial system of the country in ruins.

Wall Street got so carried away making massive profits off of the debt of average Americans that they lost sight of what was obvious: the already economically squeezed American did not have the means to pay the debt that was being sold as a commodity. As I stated in a January 2008 Democracy Now interview, this debt would have to be paid at some point and it appears that time is now. Too much of the debt that Wall Street was so happy to buy and profit off of is now recognized as not being worth much more than the paper it was written on.”

In concluzie:

Dezastrul economic din prezent este rezultatul ideilor si practicilor capitaliste, sistem care a reusit performanta de a se prabusi de la sine, in conditiile in care domina vasta majoritate a Pamantului. Liberalismul, contradictiile si conflictele capitalismului, consumerismul, creditarea, inegalitatile-socio economice, toate au avut rolul lor in nasterea realitatii economice contemporane.

Egalitarismul, moderatia, redistribuirea marilor averi si abolirea proprietatii private asupra mijloacelor de productie sunt solutii viabile de iesire definitiv din seria crizelor capitaliste.

Articol vechi, extrem de actual

Pe acest blog am publicat in special articole recente si foarte recente, pentru a demonstra ca ideile expuse de ele sunt de actualitate si sunt tezele sustinute in prezent in domeniile care se ocupa de aceste chestiuni. Azi fac o exceptie, prezentand un articol din 1992, mai exact, publicat in New Renaissance magazine Vol.3, No.3. Textul, intitulat "The Dubious Rewards of Consumption", este semnat de Alan Thein Durning, cercetator pentru World Watch Institute.
Vom vedea cu aceasta ocazie ca dovezile stiintifice contra consumerismului au o traditie relativ indelungata, ele fiind astfel rezultatul a decenii de cercetari atente, toate convergente aceleiasi concluzii, la fel de valabila si azi ca acum 17 ani.

Anti-materialism stravechi:
"The avarice of mankind is insatiable," wrote Aristotle 23 centuries ago, describing the way that as each desire is satisfied, a new one seems to appear in its place. That observation forms the first precept of economic theory, and is confirmed by much of human experience. A century before Christ, the Roman philosopher Lucretius wrote: "We have lost our taste for acorns. So (too) we have abandoned those couches littered with herbage and heaped with leaves. So the wearing of wild beasts' skins has gone out or fashion....Skins yesterday, purple and gold today--such are the baubles that embitter human life with resentment."Nearly 2,000 years later, Leo Tolstoy echoed Lucretius: "seek among men, from beggar to millionaire, one who is contented with his lot, and you will not find one such in a thousand....Today we must buy an overcoat and galoshes, tomorrow, a watch and a chain; the next day we must install ourselves in an apartment with a sofa and a bronze lamp; then we must have carpets and velvet gowns; then a house, horses and carriages, paintings and decorations."

Opiniile stravechi, confirmate in prezent "Contemporary chroniclers of wealth concur. For decades Lewis Lapham, born into an oil fortune, has been asking people how much money they would need to be happy. "No matter what their income," he reports, "a depressing number of Americans believe that if only they had twice as much, they would inherit the estate of happiness promised them in the Declaration of Independence. The man who receives $15,000 a year is sure that he could relieve his sorrow if he had only $30,000 a year; the man with $1 million a year knows that all would be well if he had $2 million a year....Nobody," he concludes, "ever has enough."
If human desires are in fact infinitely expandable, consumption is ultimately incapable of providing fulfillment--a logical consequence ignored by economic theory. Indeed, social scientists have found striking evidence that high-consumption societies, just as high-living individuals, consume ever more without achieving satisfaction. The allure of the consumer society is powerful, even irresistible, but it is shallow nonetheless."

Fericirea natiunilor, putin dependenta de realizarile lor materiale "Measured in constant dollars, the world's people have consumed as many goods and services since 1950 as all previous generations put together. Since 1940, Americans alone have used up as large a share of the earth's mineral resources as did everyone before them combined Yet this historical epoch of titanic consumption appears to have failed to make the consumer class any happier. Regular surveys by the National Opinion Research Centre of the University of Chicago reveal, for example, that no more Americans report they are "very happy" now than in 1957. The "very happy" share of the population has fluctuated around one-third since the mid-fifties, despite near-doubling in both gross national product and personal consumption expenditures per capita.
A landmark study in 1974 revealed that Nigerians, Filipinos, Panamanians, Yugoslavians, Japanese, Israelis, and West Germans all ranked themselves near the middle on a happiness scale. Confounding any attempt to correlate material prosperity with happiness, low-income Cubans and affluent Americans both reported themselves considerably happier than the norm, and citizens of India and the Dominican Republic, less so. As psychologist Michael Argyle writes, "There is very little difference in the levels of reported happiness found in rich and very poor countries." Any relationship that does exist between income and happiness is relative rather than absolute.
The happiness that people derive from consumption is based on whether they consume more than their neighbours and more than they did in the past. Thus, psychological data from diverse societies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Brazil, and India show that the top income strata tend to be slightly happier than the middle strata, and the bottom group tends to be the least happy. The Upper classes in any society are more satisfied with their lives than the lower classes are, but they are no more satisfied than the upper classes of much poorer countries--nor than the upper classes were in the less affluent past. Consumption is thus a treadmill, with everyone judging their status by who is ahead and who is behind."

Luxul devenit necesitate
"The reason, argues Stanford University economist Tibor Scitovsky, is that consumption is addictive: each luxury quickly becomes a necessity, and a new luxury must be found. This is as true for the young Chinese factory worker exchanging a radio for a black-and-white television as it is for the Sherman junior executive trading in a BMW for a Mercedes. Luxuries become necessities between generations as well. People measure their current material comforts against the benchmark set in their own childhood. So each generation needs more than the previous did to be satisfied. Over a few generations, this process can redefine prosperity as poverty. The ghettos of the United States and Europe have things such as televisions that would have awed the richest neighbourhoods of centuries past, but that does not diminish the scorn the consumer class heaps on slum dwellers, nor the bitterness belt by the modernised poor.

With consumption standards perpetually rising, society is literally insatiable. The definition of a "decent" standard of living--the necessities of life for a member in good standing in the consumer society-endlessly shifts upward. The child whose parents have not purchased the latest video game feels ashamed to invite friends home. Teenagers without an automobile do not feel equal to their peers. In the clipped formulation of economists, "Needs are socially defined, and escalate with the rate of economic progress." The relationships between consumption and satisfaction are thus subtle, involving comparisons over time and with social norms. Yet studies on happiness indicate a far less subtle fact as well. The main determinants of happiness in life are not related to consumption at all--prominent among them are satisfaction with family life, especially marriage, followed by satisfaction with work, leisure to develop talents, and friendships."
Cele trei surse de fericire: relatiile sociale, munca si timpul liber
"Oxford University psychologist Michael Argyle's comprehensive work The Psychology of Happiness concludes: "The conditions of life which really make a difference to happiness are those covered by three sources-social relations, work and leisure. And the establishment of a satisfying state of affairs in these sphere does not depend much on wealth, either absolute or relative." Indeed, some evidence suggests that social relations, especially in households and communities, are neglected in the consumer society; leisure likewise tares worse among the consumer class than many assume. The consumer society fails to deliver on its promise of fulfillment through material comforts because human wants are insatiable, human needs are socially defined, and the real sources of personal happiness are elsewhere. Indeed, the strength of social relations and the quality of leisure--both crucial psychological determinants of happiness in life--appear as much diminished as enhanced in the consumer class. The consumer society, it seems, has impoverished us by raising our income."

Desi textul nu aduce nimic nou fata de cele prezentate pana acum pe acest blog, el are meritul de a demonstra ca filosofia si stiinta anti-materialista si anti-consumerista au o imensa traditie si continuitate. Faptul ca aceleasi rezultate, aceleasi dovezi ale neputintei banilor de a spori fericirea, au fost gandite si, ulterior demonstrate in repetate randul, de-al lungul unor mari perioade de timp, este in sine un argument ce atesta valabilitatea lor.

Microbi neoliberali

Un grup de trei cercetatori de la Mount Saint Vincent University, in speta Sue L. T. McGregor, Janice Doull, & Larry Fisk, au publicat la 5 noiembrie 2004 un articol intitulat "Neoliberalism, Microbes, and Peace: A Human Ecological Perspective". Textul este o pertinenta critica a neoliberalismului, ideologia politica dominanta din prezent, aratand cum asmenea unui microb, liberalismul favorizeaza aparitia bolilor, atat fizice cat si spirituale, in randul populatiilor.

Prezentare generala

"The intent of this discussion is to draw links between the neoliberal ideology, microbes, and peace. Stranger bedfellows there may never have been; however, the premise of this paper is that there are powerful connections between these three notions, connections that can be perceived from a human ecological perspective. We argue that embracing a particular ideology explains the sanctioning of patterns of behaviour and lines of thinking that affect, and are affected by, peace in a society. [...]
Our basic line of reasoning is that adhering to the neoliberal ideology provides justification for exploiting both people and the ecosystems of the world. This exploitation leads to oppression and povertization of people and to the destruction of ecosystems. The latter can lead to the freeing of viruses and bacteria (microbes) from their conventional habitats and modus operandi, culminating in old microbes appearing in new places adapting to current antibiotics, or both. The former can lead to unsanitary conditions and overcrowding which create a ripe environment for the proliferation of illness due to viral outbreaks of infectious diseases. Microbes are also being used as biological weapons in instances of conflict, outbreaks of violence, and dissidence, jeopardizing peace. Indeed, we hope to show, from a human ecological perspective, that embracing the neoliberal ideology justifies, what seems to be, totally unjustifiable, culpable behaviour, all in the name of profit, power, and control."

Ce este neoliberalismul?
"One basic assumption of neoliberalism is that human beings will always try to favour themselves. As they do this, they need have no concern for others or the environment. This absence of concern can exist because each person is assumed to act absolutely independently of others and is assumed to be restricted only by the natural surroundings and NOT by any other human being (Rösch, 1998). The tenets of neoliberalism have absolutely no concern for the impact of current decisions and patterns of behaviour on others elsewhere, not yet born, or the ecosystem. Other values of neoliberalism are ownership of private property, competition and an emphasis on individual success measured through endless work and ostentatious consumption (Acción Zapastista de Austin, 1996). These values reflect three basic tenets of neoliberalism: (a) the necessity of free markets (where we work and consume), (b) individualism, and (c) the pursuit of narrow self-interest rather than mutual interest, with the assumption that these three tenets will lead to social good."

Asadar, neoliberalismul este ideologia egoismului si individualismului, cinismului, consumerismului si goanei nestavilite dupa profit. Conform liberalilor, nimic nu trebuie sa stea in calea lacomiei, singurul rol al statului, restrand la minim, fiind acela de a asigura existenta "pietei libere". Cuvantul libertate aici nu inseamna decat "fiecare pe cont propriu", in care, evident, castigatorii din start sunt marii proprietari de capital.

"Neoliberalists eliminate the concept of the public good and the community and replace it with individual responsibility. Advocates of neoliberalism believe in pressuring the poorest people in a society to find their own solutions to their lack of health care, education, and social security all by themselves. They are then blamed and called lazy if they fail (Martinez & Garcia, 2000). Remember that neoliberalism focuses on the individual. People embracing the neoliberal ideology truly believe that ethics, morality, and social ideals are the responsibility of each individual person, not the state and certainly not private enterprise (Rösch, 1998). Also, under neoliberalism, people do not care about the social conditions of production but they do respect private property and they do get their personal identity through private consumption. They live to buy (Lauesen, 1996). Transactional corporations live to sell, be damned the social, equity, or ecological consequences and feel quite justified in doing so."

Neoliberalismul, dusmanul pacii si omenirii:
"Concern for equality, justice, gender, rights, and morality is foreign to anyone embracing neoliberalism. The only legitimate role for government is to make sure the free economy can run unencumbered. Ironically, neoliberalists will argue that healthy economic development is essential to peace, security, human rights, social justice, cultural pluralism and diversity, and democracy. These same people think neoliberal economics is regarded as the key to all doors for trade (finances and merchandise) and find it natural to measure the worth of men, women, and children by their effectiveness as an economic tool. This view is in total opposition to peace proponents who envision a world where economic, political, and social institutions exist to serve humanity not the other way round (International Movement for a Just World, 1997).

The militarization of societies, in response to the weapons industry and the increased social unrest, is a permanent characteristic of neoliberalism. Worse yet, under neoliberalism, the weak state tends to dedicate important human and nonhuman resources to the protection and subsidy of corporations and to deny protection to marginalized groups and the vulnerable ecosystems (Rodriguez, 1994). Under neoliberalism, the state is not the source of power; rather, power is held by the corporations and the financial centres of the world, comprising financial institutions that lend money to businesses. Their power exists because the capitalist (neoliberalist), who buys and sells money (called currencies), can sell a country’s money if he does not like the policies put in place by the country. He especially is inclined to do this if those policies infringe on profit, property ownership, or movement of goods and services. It is noteworthy that neoliberalists do not oppose government policies that favour subsidies or tax breaks for businesses. They do not, however, like government to spend money on social services or community because they do not concern themselves with the social conditions of their labour pool except to guarantee minimum wages, unorganized labour, and no worker conditions that interfere with production and profit. Recall that positive peace represents the presence of economic practices that contribute to the safe, fair, and healthy living of citizens. Lack of sanitary and safe working conditions can lead to "crowd" infectious diseases that flourish in densely populated areas with poor sanitation leading to civil unrest and lack of peace. This is another example of the implicit link between neoliberalism, peace, and microbes."

Divizarea societatii
"It may seem contradictory but neoliberalistic globalization actually produces a fragmented world, full of isolated pieces, often in conflict with each other. Acción Zapastista de Austin (1996) discusses neoliberalism and violence explaining that neoliberalism seeks to disempower marginalized and fragmented groups by converting their differences and diversity into antagonisms along the lines of income, race, gender, and ethnicity. Neoliberalism's divide and conquer tactic, by turning people against each other, is completely justified given that it assumes that everyone acts independently of others and only in their own self-interest. Central to this antagonism is violence, which is especially manifested in situations characterized by poverty, hunger, urbanization, undereducation, disenfranchisement, and exposure to avoidable diseases. Violence is a form of negative peace."

In concluzie, "where there is war, violence, injustice, exploitation, absence of liberty, and curtailment of popular movements (including movements related to labour, consumer, women, children, environment, and civil rights), there is no peace. We are hard pressed not to say simply that where there is neoliberalism, there can ultimately be no peace."

Timpul liber si simplitatea voluntara

Bryan Smale preda la Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. In articolul sau "Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyle and the Realationship between Leisure and Psychological Well-Being", Smale evidentiaza importanta pentru fericire si bunastarea personala a timpului liber si recreatiei, aratand totodata ca trecerea de la un stil de viata consumerist la unui relexat, al simplitatii voluntare, amplifica efectele benefice ale timpului liber.

Importanta pentru fericire a timpului liber
"Leisure typically has been regarded as a positive component in people's lives, enriching their well-being and providing balance in otherwise hectic lifestyles. In fact, Kelly and Godbey (1992) have suggested that there is "evidence that leisure may be central rather than peripheral to life's central concerns" (p. 270). From early days, leisure has been attributed with the potential to achieve self-actualization and self-development (Dumazedier, 1967; Pieper, 1963), to help cope with stress (Caltabiano, 1994, 1995; Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993), to lead to higher levels of happiness, life satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Iso-Aholo & Weissinger, 1984; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997; Smale & Dupuis, 1993), and to enhance personal and family relationships, build communities and foster expressions of citizenship (Arai & Pedlar, 1997; Hemingway, 1999) and respect for the environment (Devall, 1988). Indeed, Weinblatt and Navon (1995) argue, "studies of leisure generally emphasize leisure's contribution to both the individual and society... [leisure is] conducive to psychological well-being, to physical health, and to the stability of social groups" (p. 309).""

Asadar, departe de a fi o distractie sterila sau individualista, activitatile din timpul liber au rolul de a spori bunastarea psihicia, sanatatea fizica, stabilitatea si coeziunea sociala.

Virtutile timpului liber, viciate de societatea de consum
"The extent to which we are able to reach the potential that leisure provides for achieving such outcomes very much depends on the role that leisure plays in our lives, how we experience our leisure, and whether the conditions are present to facilitate positive outcomes (Kleiber, 1999). In this regard, Hemingway (1996), among others, has expressed the concern that our leisure is becoming increasingly instrumentalised by the technical, consumerist nature of modern society, and therefore is offered much more as a product to be consumed rather than an independent
process, voluntarily undertaken, to achieve certain outcomes (Kelly & Godbey, 1992; Wearing & Wearing, 1992).
As a consequence, the consumer society compels us to "act" more so than to "think" or "feel" in our leisure. Hemingway (1996) goes further and argues that unless leisure is freed from this "instrumental deformation", we will be unable to encounter or experience the emancipation leisure has to offer us. Indeed, Durning (1993) suggests that our personal happiness is lessened by consumerism and leisure fares much worse among the consumer class than many might assume because "the very sources of satisfaction tend to get squeezed out as individuals pursue their high-consumption lifestyles" (p. 21). Hence, the commodification of leisure may in fact inhibit our ability to realise the positive benefits of leisure."

Pe scurt, in loc ca activitatea de recreere sa fie una aleasa de buna voie, in acord cu nevoile psihice personale, ea a devenit o activitate ghidata de societatea de consum, un simplu instrument si oportunitate de a consuma si mai mult.

Ce este simplitatea voluntara?
"An individual's lifestyle can be described as the behaviours and attitudes that characterise one's existence (Sessoms, 1980). It is, in essence, a value orientation reflected in the activities in which we engage and the beliefs we hold (Mitchell, 1983). However, lifestyle has not lent itself easily to measurement. In this study, lifestyle has been conceptualised and operationalised using a "voluntary simplicity" value orientation, first put forward by Gregg (1936).
In essence, "voluntary simplicity" provides a conceptual framework that encompasses the main defining dimensions (or values) of a typical lifestyle, such as work, family, leisure, spirituality, citizenship, community, and relationship to the environment. Drawing on the work of authors such as Elgin and Mitchell (1977), Shama and Wisenblit (1984), Elgin (1993), and Burch (1997), four basic dimensions can be consistently identified as defining a voluntary simplicity lifestyle: (1) material simplicity, which reflects a non-consumptive, less materialistic orientation;
(2) self-determination, which reflects the desire to assume greater control over personal destiny;
(3) ecological awareness, which recognises the interdependency of people and environmental resources; and
(4) personal growth, which reflects a desire to explore and develop the "inner life". Proponents of voluntary simplicity argue that individuals who reflect these dimensions in their lifestyles are more process-oriented and derive greater satisfaction and psychological well-being from their activities by resisting more consumer-oriented, product-driven lifestyles."

Asadar, stilul de viata al simplitatii voluntare se caracterizeaza prin simplitatea materiala, un control sporit asupra vietii personale, atitudini ecologiste si, in general, o atentie mai mare acordata valorilor intelectuale, intrinseci decat celor exterioare precum bogatie materiale, moda, aspect fizic, ascensiune sociala etc.

Mai departe, Bryan Smale realizeaza un studiu in care isi propune sa verifice daca intr-adevar, adeptii simplitatii voluntare au capacitatea de a se bucura mai intesn de timpul lor liber decat consumeristii.
"Using the concept of a voluntary simplicity lifestyle, the purpose of this study was to examine the role that lifestyle dimensions play in the relationship between leisure and psychological well-being. More specifically, the basic question underlying this inquiry is whether specific lifestyle orientations are, in fact, better able to facilitate positive well-being through leisure. Given the concerns expressed by Hemingway (1996) and others, some related research questions include: (a) is the experience of leisure and levels of psychological well-being for those who reflect a voluntary simplicity lifestyle significantly more positive than for those who do not?; (b) are certain lifestyle dimensions more strongly related to higher levels of psychological well-being?; and (c) are some leisure activities more often associated with a voluntary simplicity lifestyle and ultimately better able to facilitate the positive benefits of leisure?"

Raspunsul lui Bryan Smale? Downshifter-ii, cei care au ales simplitatea voluntara, se bucura, intr-adevar, mai mult de timpul lor liber pe care il fructifica intr-un mod superior. Nu e de mirare, din moment ce simplitatea voluntara se axeaza mai mult pe valorile intrinseci iar, dupa cum am vazut, timpul liber este folosit la maxim atunci cand presupune dezvoltarea personala, evitarea stresului, imbunatatirea relatiilor familiale si sociale.

"Lifestyles that more strongly embraced voluntary simplicity were associated with higher levels of challenge (r= .296, p<.001) and awareness (r= .326, p<.001), and lower levels of anxiety (r= -.215, p=.001) and boredom (r= -.356, p<.001) in the experience of leisure. Finally, when examining the relationships of dimensions of a voluntary simplicity lifestyle with psychological well-being, lower levels of material simplicity were significantly related to higher levels of psychological well-being (r= -.139, p=.034) and higher levels of personal growth were notably, albeit not significantly, related to higher levels of psychological well-being (r= .128, p=.052). When all the factors are taken together, a significant proportion of psychological well-being is explained (R2=.245, p<.001) by the experience of leisure, especially high challenge (BETA=.248, p=.001) and not participation, and by a more voluntarily simplistic lifestyle that is most characterised by the material simplicity dimension (BETA= -.169, p=.037).

These results, then, suggest that regardless of the kind and intensity of involvement we have in our leisure time, if higher challenge and lower anxiety are sought through leisure, especially as expressed within a voluntary simplicity lifestyle, then higher levels of psychological well-being might be achieved. Indeed, by reducing complexity and lessening the focus on consumerism, the inherent value of leisure to our well-being might well emerge to a greater degree."

Ceea ce e suficient sa retinem din articolul lui Bryan Smale este ca 1. activitatile din timpul liber au o importanta deosebita pentru viata personala si sociala, nefiind deloc doar actiuni sterile si simplu "distractive" si 2. adoptarea unui stil de viata precum cel propus de miscarea simplitatii voluntare si valorile presupuse de ea ajuta la utilizarea timpului liber la maxim, extragand din activitatile incluse in aceasta categorie maxim de satisfactie psihica.

Neajunsurile cresterii economice

Tejvan Richard Pettinger a studiat Politica, Filosofia si Economia la universitatea din Oxford, in prezent predand economie la Cherwell College, Oxford. Pe saitul sau, Economics Help, Pettinger a postat la 26 martie 2007 un articol intitulat "Does Economics Growth Bring Increased Living Standards?", in care arata cateva dintre neajunsurile majore ale cresterii economice, explicand astfel de ce progresul economic si material nu a dus la cresterea fericirii populatiei din tarile bogate.
Motivele sunt, in ordinea prezentata de autor:

1.Satisfactia si rostul date de bogatie scad treptat

If a section of the population is living in absolute poverty, economic growth enables people to have higher incomes and therefore they will be able to afford the basic necessities of life such as; food, and shelter. When economic growth can overcome this type of poverty there is a clear link with improved living standards. However, when incomes increase from say $35,000 a year to $36,000 the improvement in living standards is harder to justify. Diminishing returns is a basic economic concept, which suggests the tenth unit of a good will give much less satisfaction than the first. If we already have 2 cars, does our living standards really improve if we now have the capacity to own 3 cars? Often as economic growth increases incomes, people increasingly save their money (higher marginal propensity to save) this is basically because they struggle to find anything meaningful to spend their money on."

Altfel spus, cresterea economica se justifica atunci cand ridica segmente importante din populatie deasupra pragului saraciei pana in punctul in care isi permit sa achizitioneze hrana si un adapost. mai departe insa, diferenta dintre a avea doua automobile sau trei este practic nula, astfel incat unii oameni cu bani ajung sa economiseasca bani din simplul motiv ca nu au pe ce sa-i mai cheltuiasca.

2. Externalitatile cresterii

"Economic Growth with involves increased output causes external side effects, such, as increased pollution. Global warming from pollution is becoming a real problem for society. The economic and social costs could potentially be greater than all the perceived benefits of recent economic growth. However, it is worth noting that economic growth doesn’t necessarily have to cause pollution. The benefits of growth could be used to develop better technologies that create less pollution. It is just at the moment this has been a low priority."

Cresterea economica inseamna si poluare si risipa de resurse, astfel incat pe termen lung ea e probabil sa dea nastere unor probleme de mediu extrem de serioase. Pettinger se arata optimist in privinta gasirii unor posibile tehnologii care sa mentina ritmul crescut economic din anumite tari fara a dauna mediului, desi pe de alta parte recunoaste ca nu s-au facut deloc progrese in acest sens si o asemenea agenda ecologista ramane in continuare o prioritate scazuta.

3. Saracia relativa

"It is perhaps a paradox that higher economic growth can cause an increase in relative poverty. This is because those who benefit from growth are often the highly educated and those who own wealth. In 1980s and 1990s higher growth in the UK and US has resulted in increased inequality. However, it depends on how growth is managed; economic growth can be used to reduce inequality. This occurred in 50s and 60s."

Pettinger nu ocoleste nici problema cresterii inegalitatilor sociale, odata cu imbogatirea economica a unei societati. Se naste astfel saracia relativa, creata involuntar dar cu urmari reale in starea debine a populatiei. Cei care au prosperat mai putin decat ceilalti se simt marginalizati, frustrati si saraci, chiar si daca nu e vorba de o saracie absoluta.

4. Cresterea infractionalitatii

"It is another paradox that as incomes increase and people are better off the level of crime has increased as well. This suggests that crime is not motivated by poverty but perhaps envy. One reason why crime rates increase is that quite simply there are more things to steal. Back in the 1930s auto theft, mobile phone theft e.t.c were rare or non-existent. Economic Growth has created more goods to steal. However the link isn’t absolute for example in recent years crime rates in US have reduced from their peak. But there has been a general association between growth and crimes."

Autorul argumenteaza ca progresul economic nu duce, asa cum ne-am astepta la o prima vedere, la o scadere a infractionalitatii, ci la o crestere a sa. Intr-adevar, cu cat apar mai multe bogatii materiale in societate, cu atat tentatia de a fura este mai mare. De fapt, chiar si daca per total numarul de infractiuni se mentine constant (in loc sa creasca) in ciuda cresterii economice, demonstreaza ineficienta acestei cresteri, printre care ar fi trebuit sa fie si scaderea criminalitatii.

5. Cresterea orelor de munca

"In the beginning of the industrial revolution, higher growth led to people working lower hours. However, in the past couple of decades higher incomes have actually led to people working longer hours. It seems people are unable to enjoy their higher incomes. Feeling the necessity or preferring to work longer hours. This suggest people are valuing earning money more than leisure. However, this trend may also be due to companies wanting people to work longer hours."

Deci desi suntem mai bogati, muncim mai mult, ceea ce inseamna ca progresul economic este insotit de deteriorarea vietii personale si a timpului nostru liber.

7. Bolile bogatiei

"Economic Growth has enabled improved health care treatments, but at the same time there has been an unexpected rise in the number of diseases and illnesses related to increased prosperity. One example is obesity. Modern lifestyles and modern diets have created an epidemic of obesity, with significant proportions of the population expressing a desire to lose weight. It could be argued that problems such as obesity and stress related illnesses are not a direct consequence of growth. This is true, but, it is symbolic of the fact increased prosperity has created as many new problems as it has solved."

Dupa cum bine puncteaza autorul, cresterea economica a rezolvat atatea probleme de sanatate ale populatiei pe cat a creat, ceea ce per total, nu e un motiv de a o continua.

E bine de avut in vedere aceste scurte argumente impotriva cresterii expuse de Pettinger atunci cand le raspundem adeptilor progresului economic si opozantilor filosofiei anti-materialiste si a timpului liber promovate de downshifting.

Doua studii recente despre inegalitatile economice si adaptarea la venitul ridicat

Studiul numarul 1:
Primul studiu prezentat aici, aparut la 17 noiembrie 2008, ii apartine doctorandului Jean-Benoit Gregoire Rousseau si este intitulat `Happiness and Income Inequality`. Principalele sale teze sunt urmatoarele trei:

1. incepand cu 1975, in SUA principalele castiguri materiale au fost acaparate de cei mai bogati 20% dintre locuitori, inegalitatile socio-economice adancindu-se intre cei mai bogati si restul societatii.

2. in `Capitala capitalului`, fericirea bogatasilor a stagnat in acelasi interval de timp (in ciuda imbogatirii lor consistente), pe cand cea a restului societatii a scazut.

3. 10 ore de timp liber echivaleaza in domeniul bunastarii cu o crestere de peste 6% a veniturilor materiale.
In cuvintele autorului,

"This paper shows that the lack of growth in average well-being, despite substantial GDP per capita growth, in the US is not a paradox. It can be explained by changes in the income distribution and the concavity of the happiness function. Since 1975 in the United-States practically all of the income gains that have accrued to households have gone to the richest 20%; income inequality has increased signicantly over that period.
A similar pattern can be observed in subjective well-being measures: the happiness gap between the rich and the poor has widened over the last decades. Happiness has stagnated for the rich and fallen for the poor. Formal analysis suggests that the happiness function can be approximated by a log-linear relationship and conrms that there is no satiation in the function. The analyses present corrections of the slope of the happiness function for taxes, the transitory nature of income and leisure. In the
US, 10 hours of weekly leisure have a similar eect on individual happiness as a 6.25% raise in income."

Ingrijoratoare sunt statisticile mentionate de Rousseau cu privire la cresterea inegalitatilor socio-economice din ultimele trei decenii in SUA:
"Income inequality has grown among the GSS respondents [The General Social Survey (GSS) is a repeated micro-level cross section survey of about 1600 Americans covering the years 1972 to 2006 (with some gaps)] over the last decades. Real income for the bottom and second quintile has decreased by an average of 0.58% and 0.55% a year respectively. Real incomes for the third, fourth and top quintile has increased by an average of 0.15%, 0.79% and 0.90% a year respectively. The gap between the 1st and 5th quintile has grown by about 1.5% per year.
While the average income of the top quintile was about 9 times that of the bottom's in 1973, by the end of 2006 it was close to 10.5 times larger. These patterns are somewhat representative of the American population; income inequality measured by data from the Current Population Survey exhibits similar trends. Real income for the bottom, second, third, fourth and top quintile grew respectively by 0.57%, 0.45%, 0.58%, 0.87% and 1.40%. The income gap between the top and bottom quintile has been growing by an average 0.82% a year. The average income of the top quintile was about 10 times that of the bottom's in 1972 and by the end of 2006 it was close to 13.5 times larger."

Drept urmare, "Also, not only has income inequality increased since the mid seventies but real income for the poorest two quintiles has dropped
over that period. The observed happiness trends are consistent with the proposed explanation: happiness has barely increased for the rich and it has dropped for the poor." Si inca: "Over the last thirty-ve years the happiness gap between the rich and the poor has widened in pair with income inequality. Although the relative income of the top earners has increased
their happiness has not. Alternatively, happiness has fallen for the poor."

Pe langa neputinta capitalismului de a spori fericirea totala a populatiei, din cauza inegalitatilor pe care le favorizeaza si a incapacitatii bogatiei in sine sa aduca fericire, aceste statistici demonteaza o gandire raspandita, aceea a "trickle down effect". Adeptii sai sustin ca imbogatirea celor deja bogati e benefica pentru restul societatii, care isi va vedea la randul sau veniturile crescute, chiar daca in proportii mult mai modeste. Iata, deci, ca in realitate pe cand cei mai bogati se imbogatesc, cei mai saraci saracesc sau, in cel mai bun caz, stagneaza.

Al doilea studiu:
Al doilea studiu pe care il voi trece in revista, datand din decembrie 2008, le apartine cercetatorilor Rafael Di Tella si Robert MacCulloch, purtand titlul "Happiness Adaptation to Income Beyond Basic Needs". Cei doi puncteaza si confirma descoperirile altor numeroase articole similare, anume ca odata trecut pragul saraciei, adica ce nevoile de baza sunt satisfacute, veniturile suplimentare au in cel mai bun caz un impact modest asupra fericirii. Astfel, pentru tarile bogate, progresul economic inregistrat in ultimele aproximativ patru decenii este in buna masura inutil:

"We test for whether, once "basic needs" are satisfied, there is happiness adaptation to further gains in income using three data sets. Individual German Panel Data from 1985-2000, and data on the well-being of over 600,000 people in a panel of European countries from 1975-2002, shows different patterns of adaptation to income across the rich and poor.
We find evidence that for wealthy Germans, and for the rich half of European nations, higher levels of per capita income don’t buy greater happiness.
The reason appears to be adaptation. However even for the rich half of European nations such habituation may take over 5 years so the happiness gains that they experience, whilst not permanent, can still be relatively long-lasting.
Finally we study a cross section of nations in 2005 from the World Gallup Poll and find that the past 45 years of economic growth (from 1960-2005) in the rich half of nations has not brought happiness gains above those that were already in place once the 1960s standard of living had been achieved. However in the poorest half of nations we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the happiness gains they have experienced from the past 45 years of growth have been the same as the gains that they experienced from growth prior to the 1960s."

Concluziile lucrarii nu lasa loc de interpretari, desi trebuie subliniat ca desi bogatia aduce o crestere a satisfactiei ce poate dura in jur de cinci ani, aceasta este practic inexistenta, de 0,15 unitati pe o scara de la 1 la 10: "The coefficient is positive and highly significant – suggesting that the log of income is a significant determinant of happiness. However the size of the effect is not large: a doubling of income would move one up just 0.15
units on the 0-10 happiness scale."

Tom Wessels si mitul progresului

Tom Wessels este specialist in ecologie si preda la Antioch New England Graduate School. In lucrarea sa „The Myth of Progress”, aparuta la University of Vermont Press in 2006, Wessels combate importanta pe care multi o acorda progresului material ce a avut loc in unele segmente ale populatiei din unele tari din Occident. Pe scurt, desi admite ca durata vietii a crescut datorita progreselor tehnologice, calitatea ei lasa mult de dorit. De pilda, faptul ca traim mai mult nu inseamna ca suntem si mai sanatori. Totodata, succesele materialiste aduc cu ele un pret greu de platit, precum cresterea stresului zilnic, depresiei, anxietatii, obezitatii si izolarii sociale. Iar peste toate aceste nenorociri, troneaza dezastrul ecologic, batjocorirea mediului inconjurator cauzata de mania materialist-consumerista.

Mizeriile materialismului
„The more affluent people become, the greater the rates of anxiety, depression, and social isolation. Studies also show that with increased affluence people use more drugs and alcohol and have decreased levels of vitality. As previously mentioned, the indicators of progress that we most commenly use relate to material progress—GDP, per capita income, and increasing life expectancy—and they are all measures of quantity rather quality. Let us look at the last indicator: life expectancy. People in the United States are living longer due to medical technology—a form of material progress—but are they living physically healthier lives? I pointed aut in the introduction that one aut of three Americans is overweight and obesity has seriously increased by more than 400 percent in the last two decades. Asthma rates continue to increase, particularly in children. An estimated 6,5 percent of Americans are diabetic, many of these due to obesity. Heart disease continues to be the number one killer. These are all diseases that have a strong environmental basis. They are indicators of a society in which the physical well-being of citizens is deteriorating, not progressing, and contribute to the annual rise in healthcare costs.

A similar trend can be seen in emotional well-being: Skyrocketing rates of environmentalyy induced unipolar depression and suicide hold as the eighth leading cause of premature death. Yes, we are living longer due to medical interventions, but do these trends suggest we are living better? When people gains too much material affluence, their focus is often turned to their possessions and the maintenance of an affluent lifestyle. It is true that possessions can bring ephemeral pleasure, but as Kasser`s work points out, rarely does consumption lead tu fulfillment. When an individual`s focus is primarily directed at material wealth, his attention is drawn inward, shrinking his emotional sphere. Even though he may have the financial means to promote community outreach, it isn`t necessarily on his screen. In this way possessions can develop ownership over people as they become enslaved to a material-rich life-style—an enslavement that can erode both physical and emotional well-being. I contend that our society has focused far too long on materialism as a means to progress, halting real societal progress.

Today there is a loud call to rework our educational system to prepare a more sophisticated work force that will be able to handle the new, highly skilled jobs that globalization will produce. I hear fewer voices out there calling for changes in education to promote social capital or engaged citizenship; as a matter of fact, voting rates in the United States have dropped below 50 percent. How is it that a country that is thye hallmark of democracy has witnessed the erosion of civic responsibility? I believe that the pursuit of material progress has usurped the sociopolitical ideals on which the Unites States was founded.”

Care este solutia propusa de Wessels? O reintoarcere la valorile colectiviste, la simplitate, la desfiintarea proprietatii private a mijloacelor de productie, la egalitarismul societatilor tip vanator-culegator.

Schita pentru o societate normala
"Economist Herman Daly has already developed a model for a socioeconomic system thatfunctions in dynamic equilibrium. David Korten, in his book The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism, goes further in modeling “living economies” that function under the same principles as life’s complex systems. Korten’s basic attributes of living economies grow out of the concept of selforganization in biological systems—that systems increase complexity, diversity, integration, and stability through time. Korten advocates replacing huge multinational corporations with smaller local and regional businesses that are specifically adapted to the region they serve. If these businesses are publicly owned, the ownership is by citizens of the region. In this way businesses and their shareholders will work for the good of their community and regional environment rather than solely attempting to maximize profit. Businesses should share information and work to support each other rather than engaging in competitive exclusion. This cooperation would result in more specialized and integrated commercial enterprises. Businesses should strive to be frugal and very efficient in their use of material and energy resources. This would not only decrease consumption and waste but allow more resources to be available for other businesses."

Comunitatile vanator-culegator, un exemplu de viitor
„Hunter-gatherer desert culture was based in nomadic clans of a few dozen people. Within theclan group each person had a specific role, and the entire clan group relied heavily on each other and shared all that it had. Like all hunter--gatherer groups, if someone was successful in a hunt, the meat was shared with those who didn’t have success. If any individual accumulated too many possessions, a giving-away ceremony took place so that no one individual had too much. In this way, these ancient people practiced reciprocal altruism as a means to survive in this harsh environment. There was no room for personal greed. All individuals had a direct voice in how the affairs of the clan would develop—whether they should move to the next tank, celebrate a particular occasion, or conduct a sacred ritual. For these people the idea of needing to create community would have been absurd.

They were community—on the deepest of levels. Through stories and rituals, in joy and sorrow, they shared the very core of their lives. I believe that this very strong sense of community, where each member was truly an integral part, greatly enriched their experience of life.Not only did each individual have a critical place within the clan, each individual also clearlyknew his or her place within the world. Through rich traditions, in the form of stories, rituals, and sacred practices (all of which had been passed from generation to generation for hundreds, possibly thousands of years), these people were seamlessly woven into their landscape. As hunter-gatherers they saw themselves as a part of the land, not apart from it, sharing it with all the other plants and creatures on whom they depended for survival. Their world made sense—it was truly their home.

Finally, like all hunter-gatherers, they had plenty of time to socialize, tell stories, make crafts,and reflect on their existence. Reflective practice is essential to convert knowledge into understanding and, eventually, wisdom.”

Fragmentele citate pot fi gasite in context la adresa:
http://www.neeea.org/NEJEE/NEJEESEPT2007Tom%20Wessels.pdf

Studiul fericirii si redistribuirea averilor

Thomas D. Griffith, absolvent magna cum laude al Universitatii Brown si Scolii de Drept Harvard, este specialist in studiul si implementarea impozitarii si taxarii, predand cursurile Contracts, Corporate Taxation, Criminal Law, Topics in Criminology and Federal Income Taxation la University of Southern California.

In studiul sau "Progressive Taxation and Happiness" (The State of Federal Income Tax Symposium: Rates, Progressivity, and Budget Processes), publicat in Boston College Law Review 1363 (2004), Griffith arata cum concluziile studierii raportului dintre bani si fericire justifica practica redistribuirii averilor de la bogati la saraci, prin intermediul impozitarii progresive. Odata depasit un modest prag material, veniturile nu mai au o influenta pozitiva relevanta asupra fericirii personale, in schimb veniturile insuficiente pentru depasirea pragului saraciei inseamna suferinta. Astfel, pentru a spori fericirea colectiva a societatii, redistribuirea veniturilor este o solutie imediata si la indemana.

Dupa cum isi prezinta Griffith studiul:

„This Article explores the optimal level of income redistribution by examining the potential welfare gains from redistributive tax and spending policies. Drawing on recent research on human happiness, this Article argues that while wealthy nations are generally happier than their poorer counterparts, neither national nor individual economic growth appear to have an appreciable impact on the subjective well-being of the citizens of relatively wealthy nations. Significant causes of this finding include the problem of rivalry—that increases in the income of some depress the happiness of others—and the fact that individuals overestimate the degree to which additional consumption will improve their happiness. Studies show the level of inequality in a society also may affect levels of happiness. Ultimately, happiness research is consistent with the strongest justification for adopting a progressive tax structure—income has declining marginal utility thus redistribution can increase total welfare in a society.”

Autorul incepe articolul propriu-zis prin a sublinia validitatea studiilor si concluziilor lor asupra fericirii personale.

„Despite potential cognitive biases, it seems that a meaningful relationship exists between self-reported utility and the respondent’s underlying mental state. Notwithstanding the influence of temporary factors such as current mood, reported well-being remains fairly stable across situations. Reported levels of pleasant and unpleasant moods during work, for example, show a strong correlation with reported levels of pleasant and unpleasant moods during recreation. Further, reported life satisfaction is fairly stable throughout an individual’s life span. Self-reported well-being strongly correlates with the reports of family and friends and with the amount of smiling during an interview. Self-reported welfare also correlates with the ability of respondents to recall positive events in their lives.
In addition, more “objective” measures of a successful life correspond with self-reported happiness. Individuals who report themselves to be happy, for example, are less likely to be absent from work, less likely to die prematurely, and less likely to have headaches, digestive disorders, and similar ailments. In sum, while not without problems, research based on subjective measures of well-being may provide useful information about the causes and correlates of human happiness.”

Despre fericirea natiunilor

„The relationship between income and well-being is not uniform throughout the income distribution. For poor nations, additional income appears to have a significant impact on reported well-being. Once citizens of a nation have reached a level of reasonable financial security, however, additional income has little effect. (...) The finding that additional income has a greater impact in poor nations stands in line with the discoveries of other researchers. This result does not come as a surprise. Most citizens of poor nations will use extra income to satisfy basic needs; in wealthy countries, those needs already are met for most citizens. (...) In sum, while not without problems, cross-national comparisons do not deviate from the traditional notion of declining marginal utility of income. Additional income increases the utility of the citizens of all nations but has the greatest effect where those citizens are poor.”

Asadar, cresterea veniturilor e esentiala pentru paturile sarace ale societatii si pentru natiunile sarace, nicidecum pentru cei care au atins deja un nivel de securitate financiara rezonabila.

Spulberarea iluziei ca banii aduc fericirea

„Almost universally, individuals view economic growth as an important goal for any nation. This view presumably finds ground in a belief that a high rate of economic growth will improve significantly the well-being of that nation’s citizens. Studies of subjective well-being over time, however, raise serious questions about this conclusion. Even high rates of economic growth may have only a modest impact on long-term happiness in developed nations. Figure 4, for example, shows per capita income and stated happiness in the United States from 1972 to 1998, a period of high economic growth for the country. Income is adjusted for inflation and shown in year 2001 dollars. (...)

During this twenty-six year period, real per capita income in the United States grew from $13,821 to $21,821, an increase of 58%. At the same time, the percentage of respondents who professed to be “very happy” actually fell. During the first five years of the period, from 1972 to 1976, the portion of the sample reporting to be very happy averaged 34.6%. During the last five years, from 1994 to 1998, an average of only 32% professed to be very happy. Other nations show similar results. Rapid economic growth in France and Japan since the end of World War II produced little increase in subjective well-being in those countries.”

Si un fragment cat se poate de sugestiv:
"People value money highly. When asked what change would most improve the quality of their lives, individuals most frequently respond with the answer “more money.” The actual increase in reported happiness from additional income, however, appears to be quite modest. A study of Illinois lottery winners, for example, found that their happiness did not differ significantly from controls. Moreover, lottery winners report significantly less pleasure than non-lottery controls from ordinary experiences such as talking to a friend, eating breakfast, and even from hearing a funny joke. Similarly, most people think that a 25% increase in their pay will increase greatly their satisfaction with their lives, but individuals whose incomes are currently at that level do not report significantly greater life satisfaction."

Pentru cine conteaza cresterea veniturilor:

„A recent study by Michael Hagerty and Ruut Veenhoven examines a somewhat different data set including developing nations with much lower per capita incomes than previously studied. Their analysis includes new data from the 1990s, but excludes some earlier surveys. The authors divided the nations into three groups according to gross domestic product (“GDP”) per capita. (For simplicity, I refer to this as income.) Increased income positively correlates with increased happiness for each group, but poorer nations demonstrate the effect in a more significant way.

In the richest nations—the United States, Japan, Norway, Demark, and Luxembourg—an additional $1000 per capita income increased life satisfaction on average by 0.024 units on a ten-point scale.

In the middle nations—the United Kingdom, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy—an additional $1000 income increased life satisfaction by 0.045 units. In the poorest nations—Spain, Portugal, Greece, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, India, and the Philippines—an additional $1000 income improved life satisfaction by a robust 1.67 units. An extra dollar of income in a poor nation thus produced thirty-seven times as much utility as an extra dollar in a middle nation and seventy times as much utility as an extra dollar in a rich nation.”

Descoperirea este aproape uimitoare: in tarile cele mai putin bogate, o crestere a veniturilor este de 37 de ori mai relevanta in privinta fericirii decat in tarile medii si de 70 de ori fata de tarile bogate.

Bogatia si frimiturile de fericire:

„Research on the impact of increased income on the happiness of individuals within a single nation parallels findings from cross-national surveys. At any given time, individuals at the top of the income distribution express greater happiness than those with lower incomes, but additional income affects the happiness of the poor more than the happiness of the rich. Furthermore, even a sizeable increase in the income of all citizens through long-term economic growth exhibits little impact on subjective well-being. (...)

In both the 1972 to 1974 and 1994 to 1996 surveys, households in the top deciles expressed greater happiness than those in the middle deciles, who in turn were happier than those in the bottom deciles. The relationship was not linear. Moving from the bottom decile to the fifth decile in 1996 required an additional $12,177 and produced a utility gain of 0.25 points. In this low-income range, an additional $1000 of income produced an average increase in happiness of 0.0205 points. In the same year, moving from the sixth decile to the top decile required an additional $44,170 and produced a utility gain of 0.07 points. In this high-income range, an additional $1000 produced an average increase in happiness of only 0.0016 points. Thus, an additional dollar of income over the low-income range had more than twelve times the impact on happiness of an extra dollar in the high-income range. Results from the 1972 to 1974 data showed a similar decline in the marginal utility of income.”

Un dolar in plus are pentru paturile sarace un impact pozitiv de peste 12 ori mai mare decat pentru cei mai avuti.

„Even a proportional increase in income does not affect high and low income levels equally. In the 1994 to 1996 data, doubling an individual’s income increased happiness by 0.05 points on average in the lower five deciles. In the top five deciles, doubling income increased happiness by only 0.03 points. Other studies finding that income has a stronger relationship to happiness at the lower portion of the income distribution support these results.”

Existenta inegalitatilor sociale, minimizeaza fericirea:

Faptul ca natura umana este mult mai potrivita cu egalitarismul social si evita, chiar cu pretul neplacerilor proprii, oranduirile inegale, e dovedit de exemplele numeroase date de Griffith.

„The happiness paradox suggests that individuals have greater concern with their relative places in the pecking order than with their absolute income. A recent survey demonstrated this phenomenon by asking Harvard graduate students in which of two worlds they would prefer to live. In the first world, they would earn $50,000 per year and others would get half that income. In the second world, they would earn $100,000 per year and others would get two and a half times that income. Prices were the same in both worlds. Approximately half of the students stated that they would prefer to live in the former world, where they would be poorer, but enjoy a higher relative income.
Individuals exhibited much less concern with their relative positions with respect to vacations. Again, the survey asked students to choose between two worlds. In the first world, they would get two weeks holiday and others would get only one. In the second world, they would get four weeks holiday, but others would get eight weeks. Only one out of five students selected the first option, accepting a reduced absolute number of vacation days in order to have relatively more days off than others. In short, students displayed rivalry with respect to income but not leisure."

Pe scurt, respondentii unui studiu Harvard au declarat ca prefera sa castige 50.000$ daca restul castiga de doua ori mai putin, in loc sa castige 100.000$ iar restul de doua ori si jumatate mai mult. Deosebit de important este ca aceasta rivalitate nu s-a transpus si in ceea ce priveste timpul liber, ceea ce arata ca o societate in care domina egalitarismul financiar si accentul este pus pe timpul liber al oamenilor va fi mai putin afectata de invidie si competitie decat una care accentueaza importanta bunurilor materiale si tolereaza inegalitatile.
Rezultatele de mai sus au fost confirmate de un alt studiu, prezentat de Griffith:

"Fredrik Carlsson, Olof Johansson-Stenman, and Peter Martinsson reached consistent results in a survey of Swedish citizens involving more plausible alternative societies. They asked respondents to choose the best society for a relative, living two generations in the future. The survey defined “best” as the society in which the future relative would be most content.
In Society A, the relative earned 27,000 Swedish kroner (SEK) per month (about $3500) in after-tax income, which is 10% less than the average income of 30,000 SEK per month. The survey offered three different versions of Society B. In each version, the relative’s absolute income varied but always remained lower than in Society A. In Society B, however, the relative earned 10% more than the average income.

Seventy-five percent of respondents chose a 6.5% reduction in absolute income in exchange for a higher relative income. Fifty-three percent were willing to accept an 18.5% reduction in absolute income to maintain a higher relative position. Moreover, fully 47% of the respondents chose to accept a greater than 45% reduction in absolute income in order to maintain an above-average relative income. This result is remarkable given the relatively small deviations of the proffered income choices from the mean. Nearly half of the respondents believed that their relative would be better off giving up almost half of his or her real income in order to have an income 10% above the average rather than 10% below average.

Respondents showed substantially less competition regarding leisure. Instead of focusing directly on leisure, the survey asked respondents about working hours, presuming greater familiarity with that concept."

Justificarea taxarii progresive si a redistribuirii veniturilor
Faptul ca banii in plus nu sporesc fericirea celor deja avuti insa au un efect relevant in cazul celor saraci si foarte saraci, justifica redistribuirea averilor, de la bogati la saraci, pentru sporirea fericirii generale in societate. Exact acesta este si mesajul lui Griffith, care pledeaza nu doar pe taxarea excesiva a produselor de lux, ci pe taxarea proportionala cu marimea averii.

"Consider, for example, the tax on luxury automobiles enacted during the William J. Clinton administration. Few doubt that part of the value of owning a luxury automobile for many individuals may be found in the prestige associated with its purchase. Similarly, the purchase of an expensive car by one individual can reduce the welfare of others. Smith’s recently purchased Mazda Miata sports car is less impressive when his neighbor Jones drives home in a new Porsche 911 Carrera. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the luxury car tax led to the purchase of appreciably fewer positional goods. Instead, consumers may have switched to other positional goods which were not subject to the luxury tax. Expensive SUV’s, for example, which were classified as trucks and thus were exempt from the luxury tax on cars, saw a dramatic increase in sales during the Clinton years.

More to the point, many goods have a substantial positional value. Suppose, for example, instead of purchasing a Porsche 911 sports car, Jones purchases a less expensive automobile and uses the money saved to purchase a Viking range, a Subzero refrigerator, a high-definition plasma television, several Armani suits, and a week-long vacation in the Bahamas. Or instead Jones might use the savings to add an extra bedroom to his home. These alternative expenditures might engender greater jealousy from Jones’s neighbors than the purchase of an expensive sports car. Perhaps Jones’s neighbor is an environmentalist who has just purchased a gas-electric hybrid Toyota Prius and who feels only contempt for anyone buying an expensive gas-guzzling sports car. In light of the large number of consumption items that have a significant positional component, it makes sense to adopt a general progressive income (or consumption) tax rather than a series of taxes on luxury items."

CONCLUZIA studiului se impune de la sine: "The strongest traditional justification for progressive taxation is that income has declining marginal utility, and therefore, redistribution from the rich to the poor can increase total welfare in a society. Happiness research is consistent with this justification and provides important additional insights about the reasons money declines in value. Moreover, happiness research suggests that additional income spent on positional goods may have little impact on overall welfare in a society because the positional gains by one individual will be offset by the positional losses of another. In addition, adaptation and changes in aspiration levels may diminish the gains from additional consumption. The challenge for policymakers lies in the design of tax and spending policies which provide lasting improvements in the overall happiness of society."

Noi si noi argumente, asadar, sa consideram nu doar ca goana dupa inavutire este o incercare absurda, nerealista si desarta de a atinge fericirea, atat la nivel individual cat si colectiv, dar si ca o societatea care impiedica inegalitatile de venit si se preocupa prioritar de asigurarea unui nivel de viata decent din punct de vedere materialsi centrat pe placerile non-pecuniare va fi mai fericita si mai putin roasa de invidie si competitie.

Televizorul, unealta capitalista a cresterii aspiratiilor materiale

In studiul lor "Income Aspirations, Television and Happiness: Evidence from the World Values Survey", cercetatorii Luigino Bruni si Luca Stanca de la Economics Department, University of Milan Bicocca, explica modul in care cresterea aspiratiilor materiale este invers proportionala cu cresterea satisfactiei de viata si cum televizorul, in tarile capitaliste, contribuie la trendul ascendent al dorintelor materiale. Articolul a aparut in revista academica Kyklos - International Review for Social Sciences: 59 (2006), 2 (05), paginile 209-225.

Aspiratiile materiale crescute erodeaza satisfactia de viata si contribuie la paradoxul Easterlin:
"In the last three decades a number of studies have reported evidence on the income-happiness paradox. In cross-sectional studies, higher income is generally associated with higher subjective well-being across individuals, although the effect is relatively small, and GDP per capita and subjective well-being are positively and strongly correlated across countries (see e.g. Diener et al., 1999). However, over time happiness does not grow with income: countries with fast-growing GDP per capita have not shown corresponding increases in well-being (e.g. Easterlin, 1974, Veenhoven, 1994, Oswald, 1997).
One of the main explanations of the income-happiness paradox is based on the role of rising aspirations (e.g. Easterlin, 1995, 2001, Frey and Stutzer,
2002a,b). In this view, what matters for happiness is not income per se, but the gap between income and material aspirations. To the extent that aspirations rise together with income, subjective satisfaction may remain unchanged as income rises. Material aspirations of individuals, in turn, are influenced by two main processes (see Stutzer, 2004). On the one hand, the adaptation to past income and consumption levels: people tend to adapt quickly to higher income and consumption levels. As a consequence, additional material goods provide extra satisfaction only temporarily. On the other hand, the comparison with other people’s income (Easterlin, 1995): people tend to compare themselves with relevant reference groups in assessing their income and consumption levels. As a consequence, they end to be less satisfied with a given level of income if their neighbours earn more."

Aspiratiile si adaptarea la marirea venitului:
"Kahneman (2000) makes a distinction between two types of treadmill effects, namely, the hedonic treadmill and the satisfaction treadmill. Whilst the hedonic treadmill depends on adaptation, the satisfaction treadmill depends on aspiration. A similar distinction between the two treadmill effects is made by Frey and Stutzer: “This process, or mechanism, that reduces the hedonic effects of a constant or repeated stimulus, is called adaptation. According to aspiration level theory, individual well-being is determined by the gap between aspiration and achievement” (2005, p. 125).
The satisfaction treadmill works in such a way that one’s subjective happiness (self-evaluation) remains constant even when one’s objective happiness improves. In this case, someone who buys a new car gets a boost in his objective well-being, or happiness, but the fact that he has had a rise in income has also made his aspirations rise about the ideal car to own, so that his subjective satisfaction level remains the same. This is true even though he may be objectively more comfortable in his new car. As a consequence, as their incomes increase, people are induced to seek continuous and ever more intense pleasures in order to maintain the same level of satisfaction.
Layard calls this effect the “effect of habit”: “if people adopt a higher living standard, they lose the option to return to they former living standard and experience the same utility as before from a given consumption” (2005, p. 155). This mechanism is also very close to the concept of reference dependent preferences (Tversky and Kahneman, 1991), one of the most important ideas in modern behavioral economics."

Ce reiese de aici este ca sporirea venitului nu se traduce intr-o stare de satisfactie permanent crescuta, pentru simplu motiv ca odata cu cresterea veniturilor, cresc si apiratiile noastre materiale. Deci, per total, nu suntem mai multumiti de, sa zicem, marirea de salariu sau achizitionarea unui automobil scump, atata timp cat vor exista produse si mai luxoase si costisitoare, fata de care astfel ne-am apropiat si mai mult si care par mai atragatoare decat ceea ce avem deja.

Inegalitatile sociale si cresterea aspiratiilor materiale:
"Explanations based on the relative consumption hypothesis can be considered a development of the aspiration theory. The positional or relative consumption hypothesis is not a new one. Over a century ago, Veblen (1899) defined consumption as a social issue, given that the most significant acts of consumption are normally carried out in public, under the others’ view.
Duesenberry (1949) was the first economist to introduce explicitly relative consumption theory. Duesenberry claimed that a person derives utility, or satisfaction, from his own level of consumption in relation or in comparison
to the level of other people’s consumption (1949, p. 32). Therefore, the utility of a person’s level of consumption is relative and not absolute. In this view, people are constantly comparing their material achievements with those of some reference group. It is the “keeping up with the Jones” idea, where utility depends on consumption relative to that of the others, rather than just on its absolute level.
More recently, Scitovsky (1976, cap. 6) dealt with the relationship between consumption and status, and Hirsch (1977) coined the term “positional good”.
Today many economists are working on relative consumption or income theories with this interdisciplinary approach. The basic element of the theory is the concept of externality, in particular positional externality, that is connected to the idea of conspicuous consumption: conspicuous commodities are, in a sense, commons, with the typical phenomena of rivalry and over-exploitation. Following Frank’s and Oswald’s research, Layard recognizes that “a rise in the average income in the state where you live reduces your happiness by one third as much as a rise in your own income increases it”. And, referring to the labour market, “a rise in wages of comparable workers reduces your job satisfaction as a rise in your own wage increases it” (Layard , 2005b, p. 150).
Summing up, people make social comparisons in evaluating their material
achievements. Relative consumption theory can therefore be described as a
further treadmill effect. Something else is running along with our income or
consumption: the income of others."

Pe scurt, inegalitatile sociale contribuie la randul lor la cresterea aspiratiilor materiale, multi avand tendinta de a imita comportamentul referitor la imbogatire al "vecinilor", ceea ce inseamna ca o cresterea a averii lor ii determina sa-si doreasca la randul lor o crestere de venituri si, implicit, sa nu mai fie (la fel de) multumiti cu ceea ce au deja.

Pana aici am trecut sumar in revista anumite mecanisme care contribuie la cresterea pretentiilor materiale si, implicit, la scaderea multumirii fata de ceea ce posedam in prezent. mai departe vom vedea cum televizorul duce la cresterea acestor aspiratii, cu acelasi rezultat.

"In particular, television plays a key role in consumer socialization, by providing consumers with information used in constructing their mental representation of reality. Television therefore contributes significantly to define what our goals are, or should be. We argue that, by acting as a powerful agent of consumer socialization, television produces higher material aspirations and, as a consequence, lower levels of well being for a given level of material achievements. More precisely, television viewing produces its effects on material aspirations in two main ways."

1. Publicitatea, uzina de dorinte artificiale
"First, when watching television people are the target of images of more and better products than what they have. Advertisers are aware that new demand can be created if people are not satisfied for too long with what they have. As a consequence, people are constantly offered new and improved products that promise a better and happier life, with television playing a key role in this process. This increases people’s desire for material possessions, as they are induced to compare the goods they consume with new goods and new varieties of existing goods. Television viewing therefore makes them less satisfied with what they consume, and, consequently, decreases the satisfaction derived from any given level of income or consumption of material goods. In this perspective, TV can be seen as a powerful factor in speeding up the satisfaction treadmill, through faster growth of aspirations."

Cat se poate de evident: publicitatea inventeaza noi inchipuite nevoi si dorinte, pentru ca producatorii sa vanda produse care in mod normal nu s-ar cere.

2. Negativul exemplu al oamenilor bogati
"Second, by watching TV people are overwhelmed by images of people
richer and wealthier than they are. This contributes to shifting up the
benchmark for people’s positional concerns: income and consumption levels are compared not only to those of their actual social reference group,
but also to those of their virtual reference group, defined and constructed
by television programs. Television viewing makes people less satisfied with their income and wealth levels. In this perspective, TV can be seen as a powerful factor in speeding up the positional treadmill, through comparison
with higher benchmark groups.
Television viewing affects individuals’ material aspirations because it is the main source by which people acquire social information and are driven to make social comparisons."

La fel de simplu si la obiect: fiind bombardati cu imagini despre oamenii bogati si stilul lor de viata, consumatorii de TV devin intr-un ritm accelerat nemultumiti de conditia lor materiala din prezent, aspirand la un trai asemanator cu al personajelor de pe ecran.

In continuare, autorii studiului explica in termeni tehnici metodologia prin care au verificat influenta urmaririi programelor TV asupra satisfactiei personale, folosind rezultatele World Values Survey din 2000.
Trecand direct la concluziile la care cercetatorii au ajuns, citim:

"Prior research has shown that television viewing has an important effect on how individuals perceive reality and, in particular, on their material aspirations (see e.g. O’Guinn and Shrum, 1997, Shrum et al. 1998). A recent
study by Shrum et al. (2005), based on a sample of 321 Americans, finds
evidence that television cultivates materialism. A positive effect of television viewing on materialism was also found by Sirgy et al. (1998). There is also extensive evidence that higher material aspirations have a negative impact on life satisfaction (e.g. Stutzer, 2004, 2005).
In this paper we examined the effects of television viewing on income aspirations and, in turn, on the relationship between income and individual
happiness. We argued that television viewing reduces the effect of income on life satisfaction by producing higher material aspirations, enhancing both adaptation and positional effects. Using individual data for about 56,000 individuals from the World Value Surveys we presented evidence indicating that the effect of income on both life and financial satisfaction is significantly smaller for heavy television viewers, relative to occasional TV viewers. This finding was found to be robust to a number of specification checks, while different alternative interpretations were examined and rejected.
The analysis presented in this paper complements the results in Bruni and Stanca (2005), who find that television viewing has a negative indirect effect on individual life satisfaction, through a significant crowding out effect on relational goods. Our results also qualify, and extend to a large and
representative international data set, the findings in the recent studies by
Frey et al. (2005) and Layard (2005).
Overall, the results presented in this study can also be interpreted as providing an additional explanation for the income-happiness paradox: as standards of living improve, the pervasive and increasing role of television viewing in people’s life contributes significantly to raising material aspirations, thus lowering the effect of higher income on individual happiness."

Concluzia lucrarii nu mai necesita nici comentata, nici completata. In incheiere ma rezum la a cita o observatie generala a celor doi cercetatori italieni referitoare la slaba relatie dintre fericire si bani, plasata in contextul unui larg acord intre cercetatorii care se ocupa de subiect.

"Over time and across OECD countries, rises in aggregate income are not associated with rises in aggregate happiness. At the aggregate level, there has been no increase in reported happiness over the last 50 years in the US and Japan, nor in Europe since 1973 when the records began.” (Layard 2005b, p. 148). A recent paper by Hagerty and Veenhoven (2003) challenges this thesis, claiming that growing GDP is associated with greater happiness. Easterlin (2004) replied to this paper defending his classical thesis.
Already in 1991 Veenhoven criticized Easterlin’s thesis about international comparisons. He plotted the same data as Cantril, though using the same scale on both axes, and showed that the relationship follows a convex pattern of diminishing returns. A similar criticism has been put forward by Oswald (1997, p. 1817) and many others, but the idea of a very low correlation between happiness and income growth is still the most accepted among economists working on happiness."

Inegalitatile socio-economice, un cancer social

La intrarea "Economic Inequality" din enciclopedia Wikipedia, putem citi:
"Research has shown a link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower. [...]

In a 2002 paper, Eric Uslaner and Mitchell Brown showed that there is a high correlation between the amount of trust in society and the amount of income equality. They did this by comparing results from the question "would others take advantage of you if they got the chance?" in U.S General Social Survey and others with statistics on income inequality. Similarly, a 2008 article by Andersen and Fetner finds a strong relationship between economic inequality within and across countries and tolerance for 35 democracies."

Vom vedea ca aceste descoperiri sunt confirmate in continuare de Eric Uslaner, profesor in cadrul Department of Government and Politics,
University of Maryland–College Park. In articolul sau Corruption, Inequality, and Trust, aparut in lucrarea "The Handbook on Social Capital, edited by Gert Tinggaard Svendsen and Gunnar Lind", Uslaner demonstreaza legaturile stranse intre inegalitatile de venit in societate si sporirea coruptiei, in paralel cu scaderea increderii intre membrii comunitatii. Inegalitatile devin astfel un adevarat cancer social, care erodeaza valorile esentiale ale unei functionari corecte si armonioase a vietii in societate.

Ce este coruptia si cum apare ea:
"Corruption flouts rules of fairness and gives some people advantages that others don’t have. Corruption transfers resources from the mass public to the elites–and generally from the poor to the rich (Tanzi, 1998). It acts as an extra tax on citizens, leaving less money for public expenditures (Mauro, 1997, 7). Corrupt governments have less money to spend on their own
projects, pushing down the salaries of public employees. In turn, these lower-level staffers will be more likely to extort funds from the public purse. Government employees in corrupt societies will thus spend more time lining their own pockets than serving the public. Corruption thus leads to lower levels of economic growth and to ineffective government (Mauro, 1997, 5). The roots of corruption lie in the unequal distribution of resources in a society.
Economic inequality provides a fertile breeding ground for corruption–and, in turn, it leads to further inequalities. The connection between inequality and the quality of government is not necessarily so simple: As the former Communist nations of Central and Eastern Europe show, you can have plenty of corruption without economic inequality. The path from inequality to corruption may be indirect–through generalized trust–but the connection is key to understanding why some societies are more corrupt than others. When we trust people who may be different from ourselves, we
will be more predisposed to treat them honestly–and profiting from corruption will seem unseemly. When we distrust strangers, especially if we believe that they are trying to cheat us, our moral compunctions against corrupt behavior become less compelling. Corruption and inequality
wreak havoc with our moral sense. Della Porta and Vannucci (1999, 146) argue that pervasive corruption makes people less willing to condemn it as immoral. As coruption becomes widespread, it becomes deeply entrenched in a society (Mauro, 2004, 16). People begin to believe that dishonesty is the only way to get things done (Gambetta, 2002, 55)."

Pe scurt, coruptia, cauzata de inegalitati, nu face decat sa sporeasca decalajul dintre cei bogati si cei mai putin avuti, sa submineze increderea in institutiile statului si, odata cu ea, in ceilalti oameni. Se ajunge pana la a considera ca nedreptatea este singura cale de a prospera: "The argument from inequality to low trust to corruption–and back again both to low trust and greater inequality (what I call the “inequality trap”)–stands in contrast to the more common approach to explaining corruption as stemming from deficient institutions. The roots of corruption are largely not institutional, but rather stem from economic inequality and a mistrusting culture, which itself stems from an unequal distribution of wealth. There is one institution that does shape corruption: the fairness of the legal system."

Coruptia din socialism, inofensiva:
"The link between inequality and corruption seems compelling. Corruption is exploitive. Not all corruption is linked to inequality. “Grand” corruption refers to malfeasance of considerable magnitude by people who exploit their positions to get rich (or become richer)–political or business leaders. So grand corruption is all about extending the advantages of those already well endowed.
“Petty corruption,” small scale payoffs to doctors, police officers, and even university professors, very common in the formerly Communist nations of Central and Eastern Europe (and many poor countries) is different in kind, if not in spirit. Petty corruption, or “honest graft” as New York City political boss George Washington Plunkitt called it (Riordan, 1948), does not enrich those who practice it. It may depend upon an inequitable distribution of wealth–there should be no need to make “gift” payments in a properly functioning market economy.
It does not exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor--and may actually narrow it by providing some small benefits to the middle class bureaucrats, teachers, and doctors who benefit from it."

Asadar, mica coruptie, cea prezenta in fostele tari comuniste, este in buna masura inofensiva si poate servi chiar la accentuarea egalizarii sociale. Ea se diferentiaza net de coruptia din capitalism, menita sa mareasca prapastia dintre paturile sociale.

Inegalitatile promoveaza coruptia:
"Inequality promotes corruption in many ways. Glaeser, Scheinkman, and Schleifer (2002, 2-3) argue:
...inequality is detrimental to the security of property rights, and therefore to growth, because it enables the rich to subvert the political, regulatory, and legal institutions of society for their own benefit. If one person is sufficiently richer than another, and courts are corruptible, then the legal system will favor the rich, not the just. Likewise, if political and regulatory institutions can be moved by wealth or influence, they will favor the established, not the efficient. This in turn leads the initially well situated to pursue socially harmful acts, recognizing that the legal, political, and regulatory systems will not hold them accountable.
Inequality can encourage institutional subversion in two distinct ways. First, the havenots can redistribute from the haves through violence, the political process, or other means.
Such Robin Hood redistribution jeopardizes property rights, and deters investment by the rich."

Alte confirmari:
"Similarly, You and Kaghram (2005) argue: “The rich, as interest groups, firms, or individuals may use bribery or connections to influence law-implementing processes (bureaucratic corruption) and to buy favorable interpretations of the law (judicial corruption).”
Inequality breeds corruption by: (1) leading ordinary citizens to see the system as stacked against them (Uslaner, 2002, 181-183); (2) creating a sense of dependency of ordinary citizens and a sense of pessimism for the future, which in turn undermines the moral dictates of treating your neighbors honestly; and (3) distorting the key institutions of fairness in society, the courts, which ordinary citizens see as their protectors against evil-doers, especially those with more influence than they have (see also Glaeser, Scheinkman, and Schleifer, 2003; and You and Khagram, 2005)."

Bogatii isi folosesc puterea si influenta superioare pentru a vicia deciziile institutiilor statului, cetatenii asjungand, pe buna dreptate, sa isi piarda increderea in acestea,pe care le percep ca amenintatoare.

Inegalitatile economice deturneaza rosturile normale ale clasei politice, viciind inclusiv democratia:
"Economic inequality creates political leaders who make patronage a virtue rather than a vice, since it provided jobs for ordinary citizens. These leaders help their constituents, but more critically they help themselves. Inequality breeds corruption–and to a dependency of the poor on the political leaders. Inequality leads to clientelism–leaders establish themselves as monopoly
providers of benefits for average citizens. These leaders are not accountable to their constituents as democratic theory would have us believe.
There may well be the trappings of democracy, with regularly scheduled elections, so that the link between democratic and honest government may not be as strong as we might initially expect.
The political boss is well entrenched in his position. His party reigns supreme in the area. Potential opponents don’t have the resources to mount a real challenge–and, even if they tried, the boss can count on the support of the legions whose jobs he controls through his patronage machine.
Unequal wealth leads people to feel less constrained about cheating others (Mauro, 1998) and about evading taxes (Oswiak, 2003, 73; Uslaner, 2003). Where corruption is widespread, people realize that they are not the masters of their own fate–and they lose faith that their future will be bright."

Beneficiile coeziunii sociale:
"Generalized trust is predicated on the notion of a common bond between classes and races and on egalitarian values (Seligman, 1997, 36-37, 41).5 Faith in others leads to empathy for those who do not fare well, and ultimately to a redistribution of resources from the well-off the poor. If
we believe that we have a shared fate with others, and especially people who are different from ourselves, then gross inequalities in wealth and status will seem to violate norms of fairness.
Generalized trust rests upon the psychological foundations of optimism and control and the economic foundation of an equitable distribution of resources. Optimism and control lead people to believe that the world is a good place, it is going to get better, and that you can make it better.
Economic equality promotes both optimism and the belief that we all have a shared fate, across races, ethnic groups, and classes."

Egalitarismul, direct proportional cu increderea sociala:
"Where is generalized trust high and where is it low? Across a wide set of nations, across the American states, and over time in the United States–the only country with a long enough time series on the standard survey question on trust6–the strongest predictor of trust is the level of
economic inequality. As economic inequality increases, trust declines (Uslaner, 2002, chs. 6, 8; Uslaner and Brown, 2005). Optimism for the future makes less sense when there is more economic inequality. People at the bottom of the income distribution will be less sanguine that they too share in society’s bounty. The distribution of resources plays a key role in establishing the belief that people share a common destiny–and have similar fundamental values. When resources are distributed more equally, people are more likely to perceive a common stake withothers. If there is a strong skew in wealth, people at each end may feel that they have little in
common with others. In highly unequal societies, people will stick with their own kind. Perceptions of injustice will reinforce negative stereotypes of other groups, making trust and accommodation more difficult (Boix and Posner, 1998, 693)."

Ierarhizarea, invers proportionala cu increderea in oameni:
"Seligman (1997, 36-37, 41) argues that trust can not take root in a hierarchal culture. Such societies have rigid social orders marked by strong class divisions that persist across generations.
Feudal systems and societies based on castes dictate what people can and can not do based upon the circumstances of their birth. Social relations are based on expectations of what people must do, not on their talents or personalities. Trust is not the lubricant of cooperation in such traditional societies. The assumption that others share your beliefs is counterintuitive, since strict class divisions make it unlikely that others actually have the same values as people in other classes."

Egalitarismul merita instaurat pentru a bloca competitiile inter-sociale gen "keeping up with the Joneses" si, in general, tentatia imbogatirii si consumerismului. Vedem insa ca renuntarea la o structura sociala ce permite ierarhizari si inegalitati are multe alte avantaje, precum scaderea coruptiei si increderea generalizata intre oameni, care dupa cum am vazut de curand, e o conditie esentiala a fericirii.

Legaturile comunitare, esentiale fericirii

În luna ianuarie 2009, cercetatorii de la universitatea australiana Deakin au publicat cea mai recenta aparitie a Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Cercetarea, care evidentiaza starea de bunastare si fericire a natiunii australiene, a fost prezentata si comentata in media autohtona, rezultatele ei indicand ca trainicia relatiilor inter-comunitare si nu averea materiala a comunitatii determina sporirea fericirii. Doua astfel de articole sunt prezentate mai jos.

„The survey shows money, or household income, has no relationship to happiness stakes. The wellbeing index for the first time has combined six years of data from 35,000 people across the nation to show "clearly" that South Australians are the most satisfied with their lives. (...) Professor Bob Cummins, from Deakin University, the author of the index, says for people to feel happiest they need to live in regional areas with a relatively small population, be married and enjoy strong community connections.
"Roughly less than 40,000 people as a community have a greater sense of belonging and safety, which contributes significantly to their wellbeing," he said. "On an overall state/territory comparative basis, SA is clearly the best and NSW is the worst in relation to wellbeing," he said.
People living on KI and in the South-East have higher marriage rates (55 per cent), low unemployment (4.2 per cent), higher than average home ownership and few apartments. A high 90 per cent are Australian citizens.”

In cel de-al doilea articol, se specifica:
„Frustrated city dwellers longing for a quieter life are right to look with envy at all those sea and tree-changers.
A new study shows living in country towns, where everyone knows everyone, is a happier existence than the hustle and bustle of city life. Australians who live in regional areas with fewer than 40,000 people have a higher sense of personal wellbeing than those living in cities, the study shows. It's also found that residents in the Campbelltown area of Sydney and Greater Dandenong in Melbourne, which have high numbers of recent migrants, have the lowest sense of wellbeing.
The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index measures people's overall feeling of wellbeing through satisfaction with factors including health, relationships, safety, standard of living and community connection.
Deakin University Professor Bob Cummins, the author of the index, says wellbeing is related to a sense of community."Anybody who's lived in a small country town knows ... that everybody says hello to everybody else," he told AAP. "You become very quickly connected to those communities."But he says areas with a high number of new Australians have lower levels of social connection."This acts then to reduce the wellbeing of people in those areas," he says."What this signals to government is that more resources are clearly required, not in terms of financial support ... but in terms of social interventions, about bringing people of different cultures together."He says policy makers need to direct more resources to these areas.”

Din sumarul studiului realizat chiar de autorii sai, remarcam:
„Professor Bob Cummins from Deakin University, the author of the Index, saysthat this outcome is driven by feelingconnected to the community.“Community connection has a large impacton how people feel about their lives. Thisis very difficult to achieve in larger townsand cities but appears to be highly evidentin smaller towns and country regions”,Professor Cummins said. Australian Unity Managing Director,Mr Rohan Mead, said that this highlights the importance of getting involved withyour community, whether you live in thecountry or the city.”

Si, ceea ce ne intereseaza in mod deosebit, „ A further finding of the report shows that the SSDs with high wellbeing are likely to have more married and older inhabitants. These areas also tend to have lower household income which demonstrates the relative wealth of the area is not the major criterion for high wellbeing.”

Alois Stutzer despre adaptarea hedonica la venit si comparatiile inter-sociale

Profesorul Alois Stutzer demonstreaza in articolul "The Role of Income Aspirations in Individual Happiness", publicat in Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 54(1), 2004, pp. 89-109, nu doar realitatea fenomenului de adaptare hedonica la venit, dar si faptul ca inegalitatile socio-economice actioneaza impotriva satisfactiei fata de venitul individual.

Introducerea studiului:
"Does individual well-being depend on the absolute level of income and consumption or is it relative to one’s aspirations? In a direct empirical test, it is found that higher income aspirations reduce people’s utility, ceteris paribus. Individual data on reported satisfaction with life are used as a proxy measure for utility, and income evaluation measures are applied as
proxies for people’s aspiration levels. Consistent with processes of adaptation and social comparison, income aspirations increase with people’s income as well as with the average income in the community they live in."

Altfel spus, cresterea veniturilor ne multumeste pentru un timp limitat, dupa care ne adaptam la aceasta noua situatie si cautam sa castigam si mai mult. Dorindu-ne sa posedam si mai mult, indiferent de cat avem deja, nu suntem niciodata multumiti cu situatia noastra materiala, de aici si imposibilitatea atingerii fericirii prin intermediul banilor.

Cum se formeaza aspiratiile materiale individuale
"Two processes are theoretically put forward as forming individual aspirations. First, there is individuals’ adaptation to repeated stimuli, as provided by people’s consumption habits. Whereas additional material goods and services initially provide extra pleasure, their effects wear off over time. Thus people get used to their consumption and income level. Second, there are social comparisons with relevant others. It is not the absolute level of income that matters most, but rather one’s position relative to other individuals. Socially comparative or even competitive processes in consumption complement processes of hedonic adaptation. Together, it is suggested, they make people strive for ever higher aspirations."

Asadar, nu conteaza in primul rand cata avere avem, ci mai ales cat au ceilalti. Comparatiile sociale ne determina in buna masura sa cautam imbogatirea, pentru depasirea "vecinilor".

Explicatii detaliate ale cresterii aspiratiilor materiale
Comparatiile inter-sociale
"Human beings are unable and unwilling to make absolute judgements. Rather, they are constantly drawing comparisons from their environment, from the past or from their expectations of the future. Thus, we notice and react to deviations from aspiration levels.
There are two main processes, which form individuals’ aspirations, and make for the relativity in people’s utility evaluation.
First, people make social comparisons, which drive their positional concerns for income. It is not the absolute level of income that matters most, but rather one’s position relative to other individuals. This idea of relative income is one part of the more general aspiration level theory.
Positional concerns are not a new aspect of human nature, but they are probably more pronounced today because of more extended possibilities of social comparison. Many economists in the past have noted that individuals compare themselves to significant others with respect to income, consumption, status or utility. Marx (1849) expressed his view about the social aspect of utility most explicitly: “Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.”
Veblen (1899) coined the notion of ‘conspicuous consumption’, serving to impress other persons.
The ‘relative income hypothesis’ has been formulated and econometrically tested by Duesenberry (1949), who posits an asymmetric structure of externalities. People look upward when making comparisons. Aspirations thus tend to be above the level already reached. Wealthier people
impose a negative external effect on poorer people, but not vice versa. As a result, savings rates depend on the percentile position in the income distribution, and not solely on the income level, as in a traditional savings function."

Adaptarea hedonica
Second, people adapt to their previous income or consumption level. Additional material goods and services initially provide extra pleasure, but it is usually only transitory. Higher utility from material goods wears off. Satisfaction depends on change and disappears with continued
consumption. This process, or mechanism, that reduces the hedonic effects of a constant or repeated stimulus, is called adaptation.
Processes of hedonic adaptation supplement the socially comparative, or even competitive, processes in consumption. Together, they make people strive for ever higher aspirations. It is but a short step from aspirations to individual welfare. According to aspiration level theory, individual well-being is determined by the gap between aspiration and achievement (Michalos 1991 and Inglehart 1990, ch. 7)."

Banii nu pot aduce fericirea: din nou despre Paradoxul Easterlin
"Related research has been conducted by Easterlin (1974, 1995, 2001a,b), who uses the concept of aspirations as a frame of reference to resolve – as he calls it – the happiness paradox. The happiness paradox describes two striking observations in the relation between income and happiness: While people with higher income report, on average, higher satisfaction with life,
raising everybody’s income does, on average, not increase people’s subjective well-being. It is argued that, in the latter case, individuals’ aspirations grow in lockstep with income. This interpretation of the data is supported by laboratory findings showing the importance of relative
judgements for happiness (Smith, Diener, and Wedell 1989 and Tversky and Griffin 1991). In this paper, the presumed underlying mechanism is studied explicitly."

Studiul lui Stutzer examineaza cauzele Paradoxului Easterlin, cercetand daca aspiratiile materiale constant crescute anuleaza cresterea fericirii.

Rezultatele studiului
"This paper presents, in a new, more direct and general approach, empirical evidence for the effect of income aspirations on individual well-being. It is found that higher income aspirations reduce people’s satisfaction with life. Thereby, the negative effect on well-being of an increase in the aspiration level is of a similar absolute magnitude to the positive effect on well-being of an equal increase in income. This suggests that subjective well-being depends only on the gap between income aspirations and actual income and not on the income level as such. Thus, the higher the ratio between aspired income and actual income, the less satisfied people are with their life, ceteris paribus. This supports the notion of a relative utility concept.
The aspiration level itself is substantially increasing with individuals’ previous income.
However, the effects of higher income on individual well-being at a fixed point in time are not completely counterbalanced by higher aspirations. In fact, the relative gap between income aspirations and actual income is smaller for rich people. In the present data set, this explains the positive
correlation between income and reported subjective well-being. Over and above previous income, individuals’ aspirations are also systematically affected by the average income in the community where people live. The richer one’s fellow residents are, the higher is an individual’s aspiration
level. This effect cannot be explained by a higher cost of living alone. It is shown that the aspiration levels of community members who interact within the community react much more to changes in average income than those of members who do not interact.
The reported evidence for the formation of individuals’ aspiration levels and their effects on subjective well-being offers an explanation for various empirical observations. For example, if average aspirations in society increase at the same rate as income per capita, it can be understood
why people in industrialized societies did not become happier over the last decades, despite substantial growth in their economic wealth.
This is consistent with citizens’ voting behavior. It is found that citizens support the incumbent parties when the economic conditions are good,
whereby citizens take into consideration the unemployment rate and the inflation rate much more than the rate of income growth. Another observation that can be understood better is the low correlation between income and reported subjective well-being. If people evaluate their economic well-being relative to their aspirations, rather than absolute, it is no big puzzle that a fraction of people in an objectively bad economic situation are still highly satisfied and another fraction of people living under objectively good economic conditions still report being highly dissatisfied.
What are the consequences of research on relative income? The empirical basis is still quite small to be able to draw firm implications for economic theory and economic policy. Caution is called for because the implications are potentially very high. However, one might want to think about
household theory, in which people’s desires increase with what they get. In this framework, the marginal utility of income would not be defined anymore, as the utility function changes with the income level. Moreover, it might be interesting to study in greater depth what implications income aspirations have, for instance, on redistributive taxation or on public policy in general."

Pe scurt, studiul lui Stutzer confirma atat existenta adaptarii hedonice, cat si
cea a comparatiei inetr-sociale, ambele prezente in comunitati ce progreseaza economic si care permit inegalitati de venit. Desi se pare ca bogatii sunt ceva mai fericiti decat cei mai saraci, aceasta se explica prin faptul ca in cazul lor, comparatia inter-sociala nu le creaza noi aspiratii materiale, fiind deja mai bogati decat majoritatea. In afara de acesti indivizi, aflati in varful ierarhiei materiale, nimeni altcineva nu se pare ca ar deveni mai fericit imbogatindu-se, ceea ce inseamna ca pentru majoritatea, idealul cautarii fericirii in avere este iluzoriu. Mai mult, bogatasii sunt responsabili de scaderea satisfactiei celorlalti, care incearca sa ii imite sau depaseasca.
Intr-o societate egalitarista, mai putin preocupata prioritar de cresterea economica, astfel de fenomene au mult mai scazute sanse de a avea loc. Nu intamplator autorul vorbeste in concluzia studiului de taxarea redistributiva.

Impactul cresterii economice rapide asupra satisfactiei de viata in America Latina

La 18 noiembrie 2008, Inter-American Development Bank a dat publicitatii un studiu efectuat in colaborare cu Gallup referitor la satisfactia de viata in tarile din America Latina. Rezultatele? Cresterea economica rapida nu doar ca nu a sporit fericirea, dar a avut efectul diametral opus. Totodata, tari cu o crestere modesta economica sunt mult mai fericite decat altele ce au un PIB net superior. Sa urmarim deci cateva dintre concluziile trase in urma studiului in prezentarea acestuia de pe saitul Inter-American Development Bank, intitulata sugestiv „Faster Economic Growth Hurts Life Satisfaction in Latin America and the Caribbean”.

„People in countries that have experienced fast economic growth in recent years are less satisfied with their lives than people in nations with slower growth rates, according to a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The study is the latest edition of the Development in the Americas series, the IDB’s flagship publication.
Satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago, Chile, Peru and Ecuador, countries with the fastest growth in the region in recent years, is lower than in nations such as Guyana, El Salvador, Paraguay and Guatemala, whose economies showed little or no growth.
The study, an unprecedented look into people’s perceptions in the region, uses data from the Gallup World Poll and information commissioned by the Bank to complement the survey. Citizens of Latin American and the Caribbean were asked how they perceived key aspects of their lives including the quality of education, healthcare, housing and employment, providing some surprising and on occasion counter-intuitive responses.
Satisfaction rates are not necessarily highest in the wealthiest countries or in those with the best social services or the fastest growth. Countries in the region with high per capita income, such as Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay showed moderate levels of life satisfaction, trailing countries with lower per capita income such as Guatemala, Colombia and Jamaica.”

O explicatie a acestei stari de fapt consta in aceea ca aspiratiile si pretentiile oamenilor cresc in perioadele de progres economic, iar cand acest progres se desfasoara cu repeziciune, pretentiile cresc cu atat mai mult, depasindu-le.

„The study shows that fast economic growth will prompt people’s aspirations for a better life style to rise even faster. The rapid changes in the economy, and not just the level of income or consumption, end up affecting the level of satisfaction in the short run.
“Governments that focus their policies exclusively on growth are bound to lose support in the long run if they do not respond to the higher expectations that accompany growth in areas ranging from education and health to income distribution,” explains Eduardo Lora, IDB’s chief economist and coordinator of the study. “The difficulty lies in responding to these demands without killing growth.”

Pe pagina dedicata studiului, apare si un clasament cat se poate de sugestiv, al satisfactiei de viata si intensitatii cresterii economice. Observam de acolo ca cea mai fericita tara din America de Sus este Costa Rica, desi a beneficiat de o crestere a PIB-ului, intre 2001 si 2006, modesta, de 2,8.
Urmeaza Panama, care are o crestere economica superioara primului loc. Trinidad Tobago a inregistrat cea mai mare crestere economica in perioada studiata, de 8,8 (de aproape trei ori mai mare decat locul 1) dar ca satisfactie de viata se afla in jumatatea inferioara a clasamentului. Ecuador are o crestere de 3,9 dar e printre ultimile patru tari ca satisfactie de viata.

Cercetarea din America Latina confirma din plin spusele unor intelepti precum Epicur (Daca vrei sa imbogatesti pe cineva, nu-i spori averea, ci ia-i din dorinte) sau Schopenhauer (Averea e ca apa sarata: cu cat o bei, cu atat creste setea). Astfel, locuitorii tarilor mai putin spectaculoase economic au pretentii mai scazute, ceea ce ii face sa se adapteze mai bine si sa fie multumiti.

„People in countries with greater economic success are often less satisfied with their health, housing and labor condition and educational services provided by the government. Most of the countries with poorer economic performance, excluding Haiti, are the most satisfied.

The report also shows that 81 percent of the people in the region are satisfied with their jobs, more than workers in countries with high-income per capita such as Japan and South Korea, where 78 percent of people polled said they were satisfied with their work. Satisfaction is high even though a quarter of the population in the region doesn’t earn enough to lift itself out of poverty or the proportion of self-employed people or those with unpaid jobs has increased. (...) What matters the most for people in the region is to have a job that provides independence and is a place where they feel their opinions are heard. Social security and other labor benefits play a smaller role in job satisfaction levels.

The region showed high levels of life satisfaction in general compared with other regions of the world, even after income differentials are accounted for (see graph below). Latin America on average reported a level of life satisfaction of 5.8, more than Europe and Central Asia, but less than the 7.5 reported in North America and 7.2 for Western Europe.
Nearly 80 percent of the people in the region said they are satisfied with their housing situation, more than people in Europe and Central Asia, for example. Overall 85 percent of the people polled in the region said they are satisfied with their health, comparable to most regions, but higher than in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.”

Acelasi studiu a fost semnalat si in textul „Economic growth doesn't guarantee happiness for Latin Americans”. Cateva randuri reprezentative: „Yet an innovative study released Tuesday by the multilateral lender the Inter-American Development Bank found that better social services and higher incomes don't necessarily translate into happiness. Chile, for example, ranks third in the region in per capita gross domestic product and fourth in per capita growth from 2001 to 2006 but only 13th in life satisfaction, the bank study found.
On the other hand, Guatemala ranked 16th in per capita gross domestic product in the region yet sixth in life satisfaction. Costa Rica ranked first in life satisfaction while Haiti ranked last.”

Daca exista o concluzie evidenta ce trebuie trasa in urma unor astfel de descoperiri sociologice este ca progresul material si economic, chiar si cand este rapid, are un efect extrem de limitat asupra fericirii umane, aceasta tinand mai degraba de circumstante interne, psihologice--precum scaderea si limitarea dorintelor si pretentiilor.

"Miracolul" chinezesc - Partea a II-a

Vom vedea in continuare ca datele prezentate in studiul "The China Puzzle: Falling Happiness in a Rising Economy", despre care am scris la 22 ianuarie 2009, sunt confirmate de alte trei studii. Intr-adevar, populatia Chinei a inregistrat cresteri semnificative in domeniul material, insa fericirea si satisfactia de viata au scazut dramatic.

La 11 ianuarie 2005, Gallup a publicat rezultatele unui sondaj efectuat pe 15,000 chinezi in urma a peste 3600 ore de interviuri. Datele studiului "Chinese Far Wealthier Than a Decade Ago -- but Are They Happier?" sunt concludente:

Relevanta studiului:
"Gallup recently completed our fourth comprehensive nationwide survey of the People's Republic of China -- nearly 3,600 hour-long, in-person, in-home interviews conducted across both urban and rural areas of the country. Findings from the latest survey will be presented in coming weeks exclusively to Gallup Poll On Demand subscribers. This ambitious project dates back to 1994, when Gallup conducted the first-ever nationwide survey of China's citizens using strict, probability-based sampling procedures. Similarly exhaustive hour-long surveys were conducted in 1997 and 1999.
Gallup has now interviewed more than 15,000 Chinese adults across every province and autonomous administrative unit in the country -- from rural areas of inner Mongolia to urban Guangzhou; from Heilongjiang on the border with Russian Siberia to tropical Hainan Island in the Gulf of Tonkin; in Tibet (Xizang) and in predominantly Muslim Xinjiang on the border with Afghanistan."

Imbogatirea chinezilor
"A Decade of Rapidly Rising Living Standards, Particularly in Urban Areas
As the current survey's findings document, the change in the living standards of China's people over the last decade is nothing short of astonishing -- surely the most dramatic transformation ever witnessed by more than a fifth of mankind over such a brief period. Nationwide, average reported household incomes are now nearly 2 1/2 times what respondents reported in 1994.
The bulk of this dramatic income growth occurred among China's urban residents, who are now, on average, three times as affluent as their rural counterparts. But even rural incomes -- which have stagnated in recent years -- are nearly double what they were a little over a decade ago. This dramatic rise in affluence has been accompanied by a remarkable degree of change in the everyday lives of China's 1.3 billion people.
In Gallup's initial 1994 nationwide survey, only a minority (40%) of Chinese households had a color television set, just one in four owned a refrigerator, 1 in 10 had a landline telephone, and only 3% owned a mobile phone. Video compact disc players? They had only recently been invented. Our latest survey indicates that color televisions and landline phones have become the norm rather than the exception in Chinese homes -- 82% of households have the former, 63% the latter. Nearly half (48%) of China's roughly 400 million households now own at least one mobile phone. Even more remarkable is that at least half (52%) of all Chinese households now own a VCD player -- double the percentage that owned a refrigerator in 1994."

Intr-adevar, din 1994 pana in 2004, perioada acoperita de sondajele Gallup, veniturile din zona rurala, cea urbana si cele nationale au crescut constant si relevant, dupa cum reiese din graficul de mai jos:


Scaderea satisfactiei de viata
"despite impressive growth in average household income, the ratio of Chinese expressing satisfaction to those expressing dissatisfaction has actually eroded somewhat over time", noteaza cei de la Gallup, si isi demonstreaza spusele prin graficul de mai jos:

Comparand cele doua grafice, se observa traiectoria in crestere constanta a veniturilor pentru toate categoriile sociale ale Chinei, in timp ce satisfactia de viata are, din 1997 pana in 2004, o traiectorie descrescatoare. De pilda, in 1994, doar 2% se considerau foarte nefericiti, in 1997 procentul se tripleaza la 7%, pentru ca in 1999 si 2004 sa ajunga la 8%. Procentul celor destul de nemultumiti creste de la 12% in 1994, la 20%, 22% si 29%. Desi e adavart ca procentul celor foarte multumiti creste din 1994 in 1997 de la 9% la 19%, e la fel de adevarat ca pe masura ce veniturile cresc, procentul scade de la 19% la 12%.

Zonele mai putin avute, la fel de multimite precum cele mai bogate
Un alt aspect menit sa nege relevanta factorilor materiali pentru fericirea populatiei este acela ca fericirea din zonele mai sarace, rurale, este identica cu cea din zonele mai avute, urbane.

"It is interesting to note that there is no significant difference between the self-reported satisfaction of China's urban and rural residents, notwithstanding the enormous (and growing) gap in affluence between China's cities and its countryside. The proportion of rural residents describing themselves as "satisfied" is statistically equal to the percentage among their city-dwelling counterparts -- a pattern that has persisted across all four waves of Gallup's survey."

Un alt studiu sociologic efectuat de Gallup, publicat de aceasta data in 23 noiembrie 2007 si intitulat "Chinese Consumers Trying Hard to Make Ends Meet", demonstreaza ca pe masura ce veniturile cresc, oamenii sunt tot mai nemultumiti de banii pe care ii au, caci aspiratiile materiale cresc direct proportional si ceea ce odinioara era considerat lux, devine nevoie.

Relevanta studiului
"Results are based on face-to-face interviews with more than 3,500 adults per year in China, aged 18 and older, conducted in 1997, 2004, and 2006. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

Aspiratii materiale crescute
"Beyond the measure of self-reported household income, Gallup Polls in China ask consumers about their household expenditures in areas ranging from food and rent to medical costs. There is also a summary question regarding how much income their families need for their basic requirements. The latter question measures not what Chinese consumers might wish for or dream about, but rather simply what they deem necessary to live their lives. Here the data are importantly revealing, as these increases often dwarf the growth in reported household income. While household incomes are up 72% since 1997, the average household's financial requirement "just to get by" has more than doubled in nine years. Together, the data reveal what is for many an important gap between household resources and household needs, a gap between how much money is available and how much is perceived as necessary."

Asadar, desi familia obisnuita din China si-a vazut veniturile crescute cu peste 70%, chinezii considera ca doar pentru a se descurca si a cumpara bunurile necesare trebuie sa cheltuiasca de doua ori mai mult decat in urma cu 9 ani. Evident, dupa cum am arat si cu alte ocazii, luxul de odinioara, caruia majoritatea populatiei nu ii ducea lipsa, s-a transformat in obisnuinta si necesitate, astfel incat desi veniturile au crescut, fericirea si satisfactia nici pe departe.

Dupa cum scrie pe saitul Gallup: "While rural Chinese household incomes averaged about 11,500 RMB in 2006, these rural dwellers feel they need 22% more than that "just to get by." These findings suggest rural Chinese have greatly redefined what they feel they absolutely must have, which now likely includes a color TV and a mobile phone. Products that rural Chinese once deemed luxuries are now seen as requirements. As a result, what people believe they need to get by is increasing at a rate faster than incomes."

In concluzie, "The net result may be that, despite the apparent gap between income and requirements, Chinese consumers may recognize that they now possess a good deal more than they did a decade ago. They're neither thrilled nor particularly content with the income levels they've achieved. And yet their household glass, while not completely full, is certainly not empty. Nevertheless, it's apparent that many Chinese consumers are feeling a tighter economic pinch as they try to match their resources with their changing requirements."

Adica imbogatirea i-a facut pe chinezi sa se simta mai saraci si mai presati de "nevoile zilnice".

Un al treilea studiu efectuat de Gallup, publicat la 22 februarie 2005, insumeaza perfect rezultatele primelor doua. Intitulat "Keeping Up With the Zhangs: China's Affluents on Buying Spree", studiul arata ca nici bogatii Chinei nu sdunt mai fericiti si ca si in cazul lor luxul s-a tranformat in necesitate: obiecte ale caror posesie nu le sporeste fericirea, dar a caror lipsa le sporeste nefericirea.

"Despite their comparatively high incomes, affluent Chinese are not necessarily satisfied with either their lives or their current earnings. In 1997, 24% of those making 30,000 RMB or more annually indicated they were "very satisfied" with the way things were going in their lives. In 2004, that percentage had dropped to only 16%. As incomes have increased and the size of the upper-income group has grown, their satisfaction has dropped. It appears increased affluence has simply gone hand in hand with greater expectations and requirements. While the "new affluents" may have more now, they are clearly not more content. This trend among affluent Chinese is consistent with the satisfaction numbers for the country as whole, which also show satisfaction decreasing as income increases (see "Chinese Far Wealthier Than a Decade Ago -- but Are They Happier?" in Related Items).
Their satisfaction hasn't grown, but the well-to-do Chinese have managed to acquire the consumer goods that represent "the good life." The typical affluent household already has what the rest of China wants: phones, refrigerators, washing machines, and color televisions. They're also well on their way to having what others may simply dream about: microwaves, stereos, computers, and air conditioners.
While Chinese affluents have already acquired quite a bit, they're still planning to buy more. Many are adding to or upgrading what they already own. Even though ownership of a color television is already universal among the relatively well-to-do, about one in three (34%) in this group plan to buy another color set in the next few years. An even larger percentage (42%) plans to buy a mobile phone. These figures may reflect a desire among affluents to stay "current," as well as a belief that attractive product enhancements (such as picture phones instead of "plain vanilla" handhelds) will soon become available. Thus, there's little evidence of product saturation, and the upscale Chinese household remains a crucially important target audience for marketers of all sorts of manufactured goods. They have the means, and they have the desire."

Din nou si din nou reiese in mod clar acelas lucru: bogatia materiala nu e capabila sa sporeasca fericirea, ci doar sa ii faca pe oameni sa se simta saraci si in nevoie oricat de mult ar acumula. Este clar deci ca accentul pus pe dezvoltarea economica si goana dupa bani nu e o cale de urmat atunci cand cautam fericirea, ce nu poate fi gasita cu adevarat in aspectele non-pecuniare ale vietii.

"Miracolul" chinezesc - Partea I

China este o tara ce a cunoscut o imbogatire relativ rapida, astfel incat cazul ei e de interes pentru cercetatorii relatiei bani-fericire. Daca sustinatorii ipotezei conform careia banii in plus sporesc fericirea, atunci ne-am astepta ca starea de satisfactie a chinezilor sa fi crescut in ultimele doua-trei decenii. Evident insa, asa ceva nu s-a intamplat, ba chiar fericirea a scazut dramatic in toate categoriile sociale. Motivul? Cresterea inegalitatilor de venit. Iata cum liberalizarea economiei si aparitia capitalismului a dus in practica, din nou, la aceeasi situatie cu care suntem deja familiari: veniturile cresc, dar intr-un context in care fericirea in cel mai bun caz stagneaza.

In acest sens sta marturie studiul "The China Puzzle: Falling Happiness in a Rising Economy", publicat in Journal of Happiness Studies, 10 aprilie 2008 si scris de patru cercetatori, Hilke Brockmann, Jan Delhey, Christian Welzel and Hao Yuan.

Prezentarea studiului:
"In 1978, the Chinese government launched a massive reform program to fight poverty and to liberalize the economy. Since then, China experienced one of the most astounding and enduring growth periods in the history of humankind. Over the last 30 years, the economy has grown at an average annual rate of more than 8%, fundamentally improving the living conditions of many of the 1.3 billion Chinese. The average nominal income of the rural population more than tripled, jumping from 686 YUAN in 1990 to 2,253 YUAN in 2000 (The National Bureau of Statistics of China 2001), thereby pulling millions of Chinese out of poverty. Rural poverty declined from some 80% in 1978 to 13% in 2000, the number of “officially” poor declined from more than 323 million in 1980 to 47 million in 2000. In urban China, the average nominal income quadrupled within one decade, from 1,510 YUAN in 1990 to 6,280 YUAN in 2000 (The National Bureau of Statistics of China 2001).
Every key social indicator for China points towards the most rapid improvement in living standards in recorded history.
In stark contrast to this objective progress, subjective well-being, measured by self-reported ratings of people’s life satisfaction and happiness, has declined considerably. The percentage of Chinese who described themselves as very happy plummeted from 28% in 1990 to 12% in 2000. Measured on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high), life satisfaction fell from an average of 7.3 to 6.5. Most significantly, life satisfaction fell in both urban and rural China and in every income group."

Asadar, in ciuda unei cresteri economice spectaculoase, de care au profitat paturi largi ale populatiei, procentul chinezilor fericiti a scazut de la 28% in 1990 la 12% in 2000, atat in zona rurala cat si cea urbana si pentru fiecare categorie de venituri.

Situatie ce contrazice pana si faimosul paradox al lui easterlin, conform caruia fericirea stagneaza in ciuda cresterii veniturilor: vedem acum ca fericirea poate chiar scadea in aceleasi circumstante.

Explicatiile fenomenului:
Cercetatorii propun trei factori care ar putea explica situatia: anomia sociala, lipsa democratiei politice si inegalitatile de venit.

Anomia sociala
"As Durkheim (1933) argued, rapid social changes easily overwhelm people’s mental capacities and result in disorientation, depression, and anomic attitudes that lead to a diminution of overall happiness. Merton (1938) emphasized that capitalistic and meritocratic norms might contribute to anomic attitudes and mass depression, given the permanent pressure and stress that economic competition and a social obsession with achievement puts on people.
The anomic effects could be even more detrimental in societies like China, in which rising competition and capitalism fundamentally question the collectivist and egalitarian traditions inherited from Confucianism and Communism.

China’s groundbreaking economic reforms changed the life of the urban population dramatically. The country’s cities began to grow rapidly and continue to do so. Millions leave the countryside to find a job. Motorways and high-speed trains increase personal mobility, and mobile phones and Internet quickly become widespread among a well-educated population. Mass consumption changes traditional life-styles. Capitalism catapults the Chinese into modernity in the period of a few years—after decades or even centuries of stagnation. The insecurity nurtured by these rapid transformations makes the urban population particularly vulnerable to anomie, one would suggest.

Feelings of powerlessness have been identified as one of the important dimensions of anomic attitudes. In direct opposition to personal efficacy, powerlessness implies the belief that fate cannot be controlled by a person’s own actions. Various studies found that massive transformations of the social environment can have a negative influence on the feeling of control one has over one’s life."

Pe scurt, climatul din capitalism, imbibat de consumerism si competitie, combinat cu o trecere brusca de la o viata relativ simpla material insa cu un stil de viata mai putin acerb si pretentios ar fi putut contribui in sine la scaderea fericirii chinezilor.

Lipsa democratiei politice:
"Apart from economic and social factors, many studies indicate that institutions and political structures have meaningful effects on life satisfaction. Frey and Kirchgässner (2002), for example, find that people tend to be happier when living in a democratic environment. Likewise, Inglehart (1997) observes that levels of life satisfaction are systematically higher in more democratic societies. If Inglehart and Welzel (2005) are correct and value change follows indeed the logic of Maslow’s (1943) need hierarchy, then democracy (or lack thereof) should have a greater impact on people’s life satisfaction on higher levels of material need satisfaction. [...] Applying these findings to China, democracy should become an important concern for the Chinese population as the country becomes more prosperous. Unfortunately, China is not a free country, as the annual Freedom House reports say. On a scale running from 1 (free) to 7 (unfree), China is scored 7 on political rights, and 6 on civil liberties since 1999 (before 1999, it was scored 7 on both dimensions). Thus, the continuing denial of democracy in China may contribute to a widespread disaffection from the system, causing a decrease in people’s life satisfaction.

Another source of growing political dissatisfaction might be the decline of effective and trustworthy governance. Helliwell (2003) found that corruption and the absence of rule of law are associated with lower life satisfaction at the national level. Corruption in China has become more rampant during the market transition (Gong 1994) as many high-ranking officials take advantage of their power for personal gain: they trade inside information, forgive debts and taxes, and grant illegal loans for real estate deals (Deng and Cordilia 1999; Gong 1994). Thus, one would expect that distrust in the political system has grown over time and increasingly depressed life satisfaction."

Slaba participare a populatiei la viata social-politica a societatii, impreuna cu cresterea coruptiei la nivel inalt, sunt alti posibili factori ce au aparut ori s-au mentinut in ciuda cresterii economiei in capitalismul economiei chineze din ultimele trei decenii.

Inegalitatile socio economice:
"As pointed out by Merton und Kitt (1950), relative deprivation is a concept belonging to the wider realm of reference group theory. The basic idea of the latter is that people compare themselves with other individuals or groups when evaluating their own situation (Hyman 1968; Kelly 1968; Merton and Kitt 1950). Relative deprivation, then, refers to a situation in which people perceive themselves to be disadvantaged in relation to others. In ‘The American Soldier’, Stouffer et al. (1949) found that soldiers’ feelings of dissatisfaction were less related to the actual degree of hardship they experienced than to the situation of the unit or group to which they compared themselves. The concept of ‘relative deprivation’ was introduced to explain these findings. Consequently, happiness might carry a strong relative component, and if so, it is a reflection of social utility rather than economic utility. This is in line with Easterlin’s (1974) claim that a generalized augmentation in income will not increase happiness in a given population, simply because one’s relative income—relative to fellow citizens—does not improve (see also Easterlin 1995, 2005).

The depressing effect of relative deprivation on happiness has been demonstrated in numerous studies. Clark and Oswald (1996), for instance, find that British workers are less satisfied with their jobs when the income level of their reference group is higher. Psychologists and behavioral economists have shown in experiments that people avoid outcomes through which they end up having less than the majority, even if they improve their situation drastically in absolute terms (Frank 1997; Smith et al. 1989; Tversky and Griffin 1991). Although people tend to be happier if they think they outclass others, negative experiences seem to be more salient than positive ones: relative disadvantage makes people unhappier than relative advantage makes them happy (Delhey and Kohler 2006; Surowiecki 2004).

In order to understand why life satisfaction fell in China, we employ a new version of relative deprivation theory, the concept of ‘frustrated achievers’ proposed by Graham and Pettinato (2002). These authors find low levels of happiness throughout almost all income groups in transition economies such as Peru and Russia, even in times of economic growth. This phenomenon reflects a rapid change in the shape of a society’s income distribution to the effect that inequality becomes increasingly skewed towards the upper income groups (‘top-driven inequality’). As a result, the proportion of the population falling below the country’s mean income becomes bigger, worsening most people’s relative position despite absolute gains.

This phenomenon may be particularly pronounced in China in which the political hierarchy has been the sole standard of social ranking for decades (Li 2002; Nee 1989; Zhou 2000). In economic terms, egalitarianism dominated and wages were usually kept at an average subsistence level without much variation among workers. Differences in income and other material resources existed but were usually small (Szelenyi 1978; Zhou 2000). The situation has changed dramatically since China reformed its economy in 1978. The move towards private ownership and a market-based economy brought profound changes in property rights and the distribution of resources. Economic inequality increased markedly. During the 1990s, the Gini coefficient of income inequality skyrocketed from .28 to .43, with some estimates as high as .48, a level which is comparable to some of the most unequal countries in Asia and Latin America. As Li (2002) pointed out, only a small group of elites and entrepreneurs benefited massively from the boom, heading away from the rest of the population. Unthinkable during Communism, today more than 300,000 Chinese have a net wealth worth over $1 million, excluding property, according to a report from Merrill Lynch. Mainland millionaires control some $530 billion in assets, Boston Consulting Group estimates.3 Moreover, the income gap between urban and rural areas has also been growing (Ravallion and Chen 2007). To a large extent, the countryside lives in the shadow of the prospering economy of the cities."

Asadar, inegalitatile economice au crescut semnificativ in China "liberalizata", iar cum satisfactia oamenilor legata de venit provine in special din comparatiile sociale decat din valoarea venitului absolut, e de asteptat ca fericirea generala sa stagneze sau chiar sa scada.

Rezultatele studiului:
"This pattern can be explained by a top-heavy biased income inequality, placing a growing proportion of the population below the rising national income mean. Rising relative deprivation turns these people into ‘frustrated achievers’—people who have achieved higher incomes in absolute terms, but who are dissatisfied when it comes to their income position relative to the winners. Our analysis uncovers two consequences of this pattern: (1) financial dissatisfaction rises and (2) becomes a stronger factor in depressing life satisfaction. A fast-paced commodification of a growing number of areas of life makes financial dissatisfaction the strongest depressor of subjective well-being.

The depressive effects of anomie and political disaffection are less pronounced. This is particularly true for political disaffection, which we found to be unrelated to life satisfaction in urban areas, once other factors are controlled for (similarly for Hong Kong, see Wong et al. 2006). Moreover, political disaffection has not increased, but on the contrary decreased over time, at least in urban regions. In a similar vein, anomic feelings have become less consequential for subjective well-being in both urban and rural areas, even though they remain an important depressor of life satisfaction."

Asadar, conform celor patru autori, cresterea inegalitatilor sociale este motivul nemultumirii masive a chinezilor, ceea ce demonstreaza din nou ca sistemul capitalist e incapabil de a creste fericirea populatiei deoarece oamenii sunt mai preocupati de venitul relativ decat de cel absolut. O societate inegala, chiar daca prospera, este deci inferioara uneia mai putin abundenta material--fara a se cobori sub pragul saraciei--dar in care se pastreaza egalitarismul.

Luxul, transformat in necesitate

La data de 14 decembrie 2006, PewResearchCenter a facut publice rezultatele unui sondaj intitulat "Luxury or Necessity? Things We Can't Live Without: The List Has Grown in the Past Decade". Ceea ce rezulta este ca pe masura ce bogatia materiala creste, populatia isi cumpara tot mai multe obiecte, care in scurt timp din obiecte de lux devin necesitati. Adica din obiecte de care te puteai lipsi, ajung obiecte fara de care viata nu mai poate fi traita in conditii normale. Iata cum dezvoltarea economica impinsa la infinit se transforma intr-o reteta pentru dezastru si nefericire: transformand tot mai multe lucruri in necesitati, viata devine tot mai dependenta de aspecte exterioare, consumerismul, poluarea si risipa cresc, pe cand resursele naturale scad vertiginos. Sa urmarim cateva dintre concluziile studiului PEW.
Prezentare generala a studiului
"The Pew survey asked the "Luxury or Necessity?" question about 14 different consumer products designed to help make everyday life more productive, more convenient, more comfortable, more efficient or more entertaining. It was conducted by telephone from October 18 through November 9, 2006 among a randomlyselected nationally-representative sample of 2,000 adults.
Survey respondents placed the 14 items on a very broad range along the “necessity” scale -- with a high of 91% describing a car as a necessity and a low of 3% saying the same about an iPod.
But one pattern was consistent: wherever there has been a significant change in the past decade in the public’s judgment about these items, it’s always been in the direction of necessity. And on those items for which there are longer term survey trends dating back to 1973, this march toward necessity has tended to accelerate in the past ten years."

Traiectoria e deci clara: din ce in ce mai multe obiecte, fara de care o mare parte a populatiei traia acum aproximativ 50 de ani fara sa le simta lipsa se transforma in necesitati.

Exemple concrete
"As Americans navigate increasingly crowded lives, the number of things they say they can’t live without has multiplied in the past decade, according to a new Pew Research Center survey that asks whether a broad array of everyday consumer products are luxuries or necessities. Some of these goods, such as home computers, are relatively recent information era innovations that have been rapidly transformed in the public’s eyes from luxury toward necessity.
But other items – such as microwave ovens, dishwashers, air conditioning for the home and car, and clothes dryers – have also made substantial leaps in the past decade even though they’ve been fixtures on the consumer landscape for far longer.
For example, the percentage of American adults who describe microwave ovens as a necessity rather than a luxury has more than doubled in the past decade, to 68%. Home air conditioning is now considered a necessity by seven-in-ten adults, up from half (51%) in 1996. And more than eight-in-ten (83%) now think of a clothes dryer as a necessity, up from six-in-ten (62%) who said the same a
decade ago in a survey conducted by the Washington Post, the Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University."

Asadar, numarul americanilor pentru care cuptorul cu microunde a devenit o necesitate a crescut cu 68% in 10 ani; aerul conditionat pentru casa si masina a devenit necesitate pentru 70% fata de 51% acum 10 ani.
Cazul calculatoarelor si telefoanelor mobile
"The two most ubiquitous products of the information era – home computers and cell phones – are currently situated in the middle of the pack, with the public evenly divided about their status. Computers are deemed a necessity by 51% of the adult public, and cell phones by 49%. But both of these products are making a swift climb up the necessity scale. A decade ago, just 26% of adults considered the home computer a necessity, and back in 1983, when computers were still a novelty, just 4% felt that way. Meantime, cell phones were still so exotic in 1996 that they weren’t even placed on the survey."
Cresterea venitului, direct proportionala cu a dependentei
O exemplificare relevanta este cea legata de calcularea veniturilor diverselor categorii sociale. Dupa cum era de asteptat, PEW a decoperit ca cu cat venitul propriu este mai mare, cu atat oamenii sunt mai dependenti de obiecte: "When it comes to income levels, the story is different. Here, the pattern tends to play out in one direction only: the more income a person has, the more likely he or she is to view goods and gadgets as necessities rather than luxuries. Overall, some 45% of adults with family incomes of $100,000 and above rate at least 10 of these 14 items as necessities, while just 15% of adults with incomes below $30,000 do the same. In short, the more money you have, the more things you need."
Ca o completare la constatarea de mai sus, se pare ca oamenii din zonele rurale sunt ceva mai putin dependenti de obiecte, alegand o viata mai simpla: `Out in the country, a simpler life: Rural residents are less likely than those who live either in the city or the suburbs to view these 14 items as necessities. Of people living in rural areas, fully a third say just 0 to 5 of these items are necessities, compared with 23% of those in cities and 24% of those in suburbs. This difference holds even after controlling for income and internet use."

Dr. John F. Helliway confirma slaba relatie dintre bogatie si satisfactie

John F. Helliwell este profesor emerit de economie la University of British Columbia. In studiul sau „HOW’S LIFE? COMBINING INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL VARIABLES TO EXPLAIN SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING”, Helliwell foloseste trei randuri de sondaje la scara mondiala, efectuate de World Values Survey, pentru a afla ce factori influenteaza satisfactia, multumirea si fericirea oamenilor din majoritatea tarilor dezvoltate si in curs de dezvoltare.

Datele folosite de Helliwell
„This paper analyzes measures of subjective well-being drawn from three successive waves of the World Values Survey (WVS, Inglehart et al 2000). (...) The first wave of the WVS survey provides data for the current research from 18 industrial countries, all of which were members of the OECD. The 1990-91 second wave provides data from 38 countries and the 1995-97 third wave provides data for 30 countries, excluding many of the previously surveyed OECD countries.”

Impactul venitului asupra satisfactiei, nesemnificativ peste pragul saraciei
„Theory and some previous research suggest that the effects of individual and national incomes may be non-linear in nature, with smaller well-being effects attached to increases in income beyond levels sets by each individual’s or society’s expectations and habits (Offer 2000). Habituation effects are hard to establish with the WVS data, since there is no way to tell how the family incomes reported relate to recent or normal levels. To search for non-linearity of the individual relative income variable, the equation includes the decile value (where the range is from .1 to 1, and the mean is 0.5) and the decile value squared. In equation 1, both take significant coefficients, with signs that imply diminishing returns to higher relative incomes. For an individual to move from the fourth to the fifth decile in the distribution of family incomesraises well-being by +0.10 (=1.91*.1-.96*.09), while to move from the ninth to the tenth decile isassociated with an increase in well-being of only 0.01 (=1.91*.1-.96*.19). This is despite the fact that for most countries the move from the ninth to the tenth decile involves a much largerabsolute and relative increase in income than to move from the fourth to the fifth decile. Thus there are sharply decreasing well-being effects from higher incomes relative to those elsewhere in the same country”.

Asadar se verifica efectul de „diminishing returns” (adica beneficii din ce in ce mai mici) avut de imbogatire fata de satisfactia de viata. Helliwell demonstreaza ca trecerea unui individ dintr-o zona sub-mediocra cantitativ a venitului spre cea medie sporeste relativ semnificativ satisfactia, insa trecerea din a doua cea mai inalta categorie de venituri spre cea mai inalta are efecte aproape zero, chiar daca aceasta trecere presupune detinerea unui venit cu mult mai mare decat cel necesar atingerii unui nivel mediu. Concluzie la care se ajunge, prin alte metode, si ulterior in studiu: „As noted earlier in the paper, increases in individual incomes, relative to others in the same country, are matched by continuing increases in subjective well-being in the poorer countries, but not in the OECD countries, where average incomes are much higher.”

Dupa cum spune John Hellwell intr-un alt articol, „(...) as people and countries grow richer, each extra dollar of income buys less and less additional happiness. A $100 rise in average income in Jamaica, for example, has three times the impact on measured happiness as a $100 increase in the U.S. Moreover, other economists, including John Helliwell of the University of British Columbia, have shown that nonmonetary factors like working conditions appear to have a much bigger impact on happiness than income. “What we really care about is how big the effect of income is on well-being,” Helliwell says. “The answer is it’s small relative to other things.” Sursa aici.
Intorcandu-ne la studiul lui Helliwell de la care am plecat,

Lipsa coruptiei si increderea intre oameni, reteta fericirii la nivel de natiuni
„As can be seen, the well-being effects of living in higher income countries are small and insignificant, and do not show any evidence of subsequent increase once GDP per capita exceeds half that in the United States in the mid 1990s. Yet it remains the case that on average, subjective well-being is much higher in OECD than in non-OECD countries, and the OECD countries are also much richer. Why this apparent paradox? The reasoning is the similar to that in the case of education. A reduced-form equation shows that subjective well-being is higher in the richer countries, but both education and income effects fall out in the full model, which includes health, social connections, and the quality of government, all of which are higher in the richer countries. Those who have the highest levels of subjective well-being are not those who live in the richest countries, but those who live where social and political institutions are effect, where mutual trust is high, and corruption is low.”

Deci eficienta institutionala, coeziunea sociala si lipsa coruptiei contribuie decisiv la sporirea satisfactiei cetatenilor, si nu nivelul PIB-ului, care odata ce a atins un nivel de doua ori mai mic decat al SUA, nu mai are practic nicio relevanta.
Iata deci cum din nou se confirma ca un accent pus pe dezvoltarea economica, odata depasit pragul saraciei pentru toti cetatenii, nu se mai justifica, punct in care cu totul alte aspecte sociale, non-pecuniare, trebuie sa devina prioritare, precum educatia si coeziunea sociala.

Mariajul si educatia, nu bogatia, sporesc durata vietii

Daca in recenta postare "Sunt familiile bogate (mai) fericite?" (29.12.2008) aratam ca bogatia nu garanteaza o viata de familie mai implinita si fericita decat a celor cu resurse financiare mult mai modeste, azi vom afla ca educatia si casatoria sunt doi factori care contribuie esential la sporirea duratei vietii, nu venitul. Astfel, din nou se constata ca aspectele non-pecuniare au o influenta determinanta asupra unui aspect cheie al calitatii vietii, longevitatea, nu acumularea averilor.

Mariajul, nu venitul, sporeste viata
Aceasta este teza sustinuta de cercetatorii Jonathan Gardner si Andrew Oswald in lucrarea "How is mortality affected by money, marriage, and stress?", publicata in 2004 in revista academica Journal of Health Economics.
Citez din introducerea si concluzia articolului:

"It is believed that the length of a person’s life depends on a mixture of economic and social factors. Yet the relative importance of these is still debated. We provide recent British evidence that marriage has a strong positive effect on longevity. Economics matters less. After controlling for health at the start of the 1990s, we cannot find reliable evidence that income affects the probability of death in the subsequent decade. [...]
prolong life.
The paper explores these issues by using recent longitudinal data from the British Household Panel Survey. Panel data have the crucial advantage that it is possible to control for health at the start of the period. Our study has the additional advantage of being able to
control for a rich set of health controls, which include measures of psychosocial distress.
We focus on individuals aged over 40 at the beginning of the 1990s and estimate equations for the probability of death over the subsequent decade. Hence, our study ignores mortality in the young and our discussion is only germane to the mortality experiences of the middle-aged and elderly. The focus of our paper is then threefold: (1) to explore whether money or marriage keeps people alive; (2) to examine the relationship between stress levels and later mortality; and (3) to examine whether stress levels can help explain the effects of income and marriage upon longevity.
The findings seem of interest. To our surprise, we can detect only minor effects from economics, with income playing little role once we enter suitable controls for initial health status. Marriage, by contrast, has a large effect on mortality risk, even after controlling for a set of health controls (including measures of psychological distress).[...]

This paper’s results suggest that marriage has a more important effect on longevity than income does. For men, the effect of being married is positive and substantial. For example, it approximately offsets the large negative consequences of smoking. For women, the influence of marriage is smaller, at half the size of the smoking effect."

Educatia sporeste longevitatea
Intr-un articol cuprinzator scris de Gina Kolata si aparut in The New York Times la 3 ianuarie 2007, intitulat "A Surprising Secret to a Long Life: Stay in School", cuprinde numeroase afirmatii ale unor cercetatori recunoscuti, toti fiind de acord ca educatia sporeste semnificativ durata vietii, spre diferenta de avere.
Cateva citate in acest sens:

"James Smith, a health economist at the RAND Corporation, has heard a variety of hypotheses about what it takes to live a long life — money, lack of stress, a loving family, lots of friends. But he has been a skeptic. [...] The one social factor that researchers agree is consistently linked to longer lives in every country where it has been studied is education. It is more important than race; it obliterates any effects of income.Year after year, in study after study, says Richard Hodes, director of the National Institute on Aging, education “keeps coming up.” And, health economists say, those factors that are popularly believed to be crucial — money and health insurance, for example, pale in comparison.

Dr. Smith explains: “Giving people more Social Security income, or less for that matter, will not really affect people’s health. It is a good thing to do for other reasons but not for health.”Health insurance, too, he says, “is vastly overrated in the policy debate.” Instead, Dr. Smith and others say, what may make the biggest difference is keeping young people in school. A few extra years of school is associated with extra years of life and vastly improved health decades later, in old age.

“If you were to ask me what affects health and longevity,” says Michael Grossman, a health economist at the City University of New York, “I would put education at the top of my list.”

Explicatia legaturii dintre educatie si longevitate
"Dr. Lleras-Muney, assistant professor at Princeton, and others point to one plausible explanation — as a group, less educated people are less able to plan for the future and to delay gratification. If true, that may, for example, explain the differences in smoking rates between more educated people and less educated ones. Smokers are at least twice as likely to die at any age as people who never smoked, says Samuel Preston, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania. And not only are poorly educated people more likely to smoke but, he says, “everybody knows that smoking can be deadly,” and that includes the poorly educated.
But education, Dr. Smith at RAND finds, may somehow teach people to delay gratification. For example, he reported that in one large federal study of middle-aged people, those with less education were less able to think ahead. “Most of adherence is unpleasant,” Dr. Smith says. “You have to be willing to do something that is not pleasant now and you have to stay with it and think about the future.”He deplores the dictums to live in the moment or to live for today. That advice, Dr. Smith says, is “the worst thing for your health.”"

Asadar, se pare ca educatia indelungata ii invata pe oameni sa acorde ratiunii un respect mai mare decat in mod obisnuit si sa se ghideze astfel mai atent in concordata cu recomandarile stiintei. Oamenii educati sunt capabili sa se controleze mai bine si sa evite comportamentele periculoase precum fumatul.

Alte trei studii confirma concluziile de mai sus
In studiul "Widening educational disparities in all-cause mortality: An analysis of Austrian data with international comparisons", aparut in Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2007, pp. 93-105, Franz Schwarz de la Academia Austriaca de Stiinte argumenteaza la randul sau ca educatia sporeste longevitatea:

"The current study confirms that an inverse relationship exists between education and mortality and shows that in Austria the relative gap in all-cause mortality widened between 1981/82 and 1991/91. Whereas, in relative terms, the declines in death rates over the 1980s turned out to be greater with increasing educational
level, the absolute decline in the rates was almost equal for all levels.
Schartz indica la randul sau fumatul, un obicei nesanatos mai des intalnit in randul celor cu o educatie deficitara: "In Austria, smoking prevalence increased between 1986 and 1995, by 33.7% among females and by 9.6% among males. Indicators of smoking among females (prevalence and cigarettes per day) are approaching those of males (Haidinger, Waldhort and Vutuc 1998). It is likely that those who are less educated represent a disproportionate segment of this increase."

Totusi, ar putea continua un critic, dieferentele dintre cei cu o educatie inalta si cei lipsiti de ea nu pot fi explicate prin aceea ca primii au venituri, de obicei, mai mari si astfel beneficiaza de servicii medicale superioare? Nu, raspunde autorul, explicand ca

"Equal access to national health-care systems may improve health among the disadvantaged. However, Pamuk (1985) demonstrated that, in England, social inequalities in mortality have been increasing despite the introduction of a National Health Service in 1948. Likewise, the US Social Security Act that established Medicare and Medicaid in the US in 1965 could not prevent increasing social disparities in mortality, either (Feldman et al. 1989). In Austria,
virtually everyone has a basic right to utilise the facilities made available by the Austrian health system. This means that everybody is entitled to preventative examinations, medical treatment, free medicine, dental treatment, nursing care at home or as an in-patient, payment of ambulance costs, etc. Regardless of these positive health-care conditions, the differentials have increased."

Asadar, desi in tari precum Austria vasta majoritate a populatiei are acces la ingrijiri medicale gratuite, diferenta dde durata a vietii intre cei educati si ceilalti continua sa creasca, ceea ce sugereaza ca nu accesul la sistemul de sanatate influenteaza aceasta diferenta, exact cum afirma Dr. James Smith mai sus.

In studiul "Estonia 1989–2000: enormous increase in mortality differences by education", aparut in International Journal of Epidemiology 2003;32:1081-1087, cercetatorii Mall Leinsalu, Denny Vågerö si Anton E Kunst demonstreaza ca beneficiarii unei educatii iesc mai mult decat restul.

"Educational differences in mortality increased tremendously from 1989 to 2000: over the 10-year period life expectancy improved considerably for graduates, and worsened for those with the lowest education. In 2000, male graduates aged 25 could expect to live 13.1 years longer than corresponding men with the lowest education; among women the difference was 8.6 years. Large differences were observed in all selected causes of death in 1989 and in 2000 and the trends were invariably much more favourable for the higher educated. Educational differences in total mortality increased in all age groups."

In sfarsit, studiul "The Gap Gets Bigger: Changes In Mortality And Life Expectancy, By Education, 1981–2000", publicat de Ellen R. Meara, Seth Richards si David M. Cutler in Health Affairs, 27, no. 2 (2008): 350-360, arata ca:

"Despite increased attention and substantial dollars directed to groups with low socioeconomic status, within race and gender groups, the educational gap in life expectancy is rising, mainly because of rising differentials among the elderly. With the exception of black males, all recent gains in life expectancy at age twenty-five have occurred among better-educated groups, raising educational differentials in life expectancy by 30 percent. Differential trends in smoking-related diseases explain at least 20 percent of this trend."

Liderul studiului, Ellen R. Meara, explica pentru AFP motivele acestei diferente intre durata de viata a oamenilor educati si a restului societatii:
"The reasons for such longevity appear to be that more educated people have better access to both information about disease and medical advances."Quite literally, why are the better educated living longer? They're less likely to die of diseases," said Meara. [...]

"The diseases contributing most to the growing education gap in mortality include diseases of the heart, lung and other cancers, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all of which share tobacco use as a major risk factor," the study said. "Beyond the differential change in smoking, there is the national trend toward increased obesity," it said. "As with smoking, obesity is more common among the less-educated than among the better-educated. Further, recent research suggests that obesity might contribute to nearly as many deaths as tobacco does.""

Concluziile trase de Meara sunt confirmate de un alt cercetator, Ahmedin Jemal, al carui studiu arata ca "better-educated and wealthier groups have been more likely to adopt more healthful behaviors. For example, the fraction of U.S. women without high school degrees who smoked fell from 37 percent to 25 percent from 1974 to 2004. For college graduates, it fell from 26 percent to 9 percent, a much steeper decline." Sursa aici.
Astfel, cei educati au un stil de viata mai echilibrat, cunosc mai bine si au capacitatea de a evita comportamentele si obiceiurile daunatoare sanatatii, precum fumatul, sedentarismul si regimurile alimentare nesanatoase ce duc la obezitate.

IN CONCLUZIE: Se verifica din nou ca averea nu este unul din factorii ce influenteaza decisiv aspectele cheie ale bunastarii umane, precum longevitatea. Aspecte mult mai putin legate in mod necesar de bogatie, precum casatoria si educatia, au un impact mult mai consistent asupra duratei vietii. Este important de subliniat ca educatia are acest efect pozitiv nu pentru ca ar presupune castiguri materiale mai mari sau privilegii in accesul la serviciile medicale, ci pentru ca sporeste controlul rational asupra comportamentului uman, si ajuta la evitarea obiceiurilor nesanatoase.

Aceasta concluzie este favorabila miscarii downshifting deoarece arata ca nu goana dupa bani, ci acordarea atentiei aspectelor familiale si celor legate de educatie si cultura trebuie sa primeze, obiective presupuse si urmarite de miscarea simplitatii voluntare.

Ierarhizarea nevoilor si paradoxul fericirii

Stavros A. Drakopoulos este profesor de economie la Universitatea din Atena. Totodata, el este si autorul articolului "The paradox of happiness: towards an alternative explanation", aparut in revista academica Journal of Happiness Studies (2008) 9:303–315.
Aici Drakopoulos aduce o noua explicatie realitatii cunoscute drept "paradoxul fericirii" sau "paradoxul lui Easterlin", paradox ce consta in faptul ca odata ce un nivel material de baza este asigurat, fericirea nu sporeste odata cu venitul peste aceasta limita relativ modesta.

Voi prezenta intai, folosindu-ma de textul profesorului grec, descoperirile facute de cercetatori legate de validitatea acestui paradox, apoi explicatiile date de-a lungul timpului in incercarea de a-l deslusi, iar in final prezint rezolvarea oferita de Drakopoulos. Subliniez ca nu voi include in citate si referintele bibliografice date de autor, pe care cititorul le poate gasi in textul originar spre care am dat link mai sus.

Paradoxul fericirii: venitul creste, fericirea stagneaza
"One of the first studies, which identified the paradox was Easterlin (1974). It is based on post WWII US time series data and shows that
although real per capita income has risen dramatically, there is no definite trend on self-reported happiness level.
This finding also holds for more recent studies. More specifically, many studies indicate that there has been no improvement in happiness in the US for over almost half a century although real income per capita more than doubled. Similar results hold for many European countries. There is no trend in a period where real income per capita rises within all these countries from 25 to 50%. The findings for Japan are even more strange given the tremendous rise in real income.
Although Japanese income increased by almost five times, there was no improvement in mean subjective well-being."

Tari relativ sarace, la fel de fericite ca altele mult mai avute
"The empirical evidence for less developed countries is more in line with the theoretical expectations. A survey of 22 countries indicates that the higher the gross national product, the lower the correlation between happiness and income. Indicatively, in this survey, Nigeria and Israel report the same level of happiness in spite of the considerable difference in GDP per capita. Furthermore, the Philippines report slightly higher levels of happiness than Italy although the former’s per capital income is substantially lower than the later. As a further evidence from another work, Chile and Germany report the same level of happiness while Germany’s income per head is three times higher than Chile’s. More recent data froma world survey of country data shows that additional income provides more happiness at low levels of development. In support of these findings, the strongest correlation at the micro-level between happiness and income that has been found so far is in the poor areas of Calcutta, India. It should also be noted that many of the above empirical results concerning the paradox have also been tested for reliability by various econometric methods."

Banii sporesc fericirea pana la un nivel material modest
"This is also supported by the fact that for US data there is a positive correlation between income and happiness up to the average income level of US $10000. Relative to this, the US population who felt ‘‘very happy’’ peaked in 1957 and has decreased since then, although real income has increased continuously. Furthermore, many cross-sectional empirical studies indicate that more developed
countries do not report higher happiness levels once GDP per capita exceeds half that in the US in mid-1990s."

Posibile explicatii ale paradoxului lui Easterlin
1. Odata cu venitul in crestere, cresc si pretentiile
"More specifically, it is argued that aspirations change over the life cycle roughly in proportion to income and this means that they have offsetting effects on happiness levels. According to this outlook, happiness level has a positive relationship with current income
but a negative one with aspirations about future income.
Moreover, aspirations are based on past income. Given that material aspirations change over life cycle in proportion to income, it is likely that happiness level remain constant while income rises. The main
example of this approach is the work of Easterlin but it also draws from work in psychology. Similar to this approach is the idea that individuals as consumers’ are constantly exposed to idealized advertising images, which leads them to compare and evaluate their lives with reference to those images. This exposure combined with materialistic consumer desires, often raises consumers’ expectations and might result in consumer discontent."

2. Societatea de consum deterioreaza coeziunea sociala
"Other researchers have pointed out that social capital (trusting people, friendship) affects happiness. The deterioration of social capital in many advanced countries might be a crucial factor for the paradox of happiness. Similar to this line of explanation is the idea of relational goods. The main argument here is that the lack of relational goods such as close personal relationships, might be common in advanced countries and this may reduce overall well-being. This approach also draws from current work in psychology. [...]
For Phelps the paradox of happiness in the US is attributed to a decline in the percentage of altruists in the population. This is because altruists are more likely to report themselves happy than people with other personality attributes. Finally, Elster argues that emotions are very important in the decision process. The relation between emotions and choice must be understood better in order to analyze observable choices made by individuals and which affect happiness levels."

3. Inegalitatea sociala
"Another approach towards tackling the paradox of happiness has to do with traditional economic concepts, which if incorporated, might be able to explain the issue. Two of these are: the idea of relative income or relative consumption hypothesis, and the level of
inequality. The idea of relative income is quite important in economics and has been used in many theoretical contexts. The main thrust of the relative income argument is that individuals do not pay much attention to their absolute income but to their position relative to other people’s incomes. Thus, raising everybody’s income does not increase general happiness. This is because in comparison to others, income has not improved.
The idea of inequality as an explanation is based on the concept of diminishing marginal utility of money: an extra dollar provides much more utility to a poor than to a rich person. This implies that if there is a transfer of money from the rich to the poor, average happiness increases. Thus, the more equally income is distributed, the higher the level of happiness level in a country."

Ipoteza lui Drakopoulos: ierarhizarea valorilor
"The conceptual basis of hierarchical choice is that human needs are of varying importance and that they are hierarchical. Agents have non-Archimedian preferences when they are characterized by primary and secondary needs. Primary needs must reach a given
level of satisfaction first before the secondary ones are considered. In other words, preferences are hierarchical in the sense that higher priority choice variables must reach certain levels before lower priority choice variables are considered. [...]
One potential difficulty with the empirical dimension of the hierarchical system might be the definition of basic needs. However, it has been maintained that needs lower in the hierarchy are likely to be common among individuals of different cultures and that needs
higher in the hierarchy are likely to be common among individuals of the same culture. Furthermore, a number of widely accepted
economic formulations have explicitly or implicitly assumed the feasibility of basic needs distinction. [...] In addition, a whole body of theoretical and empirical literature on linear expenditure systems
employs concepts such as ‘‘basic needs’’, ‘‘necessary goods’’ and ‘‘subsistence expenditure’’.
The above formulation of happiness can be used as an additional explanation of the observed curvilinear relation between income and happiness: income has strong impact on happiness but after a given level, the effect becomes much weaker. [...] As Ruut Veenhoven states: ‘‘To a great extent happiness depends on the gratification of
innate bio-psychological needs which do not adjust to circumstances’’. [...]
After a discussion of the characteristics of the hierarchical system and its relationship with the concept of happiness, the paper argued that this system of choice implies that income might be very important
variable in providing happiness up to a certain level. After that level has been reached, it ceases to do so and other variables become important. "

Altfel spus, banii aduc intr-adevar fericirea atata timp cat subiectul iese din saracia lucie si isi poate permite sa plateasca pentru bunurile de baza, printre care se numara adapostul, hrana, apa, imbracamintea. Acestea stau la baza ierarhiei nevoilor si ele trebuiesc satisfacute cu prioritate, inainte oricaror alte nevoie sau dorintelor. Fiind nevoi de baza, ele nu sunt supuse efectelor corozive data de adaptarea hedonica sau de comparatiile inter-sociale, caci fiecare om are aceleasi nevoi de baza.
Odata acest prag al saraciei trecut, omul se indreapta catre satisfacerea altor "variabile", asa cum le numeste Drakopoulos, sau pur si simplu "nevoi secundare" si intre care include "social aspiration, emotions, social stimuli, goal completion and meaning, freedom and social capital. These variables may or may not affect income." Acestea pot sau nu sa depinda de bani si, oricum, satisfacerea lor este mai putin stringenta decat cea a nevoilor primare.
Autorul subliniaza in repetate randuri ca ipoteza lui nu se vrea exclusiva, ea poate functiona in combinatie cu altele dintre cele enumerate mai sus.

Ce am retinut asadar din prezenta expunere?
1. studii diverse sustin realitatea "paradoxului fericirii", a starii de fapt ca odata trecut un nivel material modest, banii nu mai sporesc relevant fericirea.
2. paradoxul fericirii poate fi explicat in diverse moduri, fara a insemna ca unele explicatii le exclud pe altele. Printre acestea se numara cresterea aspiratiilor, scaderea coeziunii si apropierii dintre oameni in societatile de consum, inegalitatile sociale etc.
3. o noua explicatie este cea ca nevoile noastre pot fi ierarhizate, banii fiind importanti pentru satisfacerea celor primare, dar din ce in ce mai putin importanti in privinta celor secundare.
4. toti oamenii au aceleasi nevoi de baza.

Ca implicatie politica, aceste concluzii pot fi folosite pentru a sustine egalitarismul: veniturile consistente in plus peste pragul saraciei sa fie descurajate, din moment ce oricum nu sporesc in mod credibil fericirea. In felul acesta stopam si risipa, poluarea, munca in exces si oferim tuturor mai mult timp liber in care se pot indeletnici de activitati pozitive pentru fericirea personala, precum sportul, relatiile interumane, cultura, voluntariatul etc.

Adam Smith Frankenstein

Romanul "Frankenstein; sau un Prometeus modern", publicat de Mary Shelley in 1818, nareaza povestea omului de stiinta Victor Frankenstein care ambitionandu-se sa creeze un om artificial, sfarseste prin a crea un monstru. Romanul este in mod obisnuit interpretat ca o critica a inconstientei creatorului, celui obsedat de a pune in practica o idee fara a se gandi suficient la potentialele consecinte ale acestui act, ce se pot intoarce chiar impotriva sa.
Adam Smith (1723-1790) a furnizat in lucrarea sa "Avuţia naţiunilor, cercetare asupra naturii şi cauzelor ei" una dintre argumentarile considerate printre cele mai convingatoare in apararea comertului liber si capitalismului, introducand in teoria economica inclusiv conceptul de "mana invizibila".
Ceea ce vom afla in aceasta postare este ca, precum Frankenstein, Smith a dat nastere unui monstru pe care el insusi l-ar fi renegat. Vom vedea ca in ciuda unor valori etice sanatoase adoptate de Smith, sistemul capitalist a dus in practica la realitati diametral opuse. Si ca desi Adam Smith insusi ar fi fost un critic acerb al consumerismului, capitalismul sau s-a transformat exact intr-un monstru materialisto-consumerist, caruia vietile oamenilor ii cad tot mai des prada.

In acest sens, ma voi folosi de studiul "Adam Smith and Consumerism’s Role in Happiness: Modern Society Re-examined", scris de Dr. Michael Busch si publicat in revista academica Major Themes in Economics, Spring 2008. Aici Busch incepe prin a expune neajunsurile, uneori grotesti, ale consumerismului propagat de capitalismul modern, apoi prezinta filosofia etica a lui Adam Smith, pentru ca in final sa arate numeroasele puncte de divergenta dintre consumerism si propria teorie morala a lui Smith. Sa-l urmarim punct cu punct.

Monstruozitatile consumerismului
1. Consumerismul inseamna munca in exces
"Perhaps the most basic reason to consume is necessity. People have
biological needs for food, water, and shelter. In modern American
society, necessity is not the only, or even primary, reason for
consumption. In 1965, a U.S. Senate subcommittee estimated that
Americans would have an average work week of fourteen to twenty-two hours in 2000 because of productivity gains if consumption stayed constant (De Graaf et al 2001, 41). Instead, in 2006, the average full-time worker in America worked 8.54 hours each weekday and averaged more than 40 hours of work in a week (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007). The extra hours worked indicate that Americans value additional consumption over additional leisure time."

2. Consumerismul, o creatie artificiala si impusa
"Producers can and do use advertising and salesmanship to inspire new desires in the consumer. The average child can view up to 200
commercials in a normal day’s worth of television consumption (De
Graaf et al 2001, 53).
When the desires are created by the producers, satisfying each
consumer desire does little to satisfy the individual in the long run.
Instead, satisfying each desire provides the producers with the revenue to create more consumer desires that the producers will in turn satisfy with new products. Increased consumption, then, contributes little to increased satisfaction or even higher utility over time among consumers. The means used to encourage consumer desires may even have a detrimental effect on the consumer’s overall satisfaction. For example, many children’s commercials are designed to undermine the child-parent relationship in that they encourage children to convince their parents to purchase products for them (Ibid, 54).
In addition to television advertising, high schools have become an
important shaping ground for teenagers as consumers. Home economics courses, which once taught the skills needed for home production, now focus primarily on how to consume, such as buying furniture for a house or consumption-based leisure activities (Spring 2003 186). Among teenagers, consumerism has been found to be the biggest force linking them to each other (Ibid, 188). Since most teenagers have all of their immediate needs provided by their parents, their consumption is even more easily influenced by created desires than the average consumer’s."

3. Consumerism exacerbeaza lacomia si lipsa de satisfactie
"As the consumer’s desires grow, the number of goods seen as
necessary also grows. In 2000, approximately half of Americans believed they could not afford everything they needed. The results were not bunched at the lowest income quintile, as 33% of people in the highest income quintile said they could not afford all their needs (Hamilton 2005, 63). The figures suggest large variances in the definition of needs among consumers, both over time and in a given society. The trend of perceived unmet needs held true for both British and Australian consumers, so it is not exclusive to Americans.
When asked about individual goods such as vacations, new clothes, or meals at restaurants, the vast majority of consumers said they could afford such goods (Ibid 64). The perceived difference between meeting general needs and purchasing particular goods suggests that people’s definition of necessity is expanding."

4. Consumerismul, mentinut de inegalitatile socio-economice
"In a similar vein, many goods are purchased as status symbols. In
older cultures, status symbols such as noble titles would have been
granted by the state or social institution (Silver 2002, 43). The American government and society has few notable titles or symbols to give to its most successful members to serve as the basis for an aristocracy. Instead, Americans purchase their own symbols to convey status. “Because the society sets great store by ability to produce a high living standard, it evaluates people by the products they possess” (Galbraith 1984, 128).
Consumption for status works to show one’s status only because
American society measures its members primarily by economic means. [...]
Despite the long-run fruitlessness of status consumption, it remains
one of the most enduring consumer desires in America. A study of
American and French automobile advertising from 1955 to 1991 found
that Americans were more persuaded than the French by appeals to the status the automobile would convey as opposed to the intrinsic value of the automobile itself (Silver 2002, 135). Automobiles are a highly visible good to others, so their common use as a status good naturally follows in a consumerist society. What is striking, though, is that the American consumers were willing to sacrifice performance from consumption in order to improve their social status.[...]
As an example, consider leisure activities. Prior to the 20 century, the average American spent most of his or her leisure time engaged in family, church, and community related activities. Early in the 20 century, socially-based activities were mostly supplanted by leisure activities based on consumption, such as viewing a film or playing with recreational products (Spring 2003, 96)."

5. Consumerismul isi propune sa fie o piedica in calea fericirii
"The problem with consumerism is that it makes the pursuit of
happiness more difficult. While each individual good provides
momentary satisfaction, the goal of consumerism is to keep the consumer wanting to purchase more goods. As a General Motors research director said, “The whole object of research is to keep everyone reasonably dissatisfied with what he has in order to keep the factory busy making new things” (Spring 2003, 52). GM, along with many other manufacturers, encouraged planned obsolescence, the practice of designing goods to encourage frequent replacements. The practice is especially prevalent in the clothing industry, where a shift in fashion can make an entire wardrobe of clothing functionally worthless to a trend-conscious consumer (Ibid, 55)."

Adam Smith, teorie etica si eudaimonista
Dreptate, bunavointa si prudenta
"Among all the moral rules developed by societies, Smith identifies
three basic virtues that underlie happiness. The three major virtues, in Smith’s view, are justice, beneficence, and prudence. Justice is the prevention or remedy of acts that cause “real and positive hurt to some particular persons, from motives which are naturally disapproved of” (Ibid, 79).
Beneficence is the free gift of items or services of value to another
human being. For the gift to be beneficent, the recipient cannot actively suffer harm if the gift is not given (Ibid, 78). [...]
Both justice and beneficence are considered public virtues because
their effects are only felt when a person is in a community or a public
space. Without other people, both justice and beneficence would be
impossible to practice. On the other hand, prudence is a private virtue because it primarily affects the individual practicing it, though it can still have effects on others.
Prudence, according to Smith, is the “care of the health, of the
fortune, of the rank and reputation of the individual, the objects upon which his comfort and happiness in this life are supposed principally to depend” (Ibid, 212). The virtue is primarily concerned with protecting the individual’s status, as opposed to improving it. While improvement is not unwanted, “We suffer more … when we fall from a better to a worse situation than we ever enjoy when we rise from a worse to a better” (Ibid). The prudent choice is for the individual to secure what he or she has before trying to gain further improvement and for the individual to be relatively risk-averse."

Scaderea cantitatii de munca
"In relation to production and consumption, the prudent person is not lazy and is a steady worker. Prudence causes the individual to live within his means, so, over time, the prudent person will slowly accumulate wealth. While the wealth in itself will provide little satisfaction, the resulting increased economic security will allow the prudent person to work a little less as he ages. The prudent person will feel increased satisfaction as he ages from increased leisure time, due to the increase both in absolute terms and in comparison to his previous situation (Ibid, 215)."

Linistea interioara si multumirea cu ce ai
"The goal of security gained through prudence is the maintenance of
the prudent person’s tranquility. Tranquility depends on how well people have “accommodated themselves to whatever becomes their permanent situation” (Ibid, 149). While the prospect of change, for better or worse, makes a person anxious about the future, acceptance of one’s current situation calms the mind. Smith attributes much of the misery in human life to overestimating the importance of changing one’s current situation (Ibid)."

Conflictul dintre valorile promovate de Adam Smith si consumerismul capitalist
1. Consumerismul submineaza notiunea de dreptate
"Justice is undermined by consumerism due to the isolating effects
consumerism has on the community. As Jerry Evensky argues, in Smith’s ethics, “justice must be enforced not by institutions and police, but by self-government – that is, by citizens who share and adhere to a common, mature standard of civic ethics” (2005, 129). Justice, in practice, is based on a set on general rules of conduct that people follow that are based on their observations of other people, accumulated over time. The rules should be fairly uniform over a group of people who interact because they would share many common observations. Consumerism reduces the time people spend interacting with each other, which will make Smith’s justice less uniform over the group.
Another related, and more serious, problem consumerism creates for
both justice and beneficence is alienation among consumers. Alienation, to Smith, occurs when self-interest is used in situations where virtue is more appropriate. Alienation results when a person never learns how to make moral choices (Fitzgibbons 1997, 97). Since the person never learns morality, the person is forced to always use self-interest because he or she cannot exercise virtue. Children’s advertising fosters alienation by encouraging children’s self-interested pursuit of consumption. A child raised on commercials, along with a stronger desire to consume, will be
correspondingly less beneficent and, as a child, will have fewer
opportunities to practice beneficence or justice. In turn, as an adult, the person will have more difficulty exercising the virtues and being a moral person.

2. Consumerismul, inamicul prudentei si linistii interioare
"While beneficence and justice are made more difficult because of
consumerism, prudence is more directly affected. The prudent person only lives within his income. Modern consumerism, however, encourages people to consume on credit. The value of consumer credit increased 1100% from 1945 to 1960 and has continued to expand ever since (Cohen 2003, 123). Credit comes at the cost of future consumption, so consumers with large debt loads will be unable to enjoy the gradual increase in both consumption and leisure the prudent person would gain over time.
In turn, debt is likely to reduce a consumer’s tranquility because the consumer must now be concerned with increasing his income to be able to pay off debts and still attempt to maintain his current standard of living.
The prudent person should not be concerned with status consumption. [...]

3. Consumerismul, adversar al bunavointei
"In contrast, the purpose of status consumption is to demonstrate one’s superiority to others. Buying more expensive or fashionable goods than others is a crude display of wealth. Smith rejects both vanity and attempts to be superior to others on the grounds that “the pleasures of vanity and superiority are seldom consistent with perfect tranquility” (Smith 1982, 150). An individual concerned with status must constantly attempt to defend his relative status through constantly increased status consumption, so such an individual would not be able to be tranquil."

IN CONCLUZIE:
"While modern consumerism has made continuous consumption into the primary road to happiness, Smith’s ethics offer the vastly different picture of happiness found in prudence and tranquility. By embracing Smith’s virtues and focusing more on tranquility, people could become happier at less cost and exertion than they go through now because so much of their labor is spent to acquire goods for status consumption or because of want-creation. [...]
As Smith wrote, The pleasures of vanity and superiority are seldom consistent with perfect tranquility, the principle and foundation of all real and satisfactory enjoyment. Neither is it always certain that, in the splendid situation which we aim at, those real and satisfactory pleasures can be enjoyed with the same security as in the humble one which we are so very eager to abandon (Ibid, 150)."

Citind studiul lui Michael Busch, putem trage la randul nostru doua concluzii:
1. capitalismul consumerist din prezent este o realitate pe care insusi "parintele" capitalismului liberal ar fi renegat-o. Acest sistem este la fel de odios si respingator precum un copil care ajunge sa-si agreseze propriul parinte si sa dispretuiasca insusi valorile parintelui sau. El este o rusine pentru Adam Smith, ce ar mai putea fi pentru noi?

2. adversarii ideologiilor egalitariste sustin uneori, pe buna dreptate pana la un punct, ca sisteme sociale precum marxismul ar fi pur utopice pentru puse in practica, au ajuns sa manifeste trasaturi fata de care insusi creatorul lor s-ar fi opus. Cultul personalitatii si concentrarea puterii in mainile unui singur om, de pilda, pot fi vazutein contradictie cu conceptul de dictatura a proletariatului, cu democratia populara, in care deciziile economice si politice sunt larg influentate de deciziile muncitorilor. De acum avem in arsenalul argumentativ o noua arma: daca marxismul este utopic pentru ca inca nu a fost pus in aplicare decat pana la un punct, atunci si capitalismul este la fel de utopic, din acelas motiv. Discutia despre preferabilitatea uneia dintre cele doua teorii trebuie asadar mutata in alt plan.

Sunt familiile bogate (mai) fericite?

Ne-am putea gandi ca cei care strang averi peste averi au macar o viata de familie implinita. Realitatea combate insa aceasta prejudecata. Nici in privinta mariajului, nici in privinta cresterii copiilor, bogatia nu pare sa aiba influente pozitive.

In general, bogatii nu au mariaje reusite

Fapt demonstrat de un studiu efectuat de Russ Alan Prince and Associates, o firma ce se ocupa exclusiv de studierea vietii si obiceiurilor bogatasilor. Faimoasa publicatie Forbes a descris la 10 septembrie 2007, in articolul "The Rich and Unfaithful" unul dintre studiile efectuate de amintita firma, legat direct de casniciile celor avuti.

"Wealth has many perks: great vacations, beautiful houses and nice cars. But if its marital bliss you're looking for, don't expect money to help. Almost half of America's rich say they're unhappy in marriage, a study found. What's worse: More than that say they've been unfaithful in the last three years.Of those confessing to an affair, more were women (61%) than men (43%). The reason cited most frequently by both sexes: variety. That's according to Prince and Associates, a Connecticut firm that tracks the habits of the rich. They asked 433 breadwinners (56% male and 44% female) with a net worth over $1 million about their relationships. Thirty-eight percent of the participants had a net worth of $10 million or more."

Statisticile de mai sus nu difera mult fata de rata infidelitatii in privinta restului populatiei. De aici aflam ca:

"According to a 1994 survey by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, considered to be the most conservative results ever obtained, 21.2% of men and 11.3% of women admitted to having crossed the line. Marriage and family therapists consulted in the preparation of this book believe, without exception, that the actual numbers are far higher. They generally concur with the results of the Kinsey Report which found far higher infidelity rates: 50-60% of middle and upper income males below the age of 60 admitted to having had an extramarital affair; the rate for women in the same group was 40-50%. Other studies provide statistics falling somewhere between these two sets of data." 

Asadar, din randul oamenilor "obisnuiti", maximum 50-60% barbati isi inseala nevasta si maximum 40-50% dintre femei isi inseala sotul. Diferenta este deci, se pare, ca in randul familiilor bogate, femeile sunt mai libertine, insa per total, statisticile nu indica vreun comportament mai putin inclinat spre infidelitate al bogatilor. 

Intorcandu-ne la articolul Forbes, in privinta chestiunii divortului:

"It’s probably not a surprise that 33.7% of the women in Prince's survey group said they were seriously considering divorce, compared to 26.7% of the men. 
Whether all of them carry through with it is another question. According to the U.S. Census, just 8.8% of men were divorced and 11% of women. In 2005, divorced people were 22% of the adult population. The statistics don't account for those who have been divorced multiple times.

Most men responding to the Prince & Associates survey (75%) said cost is their main obstacle to getting a divorce, and 61.5% said they feared it would hurt business dealings and opportunities. Just 7.7% of men cited harm to the kids. Raoul Felder, the celebrity divorce attorney, says this makes a lot of sense, particularly if you have a lot of money and a lot to lose. For starters, there’s this whole thing about equitable division of the assets. And in many marriages, the assets were accumulated after the “I Dos” were said, making them fair game to be divvied up."Divorce itself is a businessman's biggest deal," Felder says. "He's going to lose half he has.""

Se pare deci ca in ciuda averilor colosale, divortul nu e o optiune pentru bogati pentru a evada dintr-o casnicie nereusita, in mare parte din cauza banilor ce ar putea fi astfel pierduti.

Per total, dupa cum scrie avocata specializata in divorturi Janet Langjahr, "for those struggling financially through divorce, it may console them to know that millionaires may not be any happier in their marriages - or divorces. About half of wealthy people describe themselves as unhappy in their marriages, and just as many admit to cheating on their spouses in the last three years."

In concluzie, se parte deci ca bogatia nu garanteaza deloc o casnicie exceptional de fericita, nici o rata a infidelitatii in cuplu mai mica, nici un divort mai usor decat in cazul familiilor modeste financiar.

Copiii bogatasilor nu sunt ocoliti de probleme mentale grave

Asa cum o prima impresie ne-ar putea face sa credem ca banii garanteaza o casatorie mai fericita decat media, tot asa am putea crede ca  sansele copiilor nascuti in familii avute de a fi fericiti sunt mai mari. Nici vorba, lucru demonstrat de Dr. Ed Diener, care in articolul "The Problems and Opportunities of Children of Wealth", evidentiaza cateva dintre problemele pe care un copil bogat le poate avea in viata:

"Some of the Potential Problems Rich Kids Face  

1.  Parents who are aloof or too busy to spend time with their children. Wealthy parents can have many commitments, at work, at recreation, and socially, and these can sometimes leave too little time and energy for children. 

2.  Parents who through example and demands set extremely high expectations for their children’s achievement. Because the parent has excelled, he or she might expect the child to excel to the same degree. However, just because a parent has lots of energy and intelligence and drive for success, does not mean that the child will have the same desires, interests, or abilities as the parent. The child can be overly stressed by a continual pressure to achieve and compete. 

3.  Parents who create a need for high success and income by making luxuries a necessity. That is, luxurious living might be so taken for granted, and considered necessary for happiness, that the child feels that she or he must earn a high income to avoid misery. Thus, the child does not have the option of choosing a career based on his or her strengths and interests, but must seek a high-paying career because it is viewed as necessary to obtain the “required” luxuries of life. 

4.  Parents who insist that their children follow in their footsteps rather than pursuing goals where their unique strengths can be used. Problem: Children are now allowed to use their own strengths, but are forced into the mold that worked for their parents. The strong and successful parent who believes that the child should be just like him or her can do a real disservice to the child’s uniqueness. 

5.  Parents who overvalue materialism, at the cost of other values. Problem: Materialistic values at times interfere with good social relationships, using one’s own talents, and so forth. Too much emphasis on money can squeeze out the value placed on other goals, such as helping one’s community and developing loving relationships. 

6.  Parents who look down on others in society who are not wealthy, as people who are not important. The problem is that if children tend to see others as inferior, and to see the small group of wealthy people as those who really “count,” they gain a skewed view of the world, and cut themselves off from rewarding relationships with the majority of other people. In addition, they obtain a misshapen view of people’s worth and abilities. 

7.  Parents who do not teach their children that joy resides in working toward goals rather than in material prosperity. Problem: The child believes that happiness comes when some material goal is achieved, and this does not usually work well. Being involved in important goal pursuits is important for happiness, and if too much emphasis is placed on material consumption, it can lead to a hedonistic lifestyle without involvement in goal striving. 

8. Children feel high levels of entitlement. If wealthy parents give their children the idea that they are special because of their money, the child might develop an attitude of entitlement that others owe him or her respect and so forth just because of money. Problem: The world often does not recognize them as special, and they are frustrated. An additional problem is that a feeling of entitlement can interfere with the desire for a child to earn respect through his or her own behavior. 

9.  Children expect esteem granted to their parents will be granted to them. Problem: When people grow up they get respect primarily for their own accomplishments, not those of their parents. Thus, the rich child turned adult will be disappointed that they do not automatically receive respect because of their parents’ accomplishments. 

10. Children in rich families might expect to be waited on and do not learn responsibility and hard work. The wealthy child might not learn a work ethic because the parents provide servants who do all of the work, and do not ask the child to do chores and other tasks. Problem: The playboy/playgirl syndrome of adulthood – trying to buy happiness through fun activities, which does not produce happiness for a lifetime. Boredom sets in unless people have goals and activities in which to stay involved. Recreation alone is not usually suffficient for a happy life." 

Iata deci ca un program prea incarcat al parintilor bogati inseamna neglijarea propriilor copii; pretentiile ridicate pot pune asupra o presiune suplimentara; obisnuinta cu luxul poate deveni o nevoie asemenea unui drog care sa ii determine pe copiii sa aleaga meserii banoase, dar nu neaparat pe cele spre care au chemare; o aroganta nejustificata si daunatoare vietii sociale; tendinta de a se baza pe realizarile parintilor fara a avea la randul lor realizari, ceea ce duce la o privire de ansamblu eronata asupra lumii si a propriei personalitati etc. 

Copiii bogati, predispusi la consum de droguri si depresie

La randul sau, Richard Eckersley, profesor la Universitatea Nationala din Australia, afirma in "Forms of poverty: a health and wellbeing perspective" ca tinerii proveniti din familii bogate sunt mai predispusi la consumul de droguri si depresie:

"Moving to the opposite end of the social scale, several recent US studies suggest that children in rich families, a little researched group, are more likely than other children to suffer substance-use problems, anxiety and depression. Researchers suggest two possible explanations: excessive pressures to achieve and isolation from parents, both physical and emotional. They say that comparative studies of rich and poor youth reveal ‘more similarities than differences in their adjustment patterns and socialisation processes’."

Probabil ca unul din studiile la care se refera Eckersley este cel efectuat in 2007 de Healthy Kids Survey, conform caruia:

"Rich kids from Alameda and Contra Costa counties in California were more likely to use alcohol and other drugs than their peers from poor communities, according to data from California's Healthy Kids Survey. The Contra Costa Times reported Feb. 19 2007 that disposable income, disconnected families, and pressure to succeed all contribute to drug use among upscale youth, adding that parents in these communities add to the problem by denying that it occurs. "Perfection is very, very valued in affluent communities," noted Madeline Levine, author of "The Price of Privilege."

More affluent kids also can afford to buy fake IDs and can drive to places where they can pay someone to buy alcohol for them, experts note. Binge drinking and past-month alcohol use among high-school juniors were more prevalent in richer areas of the East Bay than in less-affluent areas, according to the survey, and more juniors from rich towns admitted to having gotten high on drugs. 

"You can make some general assessments that affluent areas have higher alcohol and marijuana use," said Sean Slade, regional manager for the California Healthy Kids Survey."

Concluzii confirmate

Numeroasele si unicele probleme cu care se confrunta tinerii bogati sunt in detaliu analizate si de Sunyia S. Luthar in articolul "The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth", Children Developement 2003; 74(6): 1581–1593. 

"Affluent youth reported significantly higher levels of anxiety across several domains, and greater depression. They also reported significantly higher substance use than inner-city students, consistently indicating more frequent use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs.Appraisal of psychopathology among youth in this sample in relation to national norms yielded more startling findings. Among suburban girls in the 10th grade, one in five reported clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms, reflecting rates 3 times as high as those among normative samples. Incidence of clinically significant anxiety among both girls and boys in the suburban high school was also higher than normative values (22% and 26% vs. 17%). Similar patterns were seen for substance use. Of suburban girls, 72% reported ever having used alcohol, for example, as compared with 61% in normative samples, and parallel values for boys’ use of illicit drugs were 59% versus 38%."

Cu privire la slaba relatie parinte-copil din famiile avute si presiunea suplimentara pusa pe umerii acestor tineri, la care se referea cu prioritate si Ed Diener, Luthar scrie:

"Results showed significant associations for all predictors with one or more maladjustment domains—internalizing symptoms, delinquency, and substance use—corroborating the likely role of overemphasis on achievement and isolation from parents in the adjustment disturbances of affluent youth (Luthar & Becker, 2002)."

Alti cercetatori confirma la randul lor: "In a study involving more than 800 American teens, for example, Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider (2000) found a low inverse link between SES (status social superior n.m.)  and emotional well-being. The most affluent youth in this sample reported the least happiness, and those in the lowest SES reported the most."

Cat despre consumul de substante periculoase: "There is also consistent evidence on findings on substance use. Data from the Monitoring the Future study (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1998) showed that during preadolescence, family SES had low associations with drug use. By the 12th grade, on the other hand, high-SES youth reported the highest rate of several drugs, including marijuana, inhalants, and tranquilizers. Regarding correlates of drug use, Way, Stauber, Nakkula, and London (1994)found, as did Luthar and D’Avanzo (1999), that high-SES youth (but not their inner-city counterparts) often used substances in efforts to alleviate emotional distress." 

In articolul semnat de Luthar, multe astfel de studii ce confirma gravele probleme psihice ale copiilor bogati pot fi gasite. Un aspect extrem de interesant subliniat in materialul citat este ca progeniturile bogatasilor atrag oprobiul societatii, ceea ce e de asteptat sa le sporeasca stresul si nelinistile psihice:

"The wealthy may actually evoke more widespread dislike than the poor given their status as the keepers of the power rather than those excluded from it (much as the schoolyard bully is usually more disliked than is the victim). Social psychologists have suggested, in fact, that misfortunes of the wealthy can evoke a malicious pleasure in others, for people in general feel some satisfaction in the downfall of those far more successful than they themselves are (a phenomen labeled schadenfreude)."

CA O CONCLUZIE GENERALA, putem spune ca nici casniciile celor bogati, nici copiii lor, nu sunt deloc mai feriti de grave probleme psihologice si serioase neimpliniri, ceea ce ne indreptateste sa intrebam: daca averea nu imbunatateste cu nimic relevant viata de familie, domeniu cheie al fericirii si implinirii umane, atunci ce ar mai putea sa ne motiveze in a o urmari? Nu e mult mai indicat ca odata ce atingem un grad rezonabil de siguranta financiara, sa acordam intreaga atentie chestiunilor familiale si sociale, in detrimentul imbogatirii? Intr-adevar, din nou suntem fortati sa recunoastem ca a cauta fericirea in averi este un consum inutil de energie si resurse, ce ar trebui imediat canalizate spre cu totul alte domenii, ce nu au nimic de-a face cu aspectele pecuniare.

Munca in iadul capitalist

Nu voi scrie aici despre sweatshop-uri, asa cum ar putea sugera titlul, ci despre conditiile de munca din doua tari capitaliste considerate etalon si dintre cele mai bogate, Marea Britanie (UK) si SUA. Vom vedea ca pana si aici clasa muncitoare se afla intr-un asediu permanent, alienarea sociala, stresul, limitarea vacantelor fiind trasaturi ce acapareaza treptat numere semnificative de muncitori.