Fericire fara bani

Cu consumeristii la psiholog

2009-12-18T09:04:00.000-08:00

In materialul „Money or mental health: the cost of alleviating psychological distress with monetary compensation versus psychological therapy”, Health Economics Policy and Law, 2009, doi specialisti in psihologie sustin o concluzie plauzibila: consilierea psihologica este de zeci de ori mai eficienta in imbunatatirea starii de bine decat primirea unor cresteri consistente de bani.
Intr-un rezumat facut pe saitul Science Daily se arata:

„Chris Boyce of the University of Warwick and Alex Wood of the University of Manchester compared large data sets where 1000s of people had reported on their well-being. They then looked at how well-being changed due to therapy compared to getting sudden increases in income, such as through lottery wins or pay rises. They found that a 4 month course of psychological therapy had a large effect on well-being. They then showed that the increase in well-being from an £800 course of therapy was so large that it would take a pay rise of over £25,000 to achieve an equivalent increase in well-being. The research therefore demonstrates that psychological therapy could be 32 times more cost effective at making you happy than simply obtaining more money.”

Asadar, o terapie psihologica tinuta timp de 4 luni are aceleasi efecte pentru psihicul uman ca si o cresterea a salariului cu 25.000 lire sterline. Ce concluzie tragem de aici? Aceea ca fericirea umana poate fi obtinuta prin mijloace mult mai la indemana si mai putin costisitoare, financiar si din punct de vedere al resurselor, decat consumerismul actual.
Din nou, cei de la Science Daily puncteaza corect:

„Governments pursue economic growth in the belief that it will raise the well-being of its citizens. However, the research suggests that more money only leads to tiny increases in happiness and is an inefficient way to increase the happiness of a population. This research suggests that if policy makers were concerned about improving well-being they would be better off increasing the access and availability of mental health care as opposed to increasing economic growth. This research helps to highlight how relatively ineffective extra income is at raising well-being.”

Culmea ironiei, in ultimii 50 de ani de isterie consumista, nu numai ca fericirea nu a crescut, dar numarul de bolnavi psihici s-a marit exponential. Din chiar materialul celor doi psihologi, aflam ca „Mental health is deteriorating across the world – improvements to mental health care might be a more efficient way to increase the health and happiness of our nations than pure income growth.”

O confirmare recenta

2009-12-17T08:59:00.000-08:00

Studiul „From wealth to well-being? Money matters, but less than people think”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4 (6), 523-527, trei cercetatori, adica Lara B. Aknin; Michael I. Norton; Elizabeth W. Dunn, demonstreaza falsitatea credintei, raspandita in randul persoanelor obisnuite, fara cunostinte de psihologie, potrivit careia banii ar spori semnificativ fericirea.
In introducerea materialului, ce trei puncteaza:

„While numerous studies have documented the modest (though reliable) link between household income and well-being, we examined the accuracy of laypeople’s intuitions about this relationship by asking people from across the income spectrum to report their own happiness and to predict the happiness of others (Study 1) and themselves (Study 2) at different income levels. Data from two national surveys revealed that while laypeople’s predictions were relatively accurate at higher levels of income, they greatly overestimated the impact of income on life satisfaction at lower income levels, expecting low household income to be coupled with very low life satisfaction. Thus, people may work hard to maintain or increase their income in part because they overestimate the hedonic costs of earning low levels of income.„

Asadar, oamenii muncesc mult pentru a castiga sau mentine un stadiu material cat mai ridicat, cand de fapt fericirea nu depinde, nici macar in cazul gospodariilor modeste material, de sporirea averii.
Autorii conchid: "We demonstrate that adult Americans erroneously believe that earning less than the median household income is associated with severely diminished happiness," the researchers said. "[This is] a false belief that may lead many people to chase opportunities for increased wealth or forgo a reduction in income for increased free time."

Asadar, o mare parte din actiunile pe care le luam in sensul imbunatatirii situatiei materiale devint inutile, daca nu chiar daunatoare, caci nu fac decat sa ne limiteze timpul liber. Dupa cum se scrie pe blogul Research Digest, tinut de The British Psychological Society,

„With dogged determination we lie, rob, borrow, gamble and sometimes work too, in the hope of boosting our income. So zealous is our pursuit of money, it's as if we think it will somehow make us happier. Strangely enough, whilst psychologists and economists have conducted numerous studies showing that the relationship between income and happiness is weak, only one prior study has asked what lay people really believe about money and happiness (and this was focused on middle-income, working women). It's into this empirical desert that Lara Aknin and colleagues arrive with a survey of hundreds of North Americans of mixed age, gender and wealth. Aknin's team have found that people do indeed overestimate the link between money and happiness, especially at lower levels of income.”

De retinut deci faptul ca un nou studiu, cat se poate de recent, verifica cele spuse pe bolgul nostru: banii nu sporesc semnificativ fericirea nici a celor bogati, nici macar a celor mai putin bogati; credinta in efectele benefice ale materialismului este una iluzorie, chiar daca destui o accepta. Renuntarea la materialism, munca in exces si preferarea activitatilor de timp liber sunt confirmate ca alegeri rationale ale celui (celei) ce urmareste sporirea propriei fericiri.

Egalitarism si creativitate

2009-11-21T03:14:00.000-08:00

Egalitarismul sustinut pe acest blog propune impunerea unei limite maxime de castig financiar. O critica populara a acestei pozitii este ca astfel se loveste in motivatia oamenilor de a munci si, implicit, in progresul social, tehnologic, artistic: fara motivatia unui castig/profit financiar cat mai mare, cum ar putea societatea sa avanseze, cum ar mai putea fi oamenii motivati sa creeze, sa descopere si sa inventeze lucruri noi?

Voi presupune aici, de dragul agumentului, ca ceea ce se numeste progres e dezirabil. Am aratat in postari precum „O privire sceptica asupra „progresului” sau „Progres economic si deteriorare sociala” ca progresul tehnologic si cel economic se pare ca nu au avut efectul scontat, nu au sporit substantial sau relevant fericirea umana.

Cunoscutul John Zerzan scrie in acest sens ca:

„For what has progress meant, after all? Its promise began to realize itself, in many ways, from history's very beginning. With the emergence of agriculture and civilization commenced, for instance, the progressive destruction of nature; large regions of the Near East, Africa and Greece were rather quickly rendered desert wastelands. In terms of violence, the transformation from a mainly pacific and egalitarian gatherer-hunter mode to the violence of agriculture/civilization was rapid. "Revenge, feuds, warfare, and battle seem to emerge among, and to be typical of, domesticated peoples," according to Peter Wilson. And violence certainly has made progress along the way, needless to say, from state weapons of mega-death to the recent rise in outburst murders and serial killers. Disease itself is very nearly an invention of civilized life; every known degenerative illness is part of the toll of historical betterment. From the wholeness and sensual vitality of pre-history, to the present vista of endemic ill-health and mass psychic misery-more progress.”

Distrugerea ecosistemelor, violenta sociala, degenerarea fizica au insotit, in viziunea lui Zerzan progresul, viziune asemanatoare cu cea a unui alt ganditor cunoscut, Jared Diamond, de care am scris in O privire sceptica asupra progresului.

Trecand insa peste aceste observatii generale, putem raspunde punctual la critica de mai sus astfel. In primul rand, nu e deloc clar ca in ultimele decenii, in tarile capitaliste, unde teoretic inventatorii si creatorii pot castiga sume nelimitate de bani, au aparut inventii si acte de creatie substantiale.

Astfel, in The Myth of Technological Progress, Scott Locklin scrie:

„What was technological life like 50 years ago? 50 years ago was 1959. The world of 1959 is pretty much the same world we live in today technologically speaking. This is a vaguely horrifying fact which is little appreciated. In 1959, we had computers, international telephony, advanced programming languages like Lisp, which remains the most advanced programming language, routine commercial jet flight, atomic power, internal combustion engines about the same as modern ones, supersonic fighter planes, television and the transistor.”

Asadar, de cinci decenii, lumea capitalista a fost incapabila de a mai inventa ceva relevant. Iata asadar ca motivatiile financiare puternice nu garanteaza sub nicio forma stimularea creativitatii. Alfred Nordmann concura, subliniind si futilitatea noilor progrese stiintifice:

„I’d argue that I have seen less technological progress than my parents did, let alone my grandparents. Born in 1956, I can testify primarily to the development of the information age, fueled by the doubling of computing power every 18 to 24 months, as described by Moore’s Law. The birth-control pill and other reproductive technologies have had an equally profound impact, on the culture if not the economy, but they are not developing at an accelerating speed. Beyond that, I saw men walk on the moon, with little to come of it, and I am surrounded by bio- and nanotechnologies that so far haven’t affected my life at all. Medical research has developed treatments that make a difference in our lives, particularly at the end of them. But despite daily announcements of one breakthrough or another, morbidity and mortality from cancer and stroke continue practically unabated, even in developed countries.”

Se poate raspunde ca aceasta seceta de inventii noi relevante din ultimii 50 de ani se explica prin aceea ca deja omenirea nu mai are nevoie de noi avansuri semnificative in domenii precum constructiile, informatica, transporturile, comunicatiile, entertainment-ul. Este evident insa ca in acest caz, insa critica de mai sus pica: de ce sa mai acuzam egalitarismul ca nu duce la noi inventii si progres tehnologic cand acesta practic nici nu mai sunt de dorit?

In al doilea rand insa, problema principala cu critica egalitarismului de la care am pornit este ca ignora esenta actului inovator. Inovatiile, descoperirile, creatiile semnificative pornesc de la pasiunea pentru un anumit domeniu al persoanei creatorului. Nu banii, care sunt o motivatie exterioara, ci interesul interior, personal, al inovatorului, este adevaratul motor al innoirilor.

La termenul invention, enciclopedia wikipedia noteaza:

„Play can lead to invention. Childhood curiosity, experimentation and imagination can develop one's play instinct--an inner need according to Carl Jung. Inventors feel the need to play with things that interest them, to explore, and this internal drive brings about novel creations. Inventing comes straight from the heart, it's a passion. "I never did a day's work in my life, it was all fun". Thomas A. Edison. Inventing can also be an obsession.”

Albert Einstein rezuma perfect cand spune: „The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind (inventing) is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart".

Ca dovada ca geniul creator nu are nevoie de stimulente exterioare pentru a-si desavarsi creatia este chiar numarul imens de inventatori care au trait si murit saraci.

Huberman and Sweezy, in "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review, noteaza:

„Look at these names: Remington, Underwood, Corona, Sholes. You recognize three of them immediately as successful typewriter manufacturers. Who was the fourth, Mr. Christopher Sholes? He was the inventor of the typewriter. Did his brain child bring him the fortune it brought to Remington, Underwood, or Corona? It did not. He sold his rights to the Remingtons for $12,000. Was profit Sholes’ incentive? Not according to his biographer: "He seldom thought of money, and, in fact, said he did not like to make it because it was too much bother. For this reason he paid little attention to business matters." Sholes was only one of thousands of inventors and scientists who are always so absorbed in their creative work that they "seldom thought of money."”

Sholes, inventatorul masinii de scris, a dat omenirii aceasta ustensila ce a facut istorie fara insa a fi motivat de bani, pe care, ce-i drept, i-au facut afaceristii capitalisti de pe urma lui.

Louis Chevrolet, Alfred Vail (inventatorul codului Morse), Charles Goodyear (inventatorul cauciucului vulcanizat), Nikola Tesla (peste 800 de patente), Thomas Edison, Jan Ernst Matzeliger, Roger Bacon (inventatorul lupei), etc. se alatura multor altor nume din domeniul artistic ca Mozart, Cervantes, Van Gogh, Nietzsche, Eminescu etc. care au murit in saracie si au fost asa de obicei si in timpul vietii.

Cum vom raspunde deci, pe scurt, pretentiei ca egalitarismul nu ar stimula inovatia, creativitatea si progresul material si spiritual al omenirii?

1. 1. Nu este clar ca progresul material este dezirabil. 2. In statele capitaliste nu s-a mai inventat nimic relevant de 50 de ani. 3. Nu e clar ca mai avem nevoie de inventii in numeroase domenii cheie (mai degraba distribuirea roadelor acestor inventii e problema). 4. Actul creator este intrinesc, fiind motivat din interior, si nu financiar. 5. Nenumaratele exemple de creatori de geniu din toate domeniile dovedesc ca inovatia si progresul se pot realiza, si inca la cel mai inalt nivel, si fara stimulente financiare.

Eram mai fericiti in socialism

2009-11-02T00:09:00.000-08:00

Jurnalul National a publicat la 30 octombrie articolul Fericirea şi satisfacţia românilor în prezent, comparativ cu perioada de dinainte de 1989. Citam de acolo:

„Cât de fericită şi mulţumită este, în prezent, populaţia în vârstă de peste 38 de ani (adică cei care au trăit ca adulţi şi înainte de 1989) faţă de perioada comunistă? (...)

Proporţia populaţiei care se considera "foarte fericită" şi "destul de fericită" înainte de 1989 era de 72% (din care 12% "foarte fericită"), faţă de 21% ponderea celor care se considerau "nu prea fericiţi" (19%) şi "foarte nefericiţi" (doar 2%). Aceiaşi oameni se consideră "fericiţi" în prezent în proporţie de 47% (4% "foarte fericiţi") şi "nefericiţi" în proporţie de 51% (7% "foarte nefericiţi").”
Adica azi sunt cu 30% oamenii mai putin fericiti decat atunci, iar cei total nefericiti sunt de aproape 4 ori mai multi! Totalul celor nefericiti este azi 51%, in comparatie cu 21% inainte de 1989. Deci avem de peste doua ori mai multi nefericiti acum.

Tot din Jurnalul:
„În mod similar, şi satisfacţia sau gradul de mulţumire al oamenilor faţă de felul în care trăiesc este semnificativ pozitivă ca percepţie când ne referim la ce era înainte de 1989, comparativ cu situaţia prezentă. Astfel, felul în care trăia populaţia este apreciat ca "foarte mulţumit" şi "mulţumit" de 77% (16% "foarte mulţumit") faţă de 20% ponderea celor care consideră că erau "nemulţumiţiî şi "foarte nemulţumiţi" în acea perioadă (doar 3% "foarte nemulţumiţi").”

Un sistem politico-social care a multumit 77% din populatie este clar ca a fost unul binefacator, chiar daca perfectibil. Pe de alta parte, un sistem ulterior, care a aproape a injumatatit numarul de oameni fericiti, a dublat proportia celor nefericiti si l-a triplat pe cel de foarte nefericiti nu se poate numit, in niciun caz, un regim superior, dezirabil, in folosul poporului.

Iata cum, in ciuda numeroaselor probleme asociate cu ceausismul, regimul dinaintea lui decembrie 1989, mult mai egalitarist decat cel de azi, a fost capabil de performante umane net superioare celui de azi, in care domina consumerismul si inegalitatile sociale.

Si tot legat de o comparatie intre ce era inainte de 1989 cu ce este in prezent in Romania, va recomand un excelent articol peblicat pe blogul L`Avant-garde si intitulat `Ce-am avut, ce-am pierdut, ce-am castigat - partea a doua`.

Lectii de fericire din Bangladesh

2009-10-21T09:16:00.000-07:00

Este prima postare in care prezint concluziile unui studiu ce demonstreaza slaba legatura dintre bani si fericire pe care eu insumi nu le-am luat initial in serios. Mai exact, dintr-un articol publicat la 12 martie 2009 pe saitul http://www.daijiworld.com si intitulat "London: World Happiness Survey - Bangladesh is Happiest Nation in World!" aflam ca un studiu efectuat de London School of Economics arata ca Bangladesh este cea mai fericita natiune de pe planeta.

"Would you believe it, Bangladesh is the happiest nation in the world! The United States, on the other hand, is a sad story: it ranks only 46th in the World Happiness Survey. That's way behind India, the fifth happiest place in the world, and others including Ghana and Latvia, Croatia and Estonia. Research led by London School of Economics professors into the link between personal spending power and the perceived quality of life has conclusively proved that money can buy everything but happiness. The study revealed that people in Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, derive far more happiness from their small incomes than, for example, the British (32nd on the list) do from their relatively large bank balances."

Iata deci ca oamenii din Bangladesh, cu venituri banesti infinit mai mici decat britanicii, de exemplu, sunt considerabil mai multumiti de viata lor. In plus, pana si India, Gana, Letonia sau Croatia prezinta niveluri de multumire mai mari decat Marea Britanie si chiar mult mai mari decat SUA! Pe aceeasi tema "In fact, people in most rich countries including Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and others are much more unhappier than their poorer counterparts in countries like the Dominican Republic and Armenia."

Exista in continuare o legatura pozitiva intre bani si fericire in tarile sarace, dar care se estompeaza dupa un anumit prag modest, peste care conteaza relatiile inter-umane, sanatatea si satisfactia la locul de munca: "The new study shows that such a link still exists in poor countries because a small increase in income can mean large improvements in lifestyle. However, beyond a certain income-level that direct relationship breaks down. According to the research, happiness in rich countries now is far more dependent on close personal relationships, good health and job satisfaction."

Inca neincrezator in rezultatele unui studiu ce plaseaza statul Bengal in topul natiunilor fericite si multumite de viata lor, cu un venit pe cap de locuitor in 2006 de 1400$ (media internationala fiind de 10,200$), caut un alt material pe aceasta tema si gasesc un alt studiu, numit
"Well-being, Happiness and Why Relationships Matter: Evidence from Bangladesh", realizat de trei cercetatori (Laura Camfield, Kaneta Choudhury si Joe Devine de la Wellbeing in Developing Countries ESRC Research Group, University of Bath) si publicat in prestigioasa Journal of Happiness Studies, martie 2009.
Dintr-o versiune draft a lucrarii, accesate aici, aflam mai multe detalii:

"Although Bangladesh is known as one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world, qualitative research and anecdotal evidence suggests its people report levels of happiness that are higher than those found in many other countries. This includes ‘developed’ countries where people have larger per capita incomes and can access a wider range of public services and goods."

Un alt citat ce merita retinut este trimiterea autorilor la un alt studiu, in care se evidentiaza nivelul ridicat de satisfactie de viata a locuitorilor din zonele defavorizate ale Indiei: "For example Biswas-Diener and Diener’s (2001) study of the life satisfaction of slum dwellers in Calcutta finds inter alia that the respondents report satisfactory social lives, rewarding family
lives and a belief that they lead moral lives. Thus they conclude that “while the poor of Calcutta do not lead enviable lives, they do lead meaningful lives” (Biswas-Diener and Diener, 2001:349)."

Care este insa secretul fericirii populatiei din Bangladesh?
"Our findings from Bangladesh confirm the view that other factors besides income are important contributors to wellbeing. Participants in the research clearly value their family and community relationships, their competences and achievements, the knowledge that they have done all they can to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities in life, and that they have acquired a level of social respect and recognition. Of these, it is the centrality of various types of relationships that emerges strongly from our findings. This is consistent with other studies internationally, which suggest that relationships are highly correlated with subjective wellbeing. This may be because ‘relatedness’ is a ‘fundamental psychological need’ and central to eudaimonic as well as hedonic wellbeing."

Pe scurt, relatiile familiale si comunitare, responsabilitatea fata de societate, specializarea in anumite domenii de munca, respectul din partea celorlalti si recunoasterea lor. Iata cum deschiderea fata de nevoile societatii si respectul si atentia fata de aproapele sunt capabile sa sporeasca gradul de fericire al intregii populatii mult peste ceea ce ar spera adeptii materialismului consumersit si individualist de factura capitalista. Iata cum fericirea poate fi atinsa fara stres, fara competitie, fara invidie, consum exacerbat, goana dupa status. Si iata ca nu e necesar sa batjocorim resursele planetei pentru a ne spori starea de bine. Saracul si supra-populatul Stat Bengal devine un exemplu admirabil al fericirii fara bani si o dovada ca o astfel de mentalitate poate fi pusa in practica cu succes la scara unei intregi societati.
Evident, saracia extrema nu este de dorit nicaieri si ea poate fi oricand o amenintare la adresa fericirii, insa devine tot mai clar ca nivelul material necesar si suficient pentru bunastarea fiecarui membru al societatii nu este nici pe departe nevoie sa concureze cu cel al unor tari precum SUA, UK sau Australia.

Capitalismul, o religie

2009-10-11T12:30:00.000-07:00

Avand in vedere multitudinea criticilor la adresa capitalismului si dovezile stiintifice din spatele acestor critici, precum si a argumentelor date atat in apararea regimurilor de stanga care au existat dar si a multor din elementele cheie ale programului egalitarist in general (anti-consumerismul, reducerea inegalitatilor economice, redistribuire, ecologism etc.), devine dificil de inteles cum neo-liberalismul continua sa se bucure de incredere.
Ernest Partridge, filosof la Universitatea din California, furnizeaza o explicatie plauzibila: capitalismul functioneaza ca o religie. Cum religiile de obicei interzic sau, in orice caz, trec cu vederea discursul critic rational la adresa lor, si totodata promit lucruri dintre cele mai atragatoare, nu trebuie sa ne mire popularitatea lor si usurinta cu care isi fac adepti.
Care ar fi, dupa Partridge, asemanarile dintre religie si capitalism? Le gasim in articolul „The State Religion” din ianuarie 2002.

„Piata libera”, zeul capitalismului
„The Deity of our new state religion is, of course, "the free market" – omniscient, omnibenevolent and, with the coming globalization of the market through GATT, NAFTA, etc., omnipresent. In the new state religion, the market is faithfully believed to be omniscient, in that no amount of collective practical reason and experience – no careful and deliberate devising of means to the end of "the common good" – can approach, much less exceed, the inscrutable "wisdom of the marketplace." On all matters of common concern, it is best to "let the market decide."”

Piata libera este pentru capitalisti o entitate, o forta de sine statatoare, care stie tot, este peste tot (cu atat mai mult acum, in era globalizarii capitaliste), asupra careia nu trebuie sa intervenim deloc sau, eventual doar foarte putin, prin mecanisme de control. Credinciosii considera ca piata este capabila sa aduca bunastare generala.

Textele sacre ale religiei capitaliste:
„Among the holiest of "conservative" scriptures is Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, for therein is found the doctrine of "the invisible hand," which holds that the individual who "intends only his own gain" will, in the course of maximizing his satisfactions, be "led by an invisible hand to promote... the public interest." Contemporary faithful have extended this doctrine to encompass "trickle down theory" – the notion that when national wealth (produced cooperatively by all participants in the economy) is directed toward wealthy elites, benefits will "trickle down" to the advantage of the less fortunate. "The rising tide raises all boats". In the "conservative" credo, there is no converse "percolate up theory," acknowledging that the disproportionate wealth of the fortunate few is entirely dependent upon the productivity of the rest of us. Such heresy is condemned by the "priesthood" as "class warfare."

Una dintre scripturile venerate de capitalisti este „Avutia natiunilor”, lucrare scrisa de economistul scotian Adam Smith. Printre tezele expuse acolo este ca imbogatirea continua a capitalistilor va duce inevitabil la imbogatirea intregii societati. Orice parere diferita, preum aceea ca marirea decalajului socio-economic dintre bogati si saraci favorizeaza intarirea relatiilor de dominare a celor puternici fata de restul societatii, e respinsa ca erezie de preotimea dogmei capitaliste.

Misionarii dogmei capitaliste:
„The Seminaries are such "conservative" "think tanks" as the American Enterprise Institute, The Hudson Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Cato Institute, among others. Strange to say, most of these are located within that inner circle of Hell, the Washington Beltway, where they enjoy convenient access to centers of power and the national media. There are also a few academic seminaries (usually centered in Departments of Economics and a few Schools of Law), the most prominent of which is at the University of Chicago. However, universities are generally much less hospitable to market theologians than "think tanks," for academic institutions, due to their quaint adherence to principles of open and critical debate (dare we say "the marketplace of ideas"?), have the impiety to subject sacred doctrine to rational inquiry, and to test it against experience in "the real world."”

E sugestiv ca evanghelistii pietei libere in general nu se afla printre cadrele didactice din universitati, unde se cere, printre altele, scepticism, ratiune, obiectivitate, ci in special printre think-tankuri. Cum sunt acestea definite? Conform wikipedia,„Think tank este un termen ce caracterizează o asociaţie sau o organizaţie de persoane specializate sau chiar o singură persoană competentă care oferă, de regulă gratuit, informaţii necesare pentru a crea, amplifica, diminua, înlătura, organiza sau optimiza un anume compartiment funcţional al societăţii, aşa cum ar fi optimizarea structurii militare, economice, politice, culturale la nivel local, regional, statal, continental sau chiar la nivel global.” Organizarea si optimizarea propagandei dogmei capitaliste are, deci, propriile rhink-tankuri, precum The Hudson Institute si Cato Institute.

Diavolul in viziunea teologiei capitaliste
Ca orice religie care se respecta, capitalismul are si un diavol, un inamic suprem, de la care apar toate relele. In cazul nostru e vorba de guvern si, in general, de stat. Cum aceste organisme incearca sa impuna anumite reguli, impozite si limite dumnezeului „Piata Libera”, ele pun la indoiala omniscienta, omnibenevolenta si omnipotenta pietelor. Desigur, demonii sunt bugetarii, lucratorii din aparatul Statului.

„The Devil in our new national religion is the government – described by libertarian philosopher John Hospers as "the most dangerous institution known to man." It follows that Satan's minions are bureaucrats, as they go about their diabolical business of undoing the holy work of the free market, through regulation and progressive taxation.”

Raiul de dupa moarte
Asa cum religiile traditionale vorbesc de o viata dupa moartea fizica, in care pana si ateii se vor convinge cu ochii lor de adevarul celor predicate, tot asa si popii capitalismului vorbesc de un timp ce va sa vina si in care se vor adeveri profetiile lor.

„When asked for a justification of market doctrine, the true believers often give us a "just-you-wait" response – what philosophers call a "post-empirical explanation." For example, when we ask the preacher why we should accept his doctrine of salvation through acceptance of Christ, he replies "you will surely find your answer when you face the Almighty in the hereafter." This response is not very convincing at time-present. Similarly, when economists such as the late Julian Simon are challenged with evidence of resource limits, they typically reply: "human ingenuity combined with economic incentive will always find a solution." Justification? "Just you wait."”

Studiile stiintifice arata ca, in practica, crezul capitalist duce la epuizarea resurselor? Nu-i nimic, avem increderea ca pe viitor capitalismul va duce la descoperirea unor moduri de functionare a economiei care sa nu mai aiba nevoie de resursele din prezent. Arata studiile ca in ultimele decenii, bogatii au ajuns si mai bogati, pe cand saracii au saracit ori, in cel mai bun caz, au stagnat? Avem increderea ca liberalizarea totala a pietei va remedia aceste probleme. Arata studiile ca cultul capitalist a constituit un dezastru pentru fostele tari comuniste si, in general, pentru statele ce nu au practicat imperialismul, colonialismul, neo-colonialismul? Asta e din cauza lipsei lor de respect si apreciere fata de Piata Libera, pe care nu au primit-o cu adevarat in inima lor. Odata ce orice dubiu fata de divinitate va fi spulberat, urmeaza sa vedem prosperitatea mult-asteptata, minunea de care numai Piata Libera e capabila.

In concluzie, se poate argumenta ca sistemul capitalist functioneaza si se raspandeste asemanator unei religii: are o zeitate suprema, omniscienta, omnibenevolenta, omniprezenta, orice interventie profana in lucrarile acesteia este o blasfemie ce nu poate aduce decat rezultate indezirabile, are scripturi sau texte sacre, are misionari, se bazeaza pe profetii si promisiuni de bunastare pentru intreaga societate, ce urmeaza sa se adevereasca atunci cand credinta tuturor va fi suficient de puternica. Evident, atunci cand ratiunea si obiectivitatea probeaza ineficienta Pietei Libere, popii capitalismului vor da vina pe oameni sau pe anumite institutii, asa cum, de pilda, teologii explica existenta raului pe lume pe seama activitatii umane sau a unor entitati precum diavolul (statul sau guvernul, in cazul capitalismului).

Asa cum religia supravietuieste in ciuda argumentelor, se prea poate ca si succesul neoliberalismului sa poata fi explicat la fel.

Banii nu sporesc semnificativ fericirea nici pentru saraci

2009-10-03T23:20:00.000-07:00

Articolul „Money Won't Buy Happiness, Study Finds; Poverty-reduction Programs Need To Also Look At Improving People's Well-being”, publicat la 8 sept. 2009, prezinta concluziile profesorului Mariano Rojas legate de bani si fericire. Conform acestuia, banii nu reausesc sa sporeasca fericirea nici macar a celor mai saraci.

„The majority of people rated their lives as satisfactory or more than satisfactory. Not all people who were considered ‘poor' experienced low life satisfaction and not all people who were not considered ‘poor' were happy with their lives. Professor Rojas observed that only 24 percent of people classified as ‘poor' rated their life satisfaction as low. Furthermore, 18 percent of people in the ‘non-poor' category also reported low life satisfaction. It is therefore clear that poverty alone does not define an individual's overall well-being and it is possible for someone to come out of poverty and remain less than satisfied with his life. On the other hand, a person can be satisfied with his life even if his income is low, as long as he is moderately satisfied in other areas of life such as family, self, health, job and economic.”

Oricat ar parea de surprinzator la prima vedere, iata ca numai 24% dintre saraci nu sunt multumiti de viata lor, procent aproape egal cu cel al persoanelor non-sarace, dintre acestia 18% fiind nefericiti.

„Professor Rojas argues that social programs need to recognize that well-being depends on satisfaction in many domains of life, and that many qualities and attributes need to be considered when designing these programs, including leisure, education, the community and consumer skills (learning to spend higher income sensibly).
Professor Rojas concludes: "This paper has shown that it is possible to jump over the income poverty line with little effect on life satisfaction. Income is not an end but a means to an end. There is a big risk of neglecting and underestimating the importance of well-being-enhancing factors when focusing only on income poverty. It is important to worry about getting people out of income poverty, but it is more beneficial to also worry about the additional skills people need to have a more satisfying life."”

Asadar, programele de eradicare a saraciei, care in esenta urmaresc sporirea bunastarii si fericirii, trebuie sa se axese inclusiv pe recreere, educatie si pe eficacitatea cheltuirii banilor. Dupa cum subliniaza Rojas, este foarte posibil sa treci peste limita saraciei fara a deveni mai fericit. Eradicarea saraciei este importanta, dar reprezinta doar o mica portiune din drumul spre fericire.

Intr-o ciorna a studiului citat aici, Rojas enumera cateva motive, explicatii, pentru care banii au un impact atat de slab asupra satisfactiei personale:

Banii nu pot cumpara elemente esentiale ale satisfactiei
„First, not everything of value can be purchased. Income allows for buying economic goods but has little impact on a person’s access to non-economic goods. Recent literature (Bruni and Stanca, 2005; Gui and Sugden, 2005; and Sugden, 2005) states that relational goods (love, emotional support, friendship, correspondence of sentiments, good relations with neighbours
and colleagues, and so on) have a large impact on well-being. In an empirical study based on a survey applied in central Mexico, Rojas (2007a) shows that satisfaction with partner, children and family is crucial for life satisfaction. Because of their nature, relational goods can not be purchased and a market can not exist. The production of relational goods is time intensive, and because of time constraint the production of such goods may end-up conflicting with the production of income.”

Iubirea, sustinerea afectiva, prietenia, relatiile bune cu vecinii si colegii etc. nu se pot cumpara dar sunt fundamentale pentru fericire.

De multe ori, banii nu sunt cheltuiti eficient
„Second, income may not be used efficiently. An increase in income may lead to little or no increase in well-being if persons do not have the skills to use income efficiently. There is a vast literature that questions the rationality of persons, as well as their ability to correctly foresee the well-being impact of their consumption decisions (Scitovsky, 1976; Hsee and Hastie, 2006;
Thaler, 1980, 1992, 2000; Tversky and Kahneman, 1974, 1981, 1986; Loewenstein and Schkade, 1999). Using 1500 observations from a survey in central Mexico, Rojas (2007b) has found that X-inefficiency in the use of income is relatively large and it shows up at all income levels.”

Degeaba ai bani daca nu stii cum sa-i cheltui, iar studiile arata ca nu de putine ori, oamenii nu au aceasta abilitate.

Comparatiile inter-sociale
„Fourth, consumers may not attain satisfaction from their consumption due to their immersion within social structures. The idea that well-being increases with higher income relies on the assumption that well-being depends on absolute consumption but not on relative consumption. Social thinkers such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Thorstein Veblen recognised that needs
may be socially influenced. Recent research (Frank, 1985, 2005; Schor, 2002; Alpizar et al., 2005) has shown that the satisfaction attained from the consumption of some goods is contingent on the consumption of other members of the community (reference groups). Hence, it may be that absolute consumption is not closely related to a person’s well-being.”

Adica nu conteaza atat de mult cat consumi, cat mai ales cat consumi in comparatie cu ceilalti. In aceasta situatie, un milionar care locuieste intr-o comunitate de multi-milionari va fi nefericit, oricat de mult ar consuma individual.

Bogatia satisface nevoi superficiale
„The extent to which consumption impacts on well-being. The ordinal utility approach in economics states that utility is ‘non-decreasing on income’, i.e. a higher income allows for the satisfaction of more wants and desires, which leads to higher utility. However, it is impossible to know how much well-being increases as a consequence of the satisfaction of some wants and desires. It could be that satisfying some additional wants and desires have little impact on a person’s well-being, even if income is used efficiently. Hence, it could happen that an increase in income does not have a strong impact on well-being.”

Nu e deloc clar cat de importanta pentru fericirea noastra e satisfacerea dorintelor care apar atunci cand avem mai multi bani. Se poate ca acestea sa fie simple mofturi, snobisme, care desi scump, nu au un impact considerabil asupra bunastarii noastre.

Trebuie subliniat si accentul pus de Rojas pe importanta recreerii: „The importance of leisure must not be neglected, even at low income levels. Lloyd and Auld (2001) and Lu and Hu (2005) have shown that leisure is an important source of well-being and that its use in social activities is wellbeing enhancing. Klumb and Perrez (2004) provide a survey of the importance of leisure for well-being. Furnham (1991) discusses the principles for leisure satisfaction. Palomar (2000) shows that access to recreational areas and parks is strongly related to psychological well-being
in Mexico City.”

Putem retine din aceasta expunere ca banii conteaza putin pana si pentru cei aflati in saracie. Desi e dezirabil sa fie trecut pragul saraciei, chiar si la aceste nivele scazute materiale, satisfactia de viata poate creste semnificativ doar atunci cand sunt luate in calcul numeroase aspecte non-pecuniare.

Starea statelor ex-socialiste in 2009

2009-10-02T10:20:00.000-07:00

La sfarsitul anului trecut, revista britanica The Economist a publicat suplimentul sau anual, „The World in 2009”. Din subcapitolul „Twenty years of capitalism: was it worth it?” , dedicat fostelor tari socialiste, est-europene, aflam lucruri interesante, chiar daca dureroase.
Bunaoara:

„(...) the region-wide “Life in Transition” survey released by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 2007 showed that only 30% of people in the region believe they live better today than in 1989. There is a strong nostalgia for the past (both in economic matters and, astonishingly, even in politics). Only 15% believe there is less corruption now than in 1989. Support for core values associated with the transition, such as markets and democracy, is underwhelming.”

Adica in tarile ex-socialiste, conform unui sondaj realizat in 2007 de Banca Europeana pentru reconstructie si Dezvoltare, numai 30% din populatia considera ca au o viata mai buna decat inainte de 1989. Nostalgia este puternica nu doar dupa aspectele economice de atunci, dar si dupa cele politice. Numai 15% cred ca exista mai putina coruptie dupa 17 ani de capitalism, iar sustinerea fata de economia de piata si valorile democratiei (democratiei burgheze, existente in capitalism) se clatina serios.

Costul financiar al tranzitiei de la socialismul anterior anului 1989 la capitalism a fost imens: „(...) it is possible to estimate the opportunity cost of the transition. It is high: between $0.5 trillion and $1 trillion (in 2000 PPP dollars). Assuming, generously, future regional growth of 4-5% a year, it would take another decade for the transition to have been economically “worth it”.”

Atat de mare incat va trebui sa mai treaca un deceniu ca aceasta investitie in economia de piata sa fie atenuata, adica sa inceapa sa fie economic rentabila. Asta, insa, numai daca in fostul spatiu socialist economiile vor creste intr-un ritm constant de 4-5% anual! Actuala criza capitalista se prea poate sa dea complet peste cap astfel de calcule, insa.

Insa costul uman al tranzitiei a fost cu adevarat zguduitor: „It is often said that the transition has been among the most peaceful revolutions in history. However, civil wars have claimed tens of thousands of lives. There has also been a large unseen death toll, especially among men. In most countries, death rates in 2009 will be higher than they were in 1989. Eastern Europe is the only region in the world that has experienced a population decline over the past two decades, of some 7m.
The history and degree of demographic stress varies from country to country, and it should not be forgotten that by its latter years the Soviet Union had already become a demographic disaster area. But much of the region has experienced a calamity in this respect, with many fewer births and many more deaths than would otherwise have been the case. Such changes are clear indicators of societies in extreme stress and have previously been observed only in wartime.
On any estimate, the number of “excess deaths” since 1989 runs into the millions: that is, the number of actual deaths since 1989 is far greater than the number of deaths that would have occurred had pre-transition trends in death rates continued. The vast majority of the excess deaths occurred in Russia and Ukraine.”

Sapte milioane de oameni au pierit din cauza trecerii de la socialism la capitalism, situatie tipica doar pe timp de razboi.

Ce-i drept insa, raportul The Economist insista si asupra cresterii economice din tarile est-europene, crestere semnalata indeosebi dupa 2000. O privire mai atenta arata insa ca acea trambitata crestere economica s-a sprijinit practic exclusiv pe credit si datorii. Economistul Ilie Serbanescu o spune clar, intr-un interviu pentru Cronica Romana, din 10 octombrie 2008:

„- Mandatul lui Tariceanu se apropie de final. A fost un madat de succes... sau nu?
- Dupa parerea mea nu a fost un mandat de succes, cu toate ca nivelul de trai a crescut. Asta este cert, nu o arata numai cifrele ci si viata... Din pacate, nivelul de trai a crescut pe credit si indeosebi pe credit din import, iar acest lucru reprezinta destabilizarea si dezarticularea economiei. Creditul, indiferent sub ce forma este el, trebuie dat inapoi. Si datul acesta inapoi inseamna ca va trebui sa scadem si nivelul de trai, acela care acum a crescut, caci atunci cand incepi sa dai banii inapoi, se plateste de undeva si se plateste din ceea ce ai. Asa, la nesfarsit, ca vom primi iar credite, asta e foarte putin probabil, mai ales in conditiile crizei actuale internationale, cu care Romania nu are legatura dar ale carei consecinte le va prelua fara indoiala. In conditii de criza, banul e cautat, deci banul devine mai rar si mai scump. Si o tara cum este Romania, care are un deficit extern in echivalent PIB de 14%... Ceva imens!...”

Repet, interviul era dat in 2008. Intre timp, Romania a contractat imprumuturi de la Fondul Monetar International, Comisia Europeana, Banca Mondiala si Banca Europeana pentru Reconstructie si Dezvoltare. Altfel spus, prognoza deja pesimista a lui Serbanescu s-a inrautatit vizibil.

Sapte milioane de morti, economii nationale facute zob, dependenta de camatarii internationali, pesimism si neincredere in randul populatiilor est-europene cu privire la eficacitatea pietei „libere”, aceasta este situatia in care ne aflam dupa aproape doua decenii de capitalism. Oare termenul de „tradatori de tara” sau „dusmani ai poporului” este prea puternic pentru partizanii lui „acum este mai bine”?

Falimentarea economiei romanesti socialiste

2009-10-02T00:48:00.000-07:00

Profesorul Ion Coja a publicat la 2 septembrie 2009, pe blogul sau, un pertinent articol numit „Jalea din economie”. Autorul aminteste despre perioada ceausista a Romaniei, pe care o considera net superioara economic celei prezente. Ipoteza lansata de domnia sa legata de ce s-a intamplat din 1989 pana in prezent este ca economia romaneasca, ridicata cu truda in socialism dar suficient de performanta incat sa asigure tarii o independenta economica semnificativa, a fost distrusa si falimentata de marea finanta mondiala, care nu a suportat ideea ca o tara sa isi fie auto-suficienta, fara sa apeleze la serviciile camatarilor mondiali.

Cateva citate relevante din articolul lui Ion Coja:
„În 1990 România avea o economie autarhică, suficient de dezvoltată ca să se poată descurca fără să importe mare lucru. În schimb aveam un export cu un excedent dintre cele mai mari din lume. România prin lege nu mai exporta materii prime de niciun fel, ci numai produse prelucrate, care incorporau în ele cât mai multă muncă şi creativitate, dând astfel de lucru la toată lumea. Bunăoară, de ani de zile din România Socialistă nu se mai exporta cherestea sau buşteni, ci numai mobilă sau alte produse rezultate din prelucrarea superioară a lemnului.”

„Succesul politicii economice duse de Ceauşescu avea în spate şi anii îndelungaţi în care biet românul a trebuit să strângă cureaua până le refuz, să dârdâie de frig şi să îndure o serie lungă de umilinţe. Dar aceasta era partea nevăzută a lucrurilor, cealaltă, spectaculoasă, evidentă în statistici şi în mulţimea de construcţii civile şi industriale de pe întreg cuprinsul României, ameninţa să devină un exemplu contagios pentru ţările aspirante la un statut de demnitate naţională! Unde ar ajunge marea finanţă mondială dacă toate ţările ar adopta modelul românesc şi ar interzice prin lege guvernului să mai aibă de-a face cu Fondul Monetar Internaţional sau cu Banca Mondială?!…”

„Ba mai mult, pentru ceea ce făcuse, Nicolae Ceauşescu trebuia şi pedepsit. Crezuse în capacitatea românilor de a-şi industrializa economia, de a o face performantă şi capabilă să concureze pe piaţa internaţională economii şi produse economice cu o mare tradiţie. Pentru potenţialul economic la care România ajunsese, Nicolae Ceauşescu se considera îndreptăţit să ceară pentru România un loc la masa sau în clubul ţărilor dezvoltate! Refuzul şi reţinerea acestora era evident.

Repet: România lui Nicolae Ceauşescu devenise un exemplu periculos, care punea în discuţie sistemul financiar mondial, căci dovedea posibilitatea şi deopotrivă necesitatea ca o ţară care vrea să se dezvolte să o facă fără ajutorul şi asistenţa otrăvită a finanţei mondiale. De aceea experimentul românesc trebuia curmat, iar Ceauşescu pedepsit în mod exemplar: cine va mai face ca el, ca el s-o păţească! Cine va mai îndrăzni să conceapă o dezvoltare economică fără controlul şi asistenţa finanţei mondiale, internaţionale, nu va reuşi decât să-şi ducă ţara la dezastru! …Cam aceasta este învăţătura de minte, mesajul pentru liderii ţărilor mici şi mijlocii al spectacolului de la Târgovişte din 25 decembrie 1989.”

Este suficient sa comparam rolul si importanta avuta de fostele intreprinderi socialiste pentru oameni si pentru intreaga tara cu ceea ce s-a ales de ele in prezent pentru a intelege ca Ion Coja nu este departe de adevar: avem de-a face cu o distrugere sistematica si cinica.

Inteprinderile bucurestene Faur, Semanatoarea, IMGB, Policolor sau Aversa vandute rechinilor imobiliari. De pilda, in zona Semănătoarea se construieste un proiect ce include o zona de birouri cu o suprafata de circa 350.000 de metri patrati, o zona comerciala, cu o suprafata de peste 170.000 de metri patrati, cu un mall, un hipermarket si un hotel de patru stele.
Fostele fabrici Spicul si Titan au fost achiziţionate de dezvoltatorul spaniol Hercesa, proprietarul hotelului Cismigiu, pentru dezvoltarea unor complexuri rezidentiale. Platforma Metav, aflată în portofoliul grupului de firme Altrom, controlat de oamenii de afaceri Gabriel Popoviciu şi Radu Dimofte, a fost transformata intr-o zonă de cladiri de birouri renovate.
Grupul imobiliar israelian Africa Israel Investment a anuntat in 2008 ca a inceput lucrarile de constructie la cel de-al treilea proiect din Romania, localizat pe fostul amplasament al fabricii Laromet Bucuresti. Acesta va cuprinde un mall, locuinte si birouri.

In Timisoara, intreprinderea "Solventul", unul dintre primele combinate petrochimice din tara, cu o istorie de peste 130 de ani, a livrat, anual, in perioada 1960-1989, peste 270.000 de tone de produse chimice. ''Solventul'' oferea, în perioada amintită, 1.600 de locuri de munca. Dupa 1989 a ramas cu 100 de vagoane si cativa kilometri de cale ferata din dotare. Pe terenul intreprinderii ar putea fi construite supermarketuri.

La Hunedoara, din platforma siderurgica a fostului combinat ''Victoria'' sau Sidermet Calan au ramas doar structurile de beton ale cladirilor, in condiţiile in care fierul vechi a fost vandut centrelor de colectare. Priveliştea la intrarea in Calan este dezolanta si poate fi vazuta de orice calator care trece pe Drumul National 66, intre Simeria si Petrosani.
Numarul de angajati din siderurgie si minerit din judetul Hunedoara a scazut cu cateva zeci de mii. Combinatul siderurgic de la Hunedoara a avut „sansa” sa fie cumparat de grupul Mittal Steel. Numarul angajaţilor a scazut dupa 1990, de la peste 12.500 la aproape 2.500.
Mineritul din Valea Jiului a fost afectat de restructurare incepand cu anul 1997, cand au plecat din sistem peste 25.000 de oameni.

In Brasov, din 1989 pana in 2007, productia industriala a scazut cu 65%, la inceputul lui 2007 fiind inchise intreprinderile Tractorul, Steagul Rosu, Rulmentul.

Combinatul de la Targoviste are acum 4.700 de salariati, fata de 11.500, cat avea in 1990.
O altă societate mare din Targoviste, SARO, ce producea strunguri, a fost preluata de americani, devenind Wisconsin Turning Systems, dar a falimentat în 2004.

Compania Romana de Pescuit Oceanic (CRPO) Tulcea, care numara inainte de 1989 peste 7.000 de angajati, are in prezent un singur angajat, care se ocupa de arhiva fostei societati.

Singura fabrica de izolatori electrici din tara, societatea comerciala Alcor din judetul Botosani, a fost transformata in sediu al Serviciului Politiei Rutiere. Fabricile de sticlarie si portelan de la Dorohoi, Stipo si Porţelanul, au intrat in faliment. Toti cei peste 1.000 de muncitori au fost concediati.

SC ARO SA din Campulung Muscel, prima uzina romaneasca producatoare de automobile de teren, a fost declarata in faliment in 2006. Inainte de 1989, uzina de la Campulung Muscel avea peste 11.000 de angajati si ajunsese la o productie anuala de circa 17.000 de autoturisme de teren, dintre care mai mult de trei sferturi ajungeau la export. De la infiintarea sa, in anul 1957, si pana la sistarea activitatii, uzina a produs peste 350.000 de autoturisme.

Combinatul Chimic, Fabrica de Zahar, Intreprinderea de Constructii Montaj Utilaj Greu (ICMUG) sunt doar cateva din marile fabrici care au functionat in judetul Giurgiu inainte de 1989 si care acum sunt demolate sau au ajuns la fier vechi.

Concluzia ii apartine tot Profesorului Ion Coja:
„Pe scurt, guvernanţii de după 1990 nu au urmărit privatizarea economiei româneşti, ci distrugerea acesteia. Dintr-o ţară industrială cu o economie autarhică prosperă, cu excedent în balanţa comerţului exterior, România post-decembristă s-a transformat într-o ţară bananieră de consum, piaţă pentru producţia de marfă a altor ţări, o ţară îndatorată până peste cap finanţei mondiale. România este azi o colonie. Atât prin nivelul economiei, cât şi prin maniera în care este guvernată de partide şi politicieni aserviţi altor interese decât cele autentic naţionale.
România este o ţară ocupată. Ocupată şi redusă la ascultare nu de armatele altor state, nu prin forţa armelor, ci prin forţa tratatelor şi contractelor semnate de guvernanţii noştri. Ei se menţin la putere cu sprijinul discret, dar atât de eficient, al celor care beneficiază de pe urma trădării, a vânzării de Neam şi Ţară.”

Daca demonstreaza ceva cele scrise mai sus, este ca socialismul nu doar ca nu este un sistem economic falimentar, ci, din contra, reuseste sa aiba performante impresionante, construind o economie capabila sa asigure suveranitatea pe plan extern al unei tari mici spre medii. Asadar, adoptarea pe cara larga a anti-consumerismului, egalitarismului si colectivismului nu va insemna nici pe departe saracie si dezastru economic. Din contra, se va putea mentine un nivel de trai decent, chiar daca nu bogat sau luxos, ceea ce, dupa cum se stie de pe acest blog, nici nu e necesar.

Schita pentru o economie a viitorului

2009-09-10T08:15:00.001-07:00

Daca aratam in postarea anterioara ca cercetatorul Ted Trainer a dovedit ca nu exista solutii tehnologice credibile care sa evite epuizarea resurselor energetice mondiale spre care duce consumerismului actual si cel estimat pentru urmatorii ani, azi prezint o schita a unei viitoare, alternative economii bazate pe o respingere colectiva a capitalismului consumerist. Textul ii aprtine tot lui Ted Trainer si se numeste sugestiv „The Simpler Way: An Outline of the Global Situation, the Sustainable Alternative Society, and the Transition To It”.

Pe scurt, situatia se prezinta astfel:

„Our industrial-affluent-consumer society is extremely unjust and ecologically unsustainable. The argument below is that these problems cannot be solved in a society that is driven by obsession with high rates of production and consumption, affluent living standards, market forces, the profit motive and economic growth. Most people do not realise the magnitude of the overshoot, the extent to which this society is unsustainable. Because this is so great there must be vast and radical system changes if the big global problem are to be solved. A sustainable and just world order cannot be achieved until we move to very different lifestyles, values and systems, especially to a new economic system.

The alternative we must work for is The Simpler Way, based on frugal "living standards", co-operation, high levels of local economic self-sufficiency, and zero economic growth. The final section below argues that the top priority for people concerned about the fate of the planet should be starting to build these new lifestyles and systems within existing towns and suburbs.”

Cu ce trebuie sa inlocuim actuala ideologie a „pietei libere”, care a nascut monstruoase nedreptati si inegalitati, si care a carei rapacitate ameninta viitorul omenirii si al Terrei? Cu simplitatea voluntara, cooperare, auto-suficienta economica locala, abandonarea idealului nesustenabil al cresterii economice perpetue.

Directiile pe care se impune sa le urmam sunt cele de mai jos:

„* Material living standards must be much less affluent. In a sustainable society per capita rates of resources use must be a small fraction of those in Australia today.

* There must be mostly small scale highly self-sufficient local economies.

* There must be mostly cooperative and participatory local systems whereby small communities control their own affairs, independent of the international and global economies.

* A very different economic system must be developed, one that is under social control, geared to meeting needs as distinct from maximising profits, not driven by market forces, and without any growth.

* None of this is possible without radical change in values, away from competition, self-interest and greed, and to cooperation, participation, giving and non-material satisfactions.”

Adica scaderea pretentiilor materiale, accent pus pe productie locala si comunitati auto-suficiente, descentralizare, cooperare si democratie directa (autogestiune), productie axata pe satisfacerea nevoilor materiale de baza-nu pe profit, abandonarea eticii capitaliste individualiste.

Sa detaliem, alaturi de Ted Trainer, cateva dintre aceste propuneri.

Satisfacerea nevoilor de baza, suficiente pentru un trai decent

„Living more simply does not mean deprivation or hardship. It means focusing on what is sufficient for comfort, hygiene, efficiency etc. Most of our basic needs can be met by quite simple and resource-cheap devices and ways, compared with those taken for granted and idolised in consumer society.
Living in materially simple ways can cut enormous amounts off the money a person needs to earn. Consider housing. A perfectly adequate, and indeed beautiful house for a small family can be built for around $5000. This indicates how The Simpler Way will liberate people from slavery to consumer-capitalist society, enabling most time to be put into more fulfilling activities than earning money.”

Auto-suficienta locala

„We must develop as much self-sufficiency as we reasonably can at the national level, meaning less trade, at the household level, and especially at the neighbourhood, suburban, town and local regional level. We need to convert our presently barren suburbs into thriving regional economies which produce most of what they need from local resources.
The domestic or household economy already accounts for about half the real national output, but this is ignored by conventional economics which only counts dollar costs. Households can again become significant producers of vegetables, fruit, poultry, preserves, fish, repairs, furniture, entertainment and leisure services, and community support.

Neighbourhoods would contain many small enterprises such as the local bakery. Some of these could be decentralised branches of existing firms, enabling most of us to get to work by bicycle or on foot. Much of our honey, eggs, crockery, vegetables, furniture, fruit, fish and poultry production could come from households and backyard businesses engaged in craft and hobby production. It is much more satisfying to produce most things in craft ways rather than in industrial factories. However it would make sense to retain some larger mass production factories and sources of materials, such as mines and steel works and railways.

Almost all food could come from within a few hundred metres of where we live, most of it from within existing towns and suburbs. The sources would be, a) intensive home gardens, b) community gardens and cooperatives, such as poultry, orchard and fish groups, many small market gardens located within and close to suburbs and towns, d) extensive development of commons, especially for production of fruit, nuts, fish, poultry, animal grazing, herbs, bamboo and timber. (...)”.

Un avantaj esential al viziunii propuse de Trainer este o independenta crescuta fata de sectorul financiar. In cuvintele sale,

„One of the most important ways in which we would be highly self-sufficient would be in finance. Firstly The Simpler Way requires little capital. Most enterprises are very small, and it will not be an expanding economy. Virtually all neighbourhoods have all the capital they need to develop those things that would meet their basic needs, yet this does not happen when our savings are put into conventional banks. Our capital is borrowed by distant corporations, often to do undesirable things, and not to improve our neighbourhood.
We would form many small town banks from which our savings would only be lent to firms and projects that would improve our town. These banks could charge low or negative interest, or make grants.
We will couple the banks with Business Incubators which provide assistance to little firms, such as access to accountants, computers and advice from panels of the town’s most experienced business people. These two institutions will give us the power to establish in our town the enterprises and industries it needs, as distinct from being at the whim of corporations and foreign investors who will only set up in our town if that will maximize their global profits, and in any case will not set up firms to produce what we need.
We can therefore take control of our own development and make sure that it is determined by what will benefit the town, cut its imports, minimize ecological impacts, eliminate waste and provide livelihoods.”

Pe scurt, importanta auto-suficientei economice locale, va insemna ca:
„The alternative neighbourhood would be full of familiar people, small businesses, industries, farms, lakes, common projects, animals, gardens, forests, windmills, waterwheels, and familiar people and therefore full of interesting things to do or observe. Consequently people would be less inclined to travel on weekends and holidays, which would greatly reduce national energy consumption.

This shows how the solution to many problems will mostly involve carrots rather than sticks. We will reduce travel not by penalties but by eliminating the need for most of it, by ensuring that work and leisure sites are close to where we live.
To repeat, a high level of domestic and local economic self-sufficiency is crucial if we are to dramatically reduce overall resource use. It will cut travel, transport and packaging costs, and the need to build freeways, ships and airports etc. It will also enable our communities to become secure from devastation by distant economic events, such as depressions, devaluations, interest rate rises, trade wars, capital flight, and exchange rate changes.”

Autorul dezvolta aceasta idee, prezentand inclusiv detalii tehnice despre cum va functiona o astfel de localitate in sectiunea „Land Areas and Footprint”.

Cooperare si participare comunala

„The third essential characteristic of the alternative way is that it must be very communal, participatory and cooperative. Firstly, we must share many things. We could have a few stepladders, electric drills, etc., in the neighbourhood workshop, as distinct from one in every house.
We would be on various voluntary rosters, committees and working bees to carry out most of the windmill maintenance, construction of public works, child minding, nursing, basic educating and care of aged and disadvantaged people in our area, as well as to perform most of the functions councils now carry out for us, such as maintaining our own parks and streets. In addition working bees and committees would maintain the many commons. We would therefore need far fewer bureaucrats and professionals, reducing the amount of income we would have to earn to pay taxes. (When we contribute to working bees we are paying some of our tax.)
Especially important would be the regular voluntary community working bees. Just imaging how rich your neighbourhood would now be if every Saturday afternoon for the past five years there had been a voluntary working bee doing something that would make it a more pleasant place for all to live.
There would be far more community than there is now. People would know each other and be interacting on communal projects. Because all would realise that their welfare depended heavily on how well we looked after each other and our ecosystems, there would be powerful incentives for mutual concern, facilitating the public good, and making sure others were content. The situation would be quite different to consumer-capitalist society where there is little incentive on individuals to care for others or their community.”

Viata publica a unei comunitati evident mai mici in comparatie chiar cu municipiile actuale va fi una impregnata de spirit civic, luarea in comun a deciziilor, cooperare si intr-ajutorare, punerea in comun a ustensilelor necesare muncii.

Trebuie subliniat insa ca un astfel de stil de viata nu este opus tehnologiei moderne, care va continua sa isi gaseasca locul in viata sociala, chiar daca numai acolo unde este cu adevarat necesar, in cercetarea medicala sau sprorirea productiei agricole. Totodata, chiar daca se va reduce consumul de energie electrica, aparate electrice si electronice utileprecum PC-ul sau TV-ul vor continua sa existe: „Based on records from my homestead, a family of three could meet its electricity needs on about .6kWh/day. (Lights, computer, small black and white TV, duct fans, some machinery, but no air-conditioning, electric stove, fridge or washing machine.) This is about 1/50 the typical Sydney household use. The town would therefore need 200kWh/d for domestic needs. The half of this that does not have to be stored might come from a combination of solar PV, solar thermal and wind.”

Merita subliniat ca Trainer nu vorbeste de o abolire a industriei, ci doar de o reducere a sa, inconformitate cu resursele naturale pe care le avem la dispozitie. La fel, nu este vorba de o abolire a statului si a companiilor de stat:

„Only a little heavy industry will be needed, e.g. basic steel, railways, buses, and thus mining and timber industries will be small. There will be little need for shipping or air transport. Most cooking would be by good or gas produced from biomass. (...) it would make sense to retain some larger mass production factories and sources of materials, such as mines and steel works and railways.”

Avantajele adoptarii „Caii simple”

„The Simpler Way will deliver many deeply rewarding experiences and conditions such as a much more relaxed pace, having to spend relatively little time working for money, having varied, enjoyable and worthwhile work to do, experiencing a supportive community, giving and receiving, growing some of one’s own food, keeping old clothes and devices in use, running a resource-cheap and efficient household, living in a supportive and caring community, practising arts and crafts, participating in community activities, having a rich cultural experience involving local festivals, performances, arts and celebrations, being involved in governing one’s own community, living in a nice environment, and especially knowing that you are not contributing to global problems through over-consumption.
Only if these alternative values and satisfactions, which contradict those of consumer society, become the main factors motivating people can The Simpler Way be achieved. Our main task is to help people to see how important these benefits and satisfactions are, and therefore to grasp that moving to The Simpler Way will greatly improve their quality of life. This understanding will be the most powerful force we can develop for bringing about the transition.”

Cu alte cuvinte, valori tipice ale stilului de viata downshifting: timp liber, renuntarea la materialism si consumerism, viata sociala si culturala, grija fata de mediu.

Este energia regenerabila o solutie?

2009-09-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

Energia regenerabila se referă la forme de energie produse prin transferul energetic al energiei rezultate din procese naturale regenerabile. Astfel, energia luminii solare, a vânturilor, a apelor curgătoare, a proceselor biologice şi a căldurii geotermale pot fi captate de către oameni utilizând diferite procedee. Sursele de energie ne-reînnoibile includ energia nucleară precum şi energia generată prin arderea combustibililor fosili, aşa cum ar fi ţiţeiul, cărbunele şi gazele naturale. Aceste resurse sunt, în chip evident, limitate la existenţa zăcămintelor respective şi sunt considerate în general (a se vedea teoria academicianului român Ludovic Mrazec de formare anorganică a ţiţeiului şi a gazelor naturale) ne-regenerabile. Dintre sursele regenerabile de energie fac parte: energia eoliană; energia solară; energia apei; energia hidraulică; energia mareelor; energia geotermică etc.

Pentru unii, energia regenerabila poate fi o solutie de salvare de la o disparitie iminenta a stilului de viata consumerist. Se stie ca resursele planetei sunt insuficiente pentru a permite tuturor un stil de viata afluent, materialisto-consumerist. Totusi, oare progresele tehnologice, in speta utilizarea surselor de energie reinnoibile, nu pot reprezenta calea de iesire, astfel incat consumerismul sa poata continua fara insa a duce la accentuarea degradarii mediului inconjurator?

In articolul sau „Renewable Energy: No Solution for Consumer Society”, publicat in The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.3, no.1, (ianuarie 2007), Ted Trainer explica de ce raspunsul la intrebarea de mai sus este, cel mai probabil, negativ. Aceste surse de energie se dovedesc cu totul insuficiente, astfel incat evitarea unui dezastru planetar inseamna echivaleaza cu evitarea principalei sale cauze, consumerismul.

Sa urmarim, cu cateva exemple, stadiul in care s-a ajuns cu folosirea energiei regenerabile si ce sanse de viito are ea.

Energia eoliana:
„An examination of wind maps indicates that the annual quantity of wind energy that is available could well be considerably greater than demand, but the important question is what fraction of this can be harvested in view of the variability problem; that is, sometimes there is little or no wind. In the past it was usually assumed that for this reason wind might be able to contribute up to 25% of demand. However, the Germans with far more wind mills than any other country, and the Danish with the world’s highest ratio of wind output to electricity consumption, have run into problems “integrating” wind into the grid while wind is supplying only about 5% of demand.

A mill at a good site might run over time at 33% of its maximum or “peak” capacity, but this should not be taken as a performance likely from a whole wind system. Sharman reports that even in Denmark in 2003 the average output of the wind system was about 17% of its peak capacity and was down to around 5% for several months at a time. The E.On Netz report for Germany, the country with more wind mills than any other, also says that in 2003 system capacity was 16%, and around 5% for months. They stress that 2003 was a good wind year.”

Asadar, tari care au inregistrat progrese mondiale in utilizarea energiei date de vant, ca Germania si Danemarca, nu au reusit decat performante modeste.

Energia solara:
„After wind, Europe’s best option for renewable electricity will probably be solar thermal plants located in the Sahara region. These will impose significant transmission losses but their big advantage is their capacity to store energy as heat to generate and transmit electricity when it is needed. However, the magnitude of the potential is uncertain, and especially doubtful in winter. Solar thermal trough systems do not work very well in lower solar incidence. Even in the best locations output in winter is about 20% of summer output. The winter incidence of solar energy in the Sahara is not that impressive, perhaps 6 kWh/m/d towards Libya and Egypt and a long way south of the Mediterranean.
Solar thermal dishes perform better than troughs in winter, but they cost more and their big disadvantage is that because each tracks the sun it is difficult to take heat via flexible couplings to a central generator or store. They are being developed with Stirling engine generators at each focal point, meaning that heat energy can’t be stored to generate electricity when it is needed. Central receiver or tower systems can store, but like troughs they have reduced winter performance.
It is likely that solar thermal systems will be located only in the hottest regions, will have to supply major demand centres by long transmission lines, and will not be able to make a large contribution in winter.”

Evident, doar cateva regiuni de pe Glob sunt suficient de incalzite si expuse razelor solare incat sa se inregistreze un cumul semnificativ de energie, in cea mai mare parte, anotimpul rece scazand considerabil cantitatea de energie obtinuta astfel.

In concluzie, o economie mondiala bazata primordial pe energia eoliana sau solara intampina cel putin doua obstacole decisive:
„Renewables could provide a considerable fraction of electricity demand, probably in excess of 25% in some countries, but a) much of the generating capacity would have to be duplicated in the form of fossil or nuclear plant for use when there is little sun or wind, b) the amount of coal use still required would far exceed safe greenhouse gas emission limits.

There are weighty reasons why we are not likely to have a hydrogen economy. If you make hydrogen from electricity you lose 30% of the energy that was in the electricity. If you then compress, pump, store and re-use the hydrogen the losses at each of these steps will result in something like only 25% of the energy generated being available for use, e.g., to drive the wheels of a fuel-cell powered car.”

Dupa ce Trainer se refera si la alte surse de energie regenerabila, aungand la aceleasi rezultate ca mai sus, conclude:
„All of the above references have been to the difficulty or impossibility of meeting present energy demand from renewables. That is not the focal problem for the evaluation of the energy viability of consumer-capitalist society. The crucial question is can renewables meet the future demand for energy in a society that is fiercely and blindly committed to limitless increases in “living standards” and economic output. The absurdity of this commitment is easily shown.
If 9 billion people were to rise to the “living standards” we in rich countries will have in 2070 given 3% p.a. economic growth, then total world economic output would be 60 times as great as it is now!”

Pe scurt, o crestere de 60 de ori a activitatii economice mondiale echivaleaza cu un dezastru ecologic imposibil de reparat de folosirea energiilor alternative.
Singura solitie de evitare a catastrofei ramane abandonarea consumerismului de tip Occidental:

„Such multiples mean that the problems cannot be solved without enormous reductions in the volumes of industrial/commercial producing and consuming going on, perhaps to 10% of present levels. The numbers are so big that no plausible assumptions regarding technical advance, energy conservation, etc. could show that the problems can be solved without moving to a zero-growth economy on a fraction of present GDP.”

Mai exact,
„consumer-capitalist society is grossly unsustainable. It involves rates of resource use and environmental impact that are far beyond sustainable levels, and could never be extended to all the world’s people.
Consumer-capitalist society is also grossly unjust, imposing a global market system which delivers most of the world’s wealth to the corporations and consumers of the rich countries. A market economy inevitably gears the productive capacity of the Third World to the effective demand of the rich and cannot attend to the needs of people, society or future generations. Again it is obvious that Third World problems cannot be solved until the rich countries stop taking most of the world’s resource wealth; as Gandhi said long ago, “The rich must live more simply so that the poor may simply live.” That is not possible in a society committed to affluence and growth. Thus considerations of sustainability and of justice both lead to the conclusion that the problems cannot be solved without huge and radical systemic change.”

Capitalismul consumerist este un devorator de resurse naturale si un sistem profund nedrept si inegal. Iesirea din impasul ecologic nu poate fi continuarea pe panta progresului si dezvoltarii economice, adica acolo unde duce capitalismul, ci abandonarea economiei bazate de profit si o reducere a cresterii economice. Redistribuirea actualelor realizari economice, laolalta cu o reducere a activitatii economice in general, par solutii indicate.

„a good society cannot be an affluent society. (...) The only way out of this alarming and rapidly deteriorating situation is to move to some kind of Simpler Way. This must involve non-affluent (but quite sufficient) material living standards, mostly small, highly self-sufficient local economies. Economic systems under social control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive and highly cooperative and participatory systems. Obviously, such radical systemic changes could not be made without profound change in values and world view, away from some of the most fundamental elements in Western culture, especially to do with competitive, acquisitive individualism.”

Standarde materiale decente, economii locale, auto-suficiente, aflate sub control social, ce presupun un grad ridicat de participare democratica din partea comunitatilor, aceasta este schita pentru o posibila societate eliberata de valorile sinucigase ale consumerismului si singura care poate promite un viitor indelungat al umanitatii pe Terra. Daca un astfel de viitor ne dorim, e clar ca nu pe utilizarea consistenta a energiilor regenerabile trebuie sa ne bazam, in speranta desarta ca ne va salva de efectele dezastruoase spre care ne conduce capitalismul consumerist.
In urmatoarea postare, vom vedea mai in detaliu in ce consta solutia propusa de Trainer.

Daunatoarea prosperitate

2009-08-16T00:42:00.000-07:00

Tim Kasser

Vom intelege cum capitalismul, chiar si atunci cand reuseste sa-si atinga telurile propuse, esueaza. Pentru simplul motiv ca scopurile urmarite cu obstinatie, daca nu chiar obsesie, de acest sistem, in speta cele materiale, nu corespund adevaratelor nevoi psihice umane, ba chiar le umbresc pe acestea. Tim Kasser explica aceste realitati in materialul sau Values and Prosperity. Sa-l urmarim pas cu pas.

Raspandirea materialismului promovat de capitalism
„We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the
shift from a “thing-oriented society” to a “person-oriented society.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Since the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. spoke these words in the late 1960s, it seems clear that Western societies, as well as large swaths of the developing world,
have ignored King’s call and instead become increasingly enamored of the materialistic values
that create a “thing oriented society.” What else might we conclude when news sources and politicians seem increasingly obsessed with economic growth rates and the latest ups and downs of the stock market? What else might we conclude from the increasing power of multi-national corporations, 52 of whom had amassed so much capital by the year 2000 that they competed with nations to be among the world’s 100 largest economic organizations? What else might we conclude from the fact that several hundred billion dollars are spent yearly in the U.S. on dvertising, enticing people to buy more and hinge their worth on their possessions? What else might we conclude from the fact that surveys of entering first-year U.S. college students show hat the percentage who consider it essential or very important to be “financially well-off” has gone from 42% in King’s time to approximately 75% today (Irvine, 2007)?”

Faptul ca averea a 52 de corporatii multi-nationale le plaseaza pe acestea in topul primelor 100 de economii din lume, cateva sute de miliarde de dolari sunt cheltuite anual pe publicitate numai in SUA, ca studentii americani considera din ce in ce mai mult ca bunurile materiale le sunt esentiale, arata ca societatea capitalista pune un accent extrem de puternic pe dobandirea de bunuri materiale si de averi.

Si totusi, acest bombardament neintrerupt de advertising si obiecte, desi marcheaza un succes economic, are efecte in cel mai bun caz nule, in cel mai rau caz negatice asupra buna-starii personale.

„If we consider that people’s well-being and happiness is an important, desirable feature of prosperity, we must confront two empirical facts. First, large scale studies in almost every economically-developed nation indicate that the large increases in economic growth and consumption since the early 1960s have been associated with no increase in people’s personal happiness. Second, dozens of studies document that the more individuals “buy into” the materialistic aspirations and goals encouraged by contemporary society, the lower their happiness and life satisfaction and the more they report being depressed, anxious, and unhappy.”

Asadar, studiile arata atat ca dezvoltarea si cresterea economiilor nu sporesc satisfactia personala, cat si ca aspiratiile materiale scad starea personala de fericire, materialistii fiind mai degraba deprimati, anxiosi si nefericiti. Efectele negative ale consumerismului capitalist nu se opresc aici, ci influenteaza in modul cel mai daunator si viata sociala si protectia mediului:

„And if we consider that close interpersonal and community connections are important
features of a successful society, we must again confront two empirical facts. First, as capitalism
and consumerism have infiltrated more aspects of culture, spreading their ideology of
individualism and self-interest, individuals have become more self-centered and less concerned
about the well-being of others and less involved in their communities. Second, research shows that those who take on the materialistic values encouraged by capitalistic, consumer society are less empathic, less cooperative, and more likely to view others as objects to be manipulated in order to get ahead in life.

And if our values lead us to care about whether or not the Earth will be able to sustain our grandchildren and great-grand-children (as well as other species) with clean air and water,
healthy food, moderate temperatures, and safe places to live, we must again note two empirical facts. First, environmental scientists have reached the conclusion that the high levels of consumption enjoyed by Western societies are not sustainable, as they destroy habitats and biodiversity, pollute the air and water, and are contributing to global climate change (United Nations Environment Programme, 2002). Second, research shows that the more that individuals make on the materialistic values encouraged by capitalistic, consumer societies, the more they personally consume, the less they engage in ecologically-responsible behaviors, and the higher their ecological footprints.”

Pe scurt, mania consumerista se traduce, in termeni sociali, prinegoism,dezinteres fata de ceilalti membri ai societatii si indiferenta, lipsa de implicare in viata comunitatii. Victimele propagandei capitaliste sunt mai putin empatici, mai putin cooperanti si predispusi la a vedea in aproapele lor un obiect pe care il manipuleaza in scopuri proprii. Totodata, stilul de viata Occidental nu poate fi sustinut de planeta, consumerismul si lacomia materiala ducand in practica la distrugerea de habitate, schimbari climatice, poluarea aerului si apei. Preocuparea cu cresterea personala a consumului devine inamicul comportamentului ecologic-responsabil.

Valori capabile sa sporeasca fericirea personala si buna-starea societatii
„(...) goals for financial success, image, and popularity tend to stand in opposition to three other “intrinisic” goals: Self-acceptance (which involves trying to grow as a person), affiliation (which involves having close, intimate relationships with family and friends), and community feeling (which involves trying to help the broader world be a better place). What this finding means is that the more people focus on materialistic aims for money, image, and status, the more difficult it is for them to also focus on growing as a person, intimately connecting with other people, and contributing to the world at large.

This finding about value conflicts is especially important because these intrinsic aims for self-acceptance, affiliation, and community feeling are also the very values and goals that empirical research demonstrates promote personal happiness, positive social involvement, and ecologically sustainable behavior. Specifically, studies show that happier people place a relatively high emphasis on goals for self-acceptance, affiliation, and community feeling; by caring about such aims, the research suggests that people become increasingly likely to create lifestyles for hemselves that satisfy the psychological needs required for psychological thriving. Other research suggests that people focused on these intrinsic goals treat others in more
humane, cooperative, and caring ways, thus benefiting others’ well-being. And finally, studies show that a strong focus on intrinsic goals also conduces to caring more about ecological sustainability and being less greedy with limited resources.”

Asadar, nu numai ca preocuparea cu propria imagine si popularitate, cu imbogatirea personala sunt incapabile de a spori fericirea, dar ele intra in conflict cu valorile intrinseci, demonstrate ca fiind adoptate de oamenii cu un grad de fericire mai ridicat, precum preocuparea cu dezvoltarea intelectuala si spirituala, sociabilitatea, implicarea in viata comunitatii, preocuparea cu binele comun, sporind astfel si fericirea altora.

Simplitatea voluntara, alternativa preferabila consumerismului capitalist
„(...) people express their values by rejecting the “work and spend” consumer lifestyle so dominant today. This trend, variously called “voluntary simplicity”, “cultural creatives”, and “downshifting”, describes a lifestyle in which individuals choose to live a materially simple, “inwardly rich” life unburdened by long work hours and uncluttered by many possessions.
Qualitative reports suggest that such individuals attempt to center their lives around developing their personal interests, spending time with family, volunteering in their community, engaging in personally-meaningful spiritual practices, and living in an ecologically light fashion. As such, it seems that the VS lifestyle provides an excellent prototype of a group of individuals who are trying to avoid materialistic pursuits and instead orient their lives around intrinsic goals.”

Simplitatea voluntara implica un stil de viata ce respinge goana dupa bogatii si munca in exces care o acompaniaza, concentrandu-se pe devoltarea pasiunilor proprii, vietii de familie, vietii in comunitate, ecologiei. Alegerea acestui stil de viata se dovedeste cu adevarat benefica:

„Indeed, the parallel between Voluntary Simplicity (VS) and our theoretical conceptualizations seemed so clear that Kirk Warren Brown and I conducted a study comparing a sample of 200 North American VS practitioners with 200 mainstream Americans matched to the VSrs on age, gender, and geographic location. Consistent with our expectations, the VS group scored substantially higher than mainstream Americans on the relative importance they placed on intrinsic vs. materialistic goals. Our analyses also revealed that VS practitioners were both significantly happier than mainstream Americans and were living in more ecologically sustainable ways. Particularly remarkable were our analyses (using Structural Equation Modeling) that demonstrated that a good deal of the reason why the VS groups were living more ecologically sustainably and were happier than mainstream Americans was that the VS group was more focused on intrinsic and less focused on materialistic values. Such results, though preliminary, are quite promising, as they suggest that when individuals create a lifestyle that is focused on intrinsic values rather than materialistic values, they not only live in more ecologically sustainable ways, but they are happier too!”

Adeptii simplitatii voluntare si downshifting-ului sunt deci dovediti ca fiind mai fericiti decat media, tocmai pentru ca acorda o atentie sporita valorilor intrinseci. Totodata, amprenta lor ecologica este drastic diminuata, ceea ce inseamna ca acest stil de viata este nu doar in armonie cu propria persoana, ci si cu natura.

Timpul liber
Cei care refuza sa intre in nebuneasca cursa dupa obiecte si bunuri materiale, popularitate, vedetism etc. se vor bucura si de o crestere a timpului liber. Cei care prefera insa munca in exces, vor intampina urmatoarele neajunsuri:
„While materialistic values, profit-driven capitalism, and consumerism have been quite successful in creating great material affluence for some, social commentators have noted that an unfortunate side effect has been an increase in “time poverty” for many. The helter-skelter attempt to make more money and consume as much as possible leads many individuals to work long hours and spend more time commuting; further, many businesses and governments implement policies that encourage (if not force) long work hours as a means of enhancing profit and economic growth.

The result is that many people find it quite difficult to pursue their intrinsic goals. For example, long work hours can crowd out the time people have to spend engaging in activities relevant to self-acceptance goals, such as pursuing personal hobbies, reflecting on life, and generally taking care of mind, body, and soul. Commentators also have noted that busy people seem to have less time for their spouses, friends, children, and even pets (deGraaf, 2003), thus reflecting the difficulty of pursuing affiliation goals. And when they experience time poverty, people often are less likely to do activities relevant to community feeling goals such as volunteering, voting, and engaging in behaviors that sustain the Earth.”

Refuzul de a munci in exces are, comfrom lui Kasser, urmatoarele beneficii:
„These observations suggest that another way to orient individuals and society towards intrinsic goals is to place the concept of “time affluence” on an equal footing with material affluence. Some research supports these ideas. For example, Kasser & Brown (2003) reported that life satisfaction was higher in individuals who worked fewer hours; Kasser & Sheldon (in press) expanded on these ideas in a series of four studies. Specifically, Kasser & Sheldon developed measures of material and time affluence to assess individuals’ subjective experience of whether they had enough money and enough time. Results showed that even after controlling for people’s subjective (and actual) wealth, individuals who felt more time affluent reported greater subjective well-being and happiness. What’s more, further analyses (using mediational tests) revealed that when people felt more time affluent, they were more likely to engage in activities that supported their intrinsic values, which in turn explained why such individuals were happier than less time affluent people.
Other research has demonstrated the ecological benefits of time affluence.”

Ce putem conclude din expunerea lui Kasser? Ca desi capitalismul a creat multe bogatii in anumite parti ale lumii, acestea sunt inutile si nu reprezinta decat resurse umane si naturale consumate fara o finalitate pozitiva; ca adeptii simplitatii voluntare, preocupati de valori precum devoltarea propriei personalitati, viata de familie, viata comunitatii, protejarea mediului, timp liber, relaxare, sunt mai fericiti si multumiti de viata lor decat cei manati de lacomia materiala, popularitate etc.; si ca, per total, capitalismul chiar si atunci cand reuseste sa-si atinga telurile, nu face decat sa esueze, deoarece scopurile promovate de acesta, precum consumerismul, vedetismul etc. nu doar ca nu sporesc fericirea, dar nu fac decat sa obtureze adevaratele valori, cele demonsdtrate ca sporind satisfactia personala si colectiva. Imbratisarea stilului de viata al simplitatii voluntare este benefic atat pentru noi ca persoane, cat si pentru societate in general si chiar pentru mediul inconjurator.

Averi, inegalitati si nefericire

2009-08-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

Jean-Benoit Gregoire Rousseau este doctorand la Universitatea din Michigan. In materialul sau intitulat „Happiness and Income Inequality”, datat 17 nov. 2008, autorul explica de ce imbogatirea materiala a SUA nu a reusit sa produca o crestere corespunzatoare a fericirii populatiei (situatie cunoscuta in literatura de specialitate ca fiind „Paradoxul lui Easterlin: veniturile cresc, fericirea ramane constanta sau chiar scade): bogatia e incapabila sa sporeasca fericirea, iar inegalitatile sociale o erodeaza la randul lor.

Prezentarea generala a studiului:
„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 significantly 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. Analysis of patterns in European countries confirms the crucial role of income inequality in the conversion of economic growth into aggregate well-being.”

Evolutia inegalitatilor:
„The dierence in happiness between the rich and poor was 0.602 of a standard deviation in 1973. It grew by 0.004 every year and reached 0.747 at the end of 2006. The happiness gap between the top and bottom income quintile grew by 15% of a standard deviation over that period.10 The gap between the middle and rich income group started at 0.217 in 1973 and grew by 0.004 every year to reach 0.346 in 2006, about 13% of a standard deviation.”

Concluzia studiului:
„This paper presents the Easterlin paradox under a new light and argues that the phenomenon
is consistent with standard economics. The lack of growth in aggregate happiness despite massive economic growth can be attributed to the fact that the relationship between income and happiness is concave, that the income gains have accrued disproportionably to the top income earners and that real incomes have fallen for the poor.
Over the last thirty-five 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.
The analyses presented in this paper rejected the idea that there is a point of satiation in the well-being function and confirmed that the function is best approximated by the log-linear form.
Formal estimates of the well-being income gradient showed that in the US, 10 extra hours of weekly leisure has a similar efect on personal happiness as a 6.25% raise in yearly income.
Correcting for taxes has little efect on the estimated slope of the happiness function and surprisingly using permanent rather than transitory income lowers the gradient. Analysis of patterns in European countries also confirm the crucial role of income inequality in the conversion of economic growth into aggregate well-being.”

Pe scurt: „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.”

Ce concluzii tragem din cercetarea lui Rousseau?
1. Relatia dintre venit si fericirea e concava, insemnand ca desi pana la un anumit nivel ambele cresc simultan, fericirea incepe ulterior sa scada.
2. Incepand cu 1975, principalele venituri produse de societatea americana au fost deturnate aproape exclusiv catre cei mai bogati 20%. Veniturile celor mai saraci americani au scazut, situatii ce au dus la reliefarea accentuata a inegalitatilor.
3. Zece ore pe saptamana de timp liber aduc o fericire la fel de mare cu cea a maririi venitului anual cu 6,25%.
4. Plata taxelor nu afecteaza semnificativ starea de bine a populatiei.

Cercetarea expusa mai sus confirma deci ideile sustinute pe acest blog: neputinta averii de a spori fericirea chiar si pentru cei mai bogati; inegalitatile dauneaza fericirii generale; capitalismul ii favorizeaza pe cei mai bogati dar este ostil celor mai saraci; timpul liber are un efect important asupra satisfactiei personale.
Este insa studiul lui Rousseau reprezentativ nu doar pentru SUA, ci si pentru situatia din tarile europene? Autorul raspunde pozitiv:

„In countries where income inequality has either fallen or remained constant while the economy was growing, the average level of life satisfaction has risen. This is the case in France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Spain. In Holland and Great Britain, the average life satisfaction level has risen despite an increase in income inequality. This either means that the whole income distribution benefited (although possibly unevenly) from the economic expansion or that the rise in well-being of the rich was larger than the loss of the poor. Portugal is very similar to the US; the economic growth failed to raise aggregate well-being because of growing income inequality.”

Articolul lui Jean-Benoit Gregoire Rousseau ne indreptateste sa credem ca o lume cu mai putine inegalitati sociale, mai putin interesata de imbogatire materiala si care acorda o atentie mai mare relaxarii si timpului liber in dauna muncii in exces, are mai mari sanse sa fie una fericita decat cea prezenta.

Satisfactia de viata in socialism vs. satisfactia de viata in capitalism

2009-08-06T11:21:00.000-07:00

Pe Richard Easterlin l-am mai prezentat, astfel incat trec direct la materialul sau care ne intereseaza in prezenta postare, adica “Lost in Transition: Life Satisfaction on the Road to Capitalism,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, (2009 forthcoming). In anuntatul studiu, Easterlin compara nivelul de satisfactie recent al populatiilor din tarile ex-sovietice cu cel din perioada anterioara anului 1990. Concluzia generala este ca anii `90 au reprezentat o perioada dezastruoasa pentru situatia economica si sociala, care s-a reflectat in scaderea drastica a satisfactiei de viata. Incepand cu anii 2000, situatia materiala a populatiilor din spatiul ex-sovietic s-a mai imbunatatit, insa cea sociala a ramas la fel de precara ca in perioada tranzitiei, ceea ce a facut ca in ciuda unor cresteri ale PIB-urilor cu pana la 25%, starea de multumire a oamenilor de abia a reusit s-o egaleze, dupa 15 ani de capitalism, pe cea din 1989-1990, ani considerati, de altfel, deosebit de grei pentru statele ex-socialiste.
Inainte de a cita din studiul lui Easterlin, sa urmarim un rezumat al sau aparut la adresa "Are socialists happier than capitalists?".

Irelevanta politicii fata de satisfactia personala a populatiei
"Easterlin examines life satisfaction in thirteen countries in the so-called communist-bloc using self-reported data from a range of sources, particularly the World Values Survey. Communist-bloc countries first appeared in the large-scale Survey in 1989, when a representative population in each country was asked to rate "life these days, as a whole" on a scale of 1 (dissatisfied) to 10 (satisfied). (...)
"The dissolution of the police states and increase in political and civil rights in many of the transition countries might have been expected to increase life satisfaction," Easterlin says. "The sharp decline that initially occurred suggests that adverse economic and social conditions trumped the political in their impact on subjective well-being."
The study finds that the trend in overall satisfaction with democracy is actually slightly negatively correlated to the trend in reported happiness after the fall of the Iron Curtain. This correlation is not statistically significant, according to Easterlin, but undermines the assertion by some scholars that democratization in these countries significantly increased happiness.
"There is evidence that, when asked about their sources of well-being, people rarely mention political circumstances," Easterlin explains. "Rather, they put foremost those concerns that principally occupy their time, most notably making a living, family life and health."

Mult-invocata lipsa de democratie participativa ce, se spune, ar fi caracterizat mediul politic din fostul URSS se pare deci ca nu a avut un efect relevant asupra vietii cetatenilor, la fel cum nici pretinsa democratie ulterioara nu a influentat in bine situatia.

Trecand la lucrurile care chiar au importanta pentru omul de rand:
"Satisfaction with work, childcare and health all decreased significantly during the transition from socialism to capitalism, reflecting a marked rise in symptoms of social stress such as divorce rates, suicide rates, domestic violence and increased alcoholism and drug use, Easterlin finds.
However, people were much more satisfied with one particular aspect of their lives after the fall of the Soviet Union: their material circumstances, including standard of living, goods availability and the environment.
"The positive contribution of life satisfaction to improved material living was outweighed by losses in employment security, health and child care, and provision for old age," Easterlin says.
(...)
"The human cost of the transition was enormous, with the lives of millions turned upside down," Easterlin says. "The impact of these changes on people's personal lives and their well-being is almost totally missed by GDP per capita."
While life satisfaction had rebounded somewhat by 1999, there is evidence to suggest that even by 2005 it had not yet reach pre-transition levels, according to the study. By this time, GDP in the countries studied had increased 25 percent on average since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"The life satisfaction measure, which reflects not only material well-being, but the everyday concerns and worries of women and men about work, health and family, is more indicative of the far-reaching changes that were taking place," Easterlin says.
He continues: "Life satisfaction is not an exhaustive measure of well-being. But if, in formulating transition policy, some consideration had been given to this measure, perhaps there would have been fewer 'lost in transition.'"

Asadar, perioada ce a urmat disparitiei URSS-ului a fost marcata de o tranzitie crunta, apoi de o crestere a PIB-ului unora dintre tari insa care s-a dovedit neputincioasa in a spori statisfactia de viata fata de cea din ultimii ani ai blocului socialist. De fapt, puncteaza Easterlin, exista dovezi care indica faptul ca nici macar nu a egalat-o.

Citand si din studiul propriu-zis, aflam:
"The broad economic facts of the transition have been spelled out numerous times, especially for the period of the 1990s (...). Most notable was an abrupt and massive economic collapse, with measured GDP falling to levels of around 50 to 85 per cent of the 1989 level, usually in a few years or less. Subsequently GDP recovered somewhat, though rarely by 1999 to the initial level. A visiting economist from Mars, confronted only with these GDP data, might well conclude that an economic disaster on the scale of the Great Depression had befallen some 400 million of the world’s population. On the plus side, consumer goods shortages -- a chronic condition under
socialism -- largely disappeared. With regard to factor inputs, capital shrank and there was a significant increase in flows out of the labor force. Unemployment rates rose from near zero to double digit levels in many countries. “[P]overty and inequality … both increased sharply in the beginning of the transition and have so far [1999] not shown signs of declining” (Campos and Corticelli, 2002, 816; cf. also World Bank 2000b). The social safety nets that prevailed under socialism were severely ruptured."

Statul asistential, tipic socialismului, a fost asadar distrus, ceea ce a dat nastere unor calamitati sociale precum cresterea saraciei, somajului si inegalitatilor. Acolo unde a existat totusi crestere economica, ea rareori s-a ridicat la nivelul existent in ultimii ani ai sistemului sovietic.

Beneficiile sociale aduse de socialism, mai importante decat insuficienta lui materiala:
"[H]ow it is possible that in the transition countries life satisfaction under socialism might at one time have been higher than it is currently under capitalism? A speculative answer to this question is suggested by the data on domain satisfaction presented earlier for the former GDR and Hungary (Table 3). Although the socialist system was notably deficient in its ability to supply material goods, it provided substantial security for individuals in other domains important for personal happiness such as job security, provision of child care, health insurance, and support in old age for oneself and one’s parents. One might suppose that the authoritarian communist state and limited civil and political rights, coupled with often-empty store shelves, might have kept life satisfaction lower than currently. But the limited evidence above suggests that greater security with regard to other personal concerns may have outweighed the
negatives."

Se reitereaza ideea ca securitatea locului de munca, grija statului fata de copii, asigurarile de sanatate, grija fata de pensionari, caracteristice URSS-ului, au produs o stare generala de bine ce a depasit efectele negative ale unor lipse materiale, de produse, cat si lipsa democratiei.

In concluzie:
"By 2005, life satisfaction had recovered to its early 1990s level of better, but this return required an increase in GDP per capita averaging about 25 per cent above the early 1990s value. Moreover, the available evidence, though quite limited, suggests that even in 2005 life satisfaction may have been below the levels prevailing before the 1990s. The explanation of the 2005 shortfall relative to pre-1990s levels may be that the positive contribution to life satisfaction of improved material living levels was outweighed by losses in employment security, health and child care, and provision for old age."

Referitor la Rusia, cea mai reprezentativa tara din fostul lagar socialist,
"The human cost of the economic transition was enormous, with the lives of millions of people turned upside down. In a statement specifically about Russia, but representative of the transition countries generally, Brainerd and Cutler (2005, p. 125) point out that “[b]efore 1989, Russians lived in a country that provided economic security: unemployment was virtually
unknown, persons were guaranteed and provided a standard of living perceived to be adequate, and microeconomic stability did not much affect the average citizen.” All or most of this went by the board with the transition to free markets. So too did provision of health and child care. Family life was torn apart as divorce rates soared. Alcoholism, smoking and drug use grew markedly. Suicide rates increased, and domestic violence against women rose. Families were uprooted, some moving back to villages where subsistence agriculture might provide some economic support.
The impact of these changes on people’s personal lives and their well-being is almost totally missed by GDP per capita. Even a measure of income inequality -- an increasingly popular supplement to GDP -- barely hints at what happened. In contrast, the life satisfaction measure, which reflects not only material well-being, but the everyday concerns and worries of women and men about work, health, and family, is more indicative of the far-reaching changes that were taking place."

Dupa cum am vazut, studiul lui Easterlin ia in calcul perioada 1990-2005. Putem deduce insa ca desi in unele state ex-sovietice a avut loc o crestere a PIB-ului, perspectivele de viitor sunt sumbre pentru aceste state, actualmente capitaliste. Intr-adevar, criza ce a inceput de prin 2008, laolalta cu cresterea economica iluzorie, bazata pe credit si importuri masive, in mod cert au coborat din nou multumirea de viata a populatiilor respective. Pe scurt, nu exageram daca spunem ca dupa 19 ani de capitalism, locuitorii fostelor tari comuniste (atatia cat au mai ramas) sunt mai putin satisfacuti de viata lor.

De aici nu trebuie sa deducem ca situatia ante-decembrista ar fi fost una ideala, perfecta. Cu siguranta oamenii muncii ar fi trebuit sa aiba un cuvant mai greu de spus in luarea deciziilor importante pentru societate, iar penuria de bunuri nu este un deziderat nici macar pentru anti-materialisti. Insa e relevant ca si cu aceste tare, socialismul de tip sovietic a avut performante sociale mult superioare celor avute de capitalismul actual. Daca un socialism imperfect este preferabil capitalismului, atunci unul ce va stii sa invete din greselile trecutului va fi cu atat mai preferabil!

Egalitarismul, remediu universal

2009-07-12T09:12:00.000-07:00

Richard Wilkinson si Kate Pickett sunt doi experti in materie de sanatate publica si de influente sociale care determina nivelul de sanatate si functionare normala si echilibrata a societatii (epidemiologie sociala). In lucrarea lor „The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better” aparuta la inceputul anului 2009, cei doi autori prezinta nenumarate dovezi coform carora cu cat societatile sunt mai egalitariste, cu atat ele sunt mai ferite de fenomene precum criminalitate, analfabetism, mortalitate ridicata.
O trecere in revista a datelor din carte se gaseste in articolul lor „ The problems of relative deprivation: why some societies do better than others”, aparut in Social Science and Medicine, 2007, 65(9):1965-78. Citez de acolo:

„Using income inequality as an indicator and determinant of the scale of socioeconomic stratification in a society, we show that many problems associated with relative deprivation are more prevalent in more unequal societies. We summarise previously published evidence suggesting that this may be true of morbidity and mortality, obesity, teenage birth rates, mental illness, homicide, low trust, low social capital, hostility, and racism. To these we add new analyses which suggest that this is also true of poor educational performance among school children, the proportion of the population imprisoned, drug overdose mortality and low social mobility.
That ill health and a wide range of other social problems associated with social status within societies are also more common in more unequal societies, may imply that income inequality is central to the creation of the apparently deep-seated social problems associated with poverty, relative deprivation or low social status. We suggest that the degree of material inequality in a society may not only be central to the social forces involved in national patterns of social stratification, but also that many of the problems related to low social status may be amenable to changes in income distribution.”

Asadar, inegalitatile socio-economice inseamna o crestere a mortalitatii, bolilor mentale, obezitatii, analfabetismului, consumului de stupefiante, a infractionalitatii.

Inegalitatile si cresterea mortalitatii
„In a recent review of 168 analyses of the relationship between income inequality and population health we found that a large majority of studies reported that more egalitarian societies tend to be healthier (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2006). Studies of small areas – such as parishes and census tracts – were the only major exceptions to this pattern. We found 104 studies of health in which income inequality was measured across whole nations, states, regions or cities – areas large enough for income inequality to be indicative of the overall scale of social differentiation and social hierarchy in those societies (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2006).
After adjustment for various control variables (including ones which could be either mediating or confounding variables), 81 of the 104 studies (78%) found all or some of the health variables they measured were significantly related to inequality. Before adjustment the proportion supporting this relationship was higher still. As well as a large number of international comparisons of developed and developing countries, evidence confirming this pattern also came from studies of regions, states, and cities in a number of different countries including Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Italy, Russia, Taiwan, UK, and USA. In contrast, studies which measured inequality and health in smaller areas (counties, tracts and parishes) produced more equivocal results.”

Inegalitatile si raspandirea obezitatii
„In a study of obesity rates (BMI >30) in 21 of the richest countries we reported that rates were higher in more unequal societies (Pickett, Kelly, Brunner, Lobstein, & Wilkinson, 2005). These relationships were statistically significant for obesity among both men and women, but noticeably stronger among women. The same study also showed that greater inequality was associated with higher total calorie intake. The relation between obesity and inequality was attenuated, but remained significant, even after adjusting for calorie consumption.”

Inegalitatile si raspandirea bolilor mentale
„Using surveys of random samples of the population, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently produced comparable estimates of the prevalence of mental illness for eight developed countries – six in Western Europe plus Japan and the USA (Demyttenaere, Bruffaerts, Posada-Villa, Gasquet, Kovess, Lepine et al., 2004). We found statistically significant correlations between income inequality and the prevalence of both serious and any mental illness (Pickett, James, & Wilkinson, 2006).
We have since confirmed this correlation (r=0.79, p=0.002) in an expanded dataset, including data from a further WHO survey for New Zealand, and non-WHO population based prevalence estimates for Australia, Canada and the UK (Figure 1). However, we found no evidence of such a relation among the 50 states of the USA.”

Inegalitatile si distrugerea relatiilor sociale
„Many people have intuited that inequality is socially divisive and corrosive of human relations. Writing of the United States in the first half of the 19th Century, de Tocqueville emphasised his belief that the strength of the associational and civic life to which he drew attention was based (with the crucial exception of slavery) on what he called the “equality of conditions” (de Tocqueville, 2000). Numerous analyses including homicide, trust, social capital, hostility and racism, suggest that the quality of social relations in a society is poorer where there is more inequality (Wilkinson, 2005).”

Inegalitatile si cresterea ratei de omucideri
„A large body of evidence suggests that there is a robust relationship between greater inequality and higher homicide rates. All 24 studies of inequality and homicide rates in large areas (whole countries, regions, states or cities) reported significant relationships (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2006). An earlier review also reported a robust relationship which, like health, was stronger when the areas measured were larger rather than smaller (Hsieh & Pugh, 1993).”

Inegalitatile erodeaza increderea intre oameni
„There have been a number of analyses of the relation between inequality and various measures of the quality of social relations, including trust and social capital. As summarised elsewhere (Wilkinson, 2005), these results are consistent with the findings on violence, and suggest that the quality of social relations is poorer in more unequal societies. An international analysis of data from 38 countries (Uslaner, 2002) as well as an analysis among the 50 states of the USA (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997) have shown substantially lower levels of trust where income differences are bigger. In the less unequal states only 10 or 15 percent felt they could not trust others; this rose to 35 or 40 percent in the more unequal states. The differences related to inequality internationally were just as large.”

Inegalitatile socio-economice inseamna cresterea agresivitatii si rasismului
„The last indicators that greater inequality is accompanied by less good social relations come from US data on hostility scores and racism. Williams measured hostility scores in random samples of the population in 10 US cities (Williams, Feaganes, & Barefoot, 1995). The average score for each city was significantly related to its income inequality (Wilkinson, 2005). In a separate study, Kennedy et al found that people held more racist attitudes and beliefs in US states where income differences were large (Kennedy, Kawachi, Lochner, Jones, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997).”

Concluzie generala:
„It is often assumed that the desire to raise national standards of performance in fields such as education and health is a quite separate problem from the desire to reduce health and educational inequalities within a society. However, perhaps the most important implication of the relationships with inequality shown here is that the achievement of higher national standards of performance may be substantially dependent on reducing inequalities in each country. As well as improving health, reducing inequality may also raise the educational performance of school children, increase trust, while decreasing violence and teenage births.
The associations we have seen between income inequality and a range of health and social problems are far from trivial.
Even ignoring extreme examples, there are ten-fold differences in homicide rates between more and less equal countries and US states, sixfold differences in teenage birth rates, six-fold differences in the prevalence of obesity, four-fold differences in how much people feel they can trust each other, five- or tenfold differences in imprisonment rates and, mainly as a result of deaths at younger ages, three years difference in the average length of life.”

Intelegem deci ca la radacina unui numar imens de rele sociale se afla inagalitatile de venit. Nu e intamplator ca, asa dupa cum subliniaza cei doi autori, statele inegale din SUA au de 10 ori mai multe omucideri, de 6 ori mai multe cazuri de obezitate, de 4 ori mai putina incredere inter-personala, de 10 ori mai multi oameni in inchisoare decat statele mai egalitare din SUA.

Dupa cum pertinent scrie si Philip Birch, editorul lucrarii amintite la inceput,
„Inequality is the root cause of all societies’ ills. It doesn’t matter if the average level of income is very low or very high, it is the gap between rich and poor that is important. It is why, when polled, more Indonesians, Vietnamese, Finnish and Japanese will claim to be more happy than Brits and Americans. And it isn’t just the poorest in the most unequal societies that suffer but the richest too. In London on the one hand we hear regularly about teenagers from poorer communities stabbing each other, but on the other more and more apparently successful, university educated, richer young people suffer from anxiety, depression and are open to casual drug use than ever before. Violence, crime, low educational achievement, poor health; and status anxiety and the misery of having too much money and too much choice go hand in hand, because of inequality.”

Un editorial aparut in Times la 8 martie 2009 ofera o noua viziune de ansamblu asupra inegalitatilor socio-economice, pe baza lucrarii Wilkinson&Pickett.
„It might be said that The Spirit Level merely formulates what everyone has always felt. Western European utopias have almost all been egalitarian. Polls in Britain over the past 20 years show that the proportion of the population who think income differences too big is on average 80%. But what is new about their book, the authors insist, is that it turns personal intuitions into publicly demonstrable facts. With the evidence they have supplied, politicians now have a chance to “do genuine good”. By reducing income inequality, they can improve the health and wellbeing of the whole population. How this should be effected, Wilkinson and Pickett do not think it is their job to say, but increasing top tax rates or legislating to limit maximum pay are possibilities they suggest. They warn, though, that short-term remedies like this could be reversed by a change of government, and that we need to find ways of rooting greater equality more deeply in our society. This is their book’s mission, and they have set up a not-for-profit trust (equalitytrust.org) to make the evidence they set out better known. One illusion that, cheeringly, they hope to dispel is that the super-rich are some kind of asset we should all cherish, rather than, from the viewpoint of social health, the equivalent of the seven plagues of Egypt.”

Egalizarea veniturilor in societate apare tot mai clar ca fiind un adevarat panaceu, capabil sa minimizeze influenta negativa a unei intregi pleiade de probleme sociale. Capitalismul trebuie combatut nu doar din cauza consumerismului pe care il naste, dar si din cauza libertatii pe care o ofera unora de a se imbogatii peste orice limita. Socialismul, prin moderatia materiala, echitatea si egalitatea sociala, mentalitatea colectiva pe care le aduce, este capabil sa ocoleasca aceste dificultati.

Bogatii, paria societatii

2009-07-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

In articolul „Status and egalitarianism in traditional communities: An analysis of funeral attendance in six Zimbabwean villages”, scris de Abigail Barr si Mattea Stein, ambii de Universitatea Oxford, si publicat in octombrie 2008, se arata ca in societatile traditionale, bogatii sunt priviti cu suspiciune si marginalizati social, tratati cu lipsa de respect. Astfel, autorii explica, se demonstreaza ca populatia acestor comunitati pastreaza o mentalitate egalitarista, privindu-i cu dezaprobare pe cei care indraznesc sa incalce norma egalitatii.

„This paper explores two hypotheses concerning the role of status in relationships between rich and poor in traditional communities by analyzing who goes to whose funerals in six Zimbabwean villages. Funerals allow status to be observed because non-attendance is a sign of disrespect. We find that the richer a household hosting a funeral, the less likely heads of neighbouring households are to attend. Thus, the status-for-insurance hypothesis that the poor bestow status upon the rich in return for help in times of need is rejected in favour of the egalitarianism hypothesis that richer households are denied status.”

In ce consta ipoteza egalitarista la care se refera autorii?
Imbogatirea unora, rezultat al norocului si al saracirii altora
„Individual accumulation is viewed as a norm violation, punishable through status reduction. Drawing on extensive sociological and anthropological literatures, Platteau proposes a number of reasons why egalitarian norms should be prevalent in traditional societies. In particular, egalitarian norms are closely associated with a worldview in which the fate of humans depends on supernatural forces and economic prosperity is a zero-sum game. So, economic success is attributable not to effort but to luck and good luck for one person implies bad luck for someone else. According to this view, it is unfair for a successful individual to keep the fruits of that success to himself and accumulation, especially, will arouse feelings of envy and even hatred as it
will be perceived as enriching oneself at the expense of others. Further, individuals (or households) who are continuously successful over several years, will attract suspicion as persistent 'luck' is not normal and may be attributable to the malicious manipulation of supernatural forces, i.e., to the use of witchcraft (Platteau, 2000: Chapter 5.3). Thus, more prosperous households are likely to be subjected to status reduction.”

Imbogatirea unora, pericol pentru coeziunea sociala a grupului
„Another reason why egalitarian norms may prevail in traditional societies is that they obviate a positional arms race for status (Platteau, 2006: 828) that could endanger village cohesiveness. In the literature on subjective well-being, it has been shown that people care about their relative economic status (Easterlin (1995), Stutzer (2004), Kingdon and Knight (2007)). Village life is characterized by frequent interactions between a limited number of people with highly personalized relationships; therefore, in small village societies, the enhancement of one's relative position is potentially a strong motivation for individual actions. If status were a positive function of prosperity, one individual's eorts to accumulate wealth would induce others to follow suit, stimulating competition and triggering a positional arms race. In this sense,the very dynamic of modification of relative status positions is perceived as a dangerous force susceptible of jeopardizing the fragile social equilibria typical of small-group societies”.

Fara a mai cita, din nou, date in sprijinul acestor afirmatii, nu se poate nega faptul ca mentalitatea oamenilor din societatile traditionale contine o buna doza de adevar. Anume ca averile depind de noroc, de infractiuni si alte comportamente la limita legii, de saracirea altor membrii ai grupului si ca ea creaza invidie si un raport disproportionat de forte in colectivitate, pe care o slabeste astfel, lovind in coeziunea sociala.

Mai departe, Abigail Barr si Mattea Stein demonstreaza ca in numeroase astfel de societati traditionale, cu cat un decedat a fost mai bogat, cu atat mai putini oameni vor lua parte la inmormantarea sa. Astfel, comunitatea isi arata ostilitatea si dezaprobarea pentru cel mort, desi in cultura locului funeraliile au o importanta deosebita si, in plus, ei ar fi putut fi ajutati material de urmasii celor trecuti in nefiinta.

Autorii conclud:
„In contrast, the egalitarianism hypothesis stated that there is a negative relationship between economic prosperity and status because the rich are denied status as a punishment for violating the egalitarian norm.
Our principle innovation was to use data on funeral attendance in six Zimbabwean villages to infer the status of funeral hosting households. We, then, analyzed this data in conjunction with data on household income and other household attributes using a dyadic approach.
The resulting estimates indicated that the richer a household hosting a funeral, the less likely heads of neighbouring households are to attend. This finding provides strong evidence against the status-for-insurance hypothesis and in favour of the egalitarianism hypothesis.”

Rezultatele acestui studiu sunt utile deoarece arata ca pana si oamenii simpli, care traiesc relativ izolati de restul umanitatii, au o oroare practic innascuta fata de inegalitatile sociale. Pentru ei, fara a fi aflat de rezultatele unor studii elaborate pe tema nocivitatii precum cele prezentate pe acest blog, existenta bogatilor este un lucru nefiresc, o abatere de la legea naturala care trebuie si merita sa fie pedepsita. Desi nu suficient in sine, acest lucru ne poate indreptati in buna masura sa consideram ca natura umana este mai inclinata spre egalitarism decat spre o societate inegala, care permite existenta bogatasilor.

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

2009-07-06T13:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-30T03:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-16T12:22:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-09T08:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-30T07:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-30T04:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-16T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-15T08:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-10T02:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-10T01:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-09T10:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-16T02:36:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-01T04:20:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-25T02:23:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-24T02:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-23T13:43:00.002-07:00

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

2009-03-22T06:11:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-18T04:26:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-15T10:06:00.001-07:00

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

2009-03-15T03:03:00.000-07:00

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 signicantly 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 conrms 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

2009-03-10T03:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-16T02:30:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-15T03:03:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-14T01:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-13T03:42:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-03T12:08:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-03T03:23:00.000-08:00

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.