This question <1|12> overall <1|3> Hans: <472|7>.

Question 1: Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth?

[2] Hans: Wealth and Happiness   Brutal's little essay [1] is interesting and well-written. Nevertheless I have to criticize it. I want to make two main points:

(1) Question 1 asked whether happiness is the only true wealth, i.e., (a) whether one can consider happiness to be a kind of wealth and (b) whether it is indeed the only true kind of wealth. Brutal does not address this specific question. I have the impression Brutal did not read the Question carefully enough and answered the similar but different question whether material wealth can be considered the source of happiness. Although it is a thoughtful essay it misses the subject and this considerably lowers the grade he can get for it.

(2) Brutal is critical of capitalism, but his criticism is different than the Marxist critique. This itself was not counted against him. I cannot expect you to know Marxism in the first week of the class. I will reproduce here Brutal's answer and compare it with the Marxist critique of capitalism. I hope that this contrast of a thoughtful nonmarxist critique of capitalism with a Marxist critique will be a good introduction into Marxism.

Brutal's first sentence is:

In a capitalist society wealth is measured in what Marx would call commodities.

Is this meant to be a paraphrase of Marx's first sentence “the wealth of capitalist societies presents itself as an immense heap of commodities”? If so, Brutal misunderstands Marx's text. Marx does not discuss here how individuals measure who is richer. I say this explicitly in the Annotations, see the first page of Appendix B. This is part of the reading material in the upcoming class session, and Brutal's failure to carefully work through the reading material will lower his grade.

By “wealth” Marx means the material resources, skills, etc., available to society, and the clause “wealth presents itself as commodities” addresses the social relations governing the production of and access to this wealth: almost all this wealth is produced by private producers for the market.

I.e., Marx considers wealth as a social concept, while Brutal looks at it from the point of view of the individual. The individualistic view is clearly the more superficial view: although access to wealth is very uneven in a capitalist society, wealth is intrinsically social. A rich person would have nothing without the social processes, involving many other individuals, producing and sustaining his or her wealth.

From an economic view the reason for having these commodities is to provide utility, which is a unit of measurement of satisfaction.

Again Brutal looks at the economy here from a too individualistic point of view. Of course, individuals need the commodities because of their use values, but from a social point of view it is an illusion to think that commodities exist for the sake of the satisfaction of the consumer. The production of these things is a social process which is not guided by use values or individual satisfaction. The social purpose of commodity production is profit and capital accumulation. (Right now this is only a shorthand formulation: its full meaning will become clear after we have understood better what profit is, and Marx is devoting many pages to develop this.) Consumer satisfaction is only sought to the extent that it increases growth or profits.

If Brutal's assumption were true, that capitalist production had consumer satisfaction as its goal, then capitalism would not be very successful since there is still so much unhappiness. Brutal notices this:

If we consider a commodity provides utility, or satisfaction, but does not make us happy shouldn't we reevaluate our definition of utility? However, while technological advances continue to increase the perceived utility of commodities and reduce prices it has not increased happiness. Perhaps the capitalist view that more is better has diverted our attention from the pursuit of happiness.

Brutal seems to say here that capitalism is flawed because consumers and capitalists have the wrong goals. Marxists call this a “voluntaristic” view of capitalism. Unfortunately, it is not enough to change goals and objectives to change capitalism. The imperative to make profits and grow is built into the very structure of the market economy. Capitalists who do not follow this imperative will not remain capitalists for long.

Now Brutal makes a new start and says wealth should be measured in such a way that intersubjective comparisons are possible:

If happiness is the only true wealth then individuals could no longer compare wealth because it would have a different definition for every individual. While this non-comparitive view of wealth may increase personal happiness, it would go against, and possibly destroy capitalism.

I have encounterd this several times before in my classes that people consider themselves rich only if they have something which others don't have. It still puzzles me how deeply entrenched this competitive stance is even in the sphere of consumption.

Capitalism is by nature competitive, born out of the idea that the more stuff you own the more favor you have found with god. Therefore, in order to prove one's status with god he must have more possessions than others. However, these possessions have often been acquired through the oppression of others.

Brutal's implicit critique of religion is similar to the position, held by some Marxists, that religion is institutionalized hypocricy. However Brutal's assertion that capitalism comes from a certain religious belief is what Marxist would call an idealist point of view. Marxists would turn the causality around. Religious ideas are grounded in the material realities of production, i.e., they are an expression of capitalism, but not its cause.

I disagree with the capitalist idea that happiness (or true wealth) comes from trampeling others as we attempt to accumulate as many things as possible as fast as we can. I believe honest work for those commodities that actually increase personal happiness would be a much truer measure of wealth than simply quantity. Wealth would then be as much about the process as it is about the result allowing us to enjoy happiness instead of continualy seeking wealth with the assumption that with it comes happiness.

This is an important point, but it also matters who gets the products after they are produced. You don't want the capitalist to say to the workers: you had the fun producing it, and I will have the fun cosuming it.

The capitalist's search for wealth becomes a dangling carrot that will never be reached since there will always be someone who has more than him. Therefore, happiness for the true capitalist is an illusion that will never be achieved.

The image of the unhappy capitalist may be a consolation to the poor whose lives are so obviously stunted by their poverty. But the reality is that those who have more money can lead happier, more fulfilled, healthier, and longer lives.

Despite all these criticisms I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Brutal's essay. Keep up the good work.

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: