[W]e are under a deception similar to that which misleads the traveler in the Arabian desert. Beneath the caravan all is dry and bare; but far in advance, and far in the rear, is the semblance of refreshing waters… A similar illusion seems to haunt nations through every stage of the long progress from poverty and barbarism to the highest degrees of opulence and civilization. But if we resolutely chase the mirage backward, we shall find it recede before us into the regions of fabulous antiquity. It is now the fashion to place the golden age of England in times when noblemen were destitute of comforts the want of which would be intolerable to a modern footman, when farmers and shopkeepers breakfasted on loaves the very sight of which would raise a riot in a modern workhouse, when to have a clean shirt once a week was a privilege reserved for the higher class of gentry, when men died faster in the purest country air than they now die in the most pestilential lanes of our towns, and when men died faster in the lanes of our towns than they now die on the coast of Guiana.
…
We too shall in our turn be outstripped, and in our turn be envied. It may well be, in the twentieth century, that the peasant of Dorsetshire may think himself miserably paid with twenty shillings a week; that the carpenter at Greenwich may receive ten shillings a day; that laboring men may be as little used to dine without meat as they are now to eat rye bread; that sanitary police and medical discoveries may have added several more years to the average length of human life; that numerous comforts and luxuries which are now unknown, or confined to a few, may be within the reach of every diligent and thrifty workingman. And yet it may then be the mode to assert that the increase of wealth and the progress of science have benefited the few at the expense of the many, and to talk of the reign of Queen Victoria as the time when England was truly merry England, when all classes were bound together by brotherly sympathy, when the rich did not grind the faces of the poor, and when the poor did not envy the splendor of the rich.
Probably a number of reasons. For one, there’s always some Golden Age BS going around at all levels, and personally for people their golden age was when they were younger and almost invariably poorer. They remember the good times, they don’t remember the crap. For another, I’d wager some people don’t get the type of satisfaction they think they will from materal possessions. Having lots of stuff is cool and fun, but humans have other aspects to them that are only improved by interaction with others. The mistake is to think material wealth and social wealth (as in friends and family) are exclusive of one another. They’re not.
Why do people romanticize wealth? They don’t have it.
Why do people romanticize war? They never fought in it
Why do people romanticize poverty? Because they are rich.
Why do people romanticize anything? They want what they’ve never had. Even if it means eating mudcakes.
And those of us who refuse to romanticize anything are considered ‘cynics’ and curmudgeons. I find it ironic that ‘cynic’ was used to describe Diogenes, a man who lived in a bath tub, and now it is a derisive term for someone who takes people as they are, rather than as they like to present themselves.
Wealth, in the praxeological sense, is the only thing that does bring happiness. The trouble is a lot of people don’t know how to attain real wealth; they confuse it with specific goods rather than something which improves resources for psychic profit.
Also it’s always the people who claim that “wealth doesn’t bring happiness” who moan when rich people are unhappy.
I don’t think this is it. I don’t think wealth necessarily brings happiness, although I’m sure it does to some people. People are always acting to remove further uneasiness, but this doesn’t mean that they act to accumulate more physical wealth.
The rich are romanticized far more, too, though the reasons for that are more readily apparent.
Wealth can bring certain kinds of happiness, the kinds that come from reduced stress and feelings of security, etc. But someone can be happy in one area of their life and unhappy in other areas that wealth has trouble solving.
Resources that are actually capable of yielding psychic profit, as contrasted to catallactic goods which are capable of yielding monetary profit.
But, there is no quantifiable relationship between the volume of wealth and the amount of happiness yielded. You can have little “wealth”, relative to another person, and live a happier life. More “wealth” doesn’t guarantee man happiness; only that which consist of the means towards whatever end man has in mind. This can be a lot of wealth, or this could be relatively little wealth.
But, there is no quantifiable relationship between the volume of wealth and the amount of happiness yielded. You can have little “wealth”, relative to another person, and live a happier life. More “wealth” doesn’t guarantee man happiness; only that which consist of the means towards whatever end man has in mind. This can be a lot of wealth, or this could be relatively little wealth.
Note above that I made the distinction between goods yielding profit (also, equity) and wealth as materials for psychic profit. The more psychic profit you can gain from a possession the greater it is as subjective wealth; what other people would pay for it is beside the point. Diogenes may have been the richest man in the world, with his bath tub and lantern, because they made him incredibly happy whereas George Soros may be in subjective poverty because he is unable to gain satisfaction from his vast panoply of properties.
Wealth, as you’ve defined it in a prior post, refers to quantifiable and tangible resources; i.e. means of achieving ends. It doesn’t refer to the utility which these means can garner the actor. Individual items which constitute this concept of “wealth” will undergo changes in utility, but whether their utility is 1,000 utils or 2,000 utils they are still “wealth”. In other words, I don’t think wealth should be confused with utility.
Why do people romanticize wealth? They don’t have it.
“Marry and you will regret it. Do not marry and you wil also lregret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way. Whether you marry or you do not marry you will regret it either way. Laugh at the stupidities of the world and ou will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Laugh at the stupidities of the world or weep over them, you will regret iteither way. Whether you laugh at the stupidities of the world or you weep over them, you will regret it either way.”
In the West, we no longer celebrate the noble or courageous. We cherish the hypothetical loser.
So everybody in every western country cherishes the hypothetical losers? bs, for the most part people go around minding their own business and when they come into contact with some body from a higher (lower) social class what they feel is some mix in jealousy, resentment, admiration (sympathy, disgust or indifference).
The first question that most people ask when you meet is, “What is your job”? Everyone is sympathetic and demanding of respect to the poor in a book. Outside of books, in reality, most people will treat you with contempt the moment you are in a hard place. People defend the less fortunate figuratively, not literally. What is the reason for this contradiction? It is cool and clique, etc. It’s a pat on the head, not an equalization.
In the West, we no longer celebrate the noble or courageous. We cherish the hypothetical loser.
Yeah, why do we do that? Why do people victimize and hate those who succeed at something? I know money doesn’t “bring” happinness, but let’s be realistic it does. What reality do some people live in.