The Axiom of Choice

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Happiness is not an economic issue. It is a personal issue.

[/ QUOTE ] Happiness is actually quite literally the central economic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness has nothing to do with economics. Economic exchanges occur based on preferences, which are based on values, which are based on the subjective importance an individual assigns to certain scarce resources.

I do a lot of things, voluntarily, that make me unhappy. I went to blockbuster and paid $4 to rent "The Pianist." I knew what it would do to me. I watched it and almost cried my eyes out. I was completely unhappy when it was over, just like I knew I'd be.

I just went to the gym that I paid $40 this month to. I worked out so hard I almost puked. I knew I would, and I hurt a lot right now.

Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that the outcome is your happiness, but rather that you are happy with the outcome (ie, you gain the most utility from a specific outcome).

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that the outcome is your happiness, but rather that you are happy with the outcome (ie, you gain the most utility from a specific outcome).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its about being satisfied with the outcome (or perhaps more accurately "less unsatisfied", since total satisfaction would yield no further action), but not happy with the outcome.

[ConstantineX]

Then your definition of happiness isn't the colloquial definition. That's strictly utility.

[Butso]

[ QUOTE ]

Happiness has nothing to do with economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Happiness is probably the fastest growing area in economic research today.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Happiness has nothing to do with economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Happiness is probably the fastest growing area in economic research today.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do *you* think happiness research has contributed to economics?

And for that matter, econometrics was the fastest growing research field in economics for a while. What do you think econometrics contributed to the economics?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of lowering your expectations (come on, THAT'S the secret to happiness?!?!?!?!), just spend some time appreciating what you have rather than obsessing on what you don't have and this ceases to be a problem. ANYONE CAN DO THIS

[/ QUOTE ] Strongly disagree. People are NOT built to "maximize" there own individual happiness, but have been built by evolution to increase the fitness of their genes. Not just anyone can do what you are saying; many if not most people have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to not only not do what you are saying everyone can do here, but in fact to do the precise opposite of it.

Obsessing about what one doesn't have and about whether one has made the best decision or not has driven the race for scarce resources and relative status for thousands and thousands of years.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of lowering your expectations (come on, THAT'S the secret to happiness?!?!?!?!), just spend some time appreciating what you have rather than obsessing on what you don't have and this ceases to be a problem. ANYONE CAN DO THIS

[/ QUOTE ] Strongly disagree. People are NOT built to "maximize" there own individual happiness, but have been built by evolution to increase the fitness of their genes. Not just anyone can do what you are saying; many if not most people have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to not only not do what you are saying everyone can do here, but in fact to do the precise opposite of it.

Obsessing about what one doesn't have and about whether one has made the best decision or not has driven the race for scarce resources and relative status for thousands and thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dan Gilbert lecture suggests differently. He actually says that "We are chasing the very commodity that we have the ability to manufacture within ourselves."

I don't feel particularly persuaded by scientific arguments that tell me I can't manufacture my own happiness because I can. I do. I do it a lot, and it works out very well for me. All you have to do is take five minutes to sit down, put on some relaxing/inspiring music, think about all the things you do have, think about all the things you're capable of doing in your upcoming years, and it changes your mood. There are no negative externalities, and no one is made poorer by it. It's not that hard to do.

The cool thing about these findings is that understanding the mechanics of happiness makes it much easier to execute it.

Also, I believe that happiness is actually quite essential to our gene fitness. Look at the character traits that are desired in mates: confidence, ambition, motivation. Being happy is extremely essential to cultivating these traits and being productive.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Clueless. I like lots of choices but choices are hardly tied to freedom. For instance if the government breaks up a large firm under the guise that its a monopoly, then they are both acting to increase choice and negate freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Paraphrase: Too much choice causes paralysis, unable to choose

[/ QUOTE ]

In any case where many consumers face a burdensome process of compiling and understanding information there is a profit signal for an agent to specialize in that information, and provide service to the consumers by closing that information gap.

Any kind of paralysis due to too much choice is either a) the result of government interference (controlling what agents can and cannot do) or the result of agency service not being taken advantage of yet or has been determined by the market to be unprofitable.


[ QUOTE ]
Some choice is better than more, but more choice is not better than some. There is some magical amount, I'm not sure what it is, but I'm confident that we've passed that point where more options improve our welfare

[/ QUOTE ]

Some magical amount is what economists call market equilibrium.

He has absolutely no clue, nor can he ever have a clue, as to what number of choices *I* want to have, or what number of choices *someone else* wants to have.

The whole framework of welfare economics thought is seriously [censored]. By violently intervening into a market to restrict choice, you do so at the expense of some people in order to benefit some people. There is no cardinal measurement of value, so there is no way to sum and subtract how much value some gained and some lost, and so there is no way to determine if you've increased overall welfare.

The marginal utility of every dollar spent by every different individual is different, and so using $ as that cardinal measurement of value is just as [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
Income redistribution makes everyone better off

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus [censored] Christ.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]


Jesus [censored] Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't it?