Yes money is very useful to an individual – the US government has made this so and it therefore appears to me a rather trivial finding.
You seem to admit supporting the money-centric social order on the grounds that there is no plausible alternative. That's not a great endorsement, but at least it's pragmatic. Do we then come to the dismal conclusion that the system which de-humanises its citizens and locks them into a treadmill of acquisitive competition is the best we can make of our world? Do we then relax into a lazy orthodoxy, cataloguing and justifying this? I would rather spend my time searching for a better alternative. Perhaps we only differ because I believe there is a better way to be found and you don't.
I would hope to encourage you and other sceptics that signs of hope are everywhere. Many countries are now pursuing policies which actively seek to treat people with respect and encourage their humanity, rather than making them ruthlessly struggle for riches.

Keith: Or more importantly, can society be so ordered without the cost being unacceptable, and would anyone go along with it?

It's easy – as for instance a stereotype hippie might – to say that “people should value being unique and loving and special and not care about money” … but the problem is, money's so damned useful at arranging for real-world physical and psychological comfort, that it's going to be Very Very Hard to make people stop valuing it.

I think you're conflating Will's noting that we do live in a society such that wealth can (to a large extent) buy happiness, one way or another, with a “position” that that is therefore Right.

Is, as we philosophers say, does not imply ought.

(I am inclined, though I can't speak for Will, to believe that what we have now is “better” overall than anything someone's likely to come up with to “reshape society” to be “better” and “less focused on money”. Partly for Burkean reasons, and partly because so far the examples I've seen of the alternative have been laughably implausible.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovers_(Saturday_N...)

K.

Pug – we seem to agree on the obvious truth that economic gain can 'buy happiness' – we are adapted to gain reward from competitive success, but this is, of course, not the only source of reward in our lives and since it is typically zero-sum, it is not the most efficient. Allowing all to achieve their potential as human beings – fulfilment through being, rather than having, is positive sum, more productive, more efficient and produces a deeper and longer lasting happiness. I contend that where being conflicts with having, the former should take precedence.

What do you think?

If you were to take requests, Yglesias style, I'd be particularly interested in seeing a post on where your libertarianism and the findings of cutting edge happiness research might point to different policy conclusions. (I'm also interested in how you might resolve that dilemma, but I'm more interested on what you think that dilemma–if it exists–look like).