SM,

Would that be similar to pushing your car cos' you can't afford petrol (Gov't won't fix it - less regulation is good for shareholders), then arriving home to watch Gov't IR ads on TV? (HEY, don't knock 'em, i helped pay for those suckers).

Irony / Sarcasm - Dunno what are they? I don't know, never use em meself

postscriptum - I seriously wonder how far the new unrestrained capitalism / managerialism can be pushed before it is realised by the apathetic majority, that as a social program it is as workable as communism? Surely it can't be long now.

Adam Smith wrote in the 18thC that it is “in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the great body of the people seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state.”

US economist Benjamin Friedman argues in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" that a society experiencing economic growth is likely to be happier and more successful than a no-growth society, even if the latter has a higher standard of living. “The value of a rising standard of living lies not just in the concrete improvements it brings to how individuals live but in how it shapes the social, political and ultimately the moral character of a people.” Growing prosperity, history suggests, makes people more tolerant, more willing to settle disputes peacefully, more inclined to favour democracy. Stagnation and economic decline are associated with intolerance, ethnic strife and dictatorship.

People's sense of well-being is essentially relative. They become accustomed to any fixed standard of living, rich or poor. They are happiest if they feel their standard of living is rising (something that, in principle, all members of a society can experience at once), or if they feel that they are better off than their peers (which is divisive and not an aspiration that everyone can realise at once).

The key thing is the way these two standards of comparison interact. If people are becoming better off relative to their own past standard of living, they will care less about where they stand in relation to others. If not, they will care more about their placing in relation to others — and the result is frustration, intolerance and social friction. Growth, in short, has moral as well as material benefits.

Economic growth often has negative externalities, e.g pollution costs which are not reflected in prices. Friedman contends that growth also has a positive moral externality.

(The Economist, 10/11/05)

Yes but one of the downsides of economic growth is that in order to maintain and guard their comfortable lifestyle, the "haves" (not just the "have alls", but also the "might not have it all, but have more than some's" suddnely find themselves becoming rather intolerant of those not so fortunate. Prime example the last Federal election, when alot people reportably voted Johnny back in to help maintain their comfy lifestyles, seemingly without much thought for the "battlers" we share this nation with. Suddenly some of us may have felt a "tidal wave" of guilt (apologies for the crass pun), after the Tsumani devasted may parts of Asia and Africa. Yes thats cynical indeed, just a thought really, but worth pondering. Now with the the IR changes at hand, are many of us feeling the shadow of doubt now? Just a thought....

Cheers SM

People are talking about more taxes to achieve happiness?Taxes under the coalition have gone from $90 billion to $200 billion and this doesn't include the GST which must be at least another $80 billion.Then we have all the state Govt taxes.

I see it this way,we are all going to have to work longer and harder since developing countries are using more resources and energy.We are feeling the pinch now with higher fuel prices.Our Govt is asking us to compete globally and many are already asking if it worth long hours only for it to be taken in tax.

Most people don't have the luxury of aspiring to be rich.They just want enough to retire comfortably on.Happiness is a very relative concept.How many of the poor happy people would knock back a cool $1 million?Most people don't aspire to being rich because Govt and big business has made it too damn hard.

When we don't pay workers enough to consume the products they are producing,then we have a subsistance culture and a shrinking economy.

I think this article is just a back door approach to justify higher taxation.

To be happy, you must follow your dreams. When I was a young bloke, I dreamed of being a fighter pilot & a race car driver. I wanted a horse & I wanted to sail to the Pacific islands. Well I did it all. As each one stopped making me happy I moved on to the next dream. But at 40 I found myself with a clapped out old yacht, very little money, & no job. I took a job as a deck hand on a tourist boat, & ended up running the company. Then I took a job as a sales man, & ended up running that company. They were only little companies, so I never did get to earn the average wage. I was always a little suprised at how high the average wage was, but then I've never been in the public service, just the air force. Now I'm retired on my 20 acres, with a big house, on a part pension, & I'm happy. Its not a popular area, & the house is old, but I like them. I live on less than I used to spend on the kids lessons,[riding & music lessons & maths & physics coaching] & yes I raised a family after 40. I might be one of silent minority's battlers, & if I am, there's no reason to feel sorry for battlers. I made it to a happy, reasonably comfortable retirement, effectively starting at 40. Any battler worth his salt can do it, & I refuse to be made unhappy worrying about no hopers. I drive a beautiful old sports car. Its not particularly valuable, & I did have to build it myself out of 2 wrecks, I bought at auction, but I love it, & it makes me happy. I am happy when it rains, & I am happy when its a lovely sunny day. Its easy to be happy, just live your dreams, & if you don't have any left, live someone else's, its almost as good.

Silent Minority,

QUOTE: Does a desire not to always have the latest knicknacks and gizmoes, make one a socialist?

RESPONSE: Wanting to redistribute other peoples hard earned wealth is the hallmark of socialism. Whether you own a plasma screen or not is irrelevant. I personally do not own a plasma screen and I drive a 15 year old car. It is you rather than I that seems keen to confuse socialism with a desire to avoid meaningless gizmoes in your life.

I am happy for people to recognise that materialism does not make you happy. This is enlightened progress. However I am not happy when honestly acquired wealth is forceably redistributed in the name of creating a "happier" society. That is socialism and that is a fount of misery and a sure way to undermine community and goodwill.

Regards,
Terje.

P.S. it should be noted that you are not silent so your unreal name is a little odd