Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 25

Infinite Wealth and Happiness

Would an infinite amount of money make people happy? -- 05:15, 25 June 2017 14.202.204.226

Money can pave the road to happiness, but it does not provide happiness in and of itself. Some of the most famous philosophers have espoused the idea that the fewer possessions one owns, the more time and focus one will be able to dedicate to discovering inner peace and true happiness. See Teachings of Jesus, Dharma, Francis of Assisi, Taoism to explore related philosophies and theologies. UltravioletAlien (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Then there's the "middle road" proposed by the Buddha, who argued that it's hard to focus on spiritual matters while starving to death or while managing a fortune. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No. First, it would be meaningless to say that everyone could have infinite wealth, as "wealth" is largely a relative measure comparing the resources of one person with another. If everyone had a trillion dollars, then nobody would be willing to work for anyone else (or would charge billions of dollars to do so). But, if you mean just one person has infinite wealth, that would mean they would own everything, and effectively everyone, on Earth. That situation seems unlikely to create happiness, too. For one thing, they would always be paranoid that others might try to take their wealth, say by kidnapping. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think its important to distinguish between money and "stuff". With Fiat money, money isn't really wealth - its just a way of measuring wealth, and determining who owes what to whom. If you doubled everyone's money, no one would be any better off, because inflation would make the money half as valuable. But if you doubled the amount of "stuff" everyone had, they would all be better off. Iapetus (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. Having two cars is better than one, in that you have a spare in case the primary breaks down, or if two family members want to drive different places at the same time. But even here there's reduced utility with each new car. So, 3 may be better than 2, but not by as much as 2 was better than 1, and that wasn't as much as 1 was better than 0. When you get to a difference between owning a trillion cars and a trillion and one cars, or even 100 trillion, at that point additional cars do you no good, unless you can sell them, and if you have all the wealth in the world, there would be nobody to sell them to. Indeed, they would become a massive burden, in just finding places to store them, trying to keep them all operational, etc. So, there's a certain ideal number, somewhere between 3 and a trillion. Indeed, the only source of happiness in having so much wealth may be found in giving some of it away. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, if someone literally had all the world's gold, gold would cease to be of any value as money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And if everyone had an infinite supply of gold, it would no longer be much used in jewelry, as being rare and showing off your wealth is part of the charm. Sure, it's a nice material that doesn't tarnish, but so is surgical quality stainless steel and few people buy wedding rings made out of that. Gold would be useful for electrical wires and as cladding on cars, silverware, etc. (solid gold isn't as useful because it's too soft). So, it would become something like nickel-plating. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

14.202.204.226 -- There are several well-known science-fiction stories (such as The Midas Plague) about what might happen if economic scarcity is no longer relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I forget who said this: "I've been both rich and poor; and rich is better." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Usually attributed to either Sophie Tucker or Joe E. Lewis, but Beatrice Kaufman seems better attested than either. --Antiquary (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in A Classic Psychology Study on Why Winning the Lottery Won’t Make You Happier by Melissa Dahl and Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative? by Philip Brickman and Dan Coates (Northwestern University), and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (University of Massachusetts). Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a widely reported US study just after the 2008 banking collapse. It concluded that money makes people happier, only up to a certain income (then about 75k $). See Wall Street Journal for example. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if you suddenly inherit $50 million, or win it in the lottery. You're set for 10 lifetimes. Then your only child is kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered. Of what value is the money then? Are you still "happy"? There's a good reason why these sorts of impossible hypothetical questions should not be entertained here on the Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a Happiness economics article.Pacostein (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I see a lot of interesting references and links; so far people are answering the question pretty well. Though we could use further discussion of StuRat's cogent objection that an infinite amount of money is impossible because money mostly is measured in the ability to tell other people what to do. For example, during slavery in the United States, ownership of human beings made up a large fraction of the overall wealth in the South; even today, there is a very substantial amount of intellectual property, pretty much the same idea in smaller slices. I think you end up having to drill down what "wealth" can and can't be in some detail. It surely is a very very basic question in philosophy, insomuch as economic ideas e.g. Marxism are considered to be part of philosophy. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, having a large sum of money often involves having done something bad (or your ancestors having done so). At best, that might be ruthlessly crushing the competition, while at worst we have running a kleptocracy, slavery, etc. So, it's difficult for most to be happy while spending money taken, or stolen, from others. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

you mean: generally suffering unhappiness, is retribution for bad deeds and sins, yours or your ancestors. This is a very broadly adopted belief. Hence you contradict yourself: being rich or successful is sign that you are on the right path, approved by whatever god you believe in, not a source of unhappiness but of happiness. eg: Calvinism and Weber's thesis The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Gem fr (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

define "happiness" first. It all depend on it.

Alain (philosopher) defined happiness as "total engagement of personality", taking example of a dog attached but forever trying to detach itself (a situation most people would find unhappy). USA constitution as a pretty similar point of view, stating the ultimate political goal is to let everyone have his "pursuit of happiness" according to his own definition.

Obviously with such definition, wealth just do not matter. Gem fr (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For a science fiction society where material wealth has been even more obsolete than in Star Trek, see Ian M. Banks's The Culture. You can, quite literally, have anything that you want there. People are respected because they are clever, smart, funny, or interesting, not because they have more small pieces of paper or bars of gold pressed latinum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)