from
http://3q.creativity.edu.tw/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=10436&forum=21&0
重要概念：
主張富而樂「幸福經濟學」漸成顯學
曾一度偏向唯物主義的英國保守黨新任黨魁卡麥隆（David Cameron）擁護的是「人民總福利」（general well-being；GWB）概念，作為傳統國內生產毛額（GDP）的替代衡量指標
「幸福」（與健康相對）已經成為龐大產業，專為物質富裕但精神不滿足的嬰兒潮人口服務。
這些大都與「幸福學」息息相關，亦即將心理學與經濟學混合的一門新科學。
當奢侈品成為必需品 經濟成長不再讓人更快樂
富裕國家人民並未隨著經濟成長而變得更快樂。
工作減少不一定更幸福 非金錢報酬反而帶來滿足感
原文如下：
資料來源:
本篇文章摘自：商業周刊第 997 期
譯文者：賴美
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
主張富而樂「幸福經濟學」漸成顯學
自二○○○年以來，全球每年經濟成長率達到三‧二％的水準來看，締造最景氣十年的路程已經走了一半以上。如果繼續保持同樣的步調，將凌駕舒適安逸的一九五○年代及一九六○年代。驅動世界經濟大半部分的引擎——市場資本主義表現得相當不錯。
但實情真是如此？從前，一般人均同意資本主義的工作就是讓人們生活更富裕。現在，似乎並不盡然。一些搜尋有待解決大問題的經濟學家，以及承諾尋找美好願景的政治人物，認為應該還有其他東西：讓人們快樂。
經濟學不應只重視金錢 以福利衡量國力的主張出現
經濟學不應僅重視金錢的觀點，廣泛存在於歐洲大陸。在與英美資本學家辯論時，狡猾的中產階級轉而引用「生活品質」的論調，為遲緩的經濟成長辯解。但現在，曾一度偏向唯物主義的英國保守黨新任黨魁卡麥隆（David Cameron）擁護的是「人民總福利」（general well-being；GWB）概念，作為傳統國內生產毛額（GDP）的替代衡量指標。與此同時，在美國，貧富不均、超時工作及其他景氣繁榮帶來的隱藏成本，均在期中選舉獲得熱烈討論。此外，「幸福」（與健康相對）已經成為龐大產業，專為物質富裕但精神不滿足的嬰兒潮人口服務。
上述這些大都與「幸福學」息息相關，亦即將心理學與經濟學混合的一門新科學。這門學科的擁護者始於豐富的調查資料，諸如自一九七二年起，每隔一、兩年向數千美國人提出的簡單、平凡問題：「總之，您會如何描述這些日子？你會說你非常快樂、相當快樂或不太快樂？」部分結果並不令人吃驚：富有的人比窮人快樂。但也出現需要加以解釋的矛盾結果：富裕國家人民並未隨著經濟成長而變得更快樂。從美國到日本，關於快樂的數據幾乎沒有出現多大變動。
當奢侈品成為必需品 經濟成長不再讓人更快樂
針對矛盾的調查結果，幸福學提出兩項解釋。它指出，資本主義善於將奢侈品轉變成必需品——將過去總是由菁英分子享有的奢侈品帶入一般大眾。但從反面觀之，人們開始將過去夢寐以求的東西視為理所當然。過去從未想像有能力取得的奢侈品，竟成為不可或缺的必需品。人們困在原地踏步的跑步機上：當抵達更高的生活水準時，他們也習慣了優渥生活帶來的樂趣。
資本主義讓平民共享繁榮的能力也存在極限。許多人們最珍視的東西，像是高階工作、最佳教育或獨一無二的居家地址，對貧民階級仍是奢侈品。以貴族學校為例，並未對每個人敞開大門。這些所謂「階級商品」供給固定：只有在其他人無法取得時，你才能享有。欲取得這些商品所需的金錢和努力，端賴共同競爭對手挹注的心力而定。
部分經濟學家認為上述結果，對他們長久深信的學科投下不信任票。經濟學一向假設人們瞭解自身的利益，讓人們獨善其身是最好的做法。他們工作量多寡、他們買什麼東西，是他們自己的事。上道的經濟學家探討的是解釋他們的決策，而非和他們發生爭執。但新的幸福學專家可不願意聽從人們的選擇。
以工作為例，一九三○年代，凱因斯（John Maynard Keynes）想像富裕的社會將變成更優閒的社會，從勞苦中解放，享受生命中美好的事物。但多數人仍舊謹守本分。他們為了自以為能讓他們快樂的事物而努力工作，結果卻發現他們辛苦工作的果實一下子就變酸了。他們也渴望攀爬上社會的更高階層，但卻因此強迫其他人也跟著辛苦追趕。所以每個人都成為輸家。
工作減少不一定更幸福 非金錢報酬反而帶來滿足感
不過，這並不表示減少工作意味著生活更幸福。在美國，當每週工時縮短時，空檔時間被持續不斷的看電視時間所填滿。就幸福而言，其他研究顯示停止工作的老年人，比繼續工作的同儕提早步入死亡。事實上，幸福經濟學的另一面指出工作的非金錢報酬：多數人享受工作的某些部分，而且有一些人簡直熱愛工作。
至於資本主義的唯物論，連亞當‧斯密（Adam Smith）都無法苟同。「有多少人會為了將金錢展示在無聊浮誇的玩意兒而毀滅自己？」他如此指控。金字塔型的茶包（花費四年以上時間研發而成）究竟能為人類帶來多少幸福難以衡量。不過，如果資本主義有時能夠說服人們購買他們自以為想要的東西，那麼它也能吸引人們追求他們從不知道自己擁有的品味和胃口。在藝術圈，此情況稱為「獨創性」，備受推崇。但在商業界，這稱為「新奇玩意兒」，被忽略的機會太頻繁。不過如果缺乏強烈改善物質的慾望，人們可能還穿著羊毛內衣，在英格蘭伯格納度假而非不丹。這樣是否就夠了呢？
如果此種經濟成長無法使人們快樂，更甭論經濟不景氣了。僵化社會對於階級商品的保護反而更周到。從另一方面來看，繁榮經濟創造生物學家所謂的階級「混亂庫」（a tangled bank），其中並無明顯的階級制度存在。喬治梅森大學（George Mason University）的柯文（Tyler Cowen）指出，美國有超過三千個名人堂，從搖滾明星、運動選手到馴狗師、醃菜包裝達人及會計師，幾乎每個人都可享有榮耀。在這樣的社會裡，每個人都有希望成為某個猴子軍團的頭頭，連他們看不起的人，也將自己視為另一個不同軍團的領袖。
因為市場制度為人們帶來的快樂不如成長，而要找出它所缺乏的東西，恐怕太過沉重。資本主義能讓你致富，也能讓你自由選擇你所要的不快樂。如果還有所求，或許要求太多。
（本文譯自《經濟學人》Happiness (and how to measure it) Dec. 19th, 2006.）
Happiness (and how to measure it)
Posted on 12/24/2006 8:23:18 PM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
Affluence
Capitalism can make a society rich and keep it free. Don’t ask it to make you happy as well
HAVING grown at an annual rate of 3.2% per head since 2000, the world economy is over half way towards notching up its best decade ever. If it keeps going at this clip, it will beat both the supposedly idyllic 1950s and the 1960s. Market capitalism, the engine that runs most of the world economy, seems to be doing its job well.
But is it? Once upon a time, that job was generally agreed to be to make people better off. Nowadays that’s not so clear. A number of economists, in search of big problems to solve, and politicians, looking for bold promises to make, think that it ought to be doing something else: making people happy.
The view that economics should be about more than money is widely held in continental Europe. In debates with Anglo-American capitalists, wily bons vivants have tended to cite the idea of “quality of life” to excuse slower economic growth. But now David Cameron, the latest leader of Britain’s once rather materialistic Conservative Party, has espoused the notion of “general well-being” (GWB) as an alternative to the more traditional GDP. In America, meanwhile, inequality, over-work and other hidden costs of prosperity were much discussed in the mid-term elections; and “wellness” (as opposed to health) has become a huge industry, catering especially to the prosperous discontent of the baby-boomers.
Much of this draws on the upstart science of happiness, which mixes psychology with economics (see article). Its adherents start with copious survey data, such as those derived from the simple, folksy question put to thousands of Americans every year or two since 1972: “Taken all together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?” Some of the results are unsurprising: the rich report being happier than do the poor. But a paradox emerges that requires explanation: affluent countries have not got much happier as they have grown richer. From America to Japan, figures for well-being have barely budged.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for the paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities—bringing to the masses what the elites have always enjoyed. But the flip side of this genius is that people come to take for granted things they once coveted from afar. Frills they never thought they could have become essentials that they cannot do without. People are stuck on a treadmill: as they achieve a better standard of living, they become inured to its pleasures.
Capitalism’s ability to take things downmarket also has its limits. Many of the things people most prize—such as the top jobs, the best education, or an exclusive home address—are luxuries by necessity. An elite schooling, for example, ceases to be so if it is provided to everyone. These “positional goods”, as they are called, are in fixed supply: you can enjoy them only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to grab them depends on how much your rivals are putting in.
Some economists think the results cast doubt on the long-held verities of their discipline. The dismal science traditionally assumes that people know their own interests, and are best left to mind their own business. How much they work, and what they buy, is their own affair. A properly brought-up economist seeks to explain their decisions, not to quarrel with them. But the new happiness gurus are much less willing to defer to people’s choices.
Take work, for instance. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes imagined that richer societies would become more leisured ones, liberated from toil to enjoy the finer things in life. Yet most people still put in a decent shift. They work hard to afford things they think will make them happy, only to discover the fruits of their labour sour quickly. They also aspire to a higher place in society’s pecking order, but in so doing force others in the rat race to run faster to keep up. So everyone loses.
Yet it is not self-evident that less work would mean more happiness. In America, when the working week has shortened, the gap has been filled by assiduous TV-watching. As for well-being, other studies show that elderly people who stop working tend to die sooner than their peers who labour on. Indeed, another side of happiness economics busies itself studying the non-monetary rewards from work: most people enjoy parts of their work, and some people love it.
As for capitalism’s wasteful materialism, even Adam Smith had a problem with it. “How many people ruin themselves by laying out money on trinkets of frivolous utility?” he complained. It is hard to claim that pyramid-shaped tea-bags (developed at great expense over four years) have added much to the sum of human happiness. Yet if capitalism sometimes persuades people to buy stuff they only imagine they want, it also appeals to tastes and aptitudes they never knew they had. In the arts, this is called “originality” and is venerated. In commerce it is called “novelty” and too often dismissed. But without the urge for material improvement, people would still be wearing woollen underwear and holidaying in Bognor rather than Bhutan. Would that be so great?
The joys of niche capitalism
If growth of this kind does not make people happy, stagnation will hardly do the trick. Ossified societies guard positional goods more, not less, jealously. A flourishing economy, on the other hand, creates what biologists call “a tangled bank” of niches, with no clear hierarchy between them. Tyler Cowen, of George Mason University, points out that America has more than 3,000 halls of fame, honouring everyone from rock stars and sportsmen to dog mushers, pickle-packers and accountants. In such a society, everyone can hope to come top of his particular monkey troop, even as the people he looks down on count themselves top of a subtly different troop.
To find the market system wanting because it does not bring joy as well as growth is to place too heavy a burden on it. Capitalism can make you well off. And it also leaves you free to be as unhappy as you choose. To ask any more of it would be asking too much.
SUCCESS is getting the things that you want.
HAPPINESS is appreciating what you have.
So,
...have no Fear,
...for you are all very dearly LOVED
...by the LOVE Itself
...and by that same LOVE
...that’s carried in the
...Hearts of those around you who
...really do care for you =
THE ANSWER.
5 posted on 12/24/2006 8:39:15 PM PST by ALOHA RONNIE (”ALOHA RONNIE” Guyer/Veteran-”WE WERE SOLDIERS” Battle of IA DRANG-1965
文章定位：
人氣(517) | 回應(0)| 推薦 (
0)| 收藏 (
0)|
轉寄
全站分類:
不分類
