This debate was extremely interesting for me I conclude this since I saw the tittle. Through all of our lives many people preach you about the idea of being happy is more important than having money and that money will never be ably to buy happiness. The truth is that I and I bet many other got to meet many rich and unhappy people as well as poor and happy people. So that makes you believe in this idea you parents might have though you. Now today was the day of listening to this idea being debated by two great economics and based on data not just theory.
When Justin started the debate he went straight to a introduction saying in a very organized way how we has going to show his data and conclusions. It was intuitive for that money does have a relationship and correlation between the amount of money you have and your happiness. Justin showed us how the rich countries had a higher level of happiness and within does countries rich communities were happier that poor. I was truly impressed with the data he prepared to prove that in fact money plays a role in happiness.
Robert or better called Bob comes into action to the debate in a slower way. Showing that he is not based in facts but more in theories. First he mention Smith's theory that says that self-interested people are guided by an invisible hand that will later on help the community and then contradicts this idea with Darwin's saying that self benefits will bring disadvantages to the community. A great example of this is the mansion or party example since if you have a very expensive party or big mansion what you are doing is setting the standards and making the community look poorer. So I saw this last examples counter-intuitive since I saw that having a bigger mansion will not make a neighbor look poorer but will provoke for him to more ambitious not to necessarily have a bigger mansion but increase its absolute income. After reviewing this video I can saw I have evidence to prove that money and happiness have a great correlation (0.8) however factors like your relative income, place where you live and your social position also matters and makes a difference in this correlation. Happiness doesn't fall 100% in the dependence of income becuase physiologist express big percentage of that falls in genes but the economists might have the other half. Remember that graphs are express in a logarithmic scale so it is no tthe increase of 10 units makes a difference but the increase of 10% of what we have without rejecting the existence of exceptions like some Muslims countries.
B)
- A theorist economist like Robert doesn't based himself that much with empirical data (Robert never show a graph or statistic in the whole debate) so doesn't that type of economists the one that provoke the true uncertainty in economics? If so, how can a theorist economist prove he is right without any data to back him up or time shall prove his is right like his statement that in 100 years people will see Charles Darwin as the great economist.
- As one of the public member ask I want to retake the question. What are the terminology used for the measurements of happiness since the graphs used were based in a a variety of countries and cultures? I lived in China and I know happiness there is not the same as in Mexico so how can this factors be ignore so the data cant lose its level of certainty.
- It is establish than when income increases the level of happiness increases as well. Now if your absolute income increases means you got a proportion or a better job perhaps. Wouldn't that increase the level of stress rather than decrease it. (People get better jobs and get paid a lot more money than before and they move their kids to better school. Kids they now see once a month because of their high stress and working hours. Is that person more happy?) More money might mean more responsibility and more stress...
C)
This was a great video and debate that showed not only the difference between these beliefs but the capacity of an empirical economists to debate against a theorist economist. It has been a video that I was hopping I could see one time in my life since I already doubt about the correlation beween income and happiness. This video shows us the ability to use data. 10 economist can see the same data but maybe only1 will see beyond the data and give an explanation to what happens. Justin saw that in Japan for example and he have an example for that. Now I just have a funny quote for those who still believe money does not buy happiness. "Money can't buy happiness, but I rather cry in a Ferrari"
Daniel Gaona
No comments:
Post a Comment