well-being insurance

let's suppose, as prominent psychologists have done, that the market produces not only goods and services, but also a great deal of malcontent by promoting materialism. i'd counter that point, but let's just suppose it, worst-case-scenario, for now. psychologists promote this theory not in spite of, but party because of, the observation that markets create more wealth than competing economic systems. so to simplify: markets => surplus wealth => materialism => unhappiness.

natural disasters, such as the recent tsunami, are horrific and cause profound damage both physically and psychologically. add to these observations and theories the correlation that wealthier and more market-oriented nations have are not impacted as severely by disasters, natural and otherwise. the inconceivable dearth of well-being resulting from disaster might outweigh the benefits of a non-materialistic, non-market, society unable to cope with disaster as well.

the problem with many well-being studies (especially the recent day-by-day studies) is that they do not account for major life events and their ongoing impact on every day well-being. events such as the tsunami will impact the people of those regions for decades to come, mostly for the worse. a child's college graduation may generate such a high volume of happiness that in net sum cancels out unhappiness due to the banal daily rearing tasks, tipping the scales in favor of children on the net making parents happy. so yes, perhaps some daily transactions in the market make us unhappy - but let's not forget the overall picture.

the market has the best record of meeting the most essential levels of maslow's hierarchy of needs, even during times of crisis. for market pessimists, we can think of it as an insurance system. although we may pay in a certain percentage of happiness for materialism due to markets (a debatable premise), we gain when disaster strikes. and the gain may make it worth it.

Labels: well being