Benjamin Wallace: Does happiness have a price tag?

[paenitet7nullum]

of course happiness can be bought, cocain makes you happy and you can buy cocain ;)

[yellow6100]

god damn it i thought happiness can be bought for 1200 $. damnnn

[Mokurentate]

The info on that olive oil is bullshit!

[poppins1978]

In short...keep it real people. Objects only have perceived value.

[DarqWolff]

1:37

[ZalbNacho]

"one of the most enthustiastic wang buffs of the 18'th century"

[ryan8557]

Ted sucks

[Emissarius1511]

lol

[tgirlgo]

i sometimes feel like i'm a little to high maintenance yet i love hamburgers and fries, pizza!

[paenitet7nullum]

@tgirlgo this withdrawl is weird. i shoudl eat something.oh uh yea pizza yay. kill you by eminem is an awsome song.

[ConradZaar]

I wonder how long it will be before people participate in taste tests run by psychologists become suspicious enough to suspect that they are being served the same thing with different labels. Don't you kind of see that coming?

[MIXOLYDIAN123]

There is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed. No more needs to be said. And stop insulting each other when you make your point - like it makes your arguments better???

[revolutionaryluddite]

People here can bash capitalism all they want, but if you go to any poor/developing country they will say that they want to have steady jobs, houses, healthcare, safe transportation, a reliable source of food, and so on. They don't want to destroy first world countries; they want to become like them.

[forgotmypassword3]

It makes me laugh what stupid people buy for so much. I feel sorry for them. I think it makes them feel knowledgeable, savvy and established or something. I have the most expensive crap ever! YAY!

[swagv]

F*ck TED and all it stands for. A bunch of pretentious wanks who emphasize form over substance...

[coonish28]

Well stick a glass coke bottle up my ass and call me Lucy!!!!! I think I just won the lotto.

[coonish28]

Yes happiness DOES have a price tag, if you dont like it then pack up yo shit and move the FUCK out of MY AMERICA!!!!!!!!!! Move to Sweden or some shit. Go shove your hippie beads up yo cunts bitches!

[blaziermissy]

You're one pathetic retard, did you know that?

[SonictheBedHog]

I bought a $100 bottle of wine one time, eh it was ok. Bought a $20 bottle the following week, it was SUPER!

[zeldagoblin]

My mum in law gave us a bottle of expensive champagne for our anniversary....it tasted like poo

[jpixels]

£1000,000 could change my life for sure

[blaziermissy]

When we let go of our insecurities and false notions about material gains, as well as our addiction to consuming, we as humans could experience a much more natural, not artificial, happiness. It takes a certain elitist mindset to actually enjoy this type of extravagence and plundering.

Although advocated politically and socially, this type of consumption is humanly immoral while 35000 children per day starve to death all over the world.

Thought-provoking....

[krdwa]

I dislike overconsumption, but the natural pattern for societies is to grow to available food supply. This is how many societies still function, and is what leads to poverty and starvation. Wealth and overconsumption in the rich countries are not the causes of poverty and starvation in the poor countries.

[blaziermissy]

Not true. Giant corporations affiliated with world banks indebt countries purposely with building contracts (Bechtel) to develop their cities/country. When the country cannot pay them back, the companies privatize their schools, water supplies, etc., empovershing the people.

That's just ONE example how the rich cause poverty all over the world.

[krdwa]

That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you think an example of someone who lost money in the stock market proves that investing in the stock market causes poverty? On average, people who invest in the stock market do better than those who bury their money in the garden. On average, there is a positive relationship between involvement of rich countries and income growth in poor countries. The poorest countries are the ones the rich countries are the least involved with.

[krdwa]

The strange idea that the reason rich countries are rich is because poor countries are poor also goes against basic economic theory. Rich countries are rich because the people have high levels of human capital, ie skills and knowledge, which allows them to produce a lot. Poor countries are poor because of low levels of human capital. Do you think that when people become educated or trained in rich countries, it somehow prevents people in poor countries becoming educated or trained?

[blaziermissy]

You're analyzing it from a "propoganda" prospective. You need to research to understand.

[krdwa]

No no, my view is based on scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions in such research rely on statistical inference and verifiable data, which is a scientifically valid approach. Argument by anecdote (or from the specific to the general) is not scientifically valid. It is often used by politicians, journalists, activists and others who do not understand the scientific method, but such arguments have no value to scientists. They prove nothing.

[paganiniGOGO]

Let me ask you a simpler question:

Do you think it's ethical to have multiple cars, a mansion, expensive furniture etc. while instead of purchasing those things you could spend the money to save the lives of starving children in Sudan?

[krdwa]

This is something entirely different. It would go against /my/ ethical norms to buy such things (even one car unless I lived in the countryside without good public transport) and not give to poor countries. However, it would also go against my ethical norms to force others to behave this way. Forced redistribution is only valid as part of the social contract in a free, democratic society. If some choose to give only the minimum required by society (ie taxes), that is their right.

[krdwa]

The question of feeding starving children is anyway complex. I consider it unethical for example to support religious charities that help the poor but oppose birth control. They are doing good in the short run, but harm in the long run, because the world is already overpopulated. Ending poverty and preserving the environment both rest on limiting population growth, which requires birth control in poor countries. In rich countries, natural population growth is no longer a problem.

[UberThink]

There is no overpopulation problem or food shortages, just misallocation.

Popululation vs Landmass

watch?v=_l3HN2ql1Yc

The world isn't over overpopulated, it's population is just mismanaged by the hoarders of the wealth. This is a fantastic overpopulation hypothesis.

[krdwa]

Overpopulation exists when population exceeds carrying capacity, ie the sustainable level of production and imports that provides adequate nutrition. Research by Bernard Gilland suggests that the total population of LDCs (poor countries) currently exceeds their carrying capacity by about 50%. As a result of this, global population currently exceeds carrying capacity by about 25%, even though populations in MDCs (rich countries) are sustainable. Population growth in LDCs moreover remains high.

[krdwa]

I should note that Gilland publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not in rubbish conspiracy-theory videos.

The bloke in your conspiracy-theory video, for example, doesn't even seem to realise that only about 6% of the land in Australia is arable -- the country is mostly desert. Moreover, adequate nutrition requires about 422 kg per capita of cereal (including animal feed) annually. I should be rather surprised if you can grow 422 kg of cereal on 1/10 of a hectare (desert or not).

[paganiniGOGO]

I suggest you look at the scientific research of Dan Gilbert. He shows that a paraplegic and a lotto winner are about equally happy, in the not-so-long term. Therefore, spending a million dollars on redundant luxuries will not actually make you much happier, while it would save lives in a poorer country.

[paganiniGOGO]

Yet in capitalist societies this elementary moral truism is ignored.

Tax the rich and you will be depriving them merely of useless luxuries, while saving millions of lives.

[krdwa]

Your assumptions are wrong, so your conclusion is invalid. The rich are happier on average than the poor. However, social spending is also positively correlated with happiness, which is a justification for a large welfare state. Most people who support capitalism, at least in Scandinavia, are not against the large welfare state (over half the economy in fact). You should not confuse opposition to Marxist pseudo-science with radical libertarianism. I am no libertarian.

[krdwa]

Yes, I know of this research. However, statistical analyses almost invariably find that within a society, richer people are significantly happier on average than poorer people, and usually also that richer societies are significantly happier on average than poorer ones. The idea that more wealth is not associated with higher happiness is not supported by the evidence.

All of this is in any case irrelevant to the destructive and unfounded Marxist dogma that the rich are the cause of poverty.

[blaziermissy]

You are looking at this in SUCH a black and white way, and not considering other variables that come into play.

People who are very poor spend an indordinate amount of time and energy JUST TRYING to gain primary needs. So tell me, how could they be happier in that regard? However, if there primary needs could be met easier, health care more accessible, as well as education, this hypothesis could lend to more credibility.

Pseudoscience sucks.

[krdwa]

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you're trying to say. I shall only point out that researchers who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals are not generally incompetent. They do tend to consider a wide range of potentially relevant variables when building their statistical models, and their results are certainly credible.

I do agree with your last sentence, which is why I rather dislike Marxism and rubbish conspiracy theories. Scientific journals make much more interesting reading.

[UberThink]

WOW you're so great(!)

Iif overpopulation is a problem for you then help out by killing yourself.

[blaziermissy]

In what of your argument are you referencing to science?

I adhere to science and the scientific method. I don't take things at face value either. Again, what part of your argument regarding "Capitalism" is based on science?

[krdwa]

I shall try to explain. You have made a general claim that rich countries/corporations cause poverty. You have then tried to 'prove' this with statistically insignificant anecdotes about specific actions by specific corporations in specific poor countries. In science, this is called 'arguing from the specific to the general', which is not a scientifically valid form of reasoning.

[krdwa]

A general question must be answered generally. There is a clear consensus in the scientific literature that trade/investment from rich countries/corporations tends in general to be associated with significantly higher GDP and lower poverty in poor countries. Researchers have even shown that in some cases, investment is the causal factor in this relationship. The hypothesis that rich countries/corporations cause poverty is thus very unlikely, and can be rejected by way of statistical inference.

[paganiniGOGO]

blaziermissy is correct.

Corporations deliberately marginalize the masses and prevent them from meaningfully participating in the management of their own affairs.

So elites have a very active role in causing poverty.

This is distinct from the rich who merely don't care about poverty and human suffering.

"over-consumption" does not "cause" poverty but allows it to continue.

On the other hand, bombing another country, or imposing sanctions that starve the masses, does directly "cause" poverty.

[krdwa]

If you read the scientific literature, you will find that the poorest regions are those with the least involvement by Western corporations. Anecdotes do not refute scientifically valid statistical inference.

You're right about bombing and sanctions, but I don't see the relevance. Working hard so you get a pay rise won't make your neighbour poor. Hacking into his bank account and stealing his money will. Do you see an equivalence between these two things? I don't.

[paganiniGOGO]

Again, I never said getting a good job causes poverty, but that "every man is guilty of all the good he [doesn't] do."

[paganiniGOGO]

"Wealth and overconsumption in the rich countries are not the causes of poverty and starvation in the poor countries."

Maybe they're not the "cause", but if we gave all the money and resources and time we use on insignificant luxuries, poverty would be non-existent in less than a week.

[krdwa]

If global income was divided evenly, everyone would be a bit poorer than the average Romanian. I could live with that, but by Western standards, that's poor. More than that, a major cause of poverty is lack of family planning. In many poor countries, the population expands to the available resources, so when you increase resources, you don't get less poverty, just more poor people.

[krdwa]

My main point anyway is that wealth does not cause poverty, because economics is not a zero-sum game. Marxists tend to hate the rich because of a zero-sum mindset, but if you can get past this incorrect assumption, you can see the whole ideology is rubbish, and there's no reason to hate anyone. We who are relatively rich have a duty to help the poor because it is right (if we were poor, we'd want the rich to help us), not because we 'cause' poverty, which in general we don't.

[paganiniGOGO]

But the capitalist system depends on exploitation of the proletariat. Economics in a capitalist system is a zero sum game. If you get the promotion that means someone else isn't getting it, meaning you are benefiting at the cost of someone else.

In capitalism, if my business prospers, it is at the expense of another business. In socialism, I'm taxed the difference, therefore the benefit is to the society itself and not me alone.

You need to abandon your myopic obsession with proximate causation.

[krdwa]

If a worker works harder to get a pay rise, he is producing more. The value of this higher output, not someone else, is where the pay rise comes from. Even Marx would have accepted this much.

If, as you say, workers and businesses could only prosper at the expense of others, then any growth in total output/income would by definition be impossible. I'm sorry, but this idea is absurd, even by Marxian standards.

[znubzz188]

this is lame infotainment that could have been told by an average reporter. its only the last few sentences that go beyond his personal experience. nice to know, but i'd definately expected more behind such a title.

[znubzz188]

like i fucking care if i would be one, at least my statements go beyond i three word average, stupid fuck, now BEND!!

[thisnextsongiscalled]

yep

haven't learned anything either

[brian12934]

WOW! I love listening to this.

[akylae101]

LMAO! Prijatno =~ bon apetit

We are beautiful? Why thank you, Santiago.

[akylae101]

If you ever come to Split, Croatia, look for Fife on the end of Riva. The shark is delicious, but so is everything else.

Prijatno

[zombieiscool]

Kind of true... I will not drink any liquor that is contained in plastic. Many people will prefer glass over plastic.

[Samanmotlagh]

None of this is worth it's price if what you want is happiness, consider hedonic adaptation.

This is a great example of commodity fetichism.

How fun is a bugatti to drive if nobody looks at you driving it?

[dedclownsRfunny]

I would say driving a Bugatti would be infinitely more fun if you weren't being watched. In particular by the owner of said Bugatti, and the cops.

[Samanmotlagh]

So the rush of 'freedom' and adrenaline is worth, say an average yearly salary is 50k dollar, 30 years of work?

[dedclownsRfunny]

Hell no it's not worth that money. I would've said driving any fast car while nobody is looking is just as fun. I just had to disagree with you saying driving a Bugatti when nobody else was looking wasn't fun.

[Samanmotlagh]

Ah ok I understand now.

Well my point with that comment was that the feeling of social proof or 'respect' (even if it's mostly imagined)makes it so much more attractive to have a bugatti.

Like, flashy items look cool, and I guess it feels nice to put them on yourself. But come on, for those prices? Diamonds, Gold, bling bling in general are supposed to give you social proof or reverence which is why people buy them. We fetischize those items in our culture.

[justforwatchingcraps]

the toilet that sends ur stool analysis to ur doc is actually a good idea...that and the bugatti are the only things that might be worth their price...

[ThePsychoReturns]

"You want to know some real gourmet food? Toasted snail penises; candied filet of panda asshole; deep dish duck dick. Now you're talkin' cuisine." - George Carlin

[gkdrummerboy]

That toilet makes the term "Wipe your own ass" obselete. I don't need my toilet to wipe my ass for me. What will I become?

[gkdrummerboy]

This is why people eat fish heads, monkey brains, crab heads, and all those ' bad' parts. Whcih taste great I must say.

[sgrauslund]

Bugatti Veyron is build in Molsheim, France by the Bugatti Automobiles, a subsidiary of German Volkswagen. Only the name is Italian.

[sinner7]

Writes for GQ magazine

[BlaccChief]

I believe in only buying the at the best price. I fi can find something that does the exact same thing at a lower price and may even test or perform better than I would gladly go with that.

[italouruguayricano]

Important lesson, Rich people are dorks.

[nowxyourxgone]

The special coffee beans from a "cat's stool" was mentioned ont he film "The Bucket List." lmao. Wasn't too sure that the movie was actually being honest. =]

[blurglide]

Summary: exotic food and needless 'fancy stuff' is not worth it. Exotic devices and tools/machines that you actually use- worth it.

[gusphraba]

Well at the end he says the more expensive goods deliver more enjoyment, even if the price tag is the only difference. So you pay for something you actually get, it might be worth it depending on how well you get tricked. You pay to be happy, not to see facts on a paper.

[CaptainFrantic]

This vid was an excellent follow up to the previous video on perceptions of value. Please, please please TED ... MORE LIKE THIS! Consider it as your contribution to raising the level of consciousness of mankind.

[brittany51791]

oops i meant to put plus one!

yeah i totally agree though :)

[CaptainFrantic]

No worries I do that a lot too. Whoops I did it again. =P

[gusphraba]

Balanced both of you.

[CaptainFrantic]

Now that's community in action. XD

[lizjaymit]

Another great study for those of us who wonder about such things. Thanks!

[dollaresque]

I wonder what he wrote in his proposal to get this assignment approved by his editors.

[jjmm112]

who care`s?

[jkand]

YES!!!

[bluehiu]

his talk lacks depth... shows a product and then gives it a thumbs up/thumbs down

[jungenbum]

i give you a thumbs down!

[boxant]

Wine snobs, got to love them.

Now Scotch on the other hand, that is something to write about :D

[thebaronian]

Same here

[linuxlist2000]

bugatti veyron rocks.

[int3rl0per]

The Veyron seems a bit overpriced, although when you consider the amount of time spent designing it, writing control software, windtunnel testing it, sqeezing the maximum safe power out of the engine and drivetrain and so forth, and then consider that they'll only ever sell a few hundred of them at most, the price starts feeling justified.

[mikedubya]

Read "Status Anxiety" by Alain de Botton for more details on why we think expensive = better

[Funkypotat0]

I think I remember this fellow doing an article in the Time magazine.

[Rmaccc]

More studies like this.

[intrepgun]

expectation of happiness reinforced by stimuli completely unrelated to the actual consumption of the food? that's what the food industry is based on. that and using the least amount of actual food in the product as possible.

[iurak6868]

amazing talk, kinda confirms my beliefs on the matter of happines.

[nestorrfortuna]

do you think having a large penis have something to do with this indulgences?

[pinochet222]

I heard prices for a lot of fancy stuff go down, especially around Wall Street...

[swyft187]

Silly homo sapiens, L2P.

[wolffenhaus]

jeans should get you laid, or they're a miss.

[papatoony]

Pardon me...do you have any...Grey Poupon?

[Chilldogg]

interesting...

[funincluded]

People will pay a lot to feel like a big man

[ameera14]

the point at the end was interesting

[fuunguus]

i wonder what 1 gram of weed costing 1000$ would taste like :D

[Cdimond]

hahahah

[jojokabo]

mmmmmm!!

[bowakowa]

I would have to suppose they were more engaged in the more expensive experience, hoping to get maximal money's worth. I may simply focus more keenly on today's mountain dew.

[ratholin]

As a food reviewer I often mark price vs quality. Many restaurants with high prices tend to rely more on atmosphere, service, and eliteness than food quality in order to justify their prices. It's one of the major reasons some restaurants fail. When the Second Chef of an elite egyptian cotton napkin restaurant creates his own place and serves the same types of dishes at the same prices without the props and showmanship the customers feel cheated.

You don't go to the circus for the peanuts.

[adolthitler]

But I do go to a restaurant for the peanuts.

I went to a thai restaurant 3-4 times a week for years. I took my sister there and she complained about it being ratty. She took me to a very pretty place, but the food was shite.

Props are for bad food. Good food stands on its own.

[ratholin]

Adol, I was discussing upscale restaurants. You wouldn't pay 60 dollars a plate at the thai place. Many of my favorite places are holes in the wall that stay open only because of food quality. Upscale restaurants can have good food or even great food but people expect a lot more than good food for a high price. You're buying an experience just like at the circus. Bad food will of course kill a restaurant, and bad food plus in a glamorous environ is somehow even worse.

[bowakowa]

I review food as well, and I can tell you the ambience can only detract from the food, it cannot make the food better. As long as the place is clean and the service courteous, it is the food and the food only that should matter. As to the price; if you don't live up to your prices, you will go under eventually.

[ratholin]

Even if cooked perfectly and handed to you by a very smiling happy clean server you would not buy a sixty dollar meal at mcdonalds.

[akylae101]

The most famous, most frequented restaurant in my city, by locals and tourists alike, is a barely sanitary hole with a grumpy owner/waiter who is just short of wishing you never arrived and never return. It serves great food, in big portions, for peanuts, and is ALWAYS fully occupied.

Extreme prices are a tax on stupidity.

[artfungames]

the end is a woot!

[ChariotRider]

I find that last bit to be most interesting...

[emiryasujiro]

Intresting=Interesting

[emiryasujiro]

Intresting indeed!

[dudekillr]

Wow interesting