Comments (43)

• Daniel M. Ryan

  Regarding a supposed "addiction to wealth": isn't "X is addicted to wealth" just another way of saying, "X's marginal utility of wealth is so out of whack with my own [or the average person's] that I can only describe it as an 'addiction'"?

  This age, after all, is known for using medical terms metaphorically, often to express covert value judgments.

  Published: September 10, 2007 10:13 AM

• Daniel Morin

  Well written. I enjoyed the reading. Your article is a great complement to The Miser Hurts No One But Herself.

  Published: September 10, 2007 10:43 AM

• Kathy H

  What thinking person would not prefer to live under a system of capitalist opportunity v. a system of socialist slavery to the state? The choice is so simple that, frankly, I'm amazed there is ever any discussion or disagreement. Clearly, the people promoting socialism have another agenda. That, of course, would be power for themselves.

  Published: September 10, 2007 10:52 AM

• 8

  If this were true, then why do people across the developed world increasingly choose family and friends over money?

  Published: September 10, 2007 10:57 AM

• Anthony

  Because their material desires are more easily provided for. Read the article closely.

  Published: September 10, 2007 11:00 AM

• Fundamentalist

  Excellent analysis! Thanks! A simple comparison of the amount of money that Americans give personally to charity, as well as the money we give through the government to poor people and poor countries should be sufficient to silence socialists. Unfortunately, facts that contradict socialism don't seem to bother socialists.

  Also, socialists have a different view of the nature of man than does traditional conservativism. Socialists believe that mankind is born with a blank moral slate. Therefore, any sign of immorality must have been caused by society through the social structure. Socialists believe that we could achieve paradise on earth if we simply eliminated private property.

  Conservatives have traditioally viewed human nature along orthodox Christian lines in which man is born with a tendency toward immorality, but the worst of that tendency can be overcome through the civilizing processes of parenting, religion, schooling and police work. So in conservative thinking, materialism is a result of a failure in one or more of the civilizing steps. Of course, a little concern for material goods is a good thing; it only becomes bad when it becomes excessive.

  Published: September 10, 2007 12:04 PM

• Jake

  Does capitalism make us more materialistic. I think not. To quote Henry Hazlitt from his book "Inflation" :

  "Inflation, to sum up, is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody's cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and
  corrupts public and private morals."

  In my humble oppinion, I believe that an abbundance of cheap money (credit) and the discouragement of savings has led a lot of people to spend, and want everything now. Money is loosing value, right?

  If people were saving real money and extending their time periods, society's views might have been different regardig materialism.

  Is it not a requirement from the Communist Manifesto for a central bank?

  "5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

  Now a Communist instrument dictates and subverts peoples beliefs about capitalism. This is the proverbial wolf in sheeps clothing.

  Published: September 10, 2007 12:09 PM

• Jaq Phule

  The cocktail party rejoinder to the question is of course, "No more than does materialism make us more capitalistic!" It tends to shut up the other party as they try to digest the concept.

  Published: September 10, 2007 1:10 PM

• Marco Saba

  A news service pose more questions:

  Study Finds Growing Gap Between America's Rich And Super-Rich [video] - ONN, Sept. 10. 2007
  http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_are_americas_rich

  Tinyurl:
  http://tinyurl.com/2zvhax
  

  Published: September 10, 2007 3:43 PM

• darjen

  Very interesting article. Maybe this explains why rappers talk so much about material wealth in their songs. You don't hear too many rich people listening to rap.

  Published: September 10, 2007 5:48 PM

• Anthony

  "Also, socialists have a different view of the nature of man than does traditional conservativism. Socialists believe that mankind is born with a blank moral slate. Therefore, any sign of immorality must have been caused by society through the social structure. Socialists believe that we could achieve paradise on earth if we simply eliminated private property."

  Some of them do. Others, like Chomsky, do believe in human nature, only that the good is best achieved by a socialist (anarcho-socialist, no less!) society.

  Marco, the Onion is satire, I hope you know that. :P Wealth gap statistics show that free markets have reduced, not increased, inequality, in spite of institutional constraints.

  Published: September 10, 2007 6:50 PM

• Phil

  As usual the author like so many others falls into the trap of arguing whether capitalism or socialism generates wealth. In fact neither do, they are political systems to manage and control societies and supposedly bring order.
  It's the people within those systems that generate wealth not the systems themselves. The social systems try and determine, limit or control the social relationships but neither create the wealth nor those relationships - people do and those same people create the political systems. Both systems set out to distribute wealth in various degrees of evenness or fairness.
  So before we start debating the merits of one system over another we need to determine what we are debating and base it on what those systems really do.
  Both socialism and capatalism require markets - it's a question of whether people should be subjected to the vagaries of a so called "free market" without any protections or regulations or not for those not in a position to protect themselves or accumalte material wealth. Likewise advocates who proclaim socialism has failed or is dead, very selectively choose from many examples available. Even the failed socialist examples they often choose came about originally as a response or solution to a failed capitalist system. Most of the failed systems people point to are often the result of the inadequacies ot the individuals in positions of power and control not the perceived inherent failures of the ideologies driving the system. Another factor is that no matter how effective the change to a new system is (democratic or otherwise), or how good it proves, remnants of the old order usually keep trying to undermine it from within and external enemies do likewise from without. So to argue one system or another creates wealth better than anotheris a fallacy. Plenty of wealth was created under the old Soviet Union, as well as Tsarist Russia, the Third Reich and many other societies, it is the usgae, wastage and distribution of that wealth so generated that is the issue and also the priorities that determine what types of production will be allowed, disallowed, or favoured. This happens under both capatalist and socialist societies. The unfettered free market is an unattainable myth that might keep a few academics in a job but is just as far from us as the withering away of the state to the ultimate socialist utopia. However there are practical alternatives that can and do work in several countries when accompanied by competent management and sensible social and economic polices. It's simply the ideologue is generally blinded in the left eye and the right eye is too busy only studying the examples that prove his/her case to see a wider picture. It works in reverse for some left leaning idealogues also.
  Another argument used is to label totalitarian capitalist regimes as socialist to strengthen one's argument. There have always been unsavoury regimes of both left and right not because of the inherent good of either ideology but the ability of people to behave badly, be duped or do nothing when they should act.

  Published: September 10, 2007 6:53 PM

• Fundamentalist

  Phil: "So to argue one system or another creates wealth better than another is a fallacy."

  Not at all. When we discuss "socialism" and "capitalism" most people understand that neither exists in its purist form as defined by its supporters. Nevertheless, societies have existed that are close enough to the ideals to deserve the titles. Socialists don't like it, but the USSR, Eastern European countries, China, and other countries were socialist countries, as socialist as could possibly occur on this planet. The US and Gr Britain are as capitalist as you're ever going to find, though they were more capitalist in the past.

  Also, everyone knows that systems don't create wealth; people do. But we often use shorthand in order to speed communication. So when someone says capitalism creates wealth, most of us know that they meant that they capitalist system enables people to create more wealth than does the socialist system.

  Mises and Hayek have some great books an articles on why it's impossible to create wealth in a socialist system. If someone manages to create wealth in a socialist system, it's usually because they have allowed a small amount of capitalism to leak in, particularly through the black market.

  Phil: "Plenty of wealth was created under the old Soviet Union, as well as Tsarist Russia, the Third Reich..."

  That would be pretty hard to demonstrate. The USSR, Tsarist Russia and the Third Reich stole large amount of wealth, but it would be hard to argue that they created any because creating wealth requires capital accumulation and productivity increases, neither of which those nations had. And as Hayek wrote, socialist economists in the USSR understood that they social system was failing to create wealth as early as the 1920's.

  You may think that Tsarist Russia was capitalist due to the habit of socialists to define anything that's not pure socialism as capitalism. But as even Marx admitted, capitalism didn't appear as a system until the 16th century at the earliest, and then in only a few places. It never reached Tsarist Russia. The "system" that existed before capitalism was more like fascism in which the state pretends that people have private property while it controls all aspects of business. The only name I have seen for pre-capitalist systems is "mercantilism," so I'll use that name. Tsarist Russia was not a capitalist system, but a mercantilist one at best; in reality, it was closer to feudalism.

  Phil: "However there are practical alternatives that can and do work..."

  Obviously, you're a pragmatist. But as Hayek demonstrates in "Fatal Conceit" pragmatism always ends up looking just like socialism. I happen to be an ideolog who despises pragmatism because pragmatism is by nature short term oriented; ideologies address the long term results of decisions, which are rarely visible in the short run to pragmatists.

  Phil: "There have always been unsavoury regimes of both left and right not because of the inherent good of either ideology but the ability of people to behave badly, be duped or do nothing when they should act."

  That's true, but don't stop there in your reasoning. Which system, socialism or capitalism, does the best job of limiting the damage that bad people can cause and promoting the advantages of good people? Democratic capitalism, because it limits the power of people in power. Socialism concentrates all of the power in the hands of a few elites, so when those people go bad, the level of destruction of life, liberty and property is awesome! The USSR and China under Mao are perfect examples, as are the Third Reich, and Cambodia, Iran and North Korea.

  Published: September 10, 2007 7:46 PM

• Anthony

  Phil: "However there are practical alternatives that can and do work..."

  Alternatives that tend to mix capitalism (here I mean pure free markets, not necessarily extant capitalism) with socialist or statist measures, leading to problematic outcomes, because neither system was designed to accommodate the other.

  "The unfettered free market is an unattainable myth "

  Proof?

  Published: September 10, 2007 8:33 PM

• Geoffrey Plauche

  Anthony: "Proof?"

  Proof!?! What needs the 3rd Wayer of proof? (playful sarcasm)

  Phil wrote: "As usual the author like so many others falls into the trap of arguing whether capitalism or socialism generates wealth. In fact neither do, they are political systems to manage and control societies and supposedly bring order.
  It's the people within those systems that generate wealth not the systems themselves."

  I believe the author knows that. He is simply using conventional shorthand, such that when he writes that capitalism generates wealth it is shorthand for saying that people under a capitalist system generate wealth. This is useless and nitpicky quibbling. Sometimes people do forget they are using certain words as shorthand for a group of people, a shared institution, and how they act within it - this happens more often with the idea of the state (usually by its apologists and often by political "scientists") - but do you have any evidence suggesting that the current author is reifying the concepts capitalism and socialism?

  Published: September 11, 2007 12:18 AM

• Geoffrey Plauche

  Jake... Could you give me the citation for that Hazlitt quote? I'd really appreciate. I'd like to use it in my dissertation.

  Published: September 11, 2007 12:21 AM

• Jonathan

  A link to the debate 'Is capitalism is bad for the soul?'

  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2007/2024790.htm

  I wish those against the proposition had hAD THE opportunity to read this article before the debate.

  Published: September 11, 2007 7:17 AM

• Jake

  To Geoffrey Plauche,

  "Jake... Could you give me the citation for that Hazlitt quote? I'd really appreciate. I'd like to use it in my dissertation."

  Hello Geoffrey. My apologies, firstly. The correct title of the book is "What You Should Know about Inflation". Don't know what I was thinking when I was typing. :-)

  You can download the book in PDF format here:
  mises.org/books/inflation.pdf

  I quoted from page 24/158 of the PDF (or page 18 of the book)

  Published: September 11, 2007 10:30 AM

• katby

  Here is very interesting videos to watch for both socialists and capitalist, because this is how the real truth about 'money and banking' is hidden. Watch google or youtube videos 'money as debt', the money masters, and search Ron Paul and FED. Get educated and enlightened! See why all these political debate is ultimately how divide and rule works. We have inherited a colonnial money paradigm which enslaves government, people and real entrepreneurs bot in socialist and capitalist countries.

  Published: September 11, 2007 12:41 PM

• katby

  Here is very interesting videos to watch for both socialists and capitalist, because this is how the real truth about 'money and banking' is hidden. Watch google or youtube videos 'money as debt', the money masters, and search Ron Paul and FED. Get educated and enlightened! See why all these political debate is ultimately how divide and rule works. We have inherited a colonnial money paradigm which enslaves government, people and real entrepreneurs both in socialist and capitalist countries.

  Published: September 11, 2007 12:42 PM

• Ben O'Neill

  Thanks for your comments on my paper guys, and for the many comments on topics far outside the scope of my paper! I will try to address those comments regarding issues raised in my paper:

  Daniel: By an ‘addiction to wealth’, I do not mean simply valuing wealth differently to others —I do not intend to make a covert value judgement here. Rather, I meant a situation where a person acquires wealth despite the fact that “…it begets only greater desire rather than greater satisfaction”. This would occur when a person’s ex ante judgement is far more in favour of the acquisition of wealth that their satisfaction ex post. For a rational person, this could not occur consistently as they would adjust their ex ante judgement with the experience of dissatisfaction. Thus, an addiction —in this sense— would require some defect in the person’s thinking. I chose this meaning simply because this seems to be a common objection by those who complain that wealth leads to excessive materialism.

  Jake: I think you may be on to something here. Debasement of the currency can indeed lead to disincentives to save and can lead to a greater preference for immediate consumption. Of course, since both monetary saving and consumption goods are exchangeable, this is more an argument concerning alienable goods.

  Phil: Fundamentalist and Geoffrey are indeed correct: when I say that free-market capitalism leads to wealth, I mean that it does not interfere with the process of wealth creation by individuals as with other statist political systems. I felt that the shorthand would not be confusing and that a longer discussion would detract from the paper. Thanks for sticking up for me guys!

  While my observations about wealth creation under free market capitalism may be controversial in some places —those probably not on this site— a lengthy discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of my paper. There is already a large political economy literature on this topic. And yes, I am indeed an ideologue, by which I mean that I believe in fundamental principles of justice over immediate ‘practical’ —i.e. contradictory— ideas. Despite your disagreement, thanks anyway for your comment.

  Jonathon: Thanks for the link. If only!

  Published: September 12, 2007 5:41 AM

• Fundamentalist

  Ben: "This would occur when a person’s ex ante judgement is far more in favour of the acquisition of wealth that their satisfaction ex post. For a rational person, this could not occur consistently as they would adjust their ex ante judgement with the experience of dissatisfaction. Thus, an addiction —in this sense— would require some defect in the person’s thinking. I chose this meaning simply because this seems to be a common objection by those who complain that wealth leads to excessive materialism."

  That's an interesting take on "addiction" and I think you're right. Those who claim that some people are excessively materialistic are guilty of judging the motives of other people, assuming that they are "addicted" to wealth as a drug addict is addicted to heroine and only larger doses of heroine will satisfy his addiction. But for a lot of people who's wealth constantly increases, such as Bill Gates, wealth is not their goal. Their goal is cutting edge technology and running a successful business. The wealth follows.

  There is a principle here that might be called paradoxical intention: those who strive for wealth often don't achieve it, while those who strive for excellence in business often achieve wealth.

  Published: September 12, 2007 7:50 AM

• Fundamentalist

  BTW, I didn’t invent the term “paradoxical intension.” It’s a therapeutic technique developed by the great pshycologist Dr. Viktor Frankl. He used it to treat a variety of problems from stuttering to insomnia with it. But he also applied it to sports by counseling that winning athletes focus on their own performance and not on winning. In order to win, athletes must perform at their best, but to perform at their best, they need to be relaxed, focused and confident, whereas focusing on winning makes them tense, unfocused and worried. I think something similar could be said of businessmen. If they’re focused on increasing their wealth, they’ll tend to do things that ruin their business and drive away customers at best; at worst, they’ll commit crimes as did Enron execs and many others. But if they’re focused on building an excellent company, wealth will follow them wherever they go.

  Those who claim wealth is addicting may be guilty of attributing the wrong motives to many wealthy people.

  Published: September 12, 2007 8:14 AM

• IMHO

  They say you can't sell inalienable goods. But what if a person were to buy someone's loyalty. In effect, you are exchanging an alienable good for an inalienable one.

  Published: September 13, 2007 12:35 AM

• Ben O'Neill

  Thanks for your comment on my paper IMHO.

  I think you have a problem in your terminology here. By the very definition of the term ‘inalienable’ you can’t possibly sell an inalienable thing. An inalienable good literally means a good that cannot be alienated —i.e. can’t be transferred to someone else.

  Despite this technical objection, I will try my best to respond to the substance of your comments.

  As I mentioned in my article, “some goods exist only as the inalienable possessions of others”. I would argue that loyalty, friendship, love, etc. are states of mind in aperson, and hence are examples of these.

  Thus, these cannot be alienated per se, but they may be able to be induced in another person. You could certainly pay someone money in exchange for them to take actions that are indicative of loyalty, friendship, love, etc. But, so long as your subject retains free will, the best you can hope for is to induce certain states of mind through your exchanges and other actions (perhaps you could even try being nice to them).

  I would argue that when you ‘pay someone for their loyalty’ you are simply giving them money in exchange for some actions that you believe manifest their ‘loyalty’. Whether or not they actually have a genuine sense of loyalty to you —i.e. a particular state of mind— is for them to know and for you to guess. You would have no guarantee that they don’t secretly hate your guts.

  Thanks again for your comment.

  Published: September 13, 2007 1:28 AM

• TLWP Sam

  Maybe there's a mini-conspiracy in that picture in the way Scrooge is presumably looking greedily at gold coins? After all, Scrooge McDuck makes his appearance after World War 2 . . .

  Published: September 13, 2007 1:45 AM

• IMHO

  Mr. O'Neill,

  Thanks for being kind enough to answer my question. I'm here at Mises because I'm trying to make up for lost time, as I realize that in today's world, it's impossible to correctly assess any given situation unless you have a proper understanding of the facts.

  I've been doing a lot of reading on my own. At times I'm a bit overwhelmed by the amount of information that's available here, and I worry that I'll never learn it all. But if you and the other heavy hitters here at Mises will be patient with me, I promise that my questions/comments will improve over time.

  Again, thanks for responding to my post.

  Published: September 13, 2007 1:28 PM

• Ben O'Neill

  Dear IMHO,

  I am not sure how much of a heavy hitter I am, but I’m glad I could help. Thanks again for your kind comments and don’t worry —none of us will ever learn it all.

  I find that the best way to keep up with this stuff is to have a good grounding in the basic libertarian literature and Austrian economic literature, rather than trying to digest every daily article that comes along. If you haven’t already done so, it is worth having a browse through the Mises book store and getting some of the main texts by Bastiat, Spooner, Mises and Rothbard.

  Cheers,
  Ben.

  Published: September 13, 2007 9:04 PM

• Ben O'Neill

  Oh, and by the way, I thought your question/comment was perfectly reasonable.

  Published: September 14, 2007 7:40 AM

• John

  I was wondering what one means when one says the market "creates wealth".

  I understand that on an instinctual level, but how does it work?

  Also, how did the U.S. not go bankrupt during WWII if the government was spending all the money? Where did the money come from?

  Thanks!

  Published: September 24, 2007 10:05 PM

• BriarRose

  "Alienable goods, by definition, can be transferred to others, and can therefore be exchanged with others for some other alienable good. In particular, alienable goods can, in principle, be exchanged for money — that is, they can be bought and sold. Of course, this presumes a willing buyer and seller, and in many cases these will be absent. But notwithstanding this fact, it is generally the case that, absent legal restriction or widespread social repugnance, any alienable good may be bought or sold, if the price is right."

  eBay, anyone?

  Those who say money can't buy happiness usually don't have to worry about which bill can go unpaid for another week. I say, give me your money and I'll take my chances, ^_^; I might prove them right, who knows? I sure would like to try.

  It's hard to not define life in materialistic terms when it's viewed from a poverty-level perspective, but that's why it's important to teach my kids that being together as a family is a sure path to happiness that doesn't depend on the value of a dollar. Think about it, would you rather starve alone, or with people who you care about and care about you?

  Published: September 25, 2007 1:15 AM

• Fundamentalist

  John: "I was wondering what one means when one says the market "creates wealth".

  
  Good question. It's just short hand for saying that under a free market system, businessmen create wealth. They do it by using our savings to invest in new businesses and technology. Almost all economic growth comes from improving the productivity of workers through better equipment, training, or greater division of labor.

  John: "Also, how did the U.S. not go bankrupt during WWII if the government was spending all the money?"

  That the US didn't go bankrupt shows how wealthy we were even then. Much of the money for the war came from borrowing the savings of US citizens, but a lot came from just plain old credit expansion which would have caused horendous inflation if the gov hadn't implemented price controls. WWII caused an enormous destruction of wealth in the US, but we were very wealthy to start with by world standards.
  

  Published: September 25, 2007 7:03 AM

• Pepe

  Dear Ben,

  First of all, many thanks for your great article. I truly enjoyed reading it.

  I´ve read throughout the comments, how the term Socialism has been constantly linked and equaled to the extreme, totalitarian, centralist regimes. Now, it may be a generalized mistake (or perhaps just my own!), but what about the more recent "socialist states" that have risen, namely the Scandinavian nations or perhaps Chile. I realize that much of (if not all?) their success has been through the benefits of a globalized, free market world (with some constraints? with more socially-focused policies?).

  So, could you or any other of the guys shed some light on this for me?

  Thanks!

  Published: October 5, 2007 9:28 PM

• Pepe

  Ben et al,

  I may not have been totally clear on my last post... so to be sure, what I´d like to hear from you guys is, what would you call these "Socialist" states now? Is the term socialist fitting? If so, then what would you attribute their success to?

  Thanks again

  Published: October 5, 2007 9:33 PM

• Anthony

  Pepe, you'll have to be more specific - which countries and what successes? With the exception of Norway, most of the Scandinavian economies are maturing welfare states. Their long term viability is questionable. Norway is sheltered by oil profits. It is very likely they'll eventually end up like France or Germany.

  Also, the term socialist is not applicable. They are, like all economies, mixed. They are just relatively more socialist than, say, the US - which doesn't say much at all.

  Their success in most parts come from their former capitalist generation of wealth, which their welfare states have been able to draw upon, and their relatively small, close-knit and homogeneous populations. All of these things are set to change.

  A good article:
  http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665891.pdf

  Published: October 5, 2007 10:40 PM

• Pepe

  Anthony,

  Thanks for your comments. I see what you mean; and with your clarification of the "Scandinavian Socialists" I referred to, would it be appropriate for me to extrapolate (from your perspective), that Chile has also gotten to where it is thanks to the free market policies that began under Pinochet, and that to a large degree they maintain in the present?

  Thanks again

  Published: October 8, 2007 8:24 AM

• Anthony

  No problem.

  Chile is a curious example. Yes, it's free market policies benefited it immensely. The means used to bring them about were anything but desirable, and brought poor Milton Friedman a bad reputation. And I doubt the privatization occured in accordance with Rothbardian ideals of property justice, but in pure economic terms it has improved and will continue to.

  Published: October 8, 2007 10:45 AM

• Pepe

  Indeed, the atrocities that occurred under Pinochet were hideous (He´s probably paying for it, and now so is his family).

  Maybe I´m going a little off topic, but could you give me a little insight on the the economic success going on in Ireland nowadays?

  Gracias

  Published: October 8, 2007 2:34 PM

• Ben O'Neill

  Hi Pepe. When I refer to socialism, I mean it in the sense usually described in political economy. Namely, a socio-economic system under which the means of production (i.e. factories and other capital) are owned by the State (including continuing nationalization of any newly created capital). I regard totalitarianism as a necessary consequence of this system rather than as a defining characteristic of socialism.

  In practice, I would regard all current States as having a ‘mixed economy’ —i.e. being some way between capitalism and socialism, each in varying degrees —i.e. some but not all of the means of production are arrogated to the State.

  I do not have a very good knowledge of foreign economic systems beyond what I read in the paper, so I will leave any analysis of Scandinavia and Chile and their degree of socialism to others with more expertise.

  Cheers,
  Ben.

  Published: October 12, 2007 4:03 AM

• Anthony

  Pepe, unfortunately I cannot say much on Ireland because it is not within my domain of expertise. It's a relatively deregulated economy with a high influx of immigrants and a good business atmosphere. I don't know much else beyond that.

  Published: October 12, 2007 11:15 AM

• Pepe

  Ben & Anthony,

  Thanks for your comments/clarifications. I´ll be looking around for a bit more info on these cases; and maybe post something on here.

  I also strongly recommend the http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665891.pdf article. very well written, with a lot of very interesting information.

  Cheers,
  Pepe.

  Published: October 17, 2007 7:38 PM

• Anthony

  Glad to be of help.

  Published: October 17, 2007 9:08 PM

• Julien Peter Benney

  It is truly a wrong idea that capitalism of itslef breeds materialism. Arthur Brooks clearly shows that the relatively freest economies like Australia and the "Red" states of the US are much less materialistic than a culture like Sweden or the Netherland, even though people in the latter can afford less.

  In many ways, it is socialism that serves to create materialism, and this is apparent in the way classic Trotskyists place consumption of the masses above all other things. For them, religion - which studies show to improve people's psychological well-being - is dangerous precisely because it does nto allow for the unfettered self-interest that so characterises the rather leisurely, lazy societies of modern Europe with their short work weeks and low retirement ages.

  Published: June 11, 2008 7:15 AM