Paul Moloney wrote a good article for the Guardian on 28 August, whilst I was off line. He describes himself as a 'counselling psychologist'. His theme was simple. He said:
'poverty and work are what make most of us miserable, and therapy is not the solution'.
I agree, but his argument was more complex than that. What he was seeking to do was argue with LSE economist Richard Layard who is flavour of the month with Downing Street and David Cameron at the same time by promtoing the economics of 'happiness'. Now, I have no problem with 'happiness' at all. Nor the economics of it, but Layard's view seems well summarised by Moloney when he says Layard relies on three assumptions:
1) unhappiness is caused by the way we see the world, not by the way it is;
2) psychotherapy can correct this;
3) unhappiness is necessarily bad.
I agree with Moloney, each of these arguments is flawed. Poverty does cause real unhappiness, but as important, and as Moloney notes and as Layard to my intense irritation continually ignores, relative poverty is as important as a cause of unhappiness. As Moloney puts it:
'There is an enormous body of evidence to suggest that happiness will always be profoundly linked to our wider social and material world. In the industrialised nations, the widening gap between rich and poor that has marked the past three decades has been associated with an erosion of communal ties and with a rising waver of psychological distress.'
He is right. Almost every evening I discuss this with my wife, who is a GP in a very poor rural area. She is convinced no drug can help most of her patients. More economic resources would. Psychotherapy cannot, unless it is assumed to be hypnotic to give them the impression of well being when they are not enjoying it.
And we don't need hypnosis. Unhappiness does, in fact have a role. It is a clear signal that all is not well with the world. Curiously, the rich and poor alike are suffering from it in our society. The reason for this is easy to explain. The world in which we live is designed to make everyone feel inadequate. What else, after all is most advertising about? That, and the message that each of us needs 'more'. Well, it's true, each of us does need more. The poor need more economic resource. The rich need stronger social and community ties to give them a sense of purpose. In both cases the answer is simple. More tax is a route to greater happiness.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We’ve had lots more tax in the last ten years. Presumably by now there should be abundant evidence of increased happiness?
I would like to pick up on three point here.
1: Jeremy Bentham the 18th–19th century philosopher and political reformer argued that the state should provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people in a politically legitimate democracy.
Bentham worked in the era of the social contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke who argued that “the people” voluntarily agreed to be ruled by the state as long as the state protected the rights of the people. Basically, rights to education, property, the right to buy and sell and liberty.
2: There is a mass of research that indicates that socio-economic deprivation leads to psychological disorders, deviancy and criminality, Lea & Young and Curry are current theorists on this subject.
3: Richard makes a relevant point about community. During the 1950s Young & Willmott conducted ethnographic research into the slum clearence in Bethnal Green, where large groups of extended families lived, and where there was a tight community. The slum clearence witnessed disintergration of the community all over London destroying the links between families and community kinship.
I believe that all three of these points are symtimatic of capitalist liberal democracy where the intersets of the few are protected and promoted while the life-chances and health of “the people” are ignored.
Chris Steel
And the alternative to capitalist liberal democracy is?
Bishop Hill,
You will not lure me into the trap of telling you the alternative to capitalist liberal democracy as I would been at least 10,000 words. But I will break it down into three parts. Capitalism creates wealth for the few by exploiating the masses. liberalism is nothing more complicated than citizens having certain freedoms and rights, whilst being surveyed by the state. Democracy is one of the worlds most missunderstood concepts. True democracy cannot exist while the lower socio-economic classes are not allowed the same right to education and knowledge, although I would also argue that the vast majority of the UK population are ignorant of how governments in liberal democracies apply dominant discourses, in arguing what is, and is not doable regarding economic and social policies.
To end on your other point, yes, there may have been more taxes in the last few years, but since the Thatcher, Major and Blair years income and wealth inequality has grown massivily, relative poverty has grown, especially for pensioners who had been promised by the post World War Two social democratic setellments that they would be catered for in retirement by a sustainable basic state pension.
is it democratic to reduce corporate taxes and increase indirect taxes.
Bishop Hill is in fact worng. We have not seen a ‘lot more’ taxes in the last ten years. There have been marginal increases, at most, and by no means evenly spread, as any informned commentator knows.
The claim that taxes have increased a lot is a myth without any serious foundation put out by those who wish to undermine government.
Government spending has gone from 37.6% of GDP to 42.2% projected for 2007-8, an increase of 12%. This has taken place at the same time as the size of the economy has grown. The tax take has gone from £80bn to £140bn – an increase of 75%.
So we are paying a lot more taxes. 75% more in fact. Yes it is relatively affordable (“only” a 12% increase in % of GDP taken) but this does nothing to support your case that more taxes makes us happier.
“You will not lure me into the trap of telling you the alternative to capitalist liberal democracy”
So asking you for your opinions is a trap is it? 🙂
“Capitalism creates wealth for the few by exploiating the masses.”
No, it creates wealth for everyone. It just spreads the spoils unevenly. You sound like a communist – I hope you’re not – communism only ever made people poor.
” liberalism is nothing more complicated than citizens having certain freedoms and rights, whilst being surveyed by the state.”
Perhaps you’re actually an anarchist and don’t want a state at all?
“Democracy is one of the worlds most missunderstood concepts. True democracy cannot exist while the lower socio-economic classes are not allowed the same right to education and knowledge”
They have exactly the same right to education and knowledge as everyone else. Perhaps you mean “quality of education”?
“although I would also argue that the vast majority of the UK population are ignorant of how governments in liberal democracies apply dominant discourses, in arguing what is, and is not doable regarding economic and social policies.”
Enlighten me.
“there may have been more taxes in the last few years, but since the Thatcher, Major and Blair years income and wealth inequality has grown massivily […]
So more taxes doesn’t equal more happiness. QED.
“is it democratic to reduce corporate taxes and increase indirect taxes. ”
Here you are showing that you don’t understand what democracy is. Democracy means electing a government by popular mandate and then letting it govern. So this IS democracy. The results may be (in your opinion) unfair or wicked, but this does not stop it being democratic.
I note what Bishop Hill has said.
I have decided to leave it on the site – but stress I do not think that the arguments presented by Bishop Hill are worth replying to – especially by Chris Steel who has argued clearly, and with logic.
As for the arguments on tax making you happy – if it reduces welath imbalances it does. The problem of the New Labour programme has been that this has not been achieved. On this point I will agree that there has been a failure and let the matter rest.
Richard
I link ignorance to democracy. the state in liberal democracies utilise their dominant discursive position to coerce, persuade and influance the people in what is right and therfore doable regarding social and economic policies. governments also control what is on the public agenda. Therefore the state creates ignorance.
The aquisition of education and knowledge is dependent on your cultural capital at birth, if this is not equal then your future life-chances are limited. You also have to remember that we are schooled and educated in the skills the government wants to supply for the capitalist workforce.
I am quite clear about my political perspective I am a structuralist who wishes to see a fairer world. I do not expect absolute socio-economic equality as I think it would actually be dangerous. So that rules me out as being a communist. Am I an anarchist, no, rebelious, yes, especially aganist the inequality of global wealth.
I do not see happieness when half the worlds population live on less than $2 a day, 800 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition and a child dies every three seconds because of lack of food, water, and preventable disease.
I watch the G8 meetings where the heads of wealth rich governments slap one another on the back, stating what a good job they are doing for the poor, which in reality is nothing. Maybe I am an anarchist in that I would certinley like to see the end of liberal democratic governments like the gang of 8.
I am also proud to use my own name in all that i do. Who is Bishop Hill.