After nearly doubled in value over the past six years, and yesterday and real estate more than half way to notching his best year ever. Market capitalism, the engine that moves really well, seems to do its job. But is it? Was once the work is generally accepted to be better to let the people out. Today is not so clear. A number of real estate consumers, for one way or another, by a growing numberAnalysts believe that the property should do something else: making people happy.
I believe that the property must be something more than money, is widespread in Europe for decades. And now, the idea of "good" behind real assets turned in North America too, especially for the restaurant-rich baby boomers. Many of these draw on the upstart science of happiness, which mixes psychology with economics. His supportersbutlers call survey data, some surprising results: the relationship richer and poor people are usually happy to show. However, there is a paradox that requires explanation: the rich countries as a whole, has not been much happier if we really need to be appreciated and when people have become richer.
The science of happiness offers two explanations for this paradox. Capitalism, it notes, is adept at turning luxuries into necessities, and therefore the masses, whichElites have always enjoyed. But the other part is that people take for granted are things that once coveted from afar. Homes that they never thought they were the needs that could be done unless it was owned. In a sense, consumers are stuck on a treadmill: as they have a higher standard of living, I'm glad we used to.
Add to this that many of the things that people prize most – such as an exclusive address at home – is a luxury to necessity. A house in the exclusiveFor example, ceases to be, so if it is for everyone. This "positional goods", as they say (a reference to the hierarchical position in society) is fixed supply: you can enjoy only if others do not. The amount of money and effort required to extract it depends on what your competitors sit kg
All this casts some doubt on the long economic dogma. Economic science, especially as it applies to capitalism, it is assumed that people knowtheir interests are best left to mind their business. How they work and what to buy is their business. But the new science of happiness are much less willing to bend to the choice of the people. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes thought that the time the richest clubs would become more free, where people have more time to enjoy the finer things in life would be. But most continue to work hard on things that can not afford to make them happy. They also want a place in society and wider acquisition of status goods, such as expensive homes, and then work harder and have less free time.
On the other hand, if economic growth through consumption makes people happy stagnation hardly do the trick. Community petrified with positional goods even more jealous. A booming economy creates opportunities, which in turn traces of luck to a certain extent. It 'hard to say that most people were unhappy during the Heyday> Property boom.
To find the real estate market, or for that matter, the entire capitalist system is to blame because they are not happy, for growth, to deliver to place too heavy a burden for them. Many of doing good is not enough: they want to do better than their counterparts, and this contest SET ANSI very deep.
People's real property may do good, and the consequence is that you can choose as unhappy as he wishes. Todemand more would be asking too much.
Luigi Frascati
