<retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:nr8r2450outt2op4ipc4djv8b4nvpqaoio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:04:11 +0530, "John Galt"
> <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>><retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:tj8q24punnraomov9r1624m14mvkggb6mt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:58:05 +0530, "John Galt"
>>> <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> NO. If people say they are happy then they are happy. It is not up
>>>>> to
>>>>> you to tell them what makes them happy.
>>>>
>>>>You're suggesting that people will be happy with less money to spend
>>>>next
>>>>year than they do this year?
>>>>
>>>>Seriously?
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you honestly believe wealth and happiness are related. LOL.
>>
>>Wealth? Who said anything about wealth? I'm talking about raising
>>families.
>>I'm talking about food on the table, enough money for your kid to play
>>Little League, having your kid's birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, or
>>maybe
>>if you can afford piano lessons for your daughter. At the lower and
middle
>>class layers of society, you're damn right money is tied to happiness.
If
>>it
>>wasn't, money wouldn't be continually cited as one of the primary causes
>>of
>>divorce.
>
>
> Nonsense.
Then feed me more than your personal anecdotes in refutation. I KNOW poor
people can be happy -- I've spent no shortage of time educating their
children. That said, the idea you're proposing, that people don't care
about
giving their children "things" as cited, and they're just as happy if they
cannot if they can, is absurd.
JG
Some of the happiest people I know are very poor. I used
> to tend bar for some of the richest and most powerful and can tell you
> money was a long way from delivering happiness for them.
>
>
|
