It happens all the time. You’ll see the perfect house and perfect family, laughing, talking and the aurora of happiness. That’s on the silver screen though, not real life. Yes, money can buy a phone, computer, T.V. and sometimes even fame. Is that true happiness though? Is it that time you laughed so hard your stomach started to hurt, cried because a loved one that made you so happy and now they’re gone forever or just having that smile because it was just a good day. Did money buy that joke or loved one? Money wasn’t the cause of that. Though some might say that money can buy your happiness, however money is only an object in the end. In the article, “Wealth, Well-Being, and the New American Dream” by David Myer, is specifically saying that
…show more content…
But this argument fails to make a good point. In the middle of the disagreement, Horowitz has listed his facts and surveys pointing towards richer people have more influence over the government. However he also mentions, “And they’d rather spend the money they do have on food and clothing, rather than on hiring lobbyists” (Horowitz). He is saying that poorer people would rather spend their money on the everyday living essentials than something like a government official. Doesn’t that make the most sense though? That’s what money is supposed to be used for. Horowitz tried to use that against being poor but logic clearly out wits that. The author tries to show another counter argument but fails again also. At the end, he tried making the dispute with using facts and logic. Now he says, “They really missed out on an excellent chance to chat with the particular individuals who make the big decisions” (Horowitz). This is telling you that richer people can basically buy out the election for their own convenience. Poorer people don’t have much say because like he said before they are too busy trying to use their money to stay alive. The problem with this is you’re not buying happiness, you’re buying convenience. In the end it goes the same way, only you can make yourself happy. Horowitz tries to argue that happiness can be bought through government officials. He fails to notice though is that he’s not arguing for happiness but for the convenient life
But this argument fails to make a good point. In the middle of the disagreement, Horowitz has listed his facts and surveys pointing towards richer people have more influence over the government. However he also mentions, “And they’d rather spend the money they do have on food and clothing, rather than on hiring lobbyists” (Horowitz). He is saying that poorer people would rather spend their money on the everyday living essentials than something like a government official. Doesn’t that make the most sense though? That’s what money is supposed to be used for. Horowitz tried to use that against being poor but logic clearly out wits that. The author tries to show another counter argument but fails again also. At the end, he tried making the dispute with using facts and logic. Now he says, “They really missed out on an excellent chance to chat with the particular individuals who make the big decisions” (Horowitz). This is telling you that richer people can basically buy out the election for their own convenience. Poorer people don’t have much say because like he said before they are too busy trying to use their money to stay alive. The problem with this is you’re not buying happiness, you’re buying convenience. In the end it goes the same way, only you can make yourself happy. Horowitz tries to argue that happiness can be bought through government officials. He fails to notice though is that he’s not arguing for happiness but for the convenient life