Извольте видеть, Ученыя точно установили, что не тогда человеку хорошо, когда ему хорошо, а тогда ему хорошо, когда другим не так хорошо. Чтите-съ тут-съ -

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1974139

A second and more important reason why more money does not automatically make everybody happier is that people tend to compare their lot with that of others. In one striking example, students at Harvard University were asked whether they would prefer (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much. A majority chose (a). They were happy with less, as long as they were better off than others. Other studies confirm that people are often more concerned about their income relative to others' than about their absolute income. Pleasure at your own pay rise can vanish when you learn that a colleague has been given a much bigger one. The implication of all this is that people's efforts to make themselves happier by working harder in order to earn and spend more are partly self-defeating: they may make more money, but because others do too, they do not get much happier. The unhappiness that one person's extra income can cause to others, argues Lord Layard, is a form of pollution.

Worse still, working harder in order to be able to afford more material goods could even end up making people unhappier if they do not have enough spare time. Although people value their income in relation to that of others, this does not seem to be true of their leisure time. The same Harvard students were also asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight. This time a clear majority preferred (d). In other words, people's rivalry over income does not extend to leisure. The result of this, suggests Lord Layard, is that developed societies may tend to work too hard in order to consume more material goods, and so consume too little leisure.

If governments' ultimate goal is to maximise the well-being (ie, “happiness”) of society as a whole, then, says Lord Layard, some highly controversial implications for public policy follow. Conventional economic theory argues that taxation distorts the choice between leisure and income. Taxes reduce the incentive to work an extra hour rather than go home, or to put in extra effort in the hope of promotion. But Lord Layard's argument implies that people have a tendency to work too much. Far from being distortionary, taxes are therefore desirable. He suggests a marginal tax rate of 30% to deal with the “pollution” that one person's extra income inflicts on others, and the same again for habituation. The total of 60% is a typical European level of taxation (taking both direct and indirect taxes into account).

Итак-съ! Дабы Рускиiй Народъ былъ щастливъ, надлежитъ не бомбить Американскiй и другiя народы-съ, а дать Русскому Народу отдохнуть-съ!

К съму остаюсь Вашего Превосходительства покорнымъ слугою,

-- Скунсъ В.

и поэтому она оперирует относительными категориями.
Грядущее же счастие будет абсолютным.

Тогда, кстати, и отдохнем.

нам была обещана как раз буржуазно-националистическая революция. См. выше. Так что именно буржуазная наука нам и надобна.

Сжечь все, да и поделить!

Нихт шиссен, Гитлер капут.