It seems to me anyone interpreting economics in such a literal sense is entirely missing the point. I would expect true economics to be not about people maximizing their monetary income, just as mathematics is not about numbers. The reason that many economics papers talk about money is that it is a convenient substitute for a measurement of well-being. But you can just factor any other measurement into the economic models and the outcome should be the same. The gist is, people make decisions to somehow maximize their "whatever it is, happiness, well-being, whatever". It is entirely feasible to think that individuals have individual "whatever it is things" - one might strive to have more time for his family, the other might strive for a luxury house and a Ferrari. Contrary to what the article suggests Economic theory has no problem with that at all.
It is also untrue that 50 million $ could make ever so many people in Africa happy - the problem is not raising the money, the problem is getting it to the people.
Finally, I would have wished for more details on how the happiness for people was determined. Maybe there is some kind of "bootstrapping fallacy" in it - if "1 dollar makes a poor person 10 times as happy as a rich person", the poor person is likely to give a higher rating for it's own happiness than the rich person - in turn distorting the scale the happiness researchers is trying to create.
Maybe brain scans would be a way for objective measurement of happiness, but even with that I would remain skeptic for a very long time.
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is competition. It is fine if your goal in life is to raise fine flowers in your garden, but if your neighbor's goal is to build a 50 story skyscraper at the place where your garden is, just seeding flowers won't be sufficient to maintain your happiness. You might still be forced to move to where the money is so that you can keep your flower hobby. In other words, evolution theory has to be considered when trying to determine people's goals - only "evolutionary stable" goals can prevail. People whose goal in life is to commit suicide don't stand much of a chance in the long run.
It is also untrue that 50 million $ could make ever so many people in Africa happy - the problem is not raising the money, the problem is getting it to the people.
Finally, I would have wished for more details on how the happiness for people was determined. Maybe there is some kind of "bootstrapping fallacy" in it - if "1 dollar makes a poor person 10 times as happy as a rich person", the poor person is likely to give a higher rating for it's own happiness than the rich person - in turn distorting the scale the happiness researchers is trying to create.
Maybe brain scans would be a way for objective measurement of happiness, but even with that I would remain skeptic for a very long time.
Another thing that should be taken into consideration is competition. It is fine if your goal in life is to raise fine flowers in your garden, but if your neighbor's goal is to build a 50 story skyscraper at the place where your garden is, just seeding flowers won't be sufficient to maintain your happiness. You might still be forced to move to where the money is so that you can keep your flower hobby. In other words, evolution theory has to be considered when trying to determine people's goals - only "evolutionary stable" goals can prevail. People whose goal in life is to commit suicide don't stand much of a chance in the long run.