As a result of the impact of the recent crisis in the global credit and banking markets, many have come to question whether the use of credit, and its implied magnification of the importance of money in terms of consumerism, has actually resulted in improving the lives of individuals by making them more prosperous, happier, and healthy, or has it simply provided an illusion of these things. . If the latter case is true, the demands of consumerism and unrealistic spending could simply be classed in the way drug use is. it makes a person feel better in the short term but is actually a poison that will hurt them over the long haul. There is no question that the allure of money has been reinforced over the course of the recent economic catastrophe. personal financial incentives have motivated many bankers to pursue maximum short-term profits at the expense of ethical and moral behaviors, such as loosening their lending requirements to the point that they finance up to 125% equity, and make imprudent loans to people with no jobs, no income, and no assets. .
At the basic foundations of economics, this hypothesis seems reasonable under two assumptions: First, that people are largely rational in that they will attempt to maximize their satisfaction subject to whatever constraints they encounter. Colin Camerer and Richard Thaler (1995) suggest “most behaviors can be explained by assuming that agents have stable, well-defined preferences and make rational choices consistent with those preferences”. The second assumption is that individuals will weigh the potential gains against the potential losses in an informal risk/reward analysis. When the potential gains or losses change, e.g., the risks outweigh the rewards (or vice versa), the behaviors of people will change accordingly. Daniel Ariely, a behavior economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, believes the hypothesis can be enlightened through two behavioral systems. social norms and market norms.