A debate is raging over whether piling up money can add up to happiness.

Johan Norberg, a scholar with the Swedish think tank Timbro, says money can buy happiness. "People do get happier when societies get richer," he says.

His comments are aimed at a book written by Richard Layard, a British economist who argues that money doesn't buy happiness. "The evidence shows that, on average, people are no happier today than they were 50 years ago, even though average incomes have more than doubled," he writes in "Happiness: Lesson from a New Science."

Both sides have some compelling points. For example, Norberg argues that Layard ignores hope and potential in his conclusion. His position: "The fact that rising incomes do not increase happiness much does not mean that the prospect of a higher income serves no purpose. It might be that the potential for economic growth down the road is what makes it possible for us to continue to believe in a better future and to continue experiencing such high levels of happiness."

Layard argues that as a society we are much more interested in relative wealth than absolute wealth. This causes "happiness" problems because if we earn more, but others do too, then we're not going to be any happier. He says we become accustomed to the new level of wealth and want more, and more again, creating a "hedonistic treadmill."

Pointing to a Harris Poll, Norberg says 58% of Americans are very satisfied with their lives compared with only 31% of Europeans -- and that 65% of people in the U.S. think their individual situation will improve over the next five years while only 44% of people in Europe have such hope.

These are good debate weapons to have in the arsenal. But perhaps they should remain holstered.

The real issue Norberg has with Layard's thesis is that it posits increased taxes and a reduction of emphasis on economic growth. Norberg, author of the book "In Defense of Global Capitalism," is pushing for free-market capitalism. Happiness, of course, from this perspective, trickles down.

"Wealthier societies allow individuals more freedom to choose their own lifestyle. As time passes, we get increasingly better at choosing to live and work in ways we like," he says. "If happiness studies are used to put forth an anticapitalist agenda, it will only reduce freedom of choice for all of us and, therefore, reduce our ability to make decisions that satisfy us."

Granted, Layard's thesis on taxes -- raising them to discourage work -- is, well, retarded. But both men are off the mark on the debate. What they're really scratching at is eudaemonism.

When Norberg says people in poor countries would be better off when they "begin to experience growth," he's talking economic prosperity a la Western capitalism. That lays the concept of "the good life" on them -- a danger zone if there ever was one.

When Layard says if people worked less, the world would be a better place, he's ignoring the fact that it takes productivity and its economic offspring, money and commerce, to afford even a basic standard of living.

Norberg goes out on a limb by saying that Layard and his followers could undermine society.

That isn't likely. Nor is the prospect of a society where the rich get richer and everyone gets happier too.

The root of all happiness

The curious thing about happiness is that it's fleeting. Psychologists have examined brain patterns that show happiness is at a very high stage during a purchase transaction and at a very low point just after. In layman's terms we call this buyer's remorse. It doesn't mean the purchase was bad, it just means we can't maintain that euphoric state that occurs during a transaction.

Other psychologists point to studies that show "producing" things creates happiness, whereas "consuming" things never really gets anyone anywhere except wanting more.

Think about that disconnect because it plays into the heart of the current debate over money and happiness. Producing could be a euphemism for working under Norberg's auspice. In Layard's paradigm, producing could be playing the harmonica. Then again, consuming may mean buying something, or listening to the chirp of a cricket, the sound of wind blowing through brush or waves crashing to shore.

Production and consumption don't have to be looked at in the context of capital. Commerce and money are two separate things.

I suggest both scholars re-read Dickens because money isn't as simple an equation as having and spending -- or not.

A more apropos examination for them both might be: Misery loves company.