The Emotional Economy: A Theory of Social Health and Dynamics

You give, you get. It's as simple as that.
Social interaction is a lot like our world economy; like an investor, you must take the risk of giving, in order to gain the benefits of getting. The difference is that the trade isn't with money... it is with happiness.

It would seem that the biggest and riskiest investment in the world of social affairs would be romantic encounters; and a successful romance really does take two, otherwise the whole emotional economy collapses in on itself, and a depression of some sort usually ensues, whether the relationship has officially come to an end or not.
For the emotional economy in a romantic relationship to be totally successful, the individual must look out for their own general satisfaction (as in, being treated fairly, not abused, etc.), while working (within the relationship) solely for the happiness of their partner. Now, like capitalism, this system can get truly fucked up by the mistakes of one or both of the 'investors,' and as such, this system tends to get a bad wrap from unhappy people who have been dumped, and have fallen in to some sort of depression as a result of the economy's collapse. For the economy to be truly successful, both lovers must become roughly 85% selfless regarding the relationship, and it must work vice versa as well; both partners should be looking out for their general satisfaction, not a selfish satisfaction... and should be working solely towards the happiness of their partner, trusting their partner to do the same thing, creating, in a sense, an ideal socialist system in which both participants are happy as a result of the efforts of their partner.

I say 85% selfless because, even when in an incredibly close and happy relationship, each partner is still an individual with individual needs and wants, and being selfless also means taking what you want, while being gladly more than willing to give something of greater or equal value in return. It's a cycle of endless rewards that comes with compromise regarding each partners individuality's; a self-reinforcing happiness.
That means, if there's a solo trip to India your partner has been wanting to take all their lives, you support them whole-heartedly in their venture, and do not try to wiggle your way into their individual plans unless they are entirely alright with that. In return, your partner is more than willing to return the favor if you ever decide you'd like to go off on some solo-trip around the world to discover both yourself and the people and places of this planet. Not only is your partner more than willing, they will be excited to hear from you, and ecstatic to hear of your exploits and adventures, despite the fact that it was minus them.

Complete and utter independence from people, places, and things can only result in unhappiness. This does not mean that we should seek to be hopelessly dependent on our partners, friends, or even our family's, but it does mean that the compromise which occurs in between both extremes, known as interdependence, is what leads to truly sustainable happiness without losing our individuality's or general independence. So to find truly compromised and sustainable happiness, one mustn't give-in to being an unconditional part of a collective, nor should they seek to become completely independent of the collective; they should surrender to the idea that they are an individual within a collective, and in working with and for the collective, the collective will inevitably work with and for them. The signs that a system is flawed, whether it's a political ideology or an economic doctrine, is when one side is giving more than the other, and getting less in return. You know your system is flawed if revolutionaries romp around your streets demanding change, and even more-so if they begin to pick-up weapons and shoot at you. It is as such that the emotional economy that exists between two individuals can, does, and must work on the macro-cosmic (as in, societies in relation to other societies, and the individuals and groups within them) scale as well as the microcosmic (individuals in relation to other individuals, as well as groups).

This does not mean that there will not be rough spots regarding the health of said emotional economies, but it does mean that it is more than possible to sustain them and bring them back up to par with where they were to begin with, whether it's through occasional change, or occasional practices in disciplining ones-self towards keeping the economy flowing on your end (especially in romantic relationships, in which one shouldn't be afraid to remind their partner to do the same thing).

Truly sustainable happiness comes from both giving and giving and giving, as well as compromise. An attempt at selfishness may work in the short-term, but in the long-run, it dooms your economy to eventual collapse. Complete and utter selflessness may lead to a general happiness, but at the cost of your individuality and feeling of personal freedom; hence why compromise is the absolute key to personal satisfaction in sustainable happiness.