Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

About one of the more idiot ideas recently turned into a book. That “economic rationality” only applies to men because women do all that caring fer lurve.

8 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. The last paragraph is the killer; the mere fact that the book review exists is proof that the book itself is wrong.

  2. “A polemical and entertaining new book”

    We all know what ‘polemical’ means for the Left – a total pack of lies but in a good cause.

  3. Hmm?

    So no woman has ever married for money?

    or even for earth-shattering multiple orgasms like I provide for all my women friends (now that would be enlightened self-interest).

    As ever, the stupid ones understand self-interest but forget the enlightened bit and come down on the side of ‘cynical and selfish’

    How dare she even mention Adam Smith!

  4. Syriza’s cleaners show why economics needs a new broom

    Yes. Vote yourself to prosperity. It’s genius!

    But the party’s triumph – and the cleaning women’s plight – underlines the fact that economics is about not just the state of the public finances (improving, in Greece’s case) or GDP (on the up), but raw human experience in homes and families.

    You don’t say.

    But we could take a more profound lesson away too, which so far most economists have failed to learn from the Great Recession and its long-drawn-out aftermath: the individualistic, neoliberal perspective on the world that bleaches out humanity in favour of equations needs to be junked too.

    Yes. Forward, to the 1970’s!

    Margaret Thatcher’s promise in 1979, “where there is despair, let us bring hope”, may have prefigured Syriza’s language, but her arrival in No 10 marked the start of an era in which we have increasingly come to see ourselves as “aspirational”, atomised individuals, scrabbling to make our way in a world without the support of the society Thatcher notoriously dismissed.

    Britain was a happy, smiling place in the 70’s, with rainbows and rivers of chocolate and children playing, with gumdrop smiles.

    Then the Thatch came, and she brainwashed everybody into being evil and selfish. Boooooo! Booooooooooo!

    This approach was underpinned and apparently vindicated by the proliferation of economic models that conceived of people as cool, rational, drastically simplified robots who beetle around trying to maximise their utility. The market became seen as the ultimate expression of this calculating rationality, and its values – competition, self-interest, even greed – as the fundamental driving forces of life.

    Self interest, greed and competition are not fundamental human behaviours? What planet did she come from originally? One run by the Borg collective?

    Still others, such as David Tuckett at UCL, have done good work weaving the role of emotion and ambition into the coke-fuelled activities of City traders, whose decisions can have such catastrophic effects on the rest of us.

    From his bio: “David Tuckett trained in Economics, Medical Sociology and Psychoanalysis”. So two thirds of his expertise is in pseudoacademic cockwafflery. I’d sooner trust a coked-up City wideboy any day of the week.

    But a polemical and entertaining new book by journalist Katrine Marçal suggests that Economic Man has another major shortcoming: he’s not, and never could be, a woman.

    Transphobic bitch!

    But they simply took it for granted that someone would nip out to the shops to buy a loaf, slice it, toast it, butter it and pop it on a plate. And make the beds. And cook the kids’ tea. Care, which is still overwhelmingly carried out by women, was effectively a natural resource.

    Yes. “Never mind putting a roof over my head or buying me things!”, said no woman ever.

    That helps to explain why roles such as nurse, cleaner, carer are still undervalued today

    Prove it.

    And, really, how can labour ever be “undervalued”? Excuse my masculine rationalism, but if someone is willing to do the work in exchange for whatever the inducement on offer happens to be, they aren’t “undervalued” at all, are they?

    Unless we’re talking about slavery. Are we talking about slavery? Radfems think heterosexual marriage is a form of slavery, and they’re right.

    We generally expect men to spend the best years of their life knocking their pan in to support the wife and kids. And their reward is, they get to die sooner. Sounds pretty exploitative to me.

    Marçal argues that the rationalist worldview has had extraordinary sticking power because it appeals to a desire in us to detach ourselves from the messy world of love and duty, and make decisions in a clean, rational way.

    We’d much rather our finance ministers and central bankers made decisions while crying till their mascara makes them look like The Joker. Won’t somebody think of the children!!?!

    As Marçal puts it: “Economic science should be about how one turns a social vision into a modern economic system. It should be a tool to create opportunities for human and social development. Not just address our fears as they are expressed as demand in the market.”

    No. Fuck off and take your “social vision” with you.

    Hope, and a whole slew of other messy emotions – fear, greed, loyalty, even love – need to be brought back not just onto the streets of Athens, but right into the heart of economics.

    Fuck that rational nonsense, let’s make decisions based on the easily inflamed passions of the mob.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    Sorry, but the concept that there’s a male world which is economically rational and a female one that isn’t is simply poppycock. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in a world where one female journalist writes about a book by another one instead of them both being tied to the domestic treadmill in that game of producing grandchildren.

    I have not read the book or the book review. But what I have read about it does actually suggest that there is a male world that is rational and a female world that is not. Does anyone think either the book or the review offer a world view that is rational?

    Women reported themselves happier before the 1970s. Conservative women report better and more frequent sex. Yet conservative housewives are mocked by the Left as well as most women. That is not rational.

  6. We already have a sub-discipline of economics, which analyses irrational choices.
    It’s called Behavioural Economics.
    What to call this new economic analysis? I suggest Hysterical Economics, because no one without an uterus could possibly understand it.

  7. Tim, read your ASI article, good as ever, but I must take issue with this

    “the inventions of the reasonable cooker, the microwave, the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine, the steam iron and so on quite killed off the servant class just as one example”

    … no, nothing whatsoever to do with decline in domestic servitude.

    There are always things you can get the maid to do.

    We have a housemaid, comes Saturday, (Romanian ATM, varies) does the ironing, though not the washing, and boy do we (wife) use that washing machine. The amount that we (wife) wash has simply expanded to meet the extra washing capacity that technology and cheap Romanian labour has given us.

    Something about “… to satisfy their unlimited wants ….” blah…

    Might be interesting to cogitate upon why there’s less servants nowadays, but it ain’t cos of the technology doing what the servants used to do.

  8. johnny bonk – Might be interesting to cogitate upon why there’s less servants nowadays

    I’m guessing labour costs and tax.

    Which is why you have a Romanian maid, and not an English one.

    There are always things you can get the maid to do.

    Yes, Johnny. But the wife’ll brain you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *