get in here zyphex

just f giggles i'm wondering what you think of gary becker?

On a  list of economists whose work I will read in a few years hopefully. (I don't have as much time to read for pleasure as I used to--consumed with school). 

 
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=25302007312312100911608111003...

"Gary Becker on Ewold on Foucault on Gary Becker" (a gary becker interview)

not at all a long read ( i read it over these two days)-- and i feel something like this could help open the door 

I'm here what's good bebe

pretty sure I have a sweet BXR embarrassment clip on "Kys 4 me"

that you bae?

what
I win 
bump
thx 4 the bump : ~ )
bumpin for bae <3
Haven't read anything or watched anything, but came across these. I don't know if I'll ever get around to this, but thought I'd drop them here in case you or anyone else is interested. :
 


Transcript: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&cont... (Same as what PM posted)
 
 



Transcript:  http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&cont...

Becker's paper:  http://www.nber.org/chapters/c3625.pdf

 

Really, really good read.

Well obviously this is because of a negative shock to the taste parameter on leisure in the representative consumer's utility function!

that came w all the cleverness i've come to expect from u

 

But will there be many people honest enough to admit that it is a pleasure to inflict pain? That not infrequently one amuses himself (and well) by offending other men (at least in his thoughts) and by shooting pellets of petty malice at them? Most people are too dishonest, and a few men are too good, to know anything about this source of shame. So they may try to deny that Prosper Merimée is right when he says,Sachez aussi qu'il n'y a rien de plus commun que de faire le mal pour le plaisir de le faire. [Know that nothing is more common than to do harm for the pleasure of doing it] 

I admit such a thing. 

As for my above post, I was trying to humorously show where the modern economist often stops inquiry:
"Something has happened to how people value leisure? Well then a shock must have happened which changed it. Where did the shock come from? We don't care; we'll assume it's an AR(1) stochastic process and see what happens to the economy."


 
Depends on the purpose of the study. I actually think this is a fine stopping point for the economist qua economist, as long as the shock on leisure is not more suitably modeled as a function of other variables already in the model. If you want to see what happens to the economy when people value leisure less than before, irrespective of the reason for this change in valuation of leisure,  then this is the proper way to do things.

If you are interested in why the value of leisure might change, this obviously tells you nothing. Hence the need for other social sciences to investigate these sorts of questions. 

I admit such a thing.

which is why i've devoted a whole thread or 2 on this very forum to exploring the historical and material basis of these sorts of desires (sadomasochism, "schadenfreude"; recognizing in these certain neurotic and psychotic character-formations, certain predictable striations (literally economic controls) over an organism's biological (and sexual, productive) energies-- the pressing-down of a certain gridwork, a repression of energies and projects, carried out by the very subject of the imposition against himself.)   

unfortunately it appears as though the whole second page of my reich thread is inaccessible. is that the case for you as well, or only me?  

in any case, what concerns me is that you seem to be fine with accepting such a thing (as the vast majority of people, if not all people, are basically sadistic in nature or that sadistic fantasies are common to the experience of life) is just true in point of fact. i'm trying to step into the ring here to play this confidence game with you, only i'm asking why and what for over and over again on any number of levels-- why is this in point of fact true? (assuming it is). what assumptions made it so or what historical conditions persist to make it so? why do some subjects treat this as trivially true? and but also what happens when it is taken for truth (simply) by, say, economists, or policy-makers? and so on)

 


Depends on the purpose of the study. I actually think this is a fine stopping point for the economist qua economist, as long as the shock on leisure is not more suitably modeled as a function of other variables already in the model.

productive flows of the cosmos literally being straddled by the constant overlaying of policies and projects and plans (history) of crowds and lumpen masses of mutant pink primates from eurasia bent on their belief in the value of their economy itself, and simply that => the production of the whole world as appearance, as simulated value-- the disintegration of actual connections and inter penetrations of cosmic energies hidden and blanketed from our crazed, alienated worldview, the unforeseen and unacknowledgeable, spectacularly short- and/or invisibly long-term destruction of environments and species that has defined our gold-rush for buried solar energy

If you want to see what happens to the economy when people value leisure less than before, irrespective of the reason for this change in valuation of leisure,  then this is the proper way to do things.

nietzsche isn't just describing a shift in values-- that is, what is interesting to the economist who already has a model to plug this data into-- a pink primate with his little machine-- he is describing a sort of species-wide resignation to the dominant worldview which pitches all apparent idleness as unsavory, a worldview which demands so much (billions of trivial and meaningless things) of the subject that it leaves him or her with literally no time or energy for meaningful productive activity. see in this connection the study davo linked on the old board regarding poverty and cognitive impoverishment, the thread i made on the old board regarding modern shitheadedness (as a specific historical phenomenon marked by adhd diagnoses among other things) and my thread here dedicated to connecting up reich w the situationists... 

this is from the op of that thread: 

In the nineteenth century, with the complete opposition between individual life and species life (everyday life versus automatic commodity circulation), all hopes were allowed (those of Hegel, those of Marx[, you name it.]). At that stage things were clear: everyday life was nothing, circulation was everything.The nothingness of everyday life was a visible moment of the all-encompassing circulation. Fetishism scarcely deceived anyone but the ruling class and its toadies. Several times the proletariat launched an assault on the totality, and the publicity of misery came very close to triumphing over the misery of publicity.

Today things have changed considerably. The modernization of the struggles of the oppressed, and above all their incompletion, have brought about the rapid modernization of fetishism by the ruling class and its state since 1930. The rise of scientific fetishism was striking: Bolshevism, National Socialism and the New Deal appeared almost simultaneously. This modernization consisted essentially of depriving everyday life of what was left to it: its negativity, i.e. the publicity of its misery, the publicity of its nullity. The secret of the misery of everyday life is the real state secret. It is the keystone completing the edifice of separation, which is also the edifice of the state.

The spectacle — the scientific development of fetishism — is simply the private property of the means of publicity, the state monopoly of appearances. With it, only the circulation of commodities remains public. The spectacle is nothing but commodity circulation absorbing all available means of publicity, thus condemning misery to invisibility.

circulation was everything-- harried, trivially (albeit massively) productive, meaningless. the dawn of consumer society, the creation of "leisure", that historically specific notion of "not working but consuming so as to keep working, to prepare better for work (unpaid) and to do the work more efficiently, and more virtuously" or at best "to give myself an immodest break from working before working again"

everyday life was nothing because it was harried, trivially productive and meaningless to the people going through the motions (people afflicted with self-imposed stasis neuroses, as these are only actual striations over their energies and projects). 

harried, meaningless circulation is everything in a world of appearances; so the spectator, as producer of this world of mere speculation, puts his energies into contributing to an absurd, meaningless accumulation that we still today in 2015 want to call our culture. he keeps a meager allowance for himself and in his "leisure time" he idles without the means or education for attaining some level of actual enjoyment, of orgastic release from the nooses and binds he's made up for himself, with institutional education; because he himself circulates only in the economic sphere, both at work and in leisurely pursuit, he arrives at and habitually reproduces with and within his own systems a neurotic state, an actual stasis or "non-circulation"-- a binding, a reactionary formation-- of what is really valuable for life qua life, the productive energies coursing through him. 

If you are interested in why the value of leisure might change, this obviously tells you nothing. Hence the need for other social sciences to investigate these sorts of questions. 

 

so what good is the economist in your estimate?

fascism is "a problem of pure matter, a phenomenon of physical, biological, psychic, social, or cosmic matter."