Andrew Simms, “new” economist and wellbeing scientist on the results of the Happy Planet index.
This article is amazing* – I haven’t seen stupidity in such concentrated form since Monbiot.
* Link thanks to Tim, commenting at Fresh Bilge. He asks “what the hell is wellbeing science?”
July 17, 2007 at 11:16 am
He’s Tim, but not Murphy.
I think.
Welcome back, M
July 17, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Aside from the crunchiness of the language used, I’m not sure what it is exactly that you’re objecting to here, Mary.
July 17, 2007 at 10:31 pm
He’s Tim, but not Murphy.
Ooops! Thanks Tat
July 18, 2007 at 6:58 am
Tim’s question doesn’t require an answer — the answer is in the asking. Either one gawks at the sheer fatuity of the phrase, or one nods knowingly at the unspeakable inferiority of people who lack expertise in wellbeing.
July 18, 2007 at 9:21 am
So it’s the crunchy phrasing that you’re objecting to?
July 18, 2007 at 10:04 am
so it’s the crunchy phrasing that you’re objecting to?
I wouldn’t call it crunchy. I’m sitting here eating a granola bar, I drive a Prius, so I don’t object to crunchiness. This article isn’t crunchy, it’s not science, it’s just recycled Marxism. New and improved with 30% less fat and 100% content-free – prattling about ‘economic equality’ and asking ‘what is this economy for..?’ If I was a marxist or a scientist, I’d be doubly appalled.
July 18, 2007 at 11:36 am
…it’s just recycled Marxism.
Aside from the language, which is as goofy as all get out, it’s doing exactly what all economists do, left and right wing — measuring costs vs. utility. How is that Marxist?
July 18, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Actually Bush said it.
July 18, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Bush’s answer was that they hate us for our freedoms, which incensed liberals and spurred them to provide alternate answers. Neither the right or the left noted that the question was insanely stupid to begin with.
July 18, 2007 at 11:11 pm
It’s doing exactly what all economists do, left and right wing — measuring costs vs. utility
But only a certain type of ‘economist’ prattles on and on about income equality.
July 19, 2007 at 1:55 am
Neither the right or the left noted that the question was insanely stupid to begin with.
I believe that everyone I heard an opinion from thought it a stupid question.
But only a certain type of ‘economist’ prattles on and on about income equality.
As massive income inequality causes economic stagnation and, frequently, political unrest, almost all economists are interested in the subject, not just Marxists. And from what I can see of the info available about the Happy Planet Index, they aren’t even close to Marxists, recycled or not.
You might want to read a book or two about Marxism if you’re going to keep accusing people you don’t like of being followers of the ideology.
July 19, 2007 at 2:40 pm
In any case, Marxism has been around for a while, and it has, like capitalism, become an ingredient in many philosophies. Nowadays it’s sold to us in recycled, diluted form. The socialists and lefty academics of the world are stuck with a huge backlog of a product that no one really wants to buy. They have to get rid of it somehow.
Do you honestly believe that a political and economic ideology formed in response to the economic chaos of the industrial revolution, partly based on German and French philosophy of the time, and largely based on the complexities of the barley-understood mechanisms of nineteenth-century capitalism is as simple as a remaindered grocery product?
July 19, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“barley-understood” -> “barely-understood” above.
July 19, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Namely – when are we meeting for lunch and where? I’m already hungry.
Wow, that is exciting, and so on topic. Thank you for letting all who read the comment section know the state of your abdomen, it would have been a shame if this information had been relegated to the more private and traditional methods like email or the telephone system.
July 20, 2007 at 12:58 am
Do you honestly believe that a political and economic ideology formed in response to the economic chaos of the industrial revolution, partly based on German and French philosophy of the time, and largely based on the complexities of the barley-understood mechanisms of nineteenth-century capitalism is as simple as a remaindered grocery product?
I’m not comparing Marxism itself to a remaindered grocery product.
I’m comparing the Left’s attempts to profit from their useless knowledge about a failed theory to a remaindered grocery product.