“Homo economicus” should be a prostitute!

Economics is not a “science,” it’s “man-as-push-button” writ large under the cloak of science. In its models, a rational person is a person who seeks to make money with disregard to how his actions affect his own principles or society as a whole. The great blog The Sexist gives a beat-down to two economists, writers of the famous pop economics (as if economics itself wasn’t bad enough) book Freakonomics, who claimed that more women should be prostitutes because that’s what makes money.

so these economists are stumped—stumped, i tell you!—as to why more women don’t spend their entire lives pleasing men and receiving no pleasure in return. they can’t understand why this is, because outside of prostitution, women are lining up in droves to have sex! but instead of working through their obvious miscalculations here, they decide to tell imply that women are probably just kind of dumb. the kicker is when, at the end of the piece, this is how the researchers leave Allie, the “high-class” prostitute who ended up becoming an economist: “Several students said this was the best lecture they had in all their years at the university, which is both a firm testament to Allie’s insights and a brutal indictment of Levitt and the other professors.” As if it’s some kind of joke! when, in reality, these guys actually don’t understand wtf they’re talking about, and they’re actually seemingly amused that a prostitute could not be a dumbass.

the only appropriate response to the ridiculous question posed in the article would be, “I don’t know, why don’t you suck cock for a living?” Why don’t you suck cock, out of your fancy house, instead of being a famous economist? I’m sure that will be the pertinent question in “SuperDuperFreakonomics: The Freakiestonomics Yet”

11 thoughts on ““Homo economicus” should be a prostitute!

  1. James February 3, 2010 at 18:13

    Agreed. Out of interest what’s your opinion on austrian economics? Not neccessarily the conclusions just the general approach.

  2. Th3_ACist February 3, 2010 at 18:22

    “Economics is not a “science,” it’s “man-as-push-button” writ large under the cloak of science. In its models, a rational person is a person who seeks to make money with disregard to how his actions affect his own principles or society as a whole.”

    But then the article says

    “so these economists are stumped—stumped, i tell you!—as to why more women don’t spend their entire lives pleasing men and receiving no pleasure in return. they can’t understand why this is, because outside of prostitution, women are lining up in droves to have sex!”

    They don’t become prostitutes and the authors don’t suck dick, because it isn’t in line with their principles or “values”. Which kind of makes your definition of economics invalid…no? I don’t like the book or anything, never read it actually.

  3. Francois Tremblay February 3, 2010 at 18:22

    Oh, it’s always the old debate between “pure theory” and “pure observation.” I don’t disagree with the praxeological approach. I think it’s a fine method, as long as one doesn’t smuggle implicit premises… and it seems very easy to do so. From there, it’s only one step to all the nonsense of economics.

    The problem with a “pure theory” approach is that you may not realize what implicit premises you have smuggled… when observation could tell you that pretty easily.

  4. Francois Tremblay February 3, 2010 at 18:24

    “They don’t become prostitutes and the authors don’t suck dick, because it isn’t in line with their principles or “values”. Which kind of makes your definition of economics invalid…no?”

    … no? I think you confused both sides. It is the economists who think they should become prostitutes (push-button man), and the women who take their own values into account.

  5. rab February 3, 2010 at 18:55

    The Pseudo Science of economics is used by bankers to hide their theft and to justify Usury. Is there anything worse and more parasitical than renting out money (fiat currency) through State granted license?

    The fact that central banks are run by such economists proves that its all a bunch of lies. Martin Hiedigger through his approach showed that people cannot be studied, each individual is different and their decisions cannot be captured by quantative data nor can qualitative data help. All these central planners lack information at all levels, just pathetically trying to impose their will on everyone else and distorting things.

  6. David Gendron February 4, 2010 at 15:04

    I don’t think those critics should take “Freakonomics” as serious as an economic scientific paper. Freakonomics is somewhat an satiric book.

    But in essence, they’re right.

  7. Francois Tremblay February 4, 2010 at 15:35

    A satiric book? What do you mean? Freakonomics is meant to be serious. They think they’re brillant.
    (and in a few areas, they are… but they are still just economists)

  8. WorBlux February 5, 2010 at 21:04

    Indeed, why to people take the weekend off, while they could make more money by doing so?

    A: Because money is not value or even wealth.

    I agree that homo economicus is nothing but a pure myth.

  9. […] of bizarre intellectual contortions to justify inflicting a risk of harm on other people, such as prostitution, death squads and the horrible deaths of coal […]

  10. […] which men think any woman could become a prostitute, and even that they should become prostitutes, in this entry. This entry by Violet Socks goes into another […]

  11. […] which men think any woman could become a prostitute, and even that they should become prostitutes, in this entry. This entry by Violet Socks goes into another […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: