Talk:The Theory of the Leisure Class
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. My schedule compels me to stop now; I will finish it tomorrow morning. --L. 22:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Finally done - my browser crashes if I stay in Wikipedia edit box too long. Anyone who read his Theory of Business Enterprise probably has more to say here. Add away. --L. 21:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this article could refer to how "conspicuous consumption" refutes or avoids the central tenet of neoclassical economics: maximization. Utility maximization in the form of playing hockey rather than spending ass time making valued handicrafts is perfectly reasonable. The discussion seems to be attempted with an ignorance of what neoclassical economics is, therefore creating an empty dialectic as opposed to an informative rendition of the topic.
Anonymous boy - this ain't an article on a "topic" - it's an article on a "book." Go play with the neoclassical article or STFU and let us full-article contributors get on with our work. --L. 19:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The concept of conspicuous consumption has been carried forward to this day, and is often used to criticize advertising and to explain why poorer classes have been unable to advance economically. His views on the uselessness mother fucking cock whore ually discarded, have been adopted in modified form by none other than Warren Buffett. However, it is generally not believed that technocrats will eventually rule society."
Sorry, but where did this bit about technocrats not ruling society come from?
[edit] This page seems to contradict itself
The third line from the very top of the article begins:
"Veblen claimed he wrote the book as a perceptive personal essay criticizing contemporary culture, rather than as an economics textbook. Critics claim this was an excuse for his failure to cite sources. Nonetheless, Theory of the Leisure Class is considered one of the great works of economics as well as the first detailed critique of consumerism."
The above doesn't actually clarify whether Leisure Class is an economics textbook or a subjective essay, as the use of the phrase "is considered" in this case doesn't describe the author's intentions as much as the work's reception by the public.
The eighth line from the top of the section entitled "Use of satire, sarcasm, and humor" begins:
"Ironically, Veblen did not intend for Leisure to be a satire, but a serious economic analysis of contemporary America."
This, of course, directly contradicts the first quote. Now, the two are technically not mutually exclusive, i.e. it is possible that Veblen lied when he "claimed" that it was a personal essay when in fact it is an econ texbook, but it should be made clearer in the first section whether the "claim" was true or false. I do not know the answer, so I cannot make the correction myself, but I felt I should point out the issue nonetheless.
[edit] Trophy housewife and housecleaning
Those are two different issues. Chauvinists are not necessarily tidy, and two or more people sharing an equal amount of chores are not necessarily living in a mess.
It seems that someone adding comments between brackets confused things together. Even if it were true that Veblen was messy, that should not have any relevance to what he said about trophy housewives.
Would anyone object if the article was made more coherent by removing these comments?
