The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
It is a fascinating approach. It's where you take something and turn it upside down and look at it...
There must be this approach employed somewhere in this example. They surely talk about other leisure class theory than Veblen.
The Theory of the Leisure Class An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich? [...] In 1965, leisure was pretty much equally distributed across classes. People of the same age, sex, and family size tended to have about the same amount of leisure, regardless of their socioeconomic status. But since then, two things have happened. First, leisure (like income) has increased dramatically across the board. Second, though everyone's a winner, the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?
[...]
In 1965, leisure was pretty much equally distributed across classes. People of the same age, sex, and family size tended to have about the same amount of leisure, regardless of their socioeconomic status. But since then, two things have happened. First, leisure (like income) has increased dramatically across the board. Second, though everyone's a winner, the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
For a further explanation: http://www.elegant-technology.com/TVAcnlei.html "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
[A] certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing -- usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years -- say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what -- if anything -- is the fundamental difference.
I have to imagine that they consider working, or rather, making money, as the essential requirement for living on this Earth. If you do not devote more time for making money, you have less rights to breath, or something.
But taken literally, can people get a high status "by putting their uselessness on display"? What is usefullness/uselessness? A lawer defending a serial killer may be worse than useless to the public, but he is extremely useful to one person (or a few). In a sense, Leisure Class members are pretty useful to each other, exchanging financial, legal, recrational and other services intensively. They do screw a pool of others to do that, but you could almost envy their level of "communal partnership".
http://www.trivia-library.com/c/excesses-of-the-rich-and-wealthy-bradley-martin-hall.htm
Before sailing to England, they launched a defense in the society pages:
The soiree was actually about putting money in circulation and helping the poor, said they.
I prefer to see them as misunderstood capitalist visionaries. "When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 21 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 321 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 196 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29