Freakanomics phenomena....

[RadioRaheem84]

Missed the latest trend again. Now there is a new doc coming out exploring the hidden side of things from a bourgeoisie economist perspective.

IDK about you guys, but I get a bit tired of all the pop pseudo-science that comes out and makes a splash among trendy liberals. I thought the Blink phenomena was absurd, now we have this re-surfacing.

Just what is it and is it legit?

[Kotze]

The book the movie is based on is half a decade old. It's filled with anecdotes about ordinary life that the authors claim show how everyday phenomena can be explained by mainstream economic models. It had many copycats, one of the dumbest is actually its official successor, Super Freakonomics, which contains hilariously bullshitty stuff about global warming and is very "creative" with its facts in general (see this article by Ezra Klein (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html)).

[GPDP]

Indeed, the whole thing reeks of pop economics crap that's meant to appeal more toward people casually browsing the books section at airports or supermarkets than to those looking for something genuinely well-researched and stimulating.

[IllicitPopsicle]

You know what would've been a better use for the film wasted by this "documentary?" A documentary on Blackwater, as explained in Jeremy Scahill's book. But nooooo. Like "Capitalism: A Love Story," this freakonomics thing will sell exponentially better than any example of actual reportage. (If you've read the Scahill book, it's put together like a criminal investigation. Incredibly detailed. Very dry.) It's kind of sad that this is where the media is going. Doesn't exactly make me proud to say I'm going to college to be a journalist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Naked Economist and the Undercover Economist are two other duds that are popular with the liberal trendy crowd.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Naked Economist and the Undercover Economist are two other duds that are popular with the liberal trendy crowd.

I know. My macro teach tried to shove Naked Economist down our throats last year. The whole fucking book is like one big "neener neener" to the "anti-globalization" crowd, and has barely any real economics. I tried reading it and decided I was better off with Das Kapital (despite the massive disparity in size between the two books) if I wanted to understand economics.

[RadioRaheem84]

Reading Marx helped me understand economics a lot better. Before I could barely understand the dismal science and that was mostly because it made no rational sense to me.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Reading Marx helped me understand economics a lot better. Before I could barely understand the dismal science and that was mostly because it made no rational sense to me.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE RATIONAL SENSE

Seriously, the Laffer curve (the whole fuckin' basis of Reaganomics) was written on a fucking napkin at a bar.

It makes me want to rage. SO. HARD.

[bailey_187]

Naked Economist and the Undercover Economist are two other duds that are popular with the liberal trendy crowd.

Although i disagree with them now, these books originally got me interested in economics. And i am sure they have for many others too, which is good. Someone who knows abit about these economic theories is more likley to grasp and maybe embrace ours probably.

The problem is most Marxist/Communist economic books are very academic and boring or the simple ones that attempt to populrise (e.g. Joseph Choonara's) are abit shit IMO.

[RadioRaheem84]

Parenti breaks it down pretty well. As do the MR crowd, but I think at the point I began reading MR, I was already hooked on the bookish.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As much as I disagree with the Fundamental Marxian Theorem for being too cursory (Kliman, Cockshott, et al), a "pop economics" Marxist work centered around this theorem would work.

[bailey_187]

Parenti breaks it down pretty well. As do the MR crowd, but I think at the point I began reading MR, I was already hooked on the bookish.

Thats true, Parenti is very readable, however Parenti doesnt apeal to those interested in economics who may pick up The Undercover Economist

The ABCs Of The Economic Crisis by some of the MR crowd was quite good and readable (i saw this in Forbes bookshop in Charing Cross the other week too which is good). However usually MR books on economics etc are collections of articles which is quite annoying and they get repetitive as the same thing is often repeated in a few articles.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, the MR school is incredibly repetitive. They just rehash the same Sweexy/Baran Monopoly Capital over and over again.

[bailey_187]

Yeah, its not even worth reading some of the articles by Foster etc

I was glad to see that review of John Cassidy's book in there for this month

[Barry Lyndon]

The author of this idiotic book that started it all, Steve Levitt, spoke to my high school at the beginning of my senior year. During the Q&A, I stood up and questioned him about some of the statistics that he used to back up one of his arguments(I think it was about abortions reducing crime). I pointed to a chart that he used of homicide statistics in various European countries, going back to the 13th century. I asked him how he could have reliable figures given that some of those countries(like Germany and Italy) didn't exist until the 19th century!!! He fumbled and went on some rambling anecdote and didn't answer my question. Not trying to brag, but the fact that I was in fucking high school and could demolish his methodology shows what a joke this whole 'Freakanomics' phenomena is.......

Just goes to show how in capitalist society, those who rise to the top in academia do not rise there due to the merits or integrity of their scholarship, but their ability to be dutiful priests of liberal orthodoxy, like Chomsky describes.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just goes to show how in capitalist society, those who rise to the top in academia do not rise there due to the merits or integrity of their scholarship, but their ability to be dutiful priests of liberal orthodoxy, like Chomsky describes. This is key and why we should be able to really change things in this era.

The bar has been really lowered in academia and a lot of academics are looking to jump into the pop science crap to cash in.

Ever since I started really diving into Marx, Parenti, Monthly Review, David Harvey, etc. I have noticed that just having this political/philosophical foundation of Marxism put me light years ahead of anyone in the social sciences that advocates a liberal p.o.v. at my college. Classes seem a lot of easier because professors are still stuck teaching the same crap Marx was battling against and Gramsci literally demolished and Parenti totally annihilates.

We should really use this to our advantage to really get ahead so as to help the working class understand their material conditions.

[Red Commissar]

There's not much encouragement of people who give different interpretation of economic forces beyond the liberal norms. Ordinary people by and large have the whole "It's the economy, stupid" view point, and see the economy as some omnipotent force that no one can understand.

So some guy will give a different spin on this and make people think they are actually learning something new, when it is usually just recycled info or just bringing less obvious parts of economics to the foreground.