Links About Ferguson and More

“Vince Warren on How Police Officers Get Away with Killing from Ferguson to NYC”

“Will Obama’s Police Reforms Bring Change? Admin Urged to Seize Political Momentum of Ferguson Moment”

“Why Darren Wilson Wasn’t Charged for Killing Michael Brown”

“How Many Police Shootings a Year? No One Knows”

“An ‘Entertaining’ Lesson on How Cops Can ‘Win the Media’ After They Kill”

“Police Violence and the Idea of Race”

Robert Frank Gets Veblen Wrong

A recent article in the New York Times by Robert H. Frank, “Conspicuous Consumption? Yes, but It’s Not Crazy” epitomizes the paucity of understanding of Thorstein Veblen‘s economic theories today.

Frank approaches the topic of “conspicuous consumption”, a term coined by Veblen, from the standpoint of neoclassical, marginalist economics.  At this point, Veblen would be rolling in his grave.  Frank talks about “Veblen goods” which he describes as “commodities whose sales actually increase when their prices rise.”  This is not a term or concept that Veblen advanced (indeed, Frank is actually describing a Giffen good, also called a Gray good).  Frank accurately states, “The term was inspired by the economist Thorstein Veblen, who interpreted much consumption by the rich as an attempt to signal their great wealth to others.”  (emphasis added). Yet where the article goes really wrong is in the very next paragraph, beginning, “Yet wealth-signaling is probably less important than Veblen thought.”  Its argument is logically flawed in jumping from a theory advanced by others to draw conclusions about Veblen’s own theories.  The basic thrust of Veblen’s life’s work was to critique the pro-finance (non-)ethics of neoclassical economics.  One of the most frequently quoted passages from Veblen’s writings (“Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?”) attacks the marginalist equilibrium theories of neoclassical economics:

“The hedonistic conception of man is that of a lightning calculator of pleasures and pains who oscillates like a homogeneous globule of desire of happiness under the impulse of stimuli that shift him about the area, but leave him intact. He has neither antecedent nor consequent. He is an isolated definitive human datum, in stable equilibrium except for the buffets of the impinging forces that displace him in one direction or another.”

Frank’s article basically tries to chisel away a sliver of a concept about “conspicuous consumption” (a form of “conspicuous waste” in Veblen’s terminology) and applies it in the service of marginal utility theory.  This is completely contrary to Veblen’s original theories.  So it is difficult not to scoff at Frank’s conclusion that Veblen may have been wrong, when Frank starts from a premise so unsympathetic and downright contrary to Veblen’s original theories.  Actually, this is not the first (and probably won’t be the last) time the New York Times has run an article like this that blatantly mischaracterize Veblen’s theories.

It is, however, heartening to see many online comments on these sorts of New York Times articles that attempt set the record straight–that is to say, to challenge the statements in these articles.  Also, the likes of Pierre Bourdieu (The Social Structures of the Economy, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste) basically try to (sympathetically) carry forward and expand upon Veblen’s theories in a modern setting, using contemporary statistical techniques to provide empirical support.

DEVO – Pioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology

Pioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology

DEVOPioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology Rhino R2 75967 (2000)


Well, Pioneers Who Got Scalped is a real mixed bag.  Disc one starts out great, but listening to disc two is a real chore.  In their early days, DEVO had sharp songwriting skills and a clever, absurdist sense of humor.  People call them a punk band, but I see them more as a disco band strongly influenced by punk rock–not that those genre distinctions really matter.  The band’s earliest recordings that open disc one satirize popular culture, often by way of clever new arrangements of well-known pop songs that frequently deploy mechanized, angular rhythms.  However, all that didn’t last.  By disc two, though it is apparent towards the end of disc one as well, the band just ran out of ideas.  Their recordings were still well-crafted but their songwriting became confined to unremarkably generic 1980s synth-pop, their sense of humor common.  I suppose it becomes difficult to skewer pop culture the more you become a part of mainstream pop culture.  And looking back it is hard to see DEVO as anything but a part of mainstream pop culture, from “Whip It” onward at least.

The Blind Boys of Alabama – Atom Bomb

Atom Bomb

The Blind Boys of AlabamaAtom Bomb Real World 6 19225 2 (2005)


A really fine album from a group that had existed more than 65 years (!) when this was released.  Breaking it down mathematically, you’ll be hard pressed to find many veteran groups that have made an album half this good after being around a mere one-sixth as long.  I watched the Boys perform on The Tonight Show promoting this album, and Jimmy Carter did a little showman’s trick and held a note for about a full minute (using circular breathing), wowing the crowd.

Blind Boys of Alabama – Take the High Road

Take the High Road

Blind Boys of AlabamaTake the High Road Saguaro Road 26393-D (2011)


So, The Blind Boys (of Alabama) have been offering a pretty steady number of new albums, despite members being quite advanced in age.  It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to note that these recent albums have made liberal use of marketing gimmicks.  An album of pop covers–check!  Christmas album with guest spots–check!  An album recorded in New Orleans with brass bands–check!  So, here they’re at it again, this time it’s all about guest spots.  Those kinds of albums are usually quite dull, and this one is too.

Pharrell Williams – G I R L

G I R L

Pharrell WilliamsG I R L Columbia 88843 05507 2 (2014)


Renowned music producer Pharrell Williams has been one of the most identifiable voices of American pop music in the preceding decade or so.  Recording as a solo artist, though, something is lacking most of the time.  The hit single “Happy” is here, and it is about 100 times better than anything else on G I R L.  It takes the positive energy of OutKast‘s “Hey Ya!” and applies a more laid-back vibe.  The thing is that happiness is for idiots.  The way Pharrell sings about it, the concept is nothing more than jouissance, that is, a death drive for excess enjoyment beyond simple plaisir (pleasure), which in the end leads to pain.  Or at least, so says psychoanalysis.  The rest of the songs have lame lyrics, and a tentative delivery that lacks music commitment from Pharrell.  The backing music is fine.  It isn’t innovative.  This guy has been doing this stuff for a decade.  But most feel like only sketches of songs not fully developed.  All together, it hardly gets beyond the hit single.  Pass on this, and stick just with “Happy.”

David Bowie – David Bowie [Space Oddity]

David Bowie

David BowieDavid Bowie Philips SBL 7912 (1969)


David Bowie’s career underwent something of a sea change between his debut and his sophomore album — curiously, both self-titled.  On the debut, he charted a path firmly in line with prim and proper British folk pop, albeit with an intelligent wit and alacrity.  For this, his second album, he switches sides and turns toward the counter-culture (just look at the changes in hairstyles on the album covers!), with a far more modern sound rooted in the folk-rock of Donovan and the like.  Yet this album is listenable only about once, with lots of stilted, half-formed songs and rather under-developed performances.  The hints of pure rock on “Unwashed and Somewhat Slightly Dazed” and elsewhere proved to be the way forward for Bowie.  He would go further in that direction with his next effort, The Man Who Sold the World.

David Bowie – David Bowie

David Bowie

David BowieDavid Bowie Deram SML 1007 (1967)


A period piece, for sure.  But with its naïve, playful, tame approach to poppy British (very British) folk, it has a certain amount of charm.  These days, most listeners are Bowie fanatics wanting to puzzle at how his sophisticated sensibility can just barely peek out from behind this seemly impenetrable shell of conformist pop music.