Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The End of SLoth

Since the 1800's, "Harpers" magazine has existed. It is, to be sure, a well-known publication. It was not always called "Harpers," but was always published under a variant of that name. "Harpers" has always been trendy and frothy, featuring readings, articles, paraphenalia, cunnilingus and columns and drawings too; and now, in an effort to bolster their flagging popularitythey are telling us not to eat. Yes, this iconic and possibly popular publication is, in its latest issue, encouraging us to stop eating. We are to desist from eating, to stop eating, this exhortation coming irrespective of the loss to the pork industry (which just finished its completely mindless annual bacon celebration in Iowa:  http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/02/20/iowa-bacon-festival-sells-out-pork-lovers) [loss to the pork industry...] not to mention the sugar and flour concerns.
     Yea. I myself have 'caught the bug' and I can report that not eating is the bee's knees. I did not drink anything this morning but black coffee, and otherwise all I have had was a kid's grilled cheese (I was not ashamed to order this, from a persnickety gay waiter; hold the bacon, ha ha ha; I'm a card). This was at the Historical Society, where I work (for free----what a deal these people are getting).
     I read the article, or most of it at my old school and alma mater, Roosevelt U., standing next to the magazine rack and without paying/spending/buying anything at all, which of course somehow segues into not eating anything. At all. 
     Nothing. But is that actually good for this thing we know as the economy? Ah, there's a weighty question for ya. Normally, you see, powerful "economic" interests ("economic," a.k.a. "people who want to make money"?) entice us, goad us, and actually, yes, Virginia, encourage us to EAT. I am giving my impression of what the eloquently expressive neon advertising signs that adorn so many of America's grills and greasy spoons (actually those two may be the same thing. Aren't I silly) used to say. Back in the day before economics was "rationalized." 
     The "other" side of the story ("page two," for Paul Harvey fans; eulogy webpage here: http://www.paulharvey.com/) is that sure, you get a little dizzy, but there are supposedly people who can do quite good living off their bodyfat for, dare we suggest, one or two months? OMG. This is what I read, but is that even possible? I only did it for half a day.
     Obviously, the hog butchers are not going to be happy. As they live off of our gluttony. But the question a real economics scholar would have here: what's "economic" about that? (Gluttony and economics being, like, opposites?)

Economic never-never land. Where "profits" (all economics words are really euphemisms) count for more than place and we are suspended in economic never-never land. So, now we ask the question that all this has led up to: is that good?
    Good or not good, this seems to be where the "Economic Society" leads. We are "homo economicus." Once again I say that I favor regulation, and that the far-right/far-out (yet often heard) idea of "do not regulate" is all wrong.

No comments:

Post a Comment