Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll


April 24th, 2013 - 1:13 pm

“There’s an economic concept known as a positional good in which an object is only valued by the possessor because it’s not possessed by others.”

– Dr. Sheldon Cooper, a character in the CBS comedy series, The Big Bang, as quoted by Steve Hayward of Power Line, who adds:

At this point I perked up my ears, because . . . no, it couldn’t be, could it? Does someone on the BBT writing staff actually know the obscure book where this term originated?  The answer, after a dramatic pause, turned out to be Yes.  Sheldon explained:

The term was coined in 1976 by economist Fred Hirsch to replace the more colloquial, but less precise “neener-neener”.

No way!  Wow.  Who says TV is a vast wasteland, anyway?  Aside from the great Fred Siegel, myself, and a small handful of other very nerdy fans, Hirsch’s Social Limits to Growth is a forgotten classic because it was way ahead of its time, but it explains a lot about why affluent people particularly on the two coasts today are not just indifferent to economic growth, but positively opposed to it in many cases.  (This book is so out of print that for some reason the Kindle version is quoted at $57.  Though this could be an inside joke that only Hirsch fans will get.  Talk about the ultimate positional good in bibliophilia.)

Sheldon’s summary that the argument is a better version of “neener-neener” is amazingly accurate; another way of summarizing Hirsch’s thesis is that our problem today is not that people want to “keep up with the Joneses,” but want to “keep ahead of the Joneses.”  And the best way to do that is to keep the other Joneses down.  Upper middle class people, Hirsch predicted, would come to see further economic growth as a threat to their well being, rather than something from which they and everyone else would benefit.  This is one reason why contemporary liberalism, which as recently as John F. Kennedy prized growth, is today indifferent to the idea, when it is not actively opposed in practice.  Cue Keystone, or just about everything California does.

And the Third World; All of which dovetails perfectly into the observation I made at the end of the previous post, on Ben Affleck posing at living on $1.50 for a day for the proverbial purpose of “raising awareness.” As I said, that’s not meant to imply however, that anyone involved actually wants to see those conditions improved.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (2)
All Comments   (2)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Yes. And that is why wealthy leftists also are happy to see higher taxes, because it hurts others much more than it does them. It keeps the Joneses down. Anti-growth AND higher taxes--what's not to love!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Being wealthy but opposed to growth is perfectly rational for 'haves.' Haves, or owners, have wealth because they own things like stock of existing companies, real estate, bonds etc. When you already own things, more innovation means more risk to the assets that currently support you just fine.

More and more the leadership of our country is 'haves' who want to conserve what they've got at the expense of those who would innovate or work to build new business. Much of our modern economic politics can be understood as a competition between corporate owners (Dems) and corporate managers (GOP).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All