>The paper is a marvel in
>that it exemplifies everything that makes neoclassical economics so
>demented.
not only demented but sexist and so UScentric it's downright IGNORANT. the real problem with this paper is that this guy is a twit. i just read more carefully, wide awake this time. this model, based on some imaginary state in which humans reproduce parthenogenetically [i understand now, missed a couple paras the first time], is repulsive to the core. if this is what rational choice theories of the family continues to be after two decades then i'm thoroughly apalled.
and it's not just because the author bases his models on much critiqued assumption/research about the relationship between genetic heritage and human capital as measured, apparently, by their friggin income. no, it's even more deeply repugnant than that.
guess what? this guy just managed to rearticulate at a global level the assumption that the privatized nuclear family is the primary instutituion through which human capital is transmitted.
well excuse me, but he doesn't even have to buy a klew about comparative anthropology of the family, because i'll sell him a klew about the sociology of US families and human capital transmissions (and maybe engines when i get time) it appears that this guy wouldn't know how to pour water out a shoe if the directions were on the heel. so i'm charging him because i can probably get away with it, as the author's efficient use of human capital is sorely lacking. does this guy live in some bubble somewhere? might it behoove him to take a good long look at his own upbringing and, if he has one, his own family and children? who transmits human capital in the US? hello????? has this guy ever heard of schooling? peers? neighborhood/community? the extended family? the time parents spend with children is important, but i highly doubt that it has much to do with anything here, particularly in those countries caught in this so-called poverty trap. please.
he hasn't a klew about how human capital is transmitted in other cultures. for instance, the privatized nuclear family isn't the only mechanism through which children learn skills and knowledges is it? it isn't even the only one in our country, let alone others. this is utterly incredible to me, though i know it shouldn't be as surprising to me as it is. it's pathetic, this wanker has the audacity to say he's reviewed the sociological literature in the field?
lock 'n' load kelley
>Well I read the paper, and its rather coy about the genetics. It says our
>human capital is the product of a genetic and a social draw, and the social
>mode of transmission is "memetic," following Dawkins. In his model,
>children are produced by parthenogenesis, to avoid the complications of
>adding mate selection and genetic combination to the model. Children derive
>no utility from consumption since their parents pay and choose for them,
>but they do generate utility for their parents. >
>I'm confused by the high birth rates causing poverty part. I thought
>poverty caused high birth rates.
>
>Doug
>
“touch yourself and you will know that i exist.” ~luce irigaray