Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

The question for anthropology and economics readers is this: what the hell happened? Black was once regarded as a hero of the neo-cons. He was seen to be intellectual uncompromising, a captain of industry who cared about ideas. If appearances are to be believed, Lord Black got himself trapped in a cycle of conspicuous consumption that put his integrity and his empire at risk.

We may agree with Frank when he writes "beyond some point, across-the-board increases in spending on many types of material goods do not produce any lasting increment in subjective well-being." Economic actors do at some point grasp this problem. Presumably, the 100th pair of Manolo Blahnik shows did not bring Ms. Black the pleasure of the first. But she kept buying them.

It is customary to think of this as a kind of madness. Economic actors, sage and careful in other things, can in some circumstances fall prey to what Frank calls "luxury fever." This fever is attributed to status competition, self aggrandizement, and or the seductions of a consumer society.

There will be lots of speculation on this question in the coming days. Indeed, the press is engaged in a kind of "jump out" of Lord Black and now lovingly details his descent from power. (A "jump out" is, as you guessed, the opposite of the "jump in" with which gang members are inducted. The press has turned on Black.)

But why this delighted rush to judgment? I thought this is what we wanted to happen at the top end of a consumer society. We want to keep super producers in harness (if one may use so unbecoming a metaphor). As someone ascends social and economic ladders, don't we want them to spend apace? Why otherwise would they keep climbing? We have no "sticks," when it comes to a man like Black. We want all the "carrots" we can muster.

Surely, the last thing we want is to discover is that productive economic players are overtaken by a sudden sense of sufficiency. We don't want Ms. Black to wake up one morning and say, "55 pairs of Manolo Blahnik's, that's enough." We don't want Lord Black coming to, and saying to Barbara, "honey, I think we're done. Let's cut up the credit cards."

Just as surely, we don't want Black and other players looting funds that belong to the share holder (if that's what happened). But when it comes to their own resources, we want their consumer preferences to scale up endlessly. ("Manolo Blahnik shoes? Are 100 pairs are enough, Barbara? Do you have any Jimmy Choo shoes?") Naturally, there is a moment of discomfort here: that so few should have so much.

But this is how we "incent" creators of value.

Superb! Grant McCracken is an original thinker and a fine writer. My thanks to Geitner Simmons in Omaha, Nebraska, for pointing me in McCracken's direction. I'm a fan now.