« Why creditors should suffer, too | Main | Economists and Societies »
Assorted links
1. Markets in everything: Anatomie-Bettwäsche.
2. Zach Wamp.
3. Vitamin sales seem to be countercyclical.
4. I Love You, Man is a deeply conceptual movie, full of (implicit) social science. It raises (and does not resolve in the usual corny way) the possibility that our choices of romantic partners are more interchangeable than our choices of same-sex friends.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 5, 2009 at 08:42 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Plus, *I Love You, Man* has the most Rush content of any move EVER.
In actuality, it is both very funny and a great riff on gender and communication as well as the point Tyler raises.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz at Apr 5, 2009 10:41:36 AM
raivo, I love you man, but you gotta cut that #$%# out.
Posted by: at Apr 5, 2009 11:21:11 AM
That Zach Wamp bit reminded me of "Oh, Brother" with pappy biscuit whassisname running for re-election.
"We need to get us some of that there RE-form, Pappy."
Posted by: JasonL at Apr 5, 2009 1:34:59 PM
I don't think the "Anatomie-Bettwaesche" quite qualifies for "markets in everything". The caption translates:
This anatomical sheet is a part of the 2004 photo collection "The Hypocondriac" by Taiyo Onorato and Nico Krebs, and unfortunately you can't buy them anywhere. I'd give a kidney for cuddly body-part linnens, but no one's asking me.
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 5, 2009 1:50:51 PM
...and close italics. Sorry, the italics should have closed after "anywhere."
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 5, 2009 1:56:54 PM
...closing italics?
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Apr 5, 2009 4:22:47 PM
Yup.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Apr 5, 2009 4:23:55 PM
I'd say it's almost self-evident that our choices in romantic partners are NOT more flexible than our choices in same-sex friends, which is why the vast, vast, vast majority of romantic relationships burn a fiery death.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Apr 5, 2009 5:03:58 PM
"I'd say it's almost self-evident that our choices in romantic partners are NOT more flexible than our choices in same-sex friends, which is why the vast, vast, vast majority of romantic relationships burn a fiery death."
That has more to do with intensity than flexibility.
Posted by: assman at Apr 5, 2009 5:40:56 PM
"I Love You, Man is a deeply conceptual movie, full of (implicit) social science. It raises (and does not resolve in the usual corny way) the possibility that our choices of romantic partners are more interchangeable than our choices of same-sex friends."
OK.. I only saw the trailer, but I seriously hope you're kidding.
That film looks like a bad trashy chick flick about men who can't access their emotions trying to figure out have to have a friend.
Hopefully people put at least as much into their romantic partner as they do their guy-friend who helps them loosen up and open up--if not then, sadly, they have not managed to find love.
Which, also sadly, would not surprise me that much if they fall for the Modal Love theory in its overly academic and compatibility-oriented form. Sorry...
Posted by: liberty at Apr 5, 2009 6:41:50 PM
I love this raivo thing. Even the modernist sci-fi authors never dreamed of a econ-blog parasite.
Posted by: gorobei at Apr 5, 2009 6:43:01 PM
I only saw the trailer,
Then maybe you should defer to someone who's actually seen the movie?
Posted by: bbartlog at Apr 6, 2009 12:37:53 AM
isnt it well known that movie trailers depict the movie's themes better than the actual movie itself? in high school, i always found the cliffs notes version more enjoyable and more truthful than the literature itself.
duhhh.
ive gotta agree with Cowen on his observation about the movie; there tends to be less variance in values and behavior among same-sex friends than romantic partners. i also agree with the comment about mistaking flexibility for intensity.
Posted by: hern at Apr 6, 2009 12:50:12 PM
My friends convinced me to see the movie last week, and it was probably one of the most unoriginal cookie-cutter comedies I have seen in my life. Very predictable plot, very predictable characters, and only a few genuinely funny moments. On the one hand, I wouldn't disagree that it raises these questions about the interchangeability of heterosexual partners as opposed to same-sex. Much more skeptical that this was the director's/producers' intention!
Posted by: Dennis Shiraev at Apr 6, 2009 1:42:29 PM
'few genuinely funny moments'? You must have been asleep for the scene where Paul Rudd puked all over that guys' face. Pure comedic gold!!
Posted by: Mark at Apr 6, 2009 3:26:53 PM
'few genuinely funny moments'? You must have been asleep for the scene where Paul Rudd puked all over that guys' face. Pure comedic gold!!
Posted by: Mark at Apr 6, 2009 3:27:02 PM
mark you are crazy.
this blog is reserved for movie snobs that religiously adhere to indie films, academy award nominees, and the woody allen collection. please take your low-brow 5 year told toilet humor elsewhere.
uggs and a hawaiian shirt on a boardwalk? psh please, that is so predictable. a gay son that doubles as a best friend? psh, please, also very cookie cutter. and RUSH??? this is a pathetic attempt to emulate a canadian spinal tap cult following. can you say recycled ideas?
Posted by: hern at Apr 6, 2009 5:30:55 PM
@ Mark and Hern: I'm with Dennis Shiraev on this one: 'I love you man was easily one of the most 'cookie-cutter' films I have seen recently.
It fits the perfect pattern often displayed by unoriginal books and movies - the straightforward plot-graphs that we all learned in grade school: there are events which build upon one another until we reach a climax, and then a denouement. In comedies, this is VERY commonly occurring as we see a main character interacting with others and producing certain events which yield a favorable outcome, and these build up and build up until something happens which disrupts this continuum. Normally, the character resolves the problem and things end favorably for the main character.
This is precisely what happened in ILYM! Granted, some of the rising action was in the form of mildly creative or funny ideas, it never broke free of the hollywood cookie-cutter comedy blueprint.
Posted by: Oliver Renick at Apr 6, 2009 7:51:09 PM
'Jules et Jim' remains the standard reference on the subject, I think.
Posted by: Jim K at Apr 7, 2009 1:24:34 AM
I Love You, Man was hilarious!!! "Totes me Goats!"
@Oliver, thanks for the Lit review. Which comedy would you recommend to us if Tyler's recommendation does not meet unoriginal criteria?
Posted by: Johnny at Apr 7, 2009 9:45:03 AM
Typo: *does not meet original criteria?
Posted by: Johnny at Apr 7, 2009 9:46:05 AM
I'll just say that most Rush fans I know are extremely intelligent socially well adjusted people. More interesting than, say, Rolling Stones or U2 fans. Rush is really an underrated group due for reevaluation. They had their share of dumb lyrics, true, but no stupider than Led Zeppelin, who are now critics darlings. And judged purely as musicians Rush is certainly one of the best groups of the 1970s-80s.
Posted by: vanya at Apr 7, 2009 11:04:04 AM
