« The "scarce talent" con | Main | (Non) performativity in economics »

January 31, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

 Luis Enrique

according to high economic theory, the real measure of real output is welfare (utility). Obviously, vajazzles are welfare improving.

Account Deleted

Hang about. If that £1 billion is turnover, and the average spend is £250, then we're talking about 400,000 women who have decided to boost the economy as a homage to Kate wotsername.

Given that they've presumably been buying shoes and clothes for some time now (I'm sure I'd have noticed that many of them walking around in the nude), then it can only mean that approximately 1 in 5 women of working age have had a vajazzle.

I find this incredible. On so many levels.


We might also assume The Sun is no more useful as a source of economic theory than of Journalistic ethics. It is obvious that most changes in spending are merely substitution not increases in net demand at market prices. So provide no boost to the economy. Changes in technology and organisation tend to increase productivity net but the exact effect in a given region or area or time period requires empirical study far more rigorous than sun journalism.


I'd never even heard of vajazzles until I read this column.

Talk about keeping your light under a bush!


not bad! thank you for your sharing!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad