Economics and the mid-life crisis have much in common: Both dwell on foregone opportunities

C'est la vie; c'est la guerre; c'est la pomme de terre . . . . . . . . . . . . . email: jpalmer at uwo dot ca

. . . . . . . . . . .Richard Posner should be awarded the next Nobel Prize in Economics . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monday, March 07, 2005

Why Martha Got Jail Time

What Martha Stewart did was a comparatively minor crime. Tom Luongo agrees.

I'm still at a loss to understand what it is that she actually did wrong... as for why it was so damned important that she and all the people she does business with had to pay for this supposed crime she committed, I wish I could answer that in some other way than, "It served the purposes of those in power."

It would be a fascinating economic study to figure out (even to 1 signifigant figure) how much economic damage was done due to the prosecution of Martha Stewart, and can that even begin to compare to the crime that was committed. You've got to wonder if the scales could ever be balanced.
My take:

Hypothesis #1: many males feel threatened by an uppity woman. She publicly disparaged her husband and his sexual prowess; she made it really big financially (in what is traditionally a man's world). So they had to teach her a lesson.

I'm not the only one who thinks this hypothesis might have merit. Maureen Dowd, with whom I rarely agree, says that Americans like to see women who wear the pants be beaten up [figuratively, I expect] and humiliated.
Obviously, many men are uncomfortable with successful women, so when these women are brushed back, alpha men can take comfort in knowing that alphettes are not threateningly all-powerful and that they had better soften those sharp edges.

Hypothesis #2: Martha Stewart's lawyer let her down. I wonder if she'll use that lawyer or law firm for much work in the future.
Who Links Here