(UPDATED – See NW’s response at bottom)

As I sat down to breakfast the other morning I was confronted with a difficult choice of reading material.  On the one hand was Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the foundation of classical economics (I’m trying to become the only person I know who’s actually read it) and on the other was Kim [Kardashian’s] SHOCK BABY NEWS in New Weekly (bought by a house guest, I swear).

With some reluctance I opted for the former and opened almost straight to the following passage:

There are some very agreeable and beautiful talents of which the possession commands a certain sort of admiration; but of which the exercise for the sake of gain is considered, whether from reason or prejudice, as a sort of public prostitution.  The pecuniary recompense, therefore, of those who exercise them in this manner must be sufficient, not only to pay for the time, labour, and expense of acquiring the talents, but for the discredit which attends the employment of them as the means of subsistence.  The exorbitant rewards of players, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc., are founded upon those two principles; the rarity and beauty of the talents, and the discredit of employing them in this manner.  It seems absurd at first sight that we should despise their persons and yet reward their talents with the most profuse liberality.  While we do one, however, we must of necessity do the other.  Should the public opinion or prejudice ever alter with regard to such occupations, their pecuniary recompense would quickly diminish.  More people would apply to them, and the competition would quickly reduce the price of labour.  Such talents, though far from being common, are by no means so rare as is imagined.  Many people possess them in great perfection, who disdain to make this use of them; and many more are capable of acquiring them if anything could be made honourably by them.  (p209 Penguin Classics edition)

This was Smith’s take on entertainers and celebrities!  I decided to explore New Weekly to see if classical economics could explain the rise of Kim Kardashian.  I read all I could: “Kim’s Baby Bombshell: The desperate reality star wants to adopt a needy child to repair her image” and “Christmas with the Kardashians: The klan come together for their annual Christmas Eve bash”, all in the name of research.

Whether or not Kim has any particular talent, agreeable or beautiful, is difficult to tell from  NW.  A Google video search of some of the seamier sections of the internet found a few interesting techniques, but as Smith suggested, nothing that many people don’t possess in great perfection.  But unlike in the 1770s, and despite these videos and sidebar stories about “Kim’s latest divorce scandal”, the readers of NW don’t  seem to consider Kim and other celebs to be public prostitutes.  Far from it.  In fact, they pander sickeningly to her every move – like giving her 2y.o. nephew Labradors named Lois and Vuitton.

Yet despite ambiguous talent and public prejudice seemingly altered, we learn that Kim earned $600,000 for hosting a party in Las Vegas, bewilderingly named Tao.  (Her knowledge of Chinese philosophy and religion is also unclear.)  So what could explain this mystery?  I revised Smith’s 5 factors explaining the wages of labour:

1. The agreeableness or disagreeableness of the employment – doesn’t seem so bad
2. The difficulty and expense of learning [the skills] – don’t seem hard
3. The constancy or inconstancy of employment – haven’t heard of celeb off-season
4. The small or great trust which must be reposed in those who excercise [these skills] – she’s not steering an oil tanker!
5. The probability or improbability of success [in the field]

This fifth point does seem a strong one – if you set out to become a celebrity of no particular style, the chances of success are pretty slim.  Ironically, Smith listed lawyers among the professions with little chance of success:

Put your son apprentice to  a shoemaker, there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes; but send him to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency as will enable him to live by the business. (p208)

Whichever flavour of economics you like, Wealth of Nations is an amazing work, thought provoking and powerfully written.  240 years later it is still influential and well worth a read, but I don’t think it can explain Kim Kardashian.  For that matter, neither can I.

UPDATE!!!  New Weekly confirm our analysis via Twitter:

Believe us, we’ve spent months trying to understand the phenomenon. So far wisdom has proven elusive!