|« 1||<||>||2 »|
The goal of economic to maximize happiness. However, we cannot measure happiness objectively. Even so, there are components in happiness we can measure, and it is income/expenditure. (AKA GDP/capita) (The rest go on about an analysis of how well the scale work.)
In similiar manner, in the worst case senario of a break up, the number of choices for the woman will decrease much more because of aging.
Since women are generally more emotion-sensitive (as can be demonstrated by neuroscience), a break up will prbably be more painful to them then to us.
Even though men and women are equal, we are different.
I never said it is a cost benefit analysis, rather, it is only a risk acessement (cost only).
[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-22 12:17 編輯 ]
原帖由 dye 於 2007-5-22 12:15 發表
因為經濟學太多前設 有人以demand and supply 來比喻男女選另一半的情況
但其實 law of demand 當中已經假設了市場中所有貨品是一式一樣, 是單一化
以此套在愛情上就慘了 如果人人都只講demand and supply 即是說不理高矮肥瘦 不理好醜, 隨便找一個就是了
但是現實是嗎? 如果是的話 靚女就不會那麼搶手了, 而亦不會出現一些形容詞來形容形態稍遜的女生了 (如豬扒, 暴龍等)
Only in a PERFECT COMPETITION market will ALL the goods be the same. But it is impossible to have a perfect competeition in real world.
Most economic analysis deals with monopolistic competition. As an anthropologist specialized in love affair said in her TED speech, when we are in love, we usually haave an over-estimation between the difference among women. (Probably the same for men I suspect)
No two burgers are the same, but every one of them are simliar (maybe except the veggie burger-platonic women and Kosher burger-Christian women)
Goods and services are perfect substitutes; that is, there is no product differentiation. (All firms sell an identical product)
Consumers have clearly defined preferences and sellers attempt to differentiate their products from those of their competitors; the goods and services are heterogeneous, usually (though not always) intrinsically so.
[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-5-23 10:21 編輯 ]
|« 1||<||>||2 »|