Originally posted by chimera66
men get too comfortable after getting married too...on another note i love cake :).
don't eat tooo much cake or else you won't be able to do the ladder dance to the roof.
BALANCE.. BALANCE... balance
:P
ok ill stop now :D
Vernon Wanderer
I love how it still says jennypie in the thread list. ;)
chimera66
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
don't eat tooo much cake or else you won't be able to do the ladder dance to the roof.
BALANCE.. BALANCE... balance
:P
ok ill stop now :D
those women should use their balance and good rhythm for classier work, like stripping
Arbiter
quote:
Originally posted by chimera66
men get too comfortable after getting married too...
Indeed, although in my observation the ways in which it manifests tend to be more diverse and less readily observable. In both cases, it's a prime example of how exclusionary dealing can raise prices while decreasing the quality of products and services.
Economists might call the resulting inefficiency a "deadweight loss," but that term could be a little confusing if applied here. So, instead, let's just call it a decrease in aggregate welfare.
Normally, we have antitrust laws to help prevent anticompetitive conduct that will lead to a decrease in aggregate welfare, but unfortunately we're not yet civilized enough to apply them in these markets. The good news is that you can avoid most, though not all, of the resulting inefficiencies by simply avoiding entering into any of these anticompetitive arrangements in the first place. Indeed, if actors in these markets acted rationally and had perfect information, that's what they would overwhelmingly do. The bad news is that, as a behavioral matter, actors in these markets are ostensibly quite irrational, and odds are that includes most of you.
Silky Johnson
Jesus christ, shut the up Arbiter.
Arbiter
You should just be thankful that all you have to put up with is my annoying screeds.
If your name were Mrs. Pie, then it would be a whole 'nother ballgame....
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Indeed, although in my observation the ways in which it manifests tend to be more diverse and less readily observable. In both cases, it's a prime example of how exclusionary dealing can raise prices while decreasing the quality of products and services.
Economists might call the resulting inefficiency a "deadweight loss," but that term could be a little confusing if applied here. So, instead, let's just call it a decrease in aggregate welfare.
Normally, we have antitrust laws to help prevent anticompetitive conduct that will lead to a decrease in aggregate welfare, but unfortunately we're not yet civilized enough to apply them in these markets. The good news is that you can avoid most, though not all, of the resulting inefficiencies by simply avoiding entering into any of these anticompetitive arrangements in the first place. Indeed, if actors in these markets acted rationally and had perfect information, that's what they would overwhelmingly do. The bad news is that, as a behavioral matter, actors in these markets are ostensibly quite irrational, and odds are that includes most of you.
I think you’re ignoring the fact that the quality of goods/services provided naturally declines anyway with age, and that the market eventually dries up in a similar fashion. So, having an imperfect monopoly earlier on can ensure at least some level of regular future return, which is arguably better than repeated one-time investments at a much higher price.
Nrg2Nfinit
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I think you’re ignoring the fact that the quality of goods/services provided naturally declines anyway with age, and that the market eventually dries up in a similar fashion. So, having an imperfect monopoly earlier on can ensure at least some level of regular future return, which is arguably better than repeated one-time investments at a much higher price.
you could also average down, if you're arab, with another wife.
goodtime
Does it count if you were dating a 14 year old that looked twenty, but was in fact big for her age, you didn't know you thought she quite goodlooking with some curves, and then when she got to 20 she was fat???
Goebbel Goebbel
this thread being bumped was a good idea. hopefully stereoprincess posts in it.
Arbiter
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I think you’re ignoring the fact that the quality of goods/services provided naturally declines anyway with age, and that the market eventually dries up in a similar fashion. So, having an imperfect monopoly earlier on can ensure at least some level of regular future return, which is arguably better than repeated one-time investments at a much higher price.
I'm not ignoring it, but I didn't think many people would be keen to read an exhaustive analysis. That said, for those benefits to be cognizable, there would actually have to be some guaranteed minimum level of future return; in fact, there's not.
Moreover, even to the extent that some exclusive relationship did produce a net benefit, conscious parallelism would be preferable to a formal agreement (e.g., marriage) because it would allow the parties to adjust more efficiently in the event of changed circumstances making it no longer advantageous.
gmilf
I know this is old but I just saw it and thought it was relevant to this thread. I could see him with a chubby...I mean
