To continue my economics theme of the week, lets look at relationships…
Isn’t marriage monopolistic in nature? Aren’t monopolies bad?
Discuss…
Because I knew I coldn’t have been the only person that thought this thought I did some googling [The Economics of Love and Marriage]
You holding the monopoly, or subject to it?
Monopoly on what exactly? Wouldn’t the style of financial planning within the marriage determine what type of economic system it resembles?
Isn’t one of the most common complaints of long term couple that the fun is gone bc they stop trying to woo each other… Why is so much effort put in at the begining at the relationship, adn then it slacks off big time. If you did that at work your ass would get fired… just a thought. And seriously the reason people try so hard to Win their ‘other’ over is bc they are trying to prove they are better than the competition…? What changes after time?
Marriage where one partner works and the other stays at home.
In this kind of arrangement one partner makes all the money and is the sole provider. This is aqcuired via business or work. This is then the couples GDP as it were…
Stay at home partner (sahp) needs to do most of the household chores, if not all. Working partner (wp) basically just brings home the bacon and does not necessarily need to do any housework. However, this kind of relationship usually has two main views:
A.) Both partners are working. Difference being that one gets paid and does it outside the home, and the other doesn’t get paid and does it at home.
B.) WP does the “real” work and therefore gets paid, and also needn’t do any household chores. SAHP is at home and is cared for financially, so therefore needs to do all the household chores, and WP damn weel better have dinner waiting when he/she gets home. Kinda like the circa 1950’s patriarchial idea.
Be that as it may the household still only has one income - one contributor to the GDP. That is to say, 50% of the actual work is similiar to what in government would be called, non-profit organisations or tax exempt organisations. It would also be true to say that within this system, should WP die or be removed from the household, the familial GDP either takes a downward spiral or implodes completely. Reminds me a little of African and South American economies that rely to heavily on too few resources (that are either exhaustable to highly vulnerable to market fluctuations).
Also, within this system one partner (usually WP) has too much say over how and where funds are allocated and how the “GDP” is spent and saved etc… Kinda like dictatorships, banana republics, communist countries etc…
Definitely NOT, IMHO, what could be called a free market economy. More of a communist sort of economic policy, or if the partners are more liberal (as in option A above) a socialist style. Either way, not what I would deem an ideal system.
I’m getting tired of typing now. Someone else have a crack at it.
Either they get tired of sleeping with the same partner, everyday, everyweek, every month, every year…for the REST of their lives… 
Or they just get used to each other and neither feels threatened by the competition anymore. Maybe they were never really in love to begin with…
Not necessarily. You’d get seniority. People who have years of experience get cut a lot more slack than some FOB who’s only been there for a few weeks. The workload gets easier the longer you stick around. Or else there’d be no incentive to stick around. I mean, the entire point of a career is to get to the point where you have enough weight to throw around that you don’t have to work very hard. Hard work is what interns are for. Stick the new guy who doesn’t have a clue with the shit jobs nobody else will touch, he don’t know no better. That’s why people work so hard in their early stages of their careers, so that they can get to a comfortable point where they don’t have to struggle, and then can rest on their laurels. Academics call it tenure.
I wasn’t talking about money. “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative usues.”
Hopefully money wouldn’t be a scarce resource in a marriage. YOU are the scarce resource. Your time. Your SO has a monopoly on that (well, in a way.)
Without marriage your SO needs to work to get your time. After marriage, it’s some kind of requirement. Spending your time currency outside of the monopoly gets you in trouble (sometimes by law even.) In fairy tail marraiges the two participants only want to spend time with each other always. In the real world, this isn’t the case.
[quote=“miltownkid”]I wasn’t talking about money. “Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative usues.”
Hopefully money wouldn’t be a scarce resource in a marriage. YOU are the scarce resource. Your time. Your SO has a monopoly on that (well, in a way.)
Without marriage your SO needs to work to get your time. After marriage, it’s some kind of requirement. Spending your time currency outside of the monopoly gets you in trouble (sometimes by law even.) In fairy tail marraiges the two participants only want to spend time with each other always. In the real world, this isn’t the case.[/quote]
Oh, ok…
Forget what I said then… 
Yep, your SO definitely has the monopoly. She wants to keep the monopoly. You don’t want her to keep the monopoly, but wish it was more free market time… But, like with Microsoft, she probably wins and keeps the monopoly.
So, you can decide to buy you time shares (pun intended) and sell them to another “buyer”, or put up and shut up, as they say…
Usually not much room to manuevre on this one.
Ok, Monopoly or not. What if it was different? What if was more like a free market economy? I don;t know much about economics, but as I understand it competition is really important in keeping the market alive and thriving (Or was am I messing that up?). I don;t know if anyone anywhere has experimented with it or anything, but it seems to me that there is always competition. If you are in a relationship you aren;t supposed to acknowledge it or act on it… but isn;t it still there? If it isn;t where does it go?
Maybe this isn;t the right question, but what exactly is a free market economy, does it happen and work in economics? If so how would it be adapted to the economics of relationships?
[quote=“delieadalish”]Ok, Monopoly or not. What if it was different? What if was more like a free market economy? I don;t know much about economics, but as I understand it competition is really important in keeping the market alive and thriving (Or was am I messing that up?). I don;t know if anyone anywhere has experimented with it or anything, but it seems to me that there is always competition. If you are in a relationship you aren;t supposed to acknowledge it or act on it… but isn;t it still there? If it isn;t where does it go?
Maybe this isn;t the right question, but what exactly is a free market economy, does it happen and work in economics? If so how would it be adapted to the economics of relationships?[/quote]
I thought the point was that, even in a free market, you eventually decide that your currency is going to be spent on X and stop taking much notice of the competition. It’s like deciding that your drink of choice is going to be rum, and the beer companies can advertise all they like. They’re not getting your business. You’ve decided what you want.
In the case of a relationship your currency is not simply time. There’s an emotional component too. You invest that currency in the other person, or identical twin sisters in my case, and get a return that you’re happy with - measured in ‘happiness’.
Having made your ‘purchase’ you stick with it because you can’t sell it on and get any portion of your investment back. Ending a relationship means writing off all the time and love that you put into it. So people tend to stick with them even though they’re not really getting a return on their (continuing) investment. Cue Basil Fawlty saying “Happy, oh yes. I remember happy.”
Putting all that love, time, and money, into something practical is far more sensible. An E-type Jaguar, for instance, will always look good, always have some resale value, and will almost always love you. They’re not very forgiving, especially on tight corners, but the nature of the relationship is such that you’ll hate yourself more than she’ll hate you for making a mistake. That’s because your E-type will be your most faithful friend and will always give her best for you. She loves the things you love, so your investment is really a shared celebration. You don’t lose anything by putting your time, love, and money in to hurtling down the road singing Voodoo Chile. Women are rarely like that, which is why people get divorced eventually.
This analogy was very well put. I love it.
But they are, before you get married 
Then they have a monopoly.
The courting phase is the free market phase. There is competition, good customer service, etc. People do everything they can to make their wares look better than the next.
Your car example is a good one. Why? Because cars usually require a large investment so people tend to do their homework (or they should.) A lot of companies (menz/womenz) are fighting to get that dollar. The difference is, marriage is like signing a lifetime lease on a car. Who would do that? In the car analogy, even after you bought one, other companies will still try to get you to buy their car. If your car fits you like a glove, they’re going to have a hard sell, why shop when you’re happy with what you got? If you found out you bought something that doesn’t fit so well or, a GM Lemon Car (link), your going to sell/dump it and get something new.
With the car selling it/junking it (lemon laws would actually get you a full refund or some money back) isn’t such a big deal, you do it and move on. If you had a life time lease with the car, breaking that lease could be very costly so you’ll end up putting up with a lot more than you would had you not signed a life time lease. The cost of breaking the lease is too high, so you don’t.
I have a better anology. It’s of the Marine recruiter that wines and dines you until… you sign that piece paper. Then it’s…
[quote=“Forrest Gump Movie”]Forrest Gump: Hello. I’m Forrest, Forrest Gump.
Recruit Officer: Nobody gives a hunk a shit who you are, pus ball. You’re not even a low-life, scum-sucking maggot. Get your ass on the bus, you’re in the army now![/quote]
I suggest your all read the section on relationships and adultry in the book “The Third Chimpanzee” by Jared Diamond.
Internet reviews look good. I’ll add it to my ever increasing list of books to read. Is it short enough for reading in one sitting?
Another take on the subject.
Are you saying I’m a failure?
That’s a passage from Michel Houellebecq, France’s most infamous and currently popular novelist. He has some extremely cynical views regarding love and sex and the human condition.
Houellebecq feels that we in the West:
His solution? Jet on a plane in search of cheap third-world pussy:
Or in the words of a Madam:
Sex as salvation from militant Islamism:
BTW, my current tagline is another quote from him.
Quite so, but youth, beauty and strength in anyone other than a non-Jewish, blonde haired, blue-eyed “aryan” would not have been acceptable. Most of us don’t really give a rats-ass what the subject of our desires ethnic or religious background is but youth and beauty (even if only to our own eye) is probably paramount in a sexual sense.
[quote=“Quentin”]Sex as salvation from militant Islamism:
Quote:
“The paradise promised by the Prophet,” the banker tells Michel, “already existed here on earth. There were places on earth where young, available, lascivious girls danced for the pleasure of men, where one could become drunk on nectar and listen to celestial music; there were about twenty of them within five hundred meters of our hotel. These places were easily accessible. To gain admission, there was absolutely no need to fulfill the seven duties of a Muslim nor to engage in holy war; all you had to do was pay a couple of dollars … Already, young Arabs dreamed of nothing but consumer products and sex. They might try to pretend otherwise, but secretly, they wanted to be part of the American system. The violence of some of them was no more than a sign of impotent jealousy, and thankfully, more and more of them were turning their backs on Islam.”[/quote]
So, it would seem to me, that abandoning any further military ventures in the Middle East should be recommended. Swamp the buggers with brothels, Titty Bars and strip clubs. 
Aaaaah, paradise my brothers. Paradise. Allah is good.
Good night… 