It's this simple: Supply & Demand.

[AMF]

Originally posted by MrBond007
Flawed.

You suck at economics.Its not the low/high supply theory that applies here because you are only worth a single person and therefore your supply is "1".

Here:

HIGHER VALUE = HIGHER DEMAND

wtf?? Unsuprisingly, youre failing to grasp my point!

Human supply is not, NOT set at "1", moron. Im referring to how much TIME you are AVAILIABLE. How many HOURS, MINUTES you give of your time, to someone else. This figure is not, repeat NOT "1"! Are you telling us everyone is available for exactly the same amount of time??

The chump, the desperado, the loser - he makes sure he is easily available: his time has LOW VALUE. A player, a desirable guy, is not so available; a hot chick is not so available. THEIR time has HIGH VALUE.

All of you - put your little textbooks down. This aint college, I dont give a flying f*ck bout your intersecting downsloping yada yada, zzzz. I aint studying macro economics. I do not care. Get a life. The point im making is

RARITY IS VALUE.

 

[madgame]

On the other hand you could say...hey theres so few really really ugly girls. Low supply of it thus THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A high demand.

Low supply does not mean high demand. Understand the diffrence.

Yes, I do. Dont feel like reading those 2 long posts now forgive me ;-) but I think we mean the same thing, because
I said that in order to show AMF that his theory wasn't right/ was flawed.

Back in the Victorian era "large" were in high demand. Why was this so? It was because alot of men prefered large women.

Okay, but if thats what your reasoning is based on you could also just say: In the 21st century "DJ"'s are in high demand. Why is this so?It is because a lot of women prefer DJ's.

However I think the supply/ demand theory is true sometimes (just sometimes though). For example..umm its funny that oyu mention that cause my arts teacher in 7th grade or so said that in...(I dunno if it was the victorian era or another one) larger women were in, because nutrition was kinda hard to get at that time (or at least a lot of it). Now we got plenty of nutrition and actually way more than we need (think abotu all the candy, chocolate,... that we dont need to "survive") and nowadays lean people are in cause its hard to attain that look with all the superflux nutrition.
(I know this theory might be very flawed lol but I think its worht thinking about it)

 

[Cheiradawg]

Originally posted by AMF
wtf?? Unsuprisingly, youre failing to grasp my point!

Ok it would be more helpful if you used graphs and clearly label what is on the axises. Then paraelled the economic and social terms you used.

Human supply is not, NOT set at "1", moron.
Im referring to how much TIME you are AVAILIABLE.
How many HOURS, MINUTES you give of your time, to someone else. This figure is not, repeat NOT "1"! Are you telling us everyone is available for exactly the same amount of time??

Again please clearly distingiush what is on your axises. You said you were talking about "How much time you are availiable", then you go on to say you are talking about "how much time you give to someone else." These are two diffrent things, that you have treated as one. So I can't comment further on what you are saying until you clearly state what you are talking about.


The chump, the desperado, the loser - he makes sure he is easily available: his time has LOW VALUE.

This is a socilolgial conception not an economic one. You say if something is available it has low value. If there is a $100 bill on the ground is it ofu less value just because it is available? No it is not.


A player, a desirable guy, is not so available; a hot chick is not so available. THEIR time has HIGH VALUE.

Again, this is a sociologic conception not an economic one.

AMF what you are trying to say is explain in the post where I talk about marginal utility.


All of you - put your little textbooks down. This aint college, I dont give a flying f*ck bout your intersecting downsloping yada yada, zzzz. I aint studying macro economics. I do not care. Get a life. The point im making is

Well maybe you should shut your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about.


RARITY IS VALUE.
Your point is wrong. (i.e there are few really really really ugly chicks therefore they are rare therefore they are valueable)

 

[Cheiradawg]

Originally posted by madgame
Yes, I do.
I'm not so sure.


Dont feel like reading those 2 long posts now forgive me ;-) ...
read them when you have the time
...but I think we mean the same thing, because
I said that in order to show AMF that his theory wasn't right/ was flawed. (Then you quoted me)
Actually I said that.

Okay, but if thats what your reasoning is based on you could also just say: In the 21st century "DJ"'s are in high demand. Why is this so?It is because a lot of women prefer DJ's.
Yes we do agree here. Like I said in an eralier post the words "women" and men can be used interchangeble in my model!!! How cool is that????

However I think the supply/ demand theory is true sometimes (just sometimes though). For example..umm its funny that oyu mention that cause my arts teacher in 7th grade or so said that in...(I dunno if it was the victorian era or another one) larger women were in, because nutrition was kinda hard to get at that time (or at least a lot of it). Now we got plenty of nutrition and actually way more than we need (think abotu all the candy, chocolate,... that we dont need to "survive") and nowadays lean people are in cause its hard to attain that look with all the superflux nutrition.
(I know this theory might be very flawed lol but I think its worht thinking about it)
Yes it is flawed, and yes it is worth thinking about. Lean people are not "in style" because it is hard to attain that look. Some people are born with it. Lean people are "in style" because there is alot of demand for lean people in the @$$ market. There is a high demand for lean people because alot of people have sexual preferences for lean people when they go "shopping" for @$$.

Another example in a diffrent context:
In some African cultures men have sexual preferences for women who can fit a large number of rings around there neck. The amount of sexual attraction a man in these cultures feels towards a woman is directly related to the number of rigns she has around her neck. These women are "in style" not because there ability to put rings around there neck has anything to do with sexual fitness or reproductive capasity but on the sole fact that there are alot of men who have preferences for women with alot of rings between their chest and chin.

 

[madgame]

I said that in order to show AMF that his theory wasn't right/ was flawed. (Then you quoted me)
Actually I said that.

I was referring to the quote (quoting me and your reply) I had made right before that statement. By the way please click on the quote button and paste the quotes in there so its a bit easier to read. and nope I dont feel like reading all this stuff...cause it wont help me at all.

Bottom line is, that most guys/girls have a sexual preference for lean, well-built, good looking members of the opposite sex. Thus there is a high demand and everybody wants them. You're a genius man.

Ok maybe there r men who like women with a lot of rings on them in Africa, but y were fat women "in" during the victorian era?just wonderin

 

[MrBond007]

Originally posted by madgame
but y were fat women "in" during the victorian era?just wonderin

In that time, having a fat woman shown that you were wealthy and it was also a sign of prosperity.

 

[Cheiradawg]

Yes I do need to lean how to used the quote thingies.


Originally posted by madgame
Bottom line is, that most guys/girls have a sexual preference for lean, well-built, good looking members of the opposite sex. Thus there is a high demand and everybody wants them. You're a genius man.

Agreed. But there is alos more ot it than that.


Originally posted by madgame
Ok maybe there r men who like women with a lot of rings on them in Africa, but y were fat women "in" during the victorian era?just wonderin

Or better yet, why do African Men like long necks, or why do american men like blonde hair, big juggs, and firm @$$es? I don't know why it is that way. I am not concerned why it is that way. But I do know that for the most part it is that way.
My model does not attempt to explain where peoples sexual perferences come from. It takes them whatever they maybe be as given be it large, blonde, or necks that can support large rings.

But to answer you original quetion men could have wanted large women because it was a sign of a lush lifestyle, status, or health.

Then when one "runs" the model it offers explanations of why some men get what they want and why others don't. It also explains why certain women get what they want an others don't. It also explains several obvious observations about our world that one would notice when they begin to look at the mating game.

If you aren't going to take the time to read and understand what I am saying then don't post anymore silly replies whoes only purpose is to salvage your ego.

 

[HuuBinh]

Maybe her rational behavior is to increase his demand. Or maybe her rational behavior is to run away so she doesn't risk getting hert, or maybe her rational behavior is to test him to see if he is the real deal, or maybe her rational behavior is to jump on his d*ck so she can fvck his brains out. Who knows???

It seems to me that from your perspective, the division between what is rational and what isn't is unclear. What's rational to her may be irrational to us. Much of economics is about explaining human behavior, but when we cannot discern a certain type of behavior as rational or not, that framework you've tried to ["understand the magnitude at which women value what the value."] is useless bc its inacurate to what the real world tells us.

Now there is a constant here that can cut through all this BS.
It is the equasion I typed earlier:

how much someone else wants what you have=how much they will do to get it=how much they will give you to get it

This may sound logical & good, but it isn't absolute. This is the case of maximizing one's happyness for a certain thing or person. In economics, maximizing behavior is not always possible and not always attainable given certain constraints, and even if maximizing one's happyness is possible, a person may not do it.

You said that ["If a woman likes you she will persue you with great magnitude and force!!! How she will persue you God only knows!!!"], this seems very plausible, if she does persue with great magnitude & force, hence maximizing her happiness, then your constant holds, but what if she doesn't? Your argument might be, well she doesn't like the guy enough to persue him with such tenacity.

Look at it this way, lets assume that she likes him enough, but she faces many constraints that hinder her from persuing with such force. These constraints may include, low confidence, insecurity about her looks, if she persues him at such great magnitude, she may come of as being too forward. These constraints and much more are independent of how much she likes the guy. Therefore, one's maximizing behavior is not always prevalent.

 

[AMF]

I hate this incessant backnbiting; why must this site be full of dogma and arrogance??

My point was simple. Rarity IS value. Why are diamonds more valuable than cubic zirconias?

The DJ Bible is full of strategies about limiting your contact with someone, so that your value increases; I suppose your axi (is the plural axi or axises) would be "interest level" (y) plotted against "time available for someone" (x), showing an inversely proportional relationship.

At least, thats how I see it.

 

[Frank Zappa]

Originally posted by AMF
My point was simple. Rarity IS value. Why are diamonds more valuable than cubic zirconias?

Pogs and Slapper bracelets are rare these days... They aren't valuable... Just because something is rare does not mean it is valuable. Some things are rare because there is no demand for them so nobody makes them... Which defeats your first statement.


What you are talking about is the law of diminishing returns.
In other words... DJs are not valuable because they are rare... DJs are valuable because women have so many AFCs already in their pocket that each extra one adds less utility. So they are looking for something else...

Get it right or pay the price ~Ugh from Salute your Shorts

 

[Cheiradawg]

It seems to me that from your perspective, the division between what is rational and what isn't is unclear.
Yes, it is unclear. And, yes, the model makes no distinctions between what is rational and what is irrational. It takes them, what everthey maybe as given.

The entire model is based on only one rational behavior. That women attempt to satisfy their wants. It does not proclaim to predict how or why women do what they do.


What's rational to her may be irrational to us.
Agreed.

Much of economics is about explaining human behavior, but when we cannot discern a certain type of behavior as rational or not, that framework you've tried to ["understand the magnitude at which women value what the value."] is useless bc its inacurate to what the real world tells us.[I/]
I have made one assumption about rational behavior as stated above. The rest of the model is based on this assumed foudation but the assumptioin is very generic. Please post another example of where I assumed a behavior to be rational.


This may sound logical & good, but it isn't absolute. This is the case of maximizing one's happyness for a certain thing or person. In economics, maximizing behavior is not always possible and not always attainable given certain constraints, and even if maximizing one's happyness is possible, a person may not do it.

I have to disagree here once more. Maximizing behavior IS always possible in economics. What the outcome of this behavior is does depend on constraints. But take any set of constraints, and there is always a maximizing behavior given those constraints. Now agents might not know what 'the' maximizing behavior is, but they will in their mind attempt to preform this behavior what ever it may be based on their knowledge, their nature, the constrainsts, and their knowledge of the constraints.
(Refer to the ditch example below.)

You said that ["If a woman likes you she will persue you with great magnitude and force!!! How she will persue you God only knows!!!"], this seems very plausible, if she does persue with great magnitude & force, hence maximizing her happiness, then your constant holds, but what if she doesn't? Your argument might be, well she doesn't like the guy enough to persue him with such tenacity.

Exactly. However I would say "attempting to maximize her happiness." And if she doens't then we go back to the equation: how much someone wants what you have=how much they will work/give/tade for it.

Look at it this way, lets assume that she likes him enough, but she faces many constraints that hinder her from persuing with such force.
Ok, I need to make a clear distinction here. When I'm talking about great force I should have said great force in terms of herself. Which means great effort.
The amount of effort one is capable of putting out is not directly effected by any constraints.
It is like saying there are two men that want to dig a ditch. One has a backhoe and one has a shovel. They have diffrent constrains but each can put forth the same ammount of effort.

 

[Cheiradawg]

Originally posted by Frank Zappa
Pogs and Slapper bracelets are rare these days... They aren't valuable... Just because something is rare does not mean it is valuable. Some things are rare because there is no demand for them so nobody makes them... Which defeats your first statement.


What you are talking about is the law of diminishing returns.
In other words... DJs are not valuable because they are rare... DJs are valuable because women have so many AFCs already in their pocket that each extra one adds less utility. So they are looking for something else...

Get it right or pay the price ~Ugh from Salute your Shorts

YES!!!

 

[madgame]

If you aren't going to take the time to read and understand what I am saying then don't post anymore silly replies whoes only purpose is to salvage your ego.

I love it when people try to sound smart by saying psychological things...however, Im gonna leave this post alone cause we dont need to be arguing about whateva.

Yes I do need to lean how to used the quote thingies.

Its pretty simple. When u write a reply to some thread it should say "quote" above the window that you're typing it. Just click on it and paste whateva u wanna quote in it ;-)

peace

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Troops!


I was down here rummaging through some old files here at SoSuave headquarters and found this thread.

It was well hidden. I had to pull it right out of the X-Files! Mulder and Scully could never figure out how the economics of supply and demand could relate to the world of dating...but these DJs sure as hell could!!!!


Major BUMP!!!!


check it out y'all...

 

[Keeper]

This is what happens when you take a DJ and give him an Economics textbook - in a foreign language.

tsk tsk tsk