Marginalism v. How Much You Love Your Children (605 hits)
Category: GeneralLabels: Classics
Rating: 1.42 on 53 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by d_prime <dprime.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-09-15 09:14:53 EDT
Marginalism is the commonly held and acted-on belief (though most don't know its name) that the more you have of something, the less any more of it would be worth. 10 000 dollars is worth more to a starving family than it is to Bill Gates. Your second car isn't as necessary as your first car, and your third car isn't as necessary as your first car.
Now, if I asked any of you 'How much money would you take to never see your children again?' you'd all probably, and honestly, say 'no amount is enough.' I believe that most parents actually do feel/think that way. However, this isn't necessarily because your child is worth infinitely more to you than money is. It's because of marginalism, or 'the law of marginal utility.' A billion or whatever number of dollars can never be doubled in value to you through money alone because your next billion will be worth much less to you, and your next billion even less, and so on... and as you add more billions, they're worth less each time, and so you never really double what the value a billion dollars is to you.
This idea is sometimes used as a justification for socialism, which I disagree with, but this isn't a political post. This is a post about how much you love your children.
Though I don't know of many people who would likely give up their child(ren) for any amount of money, there's a more accurate way to measure this. We can do it by using probability instead of quantity, which marginalism doesn't apply to.
You need 1 000 dollars to buy something really, really cool. You could get the money for free, but in taking it there's a one in a billion chance that you'd lose your kid. I think many, if not most, parents would take it. 1 000 (the amount you're taking) * 1 billion (the unlikeliness that your child will be gone) equals 1 trillion, and so you value '1 trillion dollar points' more than your child, even if you wouldn't take a trillion dollars for him or her.
If you have a child (or a girlfriend or anyone,) think of the material thing you want the most right now, and make an estimate of what it would cost you. Would you accept the money to get it if there were a one in a million chance you'd lose your kid? One in a billion? One in a trillion? One in 100 trillion?
What about one in 10^40 000? That's preposterously unlikely. Any scientific study other than this would consider it negligible. But if you'd accept the money, even if the chances of losing your kid are that extremely low, then there's a dollar value you could put on your child.
Multiply how unlikely it has to be for you to accept the chance, by how much the object is worth, and that's how much you love your child in 'dollar points.'
I personally value my brother about 2 dollar points. I mean, I could really go for a 1 dollar Pepsi right now, and if the chances of losing them were only one out of two...
Extra note: The one small flaw in this is that the object may be worth more to you than what it costs. I'd pay more than one dollar for a Pepsi right now, which inflates how much a dollar is worth to me because I don't have one. So when thinking of the 'dollar value' of the object you use in your equation, don't think of what it will cost you, but how much you'd be willing to pay for it. I'd be willing to pay, say, 20 dollars for a Pepsi, times that by two, and so the dollar value of my brothers to me is 40 dollars, even though I wouldn't necessarily take 400 dollars to give them up.
I hope I cause a lot of you to put your children up for adoption now!
User Reviews
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-09-23 18:51:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I seriously hate all this math.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-16 14:50:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it's femto, idiot. they are all abbreviations for various powers. prefixes, rather.
atto is 10^(-18), for example.
8 attoseconds is 8 * 10 ^ (-18) seconds.
so shut up.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-16 13:04:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-16 13:01:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:43:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, even if one can deal with such numbers in work etc because they know what they mean relative to other numbers and such, I don't believe that a human can really grasp a number with an exponent higher than 40.
====
bullshit. people have difficulty understanding numbers greater than five, let alone to the power of five. and I know more about scientific notation than you, schoolboy
__________________________________________________________________________
Well now, ain't you some hot shit. What is fempto? Atto? Tera?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-16 13:01:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:43:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, even if one can deal with such numbers in work etc because they know what they mean relative to other numbers and such, I don't believe that a human can really grasp a number with an exponent higher than 40.
====
bullshit. people have difficulty understanding numbers greater than five, let alone to the power of five. and I know more about scientific notation than you, schoolboy.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-16 08:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yay! Super Drew is back and every thing is back to normal!
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2005-09-16 02:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
D, you're going all smart on me...I'm tripping out.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 19:20:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-09-15 17:55:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn Bubba, next time dont break the Prozac in half.
_________________________________________________________
Prozac? Nah, the Doc put me on Amateurzac.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-09-15 17:55:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn Bubba, next time dont break the Prozac in half.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 17:38:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:47:19 (#)
Ranking: 2
You and Bubba had a falling out?? I leave for one day and this is what happens? How the fuck did all this come about?
_____________________________________________
That'll teach you to take a day off.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 17:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:43:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, even if one can deal with such numbers in work etc because they know what they mean relative to other numbers and such, I don't believe that a human can really grasp a number with an exponent higher than 40.
_________________________________________________________
Then you'll never grasp my IQ. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I saw a paper once that tried to explain to laymen about the meaning of
large numbers. I'll try to google for it.
Sorry I got pissed, but nothing makes me madder than someone telling me what
I can or cannot understand. Peace.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:56:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hope that I father 100 kids, but the mothers never track me down.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:47:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You and Bubba had a falling out?? I leave for one day and this is what happens? How the fuck did all this come about?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:45:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Though I think Bubba's apparent anger is in vain, he's backing himself up and offering some value/correction.
Unlike Zakalwe who just makes a meaningless resentful quip.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:43:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Also, even if one can deal with such numbers in work etc because they know what they mean relative to other numbers and such, I don't believe that a human can really grasp a number with an exponent higher than 40.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:41:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Calm down Bubba. I said 'I think,' because I thought I had heard that somewhere. I don't know about Einstein etc, and it was a side point.
Also, when I said 'the people who are using them don't know what they mean' I didn't mean that most people don't know what powers are. I meant that 10^40 000 written on paper, to someone who knows what powers are and how they works, dosen't properly convey what the meaning of the number is, and that no one can really graps any thing higher than 10^40.
Fuck. If I wasn't 15 and said 'Oh, well, I'm an idiot I'm saying this anyway...' before I wrote every thing, and every thing else was the same, I bet no one would get on my ass.
Submitted by alex.lifeson (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:22:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Do you like, go to some strange, savage, non-internet connected land after school or something? You can't have been spending that much time on uber, or you would've +2ed this http://www.ubersite.com/m/75175 all to hell. Sorry about the linkwhore.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-15 14:13:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
why don't you just masturbate like normal children?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 12:36:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
By the way, Tim. the word you fucked up is incomprehensible, not
uncomprehensible, you ignorant putz. . . ..
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 12:31:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Click here to return to the list of messages.
Marginalism v. How Much You Love Your Children (139 hits)
Category: General
Rating: 1.23 on 34 reviews (Rate this item) (View all ratings)
Submitted by d_prime <dprime.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-09-15 09:14:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marginalism is the commonly held and acted-on belief (though most don't know its name) that the more you have of something, the less any more of it would be worth. 10 000 dollars is worth more to a starving family than it is to Bill Gates. Your second car isn't as necessary as your first car, and your third car isn't as necessary as your first car.
Now, if I asked any of you 'How much money would you take to never see your children again?' you'd all probably, and honestly, say 'no amount is enough.' I believe that most parents actually do feel/think that way. However, this isn't necessarily because your child is worth infinitely more to you than money is. It's because of marginalism, or 'the law of marginal utility.' A billion or whatever number of dollars can never be doubled in value to you through money alone because your next billion will be worth much less to you, and your next billion even less, and so on... and as you add more billions, they're worth less each time, and so you never really double what the value a billion dollars is to you.
This idea is sometimes used as a justification for socialism, which I disagree with, but this isn't a political post. This is a post about how much you love your children.
Though I don't know of many people who would likely give up their child(ren) for any amount of money, there's a more accurate way to measure this. We can do it by using probability instead of quantity, which marginalism doesn't apply to.
You need 1 000 dollars to buy something really, really cool. You could get the money for free, but in taking it there's a one in a billion chance that you'd lose your kid. I think many, if not most, parents would take it. 1 000 (the amount you're taking) * 1 billion (the unlikeliness that your child will be gone) equals 1 trillion, and so you value '1 trillion dollar points' more than your child, even if you wouldn't take a trillion dollars for him or her.
If you have a child (or a girlfriend or anyone,) think of the material thing you want the most right now, and make an estimate of what it would cost you. Would you accept the money to get it if there were a one in a million chance you'd lose your kid? One in a billion? One in a trillion? One in 100 trillion?
What about one in 10^40 000? That's preposterously unlikely. Any scientific study other than this would consider it negligible. But if you'd accept the money, even if the chances of losing your kid are that extremely low, then there's a dollar value you could put on your child.
Multiply how unlikely it has to be for you to accept the chance, by how much the object is worth, and that's how much you love your child in 'dollar points.'
I personally value my brother about 2 dollar points. I mean, I could really go for a 1 dollar Pepsi right now, and if the chances of losing them were only one out of two...
Extra note: The one small flaw in this is that the object may be worth more to you than what it costs. I'd pay more than one dollar for a Pepsi right now, which inflates how much a dollar is worth to me because I don't have one. So when thinking of the 'dollar value' of the object you use in your equation, don't think of what it will cost you, but how much you'd be willing to pay for it. I'd be willing to pay, say, 20 dollars for a Pepsi, times that by two, and so the dollar value of my brothers to me is 40 dollars, even though I wouldn't necessarily take 400 dollars to give them up.
I hope I cause a lot of you to put your children up for adoption now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Reviews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 12:20:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
hey bubba -
you're an asshole.
now that we got that settled, are you saying you can actually understand what a number as big as 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is?
nobody is saying that you don't know how to use a ^ sign. its an uncomprehensibly large number.
dick.
love,
Tim
________________________________________________________________________
Yes, TimSuck, I understand numbers of that caliber. I work in electronics. I deal everyday
with 10 to the -15th power, which is represenative of your IQ and that of d_prime. Fuck off, boy.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 12:20:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hey bubba -
you're an asshole.
now that we got that settled, are you saying you can actually understand what a number as big as 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is?
nobody is saying that you don't know how to use a ^ sign. its an uncomprehensibly large number.
dick.
love,
Tim
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:50:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
' because the people using them have no real grasp of what the number means.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Excuse the fuck outta me?? I was using powers of 10 long before your
ignorant ass was born. Don't EVEN presume to tell me I have no grasp.
You are pretentious, condescending, and arrogant. Those are your good
points. Do you wish to hear why you are a real 15 year old moron? Don't ask,
chump, I'd hate to blast you in front of your "friends." Stop now.
Submitted by Thanatos (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:48:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'd trade my kids for a ham on rye.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:46:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
or ONE monkey and ONE typewriter, writing ALL of shakespeare's works on the first try.
___________________________________________________________
Hey!! I've done that,man. . .
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:45:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
believe that this is why you can never go faster than the speed of light, because the more energy you add to something the less any more benefits it.
_______________________________________________________________________
Don't use your distorted logic to try to refute Herr Einstein.
It makes no sense.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:43:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Holy shit, where to start? Your bullshit is based on the fact that people are honest. Do you really
think that if I wagered my kids that the oddsmaker would be honest? I got oceanfront property in Arizona. . . .
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:22:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't consider two things which I should have.
First, that you wouldn't take the chance no matter how unlikely, not so much because you might lose the kid but because of the ideology behind it and such.
Secondly, that there is in fact a marginal dollar value that you'd take for your kid, such as a pair of shoes.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 11:20:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, one out of 10^40 is pretty fucking unlikely. When you get exponentially higher (lower, actually, if we're talking 'one out of') than that, into 10^40 000 etc. etc. it's really all the same 'negligible,' because the people using them have no real grasp of what the number means.
Fuck, I'd take a Pepsi right now if it meant I were certain never to see my brothers again. They're so annoying and what not.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-09-15 10:44:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'll sell my kids right fucking now for a new pair of shoes.
For a matching handbag I'll throw in the husband.
Submitted by papaya_princess (user info) at 2005-09-15 10:29:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Interesting, but I disagree with this statement: I think many, if not most, parents would take it.
If I knew there was any chance in hell I would lose my kid for accepting anything, money or not, I wouldn't do it. My luck would be that it would be my kid. I'd die before I took that chance.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:59:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:53:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:49:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:23:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
From what I can remember, it sounds like a mix between hypotenuse and absinthe
-=-=-=-=-=-=
No fucking way! I didn't even see that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're clearly getting interference from Thorpe's 'Arial'. I recommend you remove all your fillings.
=--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=
All i have is a screwdriver and a corkscrew...
It's gonna be a long, painful night.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:57:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
let me appologize now.
apparently its not more than the number of atoms in the universe.
but its still more than the number of seconds that have passed since the universe was formed.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:53:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:49:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:23:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
From what I can remember, it sounds like a mix between hypotenuse and absinthe
-=-=-=-=-=-=
No fucking way! I didn't even see that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're clearly getting interference from Thorpe's 'Arial'. I recommend you remove all your fillings.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:52:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1 in 10^40.
1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
more than the number of atoms in the universe.
more than the number of milli-seconds that have passed since the universe was formed/created.
more than the number of square millimeters on the surface of every star in the universe.
thats like picking an atom at random from anywhere in the universe, at any time in history, and having it be a part of the one protein attached to the one sperm that created you, that caused you to have an affinity for peanut butter and bananas.
or ONE monkey and ONE typewriter, writing ALL of shakespeare's works on the first try.
or winning powerball 35 times in a row.
its a heated debate, but its considered zero.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:49:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:23:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
From what I can remember, it sounds like a mix between hypotenuse and absinthe
-=-=-=-=-=-=
No fucking way! I didn't even see that!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:48:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'd wager my mate Thorpe for a shot of absinthe.
The odds would be equivalent to the probability Thorpe can drink said absinthe without becoming angry, rude and/or loud, resulting in me having to drag him out of the bar while he tries to pat a half-chinese fella with a beard on the back.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ohhhhh. So you're saying that the rate will change. The second one is worth 50% as much as the one before, the third is worth 5% as the one before etc, or something along those lines that I can't put into words in the 5 minutes or so I have until class ends.
Even if I don't understand what you're saying about my example, I still think the post gets its point across.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:40:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:35:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm now accepting bids for my sister
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*rumages in pocket*
£2.38
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:40:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Or something like that.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:39:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tim, I'm no statistical analysis what not guy and such, but it's still *possible* when it's more unlikely than that. Do you mean that that's when they consider it negligible? And I don't know what you're saying about overcomplicating it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:38:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NO no no no no no
You're assuming a static rate, at which of course it's going to be 50%.
The rate has to change predictably. A derivative of a derivative.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:36:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, I do get your point Thorpe. At least I'm pretty sure.
What you're saying is that the fact that each addition is worth less doesn't necessarily mean that you'll never double the original value.
If it is only worth, say, 10% less then the one before...
1 + 0.9 + 0.81 = 2.71, which is higher than 2, which is what it was worth initially.
However, in some cases, like when you (or most people) already have a billion dollars, the increase will be so much lower that you won't in fact ever double the value. Like, if each addition is worth 90% less than the one before.
1 + 0.1 + 0.01 + 0.001... and you'll never reach two.
I believe that this is why you can never go faster than the speed of light, because the more energy you add to something the less any more benefits it.
My error was not stating that the thing where you'll never double one billion was a hypothetical example.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:35:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm now accepting bids for my sister
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:34:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
and i don't like your "dollars times probability" thing.
its just a question of weighing value. overcomplicating it doesn't do a thing.
overall, not terrible.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:32:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i think most theoretical statisticians consider anything above 1:10^40 or so impossible, even though it is a nonzero possibility.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:30:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
cool post DP, and nice use of pepsi.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:30:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You missed my point.
Sleep..
Submitted by leilani (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:27:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:26:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But no, I've never taken an official economics class in my life. I found Marginalism way back while flipping through wikipedia.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:25:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, I know that marginalism is simple economics. It's the idea of applying this to how much you love your children that's new in this post.
Thorpe, I was really just using that as an example. I should've been more clear. However, a billion probably applies to most people, unlike five.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:23:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From what I can remember, it sounds like a mix between hypotenuse and absinthe.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:22:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good post, except your billion dollar "can never be doubled" even in (as you've described it) "dollar points" analogy is way off. You've picked an arbitrary amount there - if you were going to say that each dollar was worth less than the one before it for a billion dollars, and thus you'd never double it, you could apply that logic to $5 and say you could never double it. It's very possible for there to exist a rate by which something is continually increasing, though in decreasing amounts. It doesn't have to reach a... a... (the last time I did Maths was just under a year ago)... *one of those lines it will never reach but will keep getting closer to.*
I dunno, maybe you just worded it incorrectly.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:22:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I see you're taking Econ 101 this semester.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-09-15 09:17:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That last figure should be 40, not 400.