%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |    Not for the faint of art. |
| Here's a Bloomberg link that's not nearly as pants-on-head stupid as the last Bloomberg article... though that's not a high bar to clear. The Economics of Dining as a Couple  Sure, protectionism would guard your pommes frites. But free trade ensures that the best goods reach both sides of the table. Actually, it's rather amusing, and I do like to see complicated concepts made relatable. I will point out that the article is five years old, but I don't think that matters here. Marriage counselors tell us that couples frequently tie the knot without discussing the core matters that can cement or sunder their marriage: finances, children, religion. Well, let me add one under-discussed biggie to the list: restaurant dining. Well, I guess it does matter. A lot of restaurants in my area never reopened. Some of those that have are operating under reduced hours and/or capacity, and workers are fed up with dealing with assholes while not getting paid enough to deal with assholes, so they're understaffed. Still, you remember the concept of "restaurants," don't you? But. To get back to the article. I'm sure some couples "forget" to discuss finances, children, and religion before getting hitched, though... I mean... why? However, I'd venture that most couples go on at least one restaurant date before getting married. If they don't, chances are they're not restaurant people to start with, so it won't matter. I am eternally astonished to find not only that many couples I know failed to discuss this key area before they marched up to the altar, but also that many of them still have not developed a joint dining strategy even after 10 or 20 years together. This is madness. This... is... Sparta! Sorry, knee-jerk reflex. As a romantic economist might put it in a wedding-reception toast, couples have the chance to jointly move to a higher utility curve. You'll probably have to look that one up. I did. There are basically four strategies that a couple can practice at a restaurant. I should note here that this is something I'll personally never have to deal with again, but I do have an interest in economic theory, so I read on. 1. Autarky. This is when a country is closed to imports or exports, and produces everything it consumes. In the restaurant context, it means that you are each independently deciding on what to eat, with no input from the other person, and then solely consuming what you ordered. Admittedly, this was always my preferred strategy. I was an only child, and while I'm happy to share a lot of things, my fries aren't one of them. An economist will tell you that autarky is terrible. You’re missing gains from trade! What gains? You steal my fries and offer me a bite of salad? Get bent. 2. Individual production with trade. Under this model, you both order whatever you want, and allow the other person to take a few bites in exchange for a few bites of their food. This is how the world economy works, and it is much better for dining than autarky. The above notwithstanding, if we have an international trade agreement in place before we order, I'm open to negotiation... but only if you don't order something I'm going to hate, like any vegan dish, or anything with eggplant. 3. Individual property rights, with option trading. Now we’re moving toward a more centrally planned economy. The menu is individually consulted, and then the two parties state their preferences. Which is what I was talking about above, Still, no, I don't care if it's someone I kiss all the time, her taking a bite out of my hamburger is completely out of the question. 4. Full food communism. A communist economy is a terrible idea. A communist dinner table, on the other hand, truly is a bounteous paradise. No. No it is not. If I ordered a steak, I expect to eat the whole steak, and not trade some for your oysters (which are only technically food anyway). Anyway, just a bit of fun here. I was especially amused, though, by the standard disclaimer at the bottom of the article: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Obviously, because it has the word "communism" in it. And rich people don't share. That's how they became rich. And now it's time for me to drink some Romulan Ale and watch Lower Decks. No, you can't have any; make your own. I'd have watched it earlier, but Shang-Chi opened yesterday and of course I had to go see that. Consequently...  One-Sentence Move Review: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings I enjoy martial arts flicks and MCU movies; this one combines good stuff from both, though the Marvel tie-ins aren't nearly pervasive enough to shut out anyone unfamiliar with those films, and I feel like it can stand alone -- though one might not get the full effect from some of the in-universe references, there's plenty of action, fights, SFX, and even car chases to keep your mind off what you might be missing. Rating: 4.5/5 |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
