TAKEN FROM: http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Economics/143/
Okay, so I was looking for econ articles online a few weeks ago and came across this "Econ love song" I guess you could call it. I don't know why I find it so funny, maybe because I'm a nerd. Just read first and then look below...
Girl, being with you has always been so tough
With each passing minute, your marginal cost goes up
But my love is inelastic and it all belongs to you
I’m the only love producer, and my good is for you to consume
Because girl your marginal benefit far outweighs your marginal cost
Without our equilibrium baby, you know I’d be lost
Trapped inside this market I need you, to buy my love
Girl without your complementing goods, I’m not enough
Now you say that I’m producing, below my ATC
But I’m optimizing quantity baby, why can’t you see?
We could share this surplus, each and every day
If you would just buy my love, I’ll make my fixed costs go away
Baby I want to keep you for the long run, Oh yeah
I think our supply and demand, will become one…
Because girl your marginal benefit far outweighs your marginal cost
Without our equilibrium baby, you know I’d be lost
Long run equilibrium is no place for me
I need the profits of our love, to grow exponentially.
Pretty creative, eh? The site I linked isn't from the actual writer of the song, but there is another person giving an analysis of the inaccuracies of the lyrics (there's quite a few). For example, the analysist points out that love cannot technically have a marginal benefit or marginal cost due to the fact it can't be considered a "good."
Another funny point he brought up was how the love betweeen the couple can't be considered an actual free market with equilibrium because there is only one producer (boyfriend) and one consumer (girlfriend), technically making their relationship a monolpolistic, with the singer needing his girlfriend to buy his love rather than wanting it.
Can anyone figure out what's wrong with the line "Now you say I'm producing below my ATC, but I'm optimizing quantity, baby, why can't you see?" The answer is on the site if you can't figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That's a very creative song! It's very amusing. I liked the part about his love being inelastic, it made me laugh, guys are such liars. When he operates underneath ATC, it can't be the optimum quantity because producing under the ATC is not the most efficient or "optimum" point.
Dido what Gina said, "Now you say I'm producing below my ATC, but I'm optimizing quantity, baby, why can't you see?"--if he was optimizing quanity he would not be below his ATC. But guys like to think they can do the impossible. I actually laughed when i read that tho...quite creative!
wow. i want to hear it actually sung to a tune. very, very funny. i'm kinda sad that i find it funny...but i'm a geek.
i agree with gina and ashley. if the most efficient point is where ATC=MC, the singer cannot be truly optimizing quantity.
Post a Comment