I wanted to write about this topic back in December when I saw the December Men's Journal which had as their cover story "What Men Want". With Tom Brady on the cover I wasn't sure if that meant men want Tom Brady or if they want to be Tom Brady, but in any event, the question remains: What do you want? Is that a deep question? Does the answer require soul searching and meditation? Economists would tell you that they already know what you want: You want what you do. The standard joke is that two Economists walk past a Porsche and the one says to the other, "I want that Porsche" and the other says, "No you don't." The joke being that if the guy wanted the Porsche he would have gotten it already. (No one ever said Economists were very funny.)
Before you start saying, wait a minute, there could be lots of reasons why he hasn't bought the Porsche, well, go ahead and say that, because that's the point. Please, read this article first. The article explains the difference between "unconstrained" wants and "constrained" wants. If there is no cost to us, there are many things we might want, including a fancy car. But if the choice is between, as he says in the article, a new Lexus and cabbage soup at every meal or a Camry and regular food he goes for the Camry and the regular food. And because it's a choice he made, the Camry is what he wants, not the Lexus.
This is definitely splitting linguistic hairs here, but I think it's important. It's a cliche, but talk is definitely cheap. As Greg Behrendt said in a book I read recently, "On the Human Interaction Stock Exchange, our words have lost almost all their value." Case in point is the answer to the most noble job question from Men's Journal: U.S. Soldier. I'd like to see how many of the responders would still be saying Soldier if the job they listed was one they'd then have to do.
This whole theory of decision making as showing a person's true preferences is called Revealed Preference Theory. The basic concept is that consumers show their preferences for goods and services by their actions; their preferences (something generally unknown) become revealed through choices. The key acknowledgment in all of this though is that the choices are made among available options, which although obvious is important. For example, the fact that people work at Wal-Mart is evidence that they view working at Wal-Mart as their best option, given the choices they have. That's the problem: they don't have very many choices. So, Revealed Preference Theory doesn't necessarily show the optimal allocation of goods and services, but it does allow a glimpse into the decision patterns of people in response to their current environment.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
What Do You Want?
Posted by
Asa
at
10:33 PM
Labels: economic theory, misc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My philosophy of life (well, a bit of philosophy, anyway) has long been, "Happiness is not about having what you want; happiness is about wanting what you have." It's kind of funny to see that philosophy cast as economic theory.
ReplyDeleteStay tuned for an elegant and brilliant response from Binge Cafe...I have to leave right now but I'll be back...
ReplyDeleteWhat was the question again? Um, I want candy. Vegan candy & chocolate.
ReplyDeleteAlong the topic of your blog, an interesting experiment would be to determine what in your life you can live without. What must you have to sustain your chosen lifestyle?
It is true that when you make more $ you tend to spend more. As income goes up, the price tag amount becomes less significant. Not insignificant.
Regarding the theory you cite, the issue of limited choice would have to be addressed from more than just an economic standpoint as you suggest. One of the huge problems with the structure of our society is our primary reliance on economic justifications for abysmal conditions and practices.
BC, I think you answered your own question. "What must you have to sustain your chosen lifestyle?" The answer is whatever you currently have, because by definition you've chosen those things, and hence that's the lifestyle you've chosen. Is that circular reasoning? Probably, but I think a tougher question to answer is what do we need? What is need? It's a tougher question because beyond the very basics like air, water, food, protection from the elements, love (?) it becomes a highly subjective question about how much and of what qualities. Do we need more than one pair of shoes? Do we need vegan chocolate? Who's qualified to answer that question, and is there one answer for everyone?
ReplyDeleteAs for "economic justifications for abysmal conditions and practices" I disagree that that is the problem. Intelligent Economists (is that an oxymoron?) agree that the world is messed up. Over half the world lives in severe poverty. There is no justification to maintain this status quo. There are reasons why people are poor, just as there are answers for changing it. Economic analysis can be used on both aspects, but this is not justification, which contains a sense of moral judgement. Economists hesitate to judge, i.e., say one policy is better than another, only that there are consequences for different choices, and people should be aware of those consequences.