So, I was in my economics class yesterday, calculating the elasticity of demand for corn when I got a notification on Quercus. Someone in my class sent me an E-Valentine through the Quercus messaging system:
“Happy Valentine’s Day,
I hope you’re supplying what I’m demanding. ;)
If I was a prisoner with you, there would be no dilemma.
I hope your p-value is bigger than 0.05.
Love,
Your secret admirer.”
WHAT??
First of all, demanding what?? I will only supply at the rate that their marginal utility determines their willingness to pay! I want a fair price for whatever I’m supplying.
Also, there is a dilemma in the prisoner’s dilemma! I don’t trust this person to not rat me out and cheat the system, so they get to get out! Where is the credible commitment?!
Why would I want a p-value bigger than 0.05? Everyone in economics knows that p=0.05 is the largest possible value for a p-value test to indicate a statically significant result. I like my regressions to be very statistically significant, the smaller the p-value, the better.
For a rational economist like me, there is no answer to these irrational statements. What’s in it for me? Where is my profit motive?? The uncertainty seems too high to get a good return on investment.
Something was sparked in me though. Intrigue. I wanted to respond. Maybe I am irrational. Love is irrational. How can you calculate love? I responded:
“Dear Admirer,
Can you please send me a detailed graph of the cost curve of this relationship, as well the proper utility curve?
Please also graph the marginal utility to love so that I can find the equilibrium point for the amount of units of “love” to allocate to you to ensure efficiency.
All else equal,
George Maxwell.”