masAng

  So let's say this mathematically.  At a point like A you  have your marginal utility for pizza is the derivative of the utility function with respect  to the number of slices of pizza. It's the marginal utility. It's derivative of the utility function. So it's dU/dp, which is equal to 0.5 times C over square root  of P times C.  MUp = dU/dp = 0.5 x c /  And at point A we had  two cookies and five pizzas. At point A,  P was five C was two  that's true of point A.  So we can evaluate the marginal utility.  dU/dp, which equals 0.5 times C over square root of P times C.  So that's 1 over the square root of 10.  That's the marginal utility of the next slice of pizza.  The next slice of pizza makes you 1 over square root of 10 happy.  Once again, that number is meaningless.  So we only care about it in ratios. So we need the ratio. So let's do the marginal utility of cookies.  That's dU/dc, which is 0...

  So if it's not survival of the fittest individual and it's not survival of the fittest group, then what is it? The Beginning Life Well, to explain that, I want to take you on a little journey, all the way back to the beginnings of the Earth.  Where we are now, there is nothing. Well, not really nothing, but nothing interesting. There are only simple things, like these blobs. This one might be a carbon dioxide molecule, or it might be cyanide. We don't know for sure what they are, but we do know that these compounds are very simple. So for now, they'll just be blobs floating around our void. In fact, much of what we'll encounter along our journey here are just hypotheses. A lot of Earth's early history is still a mystery, so keep that in mind.  Now, every so often, our blobs get a surplus of energy, maybe from a ray of UV light or a nearby hot source. This is the first major upgrade to our void, excess energy, as it allows our blobs to interact with each other....

  So if natural selection is all about selfish individuals, why do we observe so much altruism in nature?  The survival is of the species that can adapt.  I think generally the species.  For the survival of the species.  So it's the survival of the species.  Okay. Yeah, you're right. But survival of the fittest species or the fittest group also doesn't work.  I mean, think about what you need for natural selection to occur. You need something that replicates itself many times over, creating copies, and then you need a pruning process, whereby some of those copies get eliminated and some thrive to go on and create more copies. The problem with groups or species is that they don’t typically make copies of themselves.  So you almost never get copies of groups fighting other copies of groups to see which groups win out. So if it's not survival of the fittest individual and it's not survival of the fittest group, then what is it? The Beginning Life Wel...

  I saw an interesting ads last night. I t was just I was watching basketball game. I saw something for Taco Bells was saying that you can get  their plac the PlayStation a new Playstation system before it even comes out on the market but through a contest  so that's a way that people someone has it and now there's so much hypee on like your friend who has it based on  you and not the rest of the Market's not available to them so it's like a coveted thing. Right, Absolutely and it's interesting that they picked a gaming  console.  So I think that's very relevant to what we're talking about definitely. That's what their  target market is because whoever eats for that fast food is more like I guess teenagers and who plays games, Teen. Yeah  it could be,  Absolutely we need to understand all of that. We need to understand the consumer profile. W ho is our target market and we say who is our target market yes part of that is is what we're trying ...

  Do you agree in some categories it makes sense? Any of you guys Gamers?  What do you think?  If the game is not there, on the day they said it was gonna be released. Then you're gonna go back, right? If it's something that you're really enthusiastic about. Then that's going to be a high-involvement purchase for you, but other products not so much. And depends on the individual what  might be a high-involvement purchase for you may not for somebody  else. So it's definitely, it's personal.  And the level of price is usually associated with high- involvement  purchases. Although it's not the only indicator but then again keep in mind. What's considered to be expensive for  one person may not be expensive for another, but the idea is what we need to  understand is the consumer behavior that what behavior will we  anticipate if our product is considered to be a  high-involvement or a low-involvement purchase. That's why we need to do...

  So let me remind you,  This is "the official dogma",  Maximize welfare, by maximizing freedom Maximize individual freedom, by maximizing choice The one that we all take to be true,  and It's all false,  It is not true .  There's no question that some choice is better than none.  But it doesn't follow from that  that more choice is better than some choice.  There's some magical amount, I don't know what it is.  I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point  where options improve our welfare.  Now, as a policy matter, I'm almost done.   As a policy matter, the thing to think about is this,  what enables all of this choice in industrial societies  is material affluence.  There are lots of places in the world,  and we have heard about several of them,  where their problem is not that they have too much choice.  Their problem is they have too little.  So the stuff I'm ta...

  After all, it's about survival of the fittest. But survival of the fittest what? I mean, most people think of natural selection as being about the survival of the fittest individual? animal? Individual Individual  Individual  Animal - (group)  Animal?  Okay, so it's like an individual.  Yeah.  Which makes sense. I mean, individuals best adapted to their environment have increased odds of survival and therefore a higher likelihood of passing on their genes.  So it follows that each individual should do everything it can to survive and reproduce.  That is, it should be selfish .  But if that's true, then how do you explain this?  Worker bees will sting predators to protect the hive, even though it might kill them in the process.  Female worker ants are sterile, so they can't reproduce, but regardless, they work for the colony for their entire lives until they die.  Monkeys adopt orphans,  Wolves bring meat to non-hun...