masAng

  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...

  А а  (Aa..) Б б  (Bheh) В в  (Vweh)  Г г  (Gheh), hard g Д д   (Dheh)  Е е   (Yea) Ё ё    (Yeo), the (Yea) with two dots on it,  Ж ж   (Zhe) this funny letter З з     (Ze)  И и    (ii...) like double ee Й й    (ii.. kratkoye) -short i.  And Actually the sound is Ye. Like y... (something), Yoga, Yoghurt К к    (Khe) (like "k") Л л     (eLeh)  М м    (Meh) Н н     (eNeh)  О о     (Oo)  П п    (Pheh) Р р      (Rrrr) С с     (Seh) Т т    (Teh) У у      (Yuu) (like "oo" in "boot") Ф ф     (Feh) Х х     (Kheh) Ц ц      (Tseh)  Ч ч      (Cheh)  Ш ш    (Sheh ) (like "sh" in "shoe") Щ щ     (Shch) (like "sh" + "ch" together, softer) Ъ ...

  We call the point where those two curves meet the equilibrium. The point where supply and demand are in agreement is the equilibrium. That is the point at which suppliers are willing to sell roses at the same price consumers are willing to pay for them. So with 600 roses, 600 boxes of roses or whatever it is the equilibrium price is $3.  Well, it's a rose, So with 600 rose the equilibrium rice is $3. That is, both parties are happy in equilibrium. The key point about equilibrium , as the name implies, as the term equilibrium implies, It's the point where the system has come to rest.. Where both parties are happy with the outcome.  Both parties are happy because it's on the demand and supply curve. Since it's on the demand curve, consumers are willing to pay $3 for 600 roses. They wouldn't pay $4 for 600 roses, but they'd pay $3.  Since it's on the supply curve, suppliers are willing to accept $3 for 600 roses. They wouldn't accept $2 for 600 roses, but...