by Tyler Cowen
on December 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm
in Education |
View them here, the economics entries are here.
Why do parents of small children feel the need to talk constantly about their shit? It’s not funny or cute and no one wants to hear it. Or read about it on a bib.
Because babies don’t do a whole lot but shit?
Other parents, who have had, and or have small children, find it cute and humorous. The gretater question is why would you, someone who clearly has neither feel compelled to comment so vocally on it. Why do you give a shit?
Because they’re destroying our society.
To the contrary, they _are_ our society.
They don’t talk constantly about their shit. Sometimes they talk about their projectile vomit.
Well, I just wasted a good 10 minutes of my life laughing.
I would hardly call that a waste!
My friend Shikida (http://gustibusgustibus.wordpress.com/) suggests:
” Sorry. Human capital under construction”
Great idea, but wrong economic concept, right? By the time my kid was in a bib, he had cost me four $20 co-pays and a few hundred dollars in clothes and accessories. The PV $1 million of education, cars, trips, etc. were all still ahead of him. The sunk cost of a baby compared to the marginal cost of continuing through parenthood is pretty small.
The more appropriate bib in that same series is the one that says “Positive Externality” (though I suppose one could argue that, with respect to the…ahem..origination act, the baby is the intended outcome and the fact that the act is fun is the positive externality, not vice-versa).
This is consistent with what I was thinking.
My first thought was that this was a perfect bib for a couple who was trying to communicate, only to other people that know a little bit about economics, that their baby, while they love him and believe that he is welfare increasing, was an accidental love child.
So, then maybe a hansonian “Signalling mechanism” or “Daddy is far, Mommy is near” would be a tad more correct,
That’s an old joke. As family income increases, the average number of children decreases.
Here are others:
I have rational expectations
My FICA taxes will support half a Social Security recipient
I’ve got animal spirits!
Me: Principle, You: Agent
On the day I was born, your GDP per capita dropped
My future siblings have diminishing marginal utility
I’ve got a marginal propensity to consume
I raised daddy’s reservation wage!
I want my GDP!
I play in Edgeworth’s sandbox
Negative productivity shock to mommy and daddy
Labor Force 2027 Rules!
I support the animal cracker standard
Ceteris isn’t paribus
MV = Pee Q
My opportunity cost is lower than yours
Teddy Bear Market
Putting my house in disorder
To each according to his crying
I separate mommy and daddy’s hyperplanes
Guns and butter
Girl: X’X Boy: X’Y
It is not from the benevolence of the baker that I get my cookies
Baby Theory of Value
Babies are everywhere and always a sexual phenomenon
I hope Malthus wasn’t right
“Girl: X’X Boy: X’Y”
That reminds me of a story, and a test: you see a vanity license plate which says “XY OVR XX”. What is your interpretation?
(To skew the test a bit: this plate was on an SUV parked by the Biology Dept’s building.)
My first, and indeed only, thought was that some guy was making a sexist statement. That was also the interpretation of another econ prof and a philosophy prof (who knew that I drove an SUV and asked if the offending plate was mine; it wasn’t).
But another econ prof, who authored an econometrics book, said well that could be interpreted as the OLS formula for estimating the regression coefficients (usually written as (X’X)^(-1) X’Y, but semi-translated into English, yeah.
So we didn’t know what to think, and none of knew who the owner of the vehicle was. (Eventually we found out it was a local Bio teacher taking summer classes, and he was indeed trying to make a sexist statement.)
The sinking was fun while it lasted though!
Am I the only one who gets annoyed when the word “baby” is used in the way it is used in the post title? To me, this should read “Brainy bibs for *the* baby,” or “Brainy bibs for *your* baby.” This usage of “baby” is all over the place in ads or articles targeted at parents.
You never see an advertisement for bikes that reads, “Slick bikes for kid” do you?
I’ve had this complaint for years.
I was kind of intrigued by what you said, because it seemed a bit off to me too. “Bikes for kid” (quote marks included) does get 12,100 hits, so it’s not unheard of. More interestingly it got me to do some research on articles. For example, dropping the definite article could be an emerging american phenomenon, since the english have been known to leave it out, eg “in hospital”. Also, it could be a takeoff on the journalistic article dump as in “John Smith, (the) author of ….”, fitting, as headlines are often abbreviated for quickness of reading (creating some wonderful crasblossoms, of course).
I think in this case, the singular usage is what’s odd. “Brainy bibs for babies” doesn’t really seem jarring, and while I think there’s some distinction in the ambiguity “brainy bibs for a baby”, vs “brainy bibs for the baby”, the indefinite article is actually the better choice grammatically (the author doesn’t necessarily mean your baby), but it sounds worse, almost cold. The current choice may actually be the best.
One baby can receive multiple bibs.
the Schrodinger’s diaper physics is wrong: the diaper is both full and empty simultaneously, until you check it. at which point it will choose one of the two states.
When my youngest was born, I recall starting a usenet post with “Increasing the Returns to Capital”.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Marketing costs and tent poles
Next post: Charleston and Columbia bleg
Email Tyler Cowen
Follow Tyler on Twitter
Email Alex Tabarrok
Follow Alex on Twitter
Subscribe in a reader
Follow Us on Twitter
Marginal Revolution on Twitter Counter.com
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.