1,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + +
→Enter your questions about economics here
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)
:If someone gives me money, the ''worst case'' is that I do not know of anything that would please me more than the intended gift. In every other case, I can do better with the money than with the gift. Therefore, it would seem that the economist's "rational man" would always prefer to give and receive the money. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:51, 8 February 2007 (EST)
The "rational man" is not merely interesdted in money but in total utility (the economic term for overall satisfaction); he might get more utility by reciving a gift that he knows was specially chosen for him by the giver than from a cash gift that has no personal meaning. Likewise he would get utility from giving a meaningful gift. In fact, if it ''were'' simply about money the "rational man" probably would not be giving at all!
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 12:38, 9 February 2007 (EST)
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)
:2) Consider a company whose stock pays no dividends, and whose management's states that their intention is not to pay them in the future. The present value of a future stream of zero dividends is zero. How does economic theory explain why people are willing to buy such stock? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:39, 8 February 2007 (EST)