To Know I've (v)-ed You Before You Do

Read more...

Art is Honest & Palm Has a Face

At age twelve, when I answered to my art and drawing teacher why drawing a picture of children with no face and a plant with human's face, he claimed on me:

"You're always good at the concept, but not at the execution."

Well I didn't mean to execute, I just meant to draw.

---

While today is sad but yet so fun, at least I could laugh all day long just to remember what me and my friend did during the series of presentation. I didn't know where exactly did the joke came from but it seemed amusing to pay attention on human's ambiguity.

It was just really nice to play at our own world as well as to imagine something silly among the room's atmosphere of seriousness. I hope nothing serious next week. *finger crossed*

- M

Read more...

Chronos and Kairos

Walking on Water

by Madeleine L'Engle

Kairos. Real time. God’s time. That time which breaks through chronos with a shock of joy, that time we do not recognize while we are experiencing it, but only afterwards, because kairos has nothing to do with chronological time. In kairos we are completely unselfconscious, and yet paradoxically far more real than we can ever be when we’re constantly checking our watches for chronological time.

The saint in contemplation, lost to self in the mind of God is in kairos. The artist at work is in kairos. The child at play, totally thrown outside herself in the game, be it building a sand castle or making a daisy chain, is in kairos. In kairos we become what we are called to be as human beings, co-creators with God, touching on the wonder of creation.

This calling should not be limited to artists, or saints, but it is a fearful calling. It is both Mana and taboo. It can destroy as well as bring into being.

In Our Town, after Emily has died in childbirth, Thornton Wilder has her ask the Stage Manager if she can return home to relive just one day. Reluctantly he allows her to do so. And she is torn by the beauty of the ordinary, and by our lack of awareness of it. She cries out to her mother, “Mama, just look at me one minute as though you really saw me… it goes so fast we don’t have time to look at one another.”

And she goes back to the graveyard and the quiet company of the others lying there, and she asks the Stage Manager “Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?” And he sighs and says, “No. The saints and poets, maybe. They do some.”

Read more...

Could It Just Be A One War?

If I went all along against my mind (during that time), that means I'm now trying hard to be softened a bit and to let my pride was being trampled by my success against them. And there are things that should not be more beautiful than a big reason behind it all.

Read more...

She Caught the Last Bus Home

So this is what they called Jakarta at its nice (art-speaking).

"I often think that the night is more alive and more richly colored than the day."

(Vincent van Gogh)

Read more...

Amateur's Captures: Across the Picturesque Strait

Read more...

Does Solitude Mean Selfish?

What costs us to decide something? Somebody else's freedom, interest, happiness, and well-being?

In life, we are faced with several options: to make it or to take it all away. I believe that there's no single thing in this world that happens to be the first-best-option. That once we decide, it could be no zero cost of impact comes to pass the surface. We may harm the others as well as we may benefit them.

But it's also not about what's been decided, rather how we pay to the consequences that may occur once we decide. And it happens all the time. Like the government who needs to create a policy that may harm people while benefit the business(wo)men, the key is on the rent distribution. How they accommodate the loss received by the people using the value of benefit collected by the businessmen/women.

However I forgot that I'm not a kind of government-like since I only govern myself. And it's not a kind of a public choice analysis since it doesn't mean to be a public good. Or even if it has to be a public good, I prefer to use private choice analysis approach because for me it really is, a private one.

Read more...

Attaining Equilibrium: Of Any Given S & D

Source: Ramblings Of An Asshole

Read more...

Solution: Rule or Discretion?

(Di suatu kelas, dua orang mahasiswi sotoy sama istilah ngobrol ngalur-ngidul gara-gara lelah menunggu sesuatu yang tak pasti).

X: Ibunya punya kecenderungan buat dicap ngga kredibel nih, bilangnya mau masuk jam 2 tapi sekarang udah mau jam 4. Tadi aja sesi pertama baru masuk jam 12 padahal harusnya jam 11.

Y: Itu artinya ekspektasi muridnya ngga menggunakan adaptive expectation, ngga belajar dari kesalahan masa lalu.

X: Masalahnya adaptive expectation udah ngga cocok lagi buat dipake di kehidupan, udah ada rational expectation.

Y: Masalahnya muridnya udah rasional belum? Abisan ini ada problem assymmetric information. Kan kita ngga tau apakah pas ibunya ngomong itu sunggu-sungguh akan ditepati atau ngga.

...

Z: Maaf ya tadi saya bilang mau masuk jam 2, saya lagi banyak urusan ini, nanti aja saya ngajar sampai malam. Maaf ya, jadi ada time-inconsistency deh.

Read more...

Nothing’s 100% Fidelity, Mayang!

My friend told me about her quick experience,

Y: Cantik banget sihh

X: Apa sih lu

There was a guy (Y) who had a crush on her (X), perhaps not an exact crush but rather just a form of admiration, or even, having a space of interlude to flirt to, or to be more extreme, joking. Be it whatever.

For a second she was actually having a blushed-cheek yet feeling so embarrassed. But then it wouldn't mean anything though, based on the fact that he didn't really mean it or because she couldn't imagine how hurt it is to be a girlfriend of a guy who, roughly speaking, was doing some kind of flirting with (an)other god's creature, one of the illustrations, herself.

Yes, he already got a girl.

(Case closed).

Couple of days ago I had an afternoon conversation with a friend named Lia. And as the other typical girls living on earth, it's always nice to talk about relationships, feelings, or sensibility. Everything that are practically not about your story, but you just experience that you can adjust that into yours. We always find it interesting on things brilliantly touch the smallest part of our own huh?

In a nutshell she said that's normal if sometimes we simply feel bored with our partner and decide to have an interlude. So when the day comes, jusat have an interlude too for us.

For a while I couldn't agree since she was talking while driving, when all the things she said was worth of half-trusted because the rest of her 50% were left on the street. But who would place a tendency of impossible outcome on the multi-tasking probability of a girl?

H₀: μ < 0.05 (Lia does not really mean of what she said)

H₁: μ >= 0.05 (Lia does really mean of what she said)

What to test?

I was questioning her a lot, few times all those rebuffs in my head seeking to get out through a number of why(s).

But then I couldn't find what to reject, since the rejection region was not clearly defined, or in the other words, failed to plan a test, which means, brought thinking to an halt. That's a pre-assumption of life's choice before a destiny happens to come (t), we'll fail when we decide to stop trying (thinking). Otherwise a failure may be called as a destiny when we talk about it after what would have happened to life (t+1).

Flashing back to the topic; and then I thought maybe I was just too naive hence I couldn't accept what she said immediately. Too much drowned by hundreds of pages of Nicholas Sparks's books. Imagining that Landon Carter, Alex Wheatley, and Paul Flanner are the real human beings and not only as characters. Dreaming of a true allegiance between Noah and Allie does really exist.

Oh Mr. Sparks, why were you so damn trustworthy? Or maybe I have to turn the question; why I was so dumb and so easy to be fooled by your lovely paraphrases?

Read more...

To Draw What's On

Street Scene in Montmartre: Le Moulin de Poivre (van Gogh, 1887)

"They walked on, without knowing in what direction. There was too much to be thought, and felt, and said, for attention to any other objects."

Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 58.

Read more...

That Would Be A Good Title

Celine:

Memory is a wonderful thing, if you don't have to, uh, deal with the past.

Jesse:

"Memory is a wonderful thing, if you don't have to deal with the past." Can I put that on a bumper sticker?

(Before Sunset, 2004)

Read more...

A Glimpse of Holding Constant Our Own Value Judgement

So the World Development Report 2012 is out! We can download it for free here.

Despite its holding issue and I know that changes remain possible in every part of our life, I'm just thrilled as it lends a hand on me to keep in faith at least. Coincidence? Pretty much. Every so often a coincidence comes up when we play around only to that vicinity, right? So it may be not that "real coincidence". But further question is, is that wrong? To jump over only to the freshwater rather than the saltwater lake in finding a trout. Though we aimed not to find a huge seatrout after all.

And I have to put aside all my previous judgements on this required completion of study. So please guide me to play in a positive check, not a normative one. For months or years ahead.

Last night, I just had a talk with a friend. We agreed to be disagreed and we didn't insist to joint when it just didn't have to because actually it was mutual in sharing and that went without saying. It was all about tolerance and we chatted about that as well.

Tolerance. How do we handle with that? Is this the thing that we need or is this a normative side of our behavior? At times I think, is there any impact of one's behavior to another one's behavior? I mean (to give a context), do surroundings widely determine on how we act?

Genuinely I am fascinated by the work of permisiveness; how could a smoker befriend with the one who don't smoke at all? How a drinker may sit and sip a glass of white Russian in front of the one who drink a mock of cocktail. How about the drug users, do they leave a friend who doesn't do any drugs behind? Do they stop talking with a friend who refuses their invitation to go clubbing at places somewhere over the city lights? Do we start to avoid an atheist? Do we laugh at people's faces when we hear they simply want to do a pray of any given religion that they keep in heart? Do we leave a space to people who (un)decide a marriage or an affair?

Do we provoke others to dislike people who don't walk in the same pathway of mind or people who don't stand in the same circle with us?

Yes, it is all about tolerance. Empathy, acceptance, understanding, or any sensible term we want to include. And again, it's in different context if we wish for locating our own value judgement inside.

This is an apology of having too much questions. Sorry for being a bit neurotic at this time, unless that there's always time-inconsistency (when we put a matter of time in such variable) but it's been so often for me to throw many question marks and become a little bit annoying to ask for longer when I can't meet the expense of any statement. Hence never stop asking, there's no such a sure thing and I just thought that we're living in an indefinite world, aren't we?

Read more...

Most Conflicts We Have Actually Based On Its Substances

Weird is, he who creates it he who blames on it. Many would deem it's stupid, but defining words requires more efforts to feel and to go beyond into chords.

We're too often trapped in a conflict with fewer solutions and it has lessened its chance to be solved. Like a moderator failing to pull the final wrap-ups, the debate is based on an equivalent context that doesn't exist. Some insist from the word of "d" and "e", some try to identify "fi" and "nit", and some how to unlock the suffix of "ion". How could the conflict's solution fail when the debate is so beautifully orchestrated from each perspective?

It may because they have gone too far from an endeavor to define the "definition" itself.

Somehow there's innocence within a stupidity, and there's political aspect inside a weirdness. We can't afford to pay attention on these both and to compare them each other since they are derived from a different context. We can actually, but it's just better not.

Read more...

Story of A Naïve Utopian

Safe Haven, Scott Everingham

She once imagined this world actually consists of good people, that all those issues in such headlines are just a somerset play-like so that they get plenty of things to do and to cope those life's strange phenomenons and bizarre creatures--keeping them busy all day long whilst avoiding them being paid in an idleness. Dreams that are noteworthy.

Read more...

Yes, Sir. I Do Still Have So Much To Learn

An article from my professor. Never been taught by him but really would like to.

Read more...

Mona Lisa Smirk

Last month, The Economist put a forlorn issue on its headline. After a concern on previous rating downgrade, they stopped for a while to such trend in the eastern part of the world before they continued the journey to a matter of current job plan today. A sec stop in an issue of love despair among Asians vis-a-vis the falling of marriage rates.

Something reacted in my face was nothing but a smile when I read the article.

You could imagine a Cruella in me, of looking at her innocent Dalmatians skin, being peeled off softly, or in the other head, how this anti-marriage activist, staring at something going on the earth, which most of them, working properly as her plan, particularly related to what she have campaigned for.

But don't always get so hard to the dark side. (Lemme have a moment for an excuse) I smiled simply because of the issue, it's nice to see how the world pays attention to your mind, an appearance of chemistry between these both that leads you to the perplexity, either what's been discussed here derived from the truth happens in the world or vice versa. It's the time that decides but the shorter thing is they are harmonized.

However there are some parts of the article, notwithstanding its fundamental argument, but essentially left disharmonized, probably regarding their suggestion on how to revive marriage in Asia:

Relaxing divorce laws might, paradoxically, boost marriage. Women who now steer clear of wedlock might be more willing to tie the knot if they know it can be untied—not just because they can get out of the marriage if it doesn’t work, but also because their freedom to leave might keep their husbands on their toes.

One thing seems a little bit nonsense or maybe two. Is it true that an ease to divorce might boost marriage, so it equals to, women reject marriage because of the tight procedures that divorce has? Sadly no, such an exhausted form of bureaucracy is not a big deal for women.

The second one is what about the reversion effect of women's freedom to leave? It is said that the freedom might keep their husband at home, no? A thousand times yes if the husband covered by a fear of women's freedom, but a million times no if it makes the husband blissfully freer from home. I have so much to learn.

Further recommendation: Why is divorce in Indonesia increasing?

Read more...

Katherine Ann Watson

Since Pretty Woman had brought her name high, how I love her character most here.

---Wellesley College, 1950s---

Katherine Watson: Since your wedding, you've missed six classes, a paper and your midterm.
Betty Warren: I was on my honeymoon and then I had to set up house. What does she expect?
Katherine Watson: Attendance.
Connie Baker: [timidly] Most of the faculty turn their heads when the married students miss a class or two.
Katherine Watson: Well then why not get married as freshman? That way you could graduate without actually ever stepping foot on campus.
Betty Warren: Don't disregard our traditions just because you're subversive.
Katherine Watson: Don't disrespect this class just because you're married.
Betty Warren: Don't disrespect me just because you're not.
Katherine Watson: Come to class, do the work, or I'll fail you.
Betty Warren: If you fail me, there will be consequences.
Katherine Watson: Are you threatening me?
Betty Warren: I'm educating you.
Katherine Watson: That's *my* job.

(Mona Lisa Smile, 2003).

Read more...

Third Article!

Against the Current Norm: Moving to Jakarta

The Jakarta Post | Sat, 09/03/2011 3:00 PM | Opinion

The return of about 7 million holiday makers to Jakarta will be followed by a surge in the number of new migrants. Post-Idul Fitri 2010, around 60,000 new migrants came to Jakarta, down from 69,554 in 2009, the reduction due to firm action by the city administration.

Alongside Operasi Yustisi Kependudukan (OYK), a program of identity-card checks during the post-Idul Fitri period, the Jakarta government has also appealed to people to reconsider moving to the city. This is particularly aimed at low-skilled people, most of the city ads are designed to warn them that finding jobs in Jakarta is not as easy as it may seem.

Jakarta requires people to have skills and restricts those who are considered low-skilled. But if everyone has the right to move and seek a better living, then why should coming to Jakarta be banned? One possible answer is that the Jakarta government is trying to reduce the myriad of social problems resulting from overpopulation.

The city has a plan to limit its population to only 12 million by 2030. Statistics show that in 2010, the registered population numbered 8.52 million, whilst the latest national census put Jakarta’s actual population at 9.59 million. The annual growth of 1.4 percent per year is mostly caused by migration rather than natural growth. Assuming that growth is stable each year, the city’s bid to limit the population to only 12 million in 2030 will be unachievable.

This reality has forced the local government to seriously control the population through family planning programs, ID card checks and a policy of transmigration. From 2005 to 2010, Jakarta relocated 2,163 people, or 542 households, to North Sumatera, Bengkulu, South Kalimantan and Southeast Sulawesi.

Quite apart from the current corruption case plaguing the Manpower and Transmigration Ministry regarding alleged bribery in the Manokwari resettlement project in West Papua, transmigration programs have resulted in many problems mainly due to poor conditions in the settlement areas.

The worst example was in the 1970s when migrant settlers, mainly young farmers from Java, were forced to move to Kalimantan, but this island’s soil is mainly peat moss which is not suitable for rice farming. The transmigration program only succeeded in moving poverty from one place to another.

The program has also led to some dreadful disputes and ethnic conflicts between migrants and indigenous citizens that often derived from socioeconomic tensions. In the past the policy was seen as “Javanization” or“Islamization”, but this perception has lessened with increased decentralization.

Is it still appropriate for Indonesia to continue this program?

Rapid urbanization and the pursuit of better living standards mean that for many people, lacking full information, Jakarta is the only place that can provide them with what they need.

Better infrastructure, for example the development of mass rapid transportation and toll-roads, certainly leads to improvements in economic and social activity but it may result in an urban development trap and could backfire on Jakarta in the long run. As such the development is tantamount to a pull factor for more people to come rather than encouraging people to leave.

Many suggest that leaving Jakarta requires some form of incentive. The principle that people respond to incentives is human nature. Thus creating incentives in other places is much more rational than forcing people to move from Jakarta, unless authoritarian rule is to be restored.

Rather than putting a metaphorical gun to people’s heads, focusing on developing an attractive economic climate in sparsely populated, marginal areas of Indonesia would be a better solution to this tangled web of problems.

Focusing on this regional development will not only lead to qualified people moving voluntarily from Jakarta but also to the empowerment of local citizens in these areas. The paradigm of transmigration must be shifted from forcing the poor to move to attracting educated people to migrate voluntarily.

Most graduates of major universities in Indonesia intend to work in Jakarta and aspiring entrepreneurs will wish to do the same since the city still provides the largest market. The choice of where to locate therefore becomes a self fulfilling prophecy about finding the best career prospects.

The government cannot rely solely on the benevolent actions of philanthropy to fill the gap between Jakarta and the rest of the country. It needs to create other economic activity centers away from Jakarta.

If diverse economic centers do come to pass, it will be amusing to imagine our children going against the current norm by making annual visits to their parents in Jakarta every time Idul Fitri comes around.

The writer is a School of Economics student at the University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java.

Read more...

Status FB nya Mas Bemby, lol

Bemby Gusti, 4 August 2011 at 12:39 via Mobile
Anak bisa Bahasa Inggris tapi ga bisa Bahasa Indonesia kok dibilang/dipikirnya "Pinter??!!... Orang Idiot di Inggris juga ngomongnya Bahasa Inggris.

Read more...

Couldn't Think What's the Title That Fits In

Do you know that as the husband and wife grow older, they lose their ability to hear each other? So what’s the point of marriage? If I may assume that what’s the point of marriage if you know that someday you will lose your ability to hear each other, then it won’t be different with what’s the point of living a life if you know that in the long run we’re all dead? Damn you marriage, damn you. And what a poor you are, life.

No need to act like a fucking wise person on blaming me cause am cursing this-oh-holy-life. Human got’s to have a sin and we’re only just a human, bloody ass. Let it becomes my own sacred problem with this fucking god. Is it a sin, of having no ‘g’ capital letter in it?

Your passion of sex, oh poor you are people who is making a marriage just for the sake of satisfying your freaking biological needs and your pride on achieving the most handsome, beautiful, richest, and glorious person in your own little width of life, or your oh-beautiful vested interest to hold god’s hand by having a heavenly veiled wife or maybe a signed forehead guy with a hanging pants. Or maybe a girl with a cross over her neck and a guy who has his Buddha or Gandhi books below his sheets. Do you feel such a heaven on that—uh? Congratulations if it is yes, beers!

Have you realized that satisfaction has its depreciation? That even the utility of your spouse—in doing sex—eventually will be degraded, and not so respectively similar with your passion which always sues you to have it more and more. How long you’ve been trying, to connect a dilemma between a monotonicity and a non-monotonicity? Hard, isn’t it?

I’ll raise my hand when someone asks who the person is over the earth having a difficulty to trust people especially regarding his faithfulness. Even when it comes to my friend’s case, there’s always my sincere pray deep down beyond every suggestion to them. There’s always my sincere pray deep down beyond my excitement on having a merry atmosphere and nice food in every wedding invitation I’ve attended. I’d blow my pray to them. And you may pray for me, a poor me, of being a skeptic on any fucking such a hell commitment matters in a relationship. But we may fall in love without being pro to the marriage, right?

Forgive me on having question marks too much in each paragraph. It’s just an effort from me to ensure that you’ve been trapped for so long in a labyrinth full of questions. That you’ve been considering before turning left, right, straight up, or step down. That you’ve been thinking before doing. I wanted to say that you’ve been researching before deciding a marriage, but it has been remained implicit honestly. Obviously just made it appears in an explicit way. Oh—forgive me, of having a lot of sorrows and mistakes.

This express is my own. Feel free to be agreed or not. But in the end, you can’t be such an egoist long after you have a family. Making your children as the reason behind your deep efforts to keep yourself in that marriage while you feel uncomfortable, that’s just fucking hurt for that children. And leaving your children outta there, letting them become beggars in certain traffic lights on the street, that’s also a form of creating slavery over your fucking passion of getting, marrying, and having an allowed and a routined sex with your past achievement, your ‘old desired girlfriend/boyfriend’. So go and get the answer of your questions.

Read more...

Anyone Want to Buy Me This? :)

Milanovic defies the typical image of an economist by presenting research overlaid with humor, literary insights, and fully imagined portraits of daily life as he examines inequality across time and continents. He weighs the wealth divide between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy of Pride and Prejudice as well as Anna Karenina’s financial prospects had she married Vronsky. He ponders John Rawls, Alexis de Tocqueville, Karl Marx, Max Weber, and others to explore theories regarding the rich and the poor. Using complicated economic models that he explains very well, Milanovic breaks down incomes to make comparisons between the haves and the have-nots within nations, between nations, and among citizens of the world. He offers vignettes that make his concepts all the more accessible and entertaining as he explains the errors of Marxism and why a person’s relative wealth is determined more by their country of origin than by their family’s wealth. Milanovic writes as much like a philosopher as an economist as he ponders the growing trend of inequality in income around the world and answers questions many readers likely ask themselves about their economic prospects. (Vanessa Bush)

Read more...

Comparative Advantage Analysis: Marriage of a Man and a Woman

When the trade goes into the things that are considered as taboo, yet they are essential for life.

We should know upfront. That I put a word “man” in the first order does not indicate that it is more respectful than the other one. It is only because “m” letter appears earlier than “w” in the alphabet order. It is such an unnecessary explanation indeed, just in case if there is a feminist or masculine (I could not find the exact antonym for feminist, could you?) minds this one.

This writing analyzes the form of comparative advantage in the case of a married man or woman. Sperm and ovum play their respective roles as its terms of trade. Furthermore, we use reproduction cells as the man’s and woman’s resources. As we are pursuing to considering whether the comparative advantage is still valid to create gains from trade in the form of a marriage, though we confine our analysis until the equilibrium of this marriage market. It is not because we could not find the answer, but it requires more assumptions and appropriate condition.

Maybe I will start from the definition of comparative advantage itself. Based on the Ricardian Model in Krugman (2009), a country has a comparative advantage in producing a good if the opportunity cost of producing that good is lower in the country than it is in other countries. For those who are not familiar with the opportunity cost, this is a cost of not being able to produce something else because resources have already been used. So, a country with a comparative advantage in producing a good uses its resources most efficiently when it produces that goods compared to producing other goods.

For instance, the US has a comparative advantage in spare parts production since it uses its resources more efficiently in producing spare parts compared to other uses. In contrast, Indonesia has a comparative advantage in textile production since it uses its resources more efficiently in producing textiles compared to other uses.

When we are trying to orchestrate this theory into the case of marriage, then we should formalize these ideas by constructing a slightly more complex model using the following simplifying assumptions:
1. There are only two admitted sex types; man and woman. This is not a kind of discrimination or I undermine the rights for people to consider which type of sex that fit for themselves, but it means to make it simpler
2. If the two countries in the theory are domestic (Indonesia) and foreign (the US), then “countries” regarding this case are man and woman
3. As only two goods which are textiles (Indonesia) and spare parts (the US) that important for production and consumption, in this case, man will have sperm as his product and woman will have ovum as her product
4. If labor services needed for Indonesia and the US to produce textiles and spare parts, then reproduction cells are the only resource important for the production of sperm and ovum
5. Reproduction cells productivity varies across sex types, usually due to differences in food substances, but the productivity and its supply in each country is constant across time
6. A marriage only happens between the different sex types. It is not a kind of discrimination or I undermine the rights for bi-sexes, lesbians, gays, or you name it. But rather because this is a “common type” of marriage and as we know that the assumption is needed just for the sake of making it easier to be analyzed.

Since there are no other issues about the economics of marriage that I have learned unless the one from Becker (1973), then I am using his theory of marriage (part 1) to support this theoretical analysis. In his paper, Becker stressed that there are two basic assumptions; each person tries to do as well as possible and that the “marriage market” is in equilibrium.

If I may assume that the sentence of “each person tries to do as well as possible” as a characteristic of this trade that man tries to sell his produced sperms to woman and woman tries to sell his ovum to man as well as possible, then the “marriage market” is in equilibrium.

Unfortunately, comparative advantage theory has its confusion. The trade (marriage) will only be beneficial if the man and woman quite productive in facing the competitiveness of trade. The benefit of competitiveness from trade does not only depend on the relative productivity to foreign, but also to the price of domestic production factor function (price of reproduction cells) relatively to the price of foreign production factor function. It means that the reproduction cells of man and woman should be able to guarantee that they may produce the healthy sperm and ovum.

The second one is that the competitiveness is not tantamount and creating disadvantage to either man or woman if the trade happens only based on the low price of reproduction cells. It means that the domestic industry should not be fooled by the foreign industry, or we used to avoid the appearance of violence against the marriage.

The third one is that there is an unequal trade in a marriage. Once, either each man or woman may exploit their reproduction cells in excessively producing either each sperm or ovum. And it may lead to the hurting each other.

In a nutshell, the comparative advantage does create gains from trade but the gain to a man and woman from marrying (doing the trade) compared to remaining single (keeping it autarky) is shown to depend positively on other factors such as affectionate feelings, incomes, human capital, and relative difference in their reproduction cells to produce the healthy sperm and ovum. Or in other words, marriage is not as easy as returning another palm side if you want to benefit each other.

Another conclusion is, since this is only a theoretical analysis (not empirical), so the tendency to be proven wrong remains possible.

Read more...

Marriage & Gain From Trade

I am always wanting and waiting for this kind of moment run through within my family. At the almost twenty nine years of my parents’ building of a family, it-will-happen, soon. Strange at first but I do not want to be too neurotic for this. I now believe that every one has their own judgment about what they have considered as their best choice of their life, as long as it is combined by the assumption that everyone’s freedom is restricted to the other’s freedom. So, I choose to tolerate it rather than arguing it and subsequently lose control. As Malthus ever said, that food is necessary to the existence of a man and that the passion between the sexes is necessary. But if I have a chance to imagine that Malthus is still alive today, I would very love to convey my thought to him that no wonder that a man always uses passion between the sexes as “the necessity of their food”. I repeat and boldly underline once again; a man. And I wish that he would not be offended, considering that he was a person trapped inside man's body.

Marriage, for me, is a terminology for every love birds who considered themselves in a well-prepared condition for having a further commitment. Yes, further commitment, and it sounds creepy. It is like a decision to freer the trade or to keep it autarky.

Y = C + I + G, or
Y = C + I + G + (X – M)

The difference of autarky and free trade appears in the value of (X – M). The value of (X – M) or current account indicates about how does the exchange occur within these two parties. If you contribute a lot outside, then your current account would be positive, vice versa.

I believe that a marriage of a man and a woman has the same criterion with a bilateral trade, ceteris paribus, assuming that the trade is only happened between the subjects; any trade-influence between families, friends, and relatives are not counted as well. So, a marriage of a man and a woman is like a bilateral trade in the open economy. If the trade in the open economy always creates gains from trade, the question is, is there any gains from trade in a marriage of two different kinds of sex?

Read more...