Manhattan, the Universe, and Everything

A single Manhattanite's diary of her life in The City, plus various odd commentary. plain_jane_jones1@yahoo.com

Friday, October 27, 2006

Armchair Economics

True or false: the likelihood that a man will cheat on his wife can accurately be expressed by the following theorem: If Dnp > $TR, a man will cheat.

Dnp = Desire For New Pussy

$TR, or True Financial Risk is the financial exposure that the husband exposes himself to if he cheats. $TR equals FR(%C). FR = maximum financial damage that the husband would experience if he was caught, and %C is the chance, expressed as a percentage, that the husband would get caught. Thus, if the pre-nup mandated a payment of $500,000 in cash to the wife if the husband got caught cheating, on top of half his assets (which are worth $500,000), but the odds of him being caught are only 30%, the man's True Financial Risk is only 30% of $1,000,000; or $300,000.

Take that, Freakonomics Guy.

5 Comments:

At October 30, 2006 6:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like your math, Jane. This is definitely a topic that requires further discussion - it would help us all to know why men cheat. But doesn't your theorem rest on the assumption that the relevant calculation is purely financial? It seems to me that there are other risks involved in infidelity (i.e., public display of moral failure, kids living in split homes and the consequent emotional problems, etc.). How do those other potential risks work into the calculation?

 
At October 30, 2006 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're also assuming that the "cheater," man or woman, will make a logical, financial decision. Even if it was a chance to have both Angelina Jolie and Jessica Simpson at the same time, it looks like a dumb decision financially. However, most people don't base their willingness to cheat on financial penalties. Most like the change, the risk, and the lust that accompanies cheating to the point where the consequences of getting caught don't really matter.

 
At October 30, 2006 5:35 PM, Blogger Plain Jane Jones said...

Yes, I am assuming a rational actor with my theorem. But so do most economic theorems, and that is why most economic theorems fundamentally fail.

 
At October 31, 2006 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the fuck is a husker horn fan anyway?

 
At October 31, 2006 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably someone who likes the huskers and the longhorns. Maybe (s)he grew up in Texas but went to U of Nebraska for college.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home