Wednesday night, in New York city, after spending an intense night making love to one of my numerous paramours, I bludgeoned her to death with a cupid statuette I own. I know from my strict upbringing that women of loose morals should be shown no mercy. George Bernard Shaw once said 'Women upset everything', and who am I to contradict him? So I was satisfied in having done the correct thing. I read some more of my Derrida book while I waited for her body to congeal, so as to minimize the amount of blood spilled. I then proceeded to saw her body into more easily manageable pieces. As testimony to what higher education can teach people, I took into account the anatomy of her limbs and organs so as to facilitate the cutting. Once I was done I was able to fit the pieces of her body into my Vuitton Keepall overnight bag and my new Samsonite suitcase. I then set off for Washington D.C.
I had decided not to take the plane because I hate to eat even small snacks when there is the risk of turbulence. People with decent upbringings prefer order and tidiness over raw speed. Utility can only be truly maximized when indifference curves are at their highest. I decided that the train would be much better. I arrived at the station by limousine, where a porter offered to carry my luggage to the platform. New York can be such a civilized city. I noticed a police officer ask a homeless man what he was doing there, to which the homeless man stood up and shouted about the Rights of Man and Thomas Paine. The policeman smiled and wandered off.
The train from New York to D.C., despite not having a smoking carriage, has become more pleasant in recent years. On the train I read in the paper how the Dubai Ports deal had been rejected by Congress because foreigners should not be controlling our ports. This made sense. After all, no one would want to trust our precarious points of entry to foreign entities. Once arrived in Washington D.C. I took the metro from Union Station to Anacostia, where I walked two blocks south and left my luggage in a storefront. I walked around the corner and waited all of ten minutes for both pieces of luggage to be stolen. They were someone else's affair now.
I then took the metro to East Falls Church, to my friend's house, for a well-deserved beer.
6 comments:
that woman you sawed into pieces... she is a metaphor for something?
Not really. Just an exagerration. I'm not sure. Should she be?
you know what would be great? a post about the recent election and how your boy berlusconi lost.
And what do you mean utility can only be truly maximized when indifference curves are at their highest. Apparently the slope of the indifferece curve is zero when the utility is maximized, given the budget constraint. Moreover the indifference curve is convex, you maximize at the bottom point of the indifference curve. Your level of utility is however, increasing, you can't never not maximize them. And I don't see how that is related to the decision between the plane and the train. Unless you meant to say given how much money in your pocket, you would pick the train.That doesn't maximize your utility though. By taking the plane, you obviously gain higher utility, but just that it is not in the limit of your budget. There is no point to even start an optimality problem on that one. Unless you say given the choice of flying and no beer, but take the train and have money left for beer, then that sentence would make sense.
Wow, at last I found sth I could comment on this post.
and it is the only intellectual analysis I can make out of this post.
I said when the indifference curve is at its highest, not at the highest point of the indifference curve. If there is a choice between two indifference curves and A is further out (ie, higher) than the B, we'd choose A, right? Then the point is of course the one tangent to the budget constraint, but that is irrelevant here. So marginal utility is maximized and the highest level of utility, given constraints (budget and non), is attained.
And how can you tell me with certainty that I gain higher utility from taking a plane rather than a train? I don't like turbulence so the extra time spent on the train is worth the smooth ride. You might not agree, but you can't say that "by taking a plane you obviously gain a higher utility". Otherwise we can get into personal utilitarianism where utility is based on personal happiness and satisfaction, which is what I maximize by taking the train, but instead let me finish by quoting a soon to be renound economist (ie, you):
"utility is the level of your happiness. So yes depending on your preference on good x, a consumer can gain more utility if he/she values that x more than other. so Suppose you prefer x more than me. Then the same amount of good x will give you more utility than mine.
k so preference is a function that maps your preference into utility (level of happiness)"
k Mr. A+, I won't argue with you esp. when I just flunked my micro theory prelim.
then what kind of intellectual criticism can I give on this post? The other comment I could think of is.. are you implying you had sex with a bimbo during spring break? But then again in your first paragraph said you disected her body and put in your Vuitton. As far as I know, i don't see you own LV in your apt. So that implies whatever you said in this paragraph is made up. But then again why would you write about such a thing? Or is it just to impress your in the middle nowhere friends you are still sexually active only in the city and that you havn't lost your mojo coz your friends in ithaca don't see you hitting on anyone?
Hmm that's the only other analysis I can think of.
But I said i'll hold my peace and won't bite you anymore. So dude, write a new post. here are some suggestions, you can write about: world peace, darfur, why bill gates would ever want to own da Vinci's Codex Leicester to Life, Why Van Gogh paintings became famous after his death, or even write about your little dancing lesson :D
Post a Comment