or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by unbelragazzo

Sure, there are differences between goods and in some cases most people might agree that in one dimension one of the goods is definitely better. But aggregating all these differences into something called "quality" that has numbers with cardinal meanings attached to them is nonsense.
Not that you have to adopt the economist's definition of rational preferences, but the standard definition is, I would say, VERY permissive. Preferences are rational if they are complete (between two options, you can always say if you like one better than the other, or that each is as good as the other) and transitive (if you prefer a to B and B to c, you must prefer a to c). Even so, there are examples where people consistently violate transitivity. It's somewhat unclear...
That's my argument. That this "quality" is a meaningless and useless construct. But my understanding is that Monkeyface and his followers consider quality an objective score.
But there is the suggestion that "quality" is something objective that does not depend on the individual. The individual then measures whether he wants 10% more "quality" at double the price, or whatever the parameters are for the choice he faces. This is how I understand the proposed model.
You're right, it isn't always shiny, but in the right light you can definitely see it. As a business suit it would at least be risky IMHO. I don't know the oyster book well, sorry.
French women don't follow trends or celebrity lookbooks, dress to be themselves: http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG10919718/The-secret-to-French-chic-Avoid-trends-and-ignore-advice.html
I have a Tonik suit. I like it, but use it only as an evening suit. It's too shiny to wear during the day, and also doesn't wear as cool as fresco IME. If I were to have only one blue suit, it would definitely not be Tonik.
Tobacco linen sounds ideal for this IMHO.
New Posts  All Forums: