Love: A market view

An old school chum recently startled me with a rather sudden announcement: He is getting ready to engage in a permanent “bilateral monopoly.”

In case you have already forgotten, a “bilateral monopoly” is merely economist Ed Stephens Jr’s way of referring to what is commonly known, among Catholics, as the holy sacrament of “marriage.”

A marriage, in economic terms, is nothing more than a contract for exclusivity. The two parties merely agree to a set of exclusive arrangements, particularly, though not always, in regards to the issue of sex.

The concept of falling in love itself is a reflection of free market forces at work. Love is no less governed by the immutable economic laws of supply and demand, than is the overall global economy at large.

When a woman dresses up and dons perfume and make-up to attract a man, she is essentially engaging in an aggressive marketing ploy. Although she may not have an official marketing plan in writing, she is, necessarily, whether subconsciously or unconsciously, still carrying out the four P’s of marketing: product, place, promotion, and price

The product, of course, is herself: her body, her personality, her vices and her virtues, her hopes and dreams–her entire self, both as a woman and as an individual human being.

The place may be at work, at school, or even in a bar–anywhere romance might strike.

The promotion is her packaging: her manner of dress, her general reputation, either good or bad, her hairstyle, and so on, and so forth.

The price is not necessarily monetary. In the general economy, goods and services are traded through an established financial currency (or currencies). Sometimes, particularly in inflationary environments, goods are traded directly for goods, or services directly for services, or goods directly for services and vice versa. This is known as the process of bartering.

In the realm of love, however, a voluntary exchange also takes place, though not primarily through the medium of currency, or other financial instruments, such as stocks, corporate notes, zero-coupon bonds, and the like.

In love, a woman may trade her beauty and her virtue for a man’s intelligence, charm, and financial security. She may appreciate his sense of humor, and he may, in turn, relish her physical affections…but always there is a trade. Nothing is ever completely arbitrary. As humanist Erich Fromm noted in The Art of Loving: “Two persons thus fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange value.”

We deliberately choose to be with other people for certain reasons, because they fill some kind of need. Sometimes those reasons may eventually prove unsound, but always there is a demand and a concomitant supply–a clear trade, a market transaction.

But markets are not always entirely efficient. Vital information may be lacking. We may make a wrong purchase or investment decision somewhere down the line. Indeed, we may even be ripped off, cheated, bamboozled and hoodwinked at some point, as, for example, when our lovers deliberately omit certain “material questions of fact.” Caveat emptor. Buyer beware, I always say.

My advice is to kick the tires around a bit, take it for a spin, a test drive; put it through some rigorous tests: make sure it won’t conk out on you at a critical juncture in your life. Prepare a comprehensive S.W.O.T. analysis: objectively evaluate its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Write them all down. Guard against romantic, overly emotional “irrational exuberance.”

Only then should we make that huge leap into the “bilateral monopoly” abyss.

(Oh, and just in case–don’t forget those vital pre-nuptial agreements, amigo.)