Week 6 Wall
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tyler Cole, 
brendanjf, and 12 others are discussing.
hartcamp 4:43 pm on October 7, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
If I’m understanding the question correctly, for the most part, especially in North America and Europe, people work towards earning money in hopes that they can purchase items that possess a material value for them. Not all people live their lives with this sort of demeanor, however, many people globally fall into consumerism. This is not surprising at all considering that billions of dollars are spent every year on advertising. A backward sloping supply curve brings up an interesting idea. If something becomes very popular, the demand will rise, and often, rather that produce a large amount of the product at a reasonable price, companies will sell very few of them at a very high price. This adds a level of prestige to limited products that aids in drawing in an audience. If everyone has one, (most the time) then it isn’t unique or special anymore and is’t as popular. For example, with what we are discussing in lecture right now in mind, once hunters and fur traders had killed of or caused a majority of the animals that were being hunted for their pelts to migrate and the furs became rare/more difficult to acquire they became even more popular and the demand for them rose. Seeing this happening in the 1800’s sheds a light on today’s marketing and shows that the same types of economic behavior has been going on for centuries.
Vincent Yam 6:57 pm on October 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It’s difficult to say and really depends on what ‘economic’ model one is talking about. I do agree that people are self-interested, but depending on the situation, they may not pursue necessarily economic self-interest.
The reason one works may not be purely for monetary reasons, but for personal prestige and social status. There is a HUGE demand for soft drinks, so why don’t Pepsi or Coke and any of those large soft drink companies try to market the drink as a luxury drink? I mean with the cheaper materials they already use to produce the drink, why don’t they? The decision boils down to whether the company can gain more out of promoting the item as an everyday drink or a prestige drink. Apparently Pepsi and coke find it easier and more advantageous to promote their product as an everyday drink, so in a sense its economically self-interested, but at the same time, their product, gains a SOCIAL weight. There is nobody who hasn’t heard of pepsi or soft drinks. So by sacrificing possible economic and social prestige, Pepsi and coke essentially gain advertising, or social significance to the point in which their product is part of everyday life, and that may be more valuable for the companies than any monetary gain.
Now above is really a hypothesis or a hypothetical situation. Moreover, I am still agreeing that that humans are self interested. See the reading about Indigenous women and how they married sometimes threw themselves (quite literally) at white men. The social prestige and influence they gain (not just the economic benefits), despite the childbirth problems outweighs their possibly more constant, possibly more stable life for a more dangerous path. Of course thsi changed eventually, when white men began to treat indian women with less respect and they were more inclined to stay with their families, so yes, I say that human’s are self interested, but it depends on the economical and cultural spectrum of the time.
Tina Loo 12:30 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice thoughtful answer Vincent.
slali 4:32 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Economic behaviour is universal and a large number of people pursue material self-interest frequently in their lives, but we cannot make this general statement for everyone. People work so that they can first provide the necessities for them and their families, but people strive for higher paying jobs so that they can spend this extra money on materialistic items. People want what’s “in”, and believe that materialistic things will bring them a quality of life, so people will continue to buy. This behaviour in fact is universal amongst many. The indigenous people did not show this universality, because as the Europeans would purchase their furs for more expensive prices, they would drop their production and sell less. Therefore they were collecting the same amount of trades as if they sold their furs for cheaper, but more of them. This is an example of the backwards-sloping supply curve. They raised the prices of their goods, and instead of keeping the production the same, and making more “money”, they reduced their production to stay consistent.
Tina Loo 12:31 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Has your behaviour ever corresponded to the backwards sloping supply curve?
richardj 10:49 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Is economic behavior universal? Defining the causation and examining the context in which it applies will determine it’s universality. Each and everyone of us has a comfort zone, a plateau where our basic needs are met financially and our labours to sustain our comfort zone diminish. Are we materialistic species? well, that depends on economic circumstances that surround our daily lives. We strive for to better our existence by working towards financial goals to obtain material goods. If the local economy is strong and sustainable, we will work to maintain a standard of living which suits our lifestyle. A farmer will work long hours in the planting season in hopes that his crops will yield a large return by the harvest time arrives in the fall. If the crop is a bumper crop, his silos are full and his investment is time and labour paid off. Does he continue to work long hours, no, his basic financial needs have been met and he can work less and still maintain his own standard of living. Do we pursue our own self interest all the time? No, when our way of life and/or our standard of living is threatened, we will take advantage to maintain our own self interests.
Tina Loo 12:31 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice careful answer Rusty.
maxgardiner 11:14 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Historically economic behavior is not universal, however in the modern context it is rapidly becoming universal as a result of the global spread of capitalism. Given that our society is oriented towards consumerism people will happily accrue as much money as the possible can to spend on objects that will make them happier or feel like they’re better than everyone else. This is why people will continue to line up to buy new phones even when they just bought the latest new model a few months ago. Obviously the first goal for people is subsistence, weather it be through farming, or working to the extent that you can buy food, clothes, and shelter. Technological advancements have made it possible for people to easily produce enough so that they can live beyond their means. part of this is that a subsistence based living is horribly boring and would probably drive most people insane if they do not have any money for entertainment. One example where I have used the “backwards sloping supply curve” is when I was in high school working a part time job I would sometimes turn down extra shifts as I did not need the extra money and would value the hours I would gain for personal enjoyment more than the amount of money i would have made by working for that amount of time.
Connor Munro 11:52 am on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Not all economic behaviour is universal and people don’t always put their material self-interest first all the time but they do pursue it most of the time. An argument can be made to say that there is a general rule or guideline in the way economic behaviour is done. Most of the time people sell something for money to gain more money and is better for ones own material self interest. Currently at my place of work a backward sloping supply curve could be used to describe my effort/energy used in relation to the amount of hours I work. The more hours I work the less effort/energy I use so that I can conserve my energy to work more hours. However, this does not represent my effort all the time but it is a comparison that I made. Previously, at my old place of occupation(just like the example given in the definition of a “backward sloping supply curve”) as my wage increased I worked less hours to have more relaxing time. However, this example also reflected the way my chores were conducted when I was younger because as I started to get paid more for my allowance I started to do less work until I started to do the very minimal at home These examples are not all representative of my work and they do represent a kind of curve that could be used to explain my behaviour.
cammejil 12:34 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
According to my economics professer, Gateman, economic behaviour is universal and all people act out of self-intersest. That aside, i think in general and most of the time (qualifiers), people do act in self-interest – and this is how we are able to predict economics and come up with economic and political theory. De Toqueville, for example, had a principle he called “enlightened self-interest” in that people will act for the common good if it is also in their own self-interest (for example, building a new road near their home- which helps community and them), so it is often found in political theory. In regards to economics, we genreally assume fundamentaly that individuals try to maximize their utility [happiness] and that companies or firms try to maximize their profits. There are exceptions, for example, a firm may decide to protect the environment instead of a higher profit alternative with more pollution, but as general economc theory stands, the majority act in self-interest and thus the behaviour can then be predicted and categorized. I can find many exceptions to this gernerealization however, for the sake of a “backwards sloping supply curve” such as feeding the homeless (although an argument still might be made on that self-interest in helping others increases utility), or for example, if i was to give up sitting in the front of a rollercoaster, allowing my sister the opportunity instead, in which i am giving up both the object of my desire and losing utility from the enjoyment of sitting in the front and so am therefore acting not out of self-interest but in the interest of another. To conclude, yes, i think economic behaviour is universal and that self-interest is pursued most of the time.
Tina Loo 12:33 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice careful answer Jillian.
jamesrm 12:45 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Economic behaviour has gone through many changes over time, proving that it is not universal. If you look back through history, different societies have had completely different ideas of economy, ranging from communist societies to capitalism. In general, I would argue that, especially in more Western countries such as the United States, Canada, the UK etc… do pursue material self-interest. Obviously, this is a generalization and not every individual in these countries is materialistic, but trends suggest that the majority of people are. As Max suggests above, people are constantly vying to make the most amount of money possible, and to use that money to buy the next greatest material item. An example of a backwards sloping supply curve actually happened to me this past summer. I was working at my job and was working quite a lot of overtime (which paid time and a half) so when given the opportunity to take extra shifts, I declined quite often as I valued (out of self interest) my own free time more then the money that I probably should have been making.
bedard 12:46 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Is economic behaviour universal? I say it depends on what perspective you are looking at. For instance, with the HBC and the NWC trading parties, they were looking to gain furs from the First Nations strictly for the value of the fur and to boost their economic gain. However when you look at the First Nation perspective, they were trading not to gain value, but to gain every day essentials that would be put to good use and that would help them live day to day. Not all people are pursuing material for self interest, you have groups of people working to gain the necessities, you have people in the middle with the necessities and a little bit of indulgence, then their is the group out their to gain wealth and status and always working to better themselves in the economic market. One example of a situation where we see a “backward sloping supply curve” would be seen through fishing season. A fisherman will go out during the summer/fall season to try and catch fish to feed him and his family through the winter season. During fishing season, long hours are required for the fisherman to be out trying to meet his quota and beyond as much as he can. Once the fish are caught, the next step is to process and clean all the fish. If there is a surplus of fish caught, the fisherman has more leisure time throughout the winter months as he has already worked long hours to supply his family with food.
Owen Bedard
FribaRezayee235 12:48 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Blog Week 5 “Economic Behavior Universal?”
The neoclassical economic principles are universal; people motivated by self-interest and a desire to maximize utility/profit; the laws of supply and demand govern them. Economic behavior is influenced by culture. The gift trade and administered/treaty trade are examples of non-market behavior. There is no universal economic behavior. I believe that the economical behavior is strongly connected with culture. For example, big weddings in India cost the parents of bride a great deal of money. Basically, the parents of bride provide everything that a new wedded couple need to their new house (furniture, home appliances, attire, expensive jewelry to display the wealth of bride and so on) along with the wedding ceremony expenses itself. This clearly illustrates that there is a huge deal of economy outside of the markets. This is the culture, however, it is use for benefit of the groom’s family. By using culture as excuse, the groom’s family doesn’t need to spend any money. A western society is a consumer society and wealth gives you a higher social status therefore, I think that one can even say that people tend to develop greed in some extent in western societies as well. It is indeed very much focus on material things, but also economic behavior has been changing from the past few decades in western world. People instead of big fat wedding, focus on spending that money on quality time with their love ones. Most of that money is spend for the future kids of newly wedded couple.
Tamara Ling 3:06 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
For the most part, I would say that economic behaviour is universal and that people do tend to pursue their own self-interest most of the time. Especially in modern culture, we all tend to want the newest and trendiest item that is on the market. Throughout our lives, we are constantly being hounded by our peers and the media to purchase the newest item, even if you just bought something similar a few months ago. Of course, before we buy those materialistic items, we will use the money we earn to cover our living expenses, which can include food, shelter, and clothing. However, after we realize that there is leftover money for us to spend, we are inclined to purchase items that are not really necessary in order to survive. This includes the newest phone, or other items we can use for enjoyment.
A backward sloping supply curve shows the relationship between the quantity and price of a good or service offered to the public. It explains that as the quantity offered decreases, the price will be forced to increase to keep up the “equilibrium”. For example, whenever a new iPhone is released for the public, Apple will first decrease the amount of phone that can be offered to the public, causing the demand for the item to increase. Hence, Apple can increase their price so that they can make more profit off of the iPhones.
eself 3:09 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I define economic behaviour as consumerism, a daily fight because of the need for resources around the world. I believed this is universal because of the business of trade between people from all around the world wanting resources only found or made in certain areas. I do not believe that all people express the same economic behaviour because there are many factors to explain economic behaviours. Also, I do not believe all people pursue their material self-interest all the time, but I do believe many indulge in their material interests on occasion for reasons they feel are legitimate. More specifically, what they believe will make them happy at that time in their life.
A situation where a backward sloping supply curve would explain my behaviour would be the want to buy multitudes of resources when on sale, or when a recession is predicted to happen so that I could pay a more reasonable price for the items before the price rose.
Elizabeth Self
brendanjf 4:50 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I would argue that economic behavior is not necessarily universal, at least not the ones we are specifically referring to.
Not everyone always pursues their own material self-interest. There is a large portion of people who when faced with the opportunity, will forgo the opportunity to gain further wealth or material possessions. If they have the ability to work to a point where they feel comfortable, and do not feel pressured by monetary issues, they will not work any harder, even if they would still gain more money by doing so. If their wages increase, they might scale back their work so that they are still earning as much as they did before, or perhaps more, but they have more leisure time as well. Or, if they realize that they only need to do a certain amount of actual work while at the office in order to earn their wage, they might decide to perform only that which is required, rather than going beyond, despite the fact that superiors recognizing a stronger work ethic or larger contributions might give them a bonus or raise.
However, there is also a large number of people who act in the opposite manner. When faced with an opportunity, they will take advantage of it to gain more wealth despite the fact that they might not need it in sense of comfort or emergency. There are those who, even though they know that they only need to do a certain amount of work to earn their wage, will still put in overtime, or work harder than their colleagues, in order to try and gain a material advantage. This can be seen even in some people who earn high wages and live comfortable lives.
I think some of this can be attributed to a cultural influence, and I think this dichotomy can be summed best up by the phrase “Work to live, or live to work”.
Tyler Cole 5:34 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that no, economic activity is not a natural pursuit, it is a learned behaviour. To my knowledge, early modern humans did not practice trade between groups, meaning that at some point in our development since then, we have learned to be economic actors. When Europeans arrived in North America, the First Nations populations that were living there had no idea what the fur trade was, or how they would fit into this complex system. The idea of trading furs for economic gains was a new idea to First Nations people. Yes, they had practiced trade, mainly with people, but trading for goods was a new idea. Prior to European contact, First Nations peoples had produced goods mainly for internal use, the idea of those goods having a value to other people would have been new. That said, even though the economic ideas presented by the Europeans were foreign, they were picked up quickly, as the First Nations people saw the value in the goods that the European traders were offering to them.
Tina Loo 12:44 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on Week 6:
What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone was at pains to be very careful about generalizing about human behaviour! That’s great. Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….
It would be hard to believe that economic behaviour is universal; i.e. that all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). Even within one time and place it doesn’t seem universal. Many of you gave me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?
Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and (in another tutorial) art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?