weakest

But, I think it is possible for the girl to 引誘 the teacher. It is particularly strange that the teacher give the girl $$ after having sex (or just 開房without doing anything?? God knows...)....

weakest

But..........can find the 証據 of who is 主動??

weakest

I think the children nowadays are very 早熟 (perhaps because children have to face competition in very young ages, e.g. for competition for places of good schools). Therefore, I believe those children in secondary school (even if in Form 1) (and even some senior primary school students) could make their own rational choice (of course, they may be lack of experience when compared to those much older (e.g. 40 years old)). As such, I see this case as 2 rational people doing something like a pair of couple. Therefore, I don't know if the girl takes the initiate (it is heard that the chance of successful "chasing" would be higher if the girl takes the initiate). I personally don't mind others fall in love with each other even if there is a great difference in ages. However, If the teacher really did something against the law (衰11), he should be prepared to bear the legal consequences.

P.S.: I really feel that it is strange for the teacher to give $100 to the girl after 開房. If the teacher just wants to give some $$ to the girl, why just pay the $$ after 開房? Is it because the girl knows that she provides a good to the teacher, and thus ask for compensation? Or is it because of the teacher just treat the girl as a sexual service provider???

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-19 14:38 編輯 ]

weakest

I also agree with you on the factual prediction that the teacher would be severely punished in this case. After all, the age difference, and the teacher's profession would make the society believe that he is extremely unacceptable.

But I do have different view on the children about their "rationality". It seems that the children would be more dared to express their ideas, and to object something that they think is bad even if when they are young. For example, the children would always appeals to 虐兒 if someone wants to punish them for mis-behavior. This shows that they are more tough in defending themselves. Therefore, I believe that they would be more tough in protecting themselves from unwanted sexual disturbance. As such, I believe that the children would have rational believe in considering the choice of "having sex" and "not to have sex".
Of course, the girl may miss out the possibility of being pregnant (of course, she may be aware of this risk also, but she may just choose to take the risk since the risk is too low. But after all, we are not her, we don't know if she do really aware of that risk...), but even if she miss out this possibility, many older people do miss out this possibility as well. Many people have sex is not for baby, and thus adopt some measures to avoid getting a baby, but as you said, the probability of getting baby is not zero even if these measures are adopted. But for those older people who choose to have sex like this case, it seems that less people would blame them for their "irrational" behaviours. And for those older people, many of them are without sufficient income to raise up a baby also (e.g. low income people, graduate students, etc.), but it is necessary for them to have enough income for raise the baby before they can have sex, it seems that just a few portion of people are eligible to have sex...For me, it is just a matter of "cost-benefit comparison" of their own choice. Once they make their own choice as they think the expected benefit is greater, why should we intervene them? Of course, they should bear their own responsibility if their action leads to some undesirable outcome.
In addition, many girls would just have sex with their boyfriends after the boys ask for sex skillfully, therefore, even if the teacher takes the initiate to ask the girls for sex, I would treat this case similar as those pairs in "normal ages" (except that the teacher should bear the legal punishment, at least).

Of course, if the teacher did something against the law set, he should be prepared to bear legal punishment. That's rule of law. But is it the case that every law would coincide with the moral principles of the society?

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-19 16:59 編輯 ]

weakest

Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, and thus impose a heavier punishment. That's why I said "I agree with you" (only for the conclusion that the punishment would be heavier than normal cases, but not for the reasons)

  When compared to older students, those aged 11 would have less chance to know about sex. That's why I believe that schools should give proper sex education to young children. But, would those senior students really get more information about sex in formal education (especially in those schools with religious background. As I remember, we made a post about sexual education (http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... &extra=page%3D2) previously)? It seems to me that students would simply get their "knowledge" about sex from other means (other than formal education). (For me, embarrassing to speak, the "knowledge" about sex is get when I accidentially watched AV, when others was playing it, and I was passing by ...). If so, it seems to me that it is also well possible for the girl to get her information about sex by her own means also.

  Of course, it is a case very different from rape. But it maybe arguable if the girl is rational enough or not (for me, she is; for you, she is not (i guess)). For me, she maybe as rational as those much older ladies that have sex with their boyfriends after they boyfriends say something very sweet (I want to ask 沙文兄 about his case as reference, but not dared to ask...Could anyone ask that for me?? ), but it seems that those ladies who are "乙水-ed" would not be irrational. After all, those ladies would not just have sex with anyone who "乙水" them. Having sex with each other are likely to be based on some good relationship before one party "乙水" another.

  Also, I think it would be unfair to compare those of 11 years old with those baby. In fact, we would usually judge people's rationality by their behaviours (after all, we can't just "view" their mental states). We would regard babies as "irrational" since we observe that without guidance, they would do some dangerous things, e.g. approach to fire with their own hands. But we would seldom observe such silly things to be done by those 11 years-old children. In addition, it is more likely that those comes from mainland would be more independent, also, I would guess that she is more likely to be independent and rational as she have to live on her own (as her parents would always be away from her). Therefore, I think that she does have the ability to make rational choices.

  The girls may have not sufficient income to raise the child, but the teacher should have (it doesn't necessary for both parents to have job to raise a children). In addition, there should be some social subsidy if she accidentially gets a baby. Otherwise, should those low income people's right to have baby be deprived?

  I agree with you that "Two wrongs do not make a right", but those irresponsible older ladies would mean that ages should not be the underlying difference for people to judge for the rightness in cases.

  The law (or at least, the judgement) would not be necessary reflect the social norms. Otherwise, how come so many people have dispute on legal judgements? For example, the cases of 中大學生報 and the bible leads to some dispute, right?

weakest

1. "Well, although the court should punish people by judging as if a fair judge would do, practically speaking, the judges are simply human beings, and they may have bad impression on the teacher because of the difference in age, ......the reasons)"

For such a serious criminal case, we may have jury (the public).  Law is design BY the people for the people, ofcourse they know about this.

---> But practically speaking, it is individual persons who make legal judgement. Therefore, even though the judges should make judgements as if a totally fair judges do, it is still possible for the judgement to be affected by the judges' personal impression. After all, there is no "God" here to judge every cases. This is a matter about judicial aspect of the law.

2. It does not matter whether the older ones gets the informaion or not, once they are given the chance, it is THEIR responsibility to grasp the information.   For the 11 years old, she is not even given the chance.

It is like predestian who insist on crossing the road on a red light.  They will deserve all the consequences.  Whereas if it is only a little children below 9 year old crossing, their guardian will e responsible (negligence).

---> Even if the focus is not on if the girls actually get the info., but on if they get the chance to get the info. (since people would be responsible for their negligence if they can, and should find out the info., but they didn't), a 11 year-old girl should be viewed as the same as those who are of older ages. It is bad for girls that they could not get the relevant info. in formal education, no matter how old they are (I don't trust those "sex education" in moral/religious lessons in those schools with religious background). Therefore:
a. it seems that the responsibility that the girls should bear would be smaller (although not to the level of ignorance, but should not be as severe as those negligence) since the students could not get the info. they need in formal education. 唔通叫D女仔個個去家計會排隊?定係叫D女仔排隊買AV??
b. If the girls could just get the info. about sex by means other than formal education, why can't the 11-year-old girl get the info. by other ways?

3. If a social worker lures a mentally disable woman into sex, is that not rape?  What about someone who drugged a woman into sex in her disoriented state?  The girl is only 11, the parent can be charge for child negligence if she is left alone at home.

---> I think the 2 cases you listed are very different in my view. The former could simply be a case that a boy skillfully ask (or pursuade) the mentally disabled woman for sex. In the case, if the two parties both agree in this sexual arrangement, I see no point to object it. After all, some mentally disabled could still have their own thinking, and have their own right to get want they want (as long as they don't harm others). I don't believe that mentally disabled = irrational. On the other hand, the guy who drugged woman into sex is simply a case of rape. It is simply the man use drug to make the woman to be unable to escape from his rape. If the woman do not want to have sex with the man, I would certainly against it. This man is simply using his force to make the woman to have sex with him, without her agreement. This cause harm to the woman.
For me, the 11-year old girl should have the ability to make her own value judgement, she is not infant after all. Even if she is not so experienced as those 4x year-old woman, I think we should respect her own choice.

4. Quite the reverse, without parents, she will be even more dependent as she will have no one to learn the life lesson from.  Who will be more mature?  A person who live in a loving family, or a person that live alone in the wild?  

Do we need scientific report to support the obvious? (I have read before about it)

--->I belief is quite opposite as yours. Without parents, the children have to train (or even force) themselves to be more mature and to be independent as soon as possible so as to be able to live on their own. Otherwise, how come the "overseas experiences" or "exchange experiences" be so important for students? In fact, students could be more dependent and be more mature if they are placed into a situtation that they have to live on their own, and that's why the "overseas experiences" and "exchange experiences" are so important for the student's personal growth, and so important for the employers in selecting candidates. If the "overseas experiences" are simply those "experience" of living overseas together with parents, it seems not quite useful for students' development (except for leisure). I am living in the love of my family members, it is very 幸福. But it seems that those children without parents are more mature by everyday "training".
In fact, learning from parents is one way of learning, but it is not the only way of learning. People could learn from talking with friends, from some undesirable experiences, etc.
Of course, I am quite interested in your scientific report. Would you mind sharing it with us? Thanks.

4. If having sex with the teacher (who has a wife and child) is rational, what is not?  I see 11 year old doing silly things all the time.  Yes, they no longer do many things that causes immediate danger, but their foresight is still very short.  I suppose you note that we ALREADY places many place off limit for 11 year old to make it impossible for them to be silly.  Currently (in Canada at least), it is a crime to leave an 11 year old at home alone.

---> Having sex with others, once considered all possible consequences, and adopting suitable measures, and could get mutual agreement of all parties involved, it seems that this is nothing "irrational". Even if the sex partner is her teacher (or former teacher), if the girl have taken into consideration of all relevant factors, she would still be rational. The target (or the profession of the target) is, for me, quite irrelevant in deciding if the act of sexual behaviours are rational or not.
In fact, for me, I could only see the teacher as "irrational", but not the girl. As some of you said, the teacher could just wait for 7 years more before having sex with the girl such that he could be not liable legally of 衰11. Therefore, it seems to me that the teacher is "irrational" (or "foolish") to miss out the possibility of being caught. On the other hand, the girls are liable on 衰11, and she will not be legally punished. Therefore, I don't see any point to say the girl is "irrational" (of course, i don't mean that the girl MUST BE rational. What I mean is simply that there is no evidence to show that the girl is irrational).

5. Sorry, if a person income cannot support a baby, they should not have a baby.  Planning to get welfare for your baby is just irresponsible.  It is irresponsible to force the society to pick up the tab for irresponsible  individual behaviour.  

Will the teacher pay for it?  the teacher has a wife and child.  It is what is so irrational about the girl.  Did she has the life experience to judge WHO can be trusted and who cannot?  The teacher is PLACED in a place of trust, not by his merit, but by the guardians.  Should he be any stranger on the street, the chance of the girl trusting the bull will probably drop.

---> In fact, for the low income people, it seems that when they engage in sex, they would consider the consequences. And if they adopt some safety measure (e.g. condoms), they should be regarded as "rational" since they are already doing something to minimize the risk, and this is what they think is the best for them. In addition, of course, there is a chance that the teacher will leave if the girl has a baby afterward. But to make this worse case happens, it have to be: 1. The safety measures fails (<10%), and 2. the teacher will leave (which I believe that the chance is low, in the girl's subjective evaluation, at least). But would a normal person simply give up their sexual needs simply because of this worse case's probability is >0? I don't think so. Some people would take into account of this risk when making choice, and some may believe that this chance is too impossible to think of. It seems that normal people having sex would not consider for this worse situtation also...
For the point that the teacher have a wife and a child. I think it is only that the teacher is bad since he do this kind of thing behind his wife. But if he do leave the girl after she has a baby, this would means that the teacher would be even worse. However, it is not sufficient for me to show that the girl is irrational. As I said, a noraml person would also not consider that worse to happen since it is quite unlikely.
For the point about life experience to judge who should be trusted, I think it is perfectly possible for the 11-year-old student to make rational judgements basically. I think they won't be so foolish to follow a stranger that they randomly meet in street. They would "trust" (or at least, make some utterances similar as those trusting the hearer) to people only under some grounds. For example, they would "trust" people in the same school. Of course, there maybe some cases that people trust the wrong person, but such cases also happen even if the victim is much older, and the cheater is within some "reliable organizations" (e.g. some employees in a famous company). Therefore, for me, it seems to me that the girl's ability to judge is under-estimated.

6. Not really.  We must understand the differemce in the underlying causes.  For the older ladies, it is because of their owned INFORMED choice.  For the 11 year old, she is not properly informed.

---> Both are not informed "properly" in the formal education. I don't see any distinctive differences between the 2 groups.

7. The bible issue is not a legal fight.  The agency is a government agency backed by the law, but the ruling is not.  (You notice there is no judges in the case since the beginning)

The dispute is not whether we should have such an agency or not (which is law), but how the details on agency should operate (which is not exactly law, but government administration).

--->According to the post:
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... 1388&extra=page%3D1
淫審處 is a judicial institution. The dispute is something about law.


P.S.: I think one of the main differences between our view is that if the 11 year-old girl is "qualified" to be "rational". For me, she is; for you, she is not. From my personal experience, the girls (and boys also) are very 早熟, and are not as naive as the children before. I don't know if it is a good sign or not. But I think they do have the basic ability to make judgements

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 18:28 編輯 ]

weakest

"兩情相悅：技術上應該要等待到女童的合法年齡才進一步，對事件發生表示同情和感到不幸"
The teacher has a wife and hild himself.  But since we have no mind reader, we will never know.
---> I also feel the teacher is bad since he do this thing behind his wife...

"女主動：在感情上我同情男教師，但亦要為他的自主性失控負責"
Sure, if you can also sympathize manslaughter who murder because they lost control of their emotion.  (Do you sympathize with the VICTIM?)
---> This analogy is a bit inappropriate. In this case, it seems that the girl is not victim (different from a murder, the people killed are the victims). Consider an analogy: if a girl (action doer) rape a boy (action doee), who is the "victim"? The girl or the boy?

weakest

1. The research seems to suggest that with bad (or no) parents' care, children are more likely to have conduct disorder.

2. For the overseas students case, I don't doubt your description about the school(s) overseas. But it seems that there are not so much of this behavior in HK. Would it be also possible that the mis-behavior are of common because of the different culture in the 2 places (of course, this explanation is your mutually exclusive to yours. That means, it is possible for both explainations to apply for this case). But it is also perfectly possible that the students who are originally being "too cared" by parents would conduct mis-behaviors also when they are overseas, since they would want to "try new things" once they are not under supervision of parents. If it is the case, should the students be trained to be independent as early as possible?

3. For the exchange experience. I agree that having another experience is an advantage, but it is not the only advantage. Being independent is also frequently used as a selling point for those engaged in exchange program. Although students will be independent also if they are in poorly functioning boarding school, but the impression of other people would be different for the 2 choices (exchange and poorly functioning boarding school). For the boarding school case, it would simply make others to think of poor parents; but for exchange, others would think of independent.

4. For the 淫審處 case, it have the judical power. If it is also a government adminstrative matter, would it means that the judical and the adminstrative matter are not separated? In fact, I really wonder if the group is really selected at random (just because the government say it is selected at random (in the general description doesn't mean that it is really selected at random). If it is really representative to the social's view, why the 中大學生報, or even 大衛像 are problematic? I don't know if the rumor that thisfunction is 外判 to an organization is true (as I remember, there is a news article about it, there is a link (about the bible case) in this forum could lead to that article). But if it is true, won't that would be a case that the organization could make use of its judical power to supress the opposing opinions?

5. But the problem is that: there is no formal education about sex, no matter is it of lower, or higher form, at all. How can those 11-year-old students be different to the older people? If there is such a difference, the difference should not be on the formal education, but on other means. (The only "sex" education I have received in formal education is that: 夢遺 is similiar as 水杯is too full, when I was in primary school). But can't those 11-year-old students get their own info. in the "other means"?

6. The maths would be a better description of the choice "I will have sex for 5 times", but not the situtation that "I consider to have sex this time. After having sex for 1 time, then, when time goes, I consider to have sex again. After having sex for 2 times, when time goes, I consider to have sex again again.... (repeat the process until people have sex for 5 times)". What I mean is that: in economics, there's a principle that "bygones are bygones", and people would make choices only by forward looking, and won't be influenced by things in the past. As such, when people are having sex in the 2nd time, they would simply ignore the 10% in the 1st sex they had (in past). The only matter that concerns them is the risk that they have to bear IN FUTURE (that means, the 10% (2nd time) + 9% (3rd time) + ...). However, it seems this would not be a good description of the decision making process of normal people when they are considering about having sex. Having sex is different from having meal. When having meal, people would consider future meals (e.g. in 19/1 morning, it is possible for some individuals to consider the breakfast in 20/1, even if the guy doesn't have the breakfast in 19/1 morning yet). However, when having sex, it seems that people would not consider future sex(s). For example, before having sex for the 1st time, people would consider only if he would have sex for the 1st time. But it seems that the guy is likely to consider also about the 2nd time sex, the 3rd time sex, etc., unless he have very strong desire for sex, and just treat sex as a normal thing, as normal as having everyday meal... Therefore, for me, the maths should be like:
1st. time: 10% ---> cost-benefit analysis
2nd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
3rd. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
4th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
5th. time: 10% ---> (a totally new) cost-benefit analysis
...
For me, it seems that even if a normal people of older ages would perform this consideration when thinking of having sex. Of course, It would be better for some people who have the experience to share his/her view in here also...
Hopefully, my words in here is not too confusing...

weakest

1. I think "maturity" could mean a.: some superior social skills to make people susscessful in careers; or b. some "hard skills" of independency (like what you have mentioned).
For a, I tend to agree your view. If children are cared by the parents, they are more likely to be a better person (at least, morally). If they are better person morally, they are more likely to be susscessful in careers, interpersonal relationship, etc. (Of course, I believe it is the case, but I can't show a strong proof of that. It is because to be a successful person, people must also know how to tell lies, how to hide some undesirable fact, etc. Therefore, a purely good person seems unlikely to be successful person also. But in general, I think the better the person, the more likely to be successful is the person). But it is of somehow "long-run" effect of the parents.
For b, I think my previous beliefs are based on this idea on "maturity". When there are no parents living with student, the student have to pick up this "hard skills" immediately very rapidly (otherwise, the students' life will be severely affected). Therefore, when compared to (a), it is of a relatively short-run effect. However, having acquired the "hard skills" would also associate that the students' mind-set would also be changed. Noone would expect that the students would simply perform the machine-like skills only, but without the mind-set to live on his/her own. At least, those students without parents would be more tough, independent, in both the "hard-skills" and the mentality in order to be able to live on their own. I think it would also be a reason for their mis-behavior since they have to be "tough" in order to live. Therefore, I believe that those without parents would be more independent, even if they are in very young age. (But independent =/= morally good. Such as those conduct mis-behaviors). Indeed, for those children in 60,70s, they always declare themselves as "independent, mature" because they have to take up the job of taking care of themselves, and their little brothers, sisters.

2. For the decision making problem, I know that "You only need to have baby once to get into problem.". However:
a. For the past sex experience, if the girl doesn't have a baby in the past, the decision of "having sex now or not" should be independent with the past experience. The risk of having a baby in the past experience should be considered ALREADY IN THE PAST, but not in the present. After all, the risk of having a baby in the past sex experience should not be affected by present (and future) sex experiences. If the girl have a baby in past sex experience, the risk she should consider is "having another baby", but not "having the existing baby" (since the baby would be born, no matter she choose to have sex now or not).
b. For the future consequences, I think normal people would just consider the risk of "this sex", but not "future sex". The "future sex" is not considered not because they feel the future sex is of no risk, but because they would not expect to have another sex in the future. Not like having meal, normal people would have breakfast, lunch, dinner (or some more...) everyday; having sex, should not be treated as a regular behavior. Indeed, even the rational people would not know when (even if a rough guess) to have "future sex", and how many times in total to have sex. The risk of "future sex" is there because of "future sex", but not on "this sex". That's why I construct the previous model.

3. For the education matter, I personally don't experience your idea that the sex education is started early. Indeed, when students are in young ages, they don't receive sex education since they are thought as too young to have this kind of education. But when they are senior, they don't receive sex education since they are assumed to know about that knowledge (but they don't get the info. about sex in formal education in young age at all! Is it good to assume that they could get the info. from other means?) . Therefore, no matter how old they are, they don't get the info. in formal education system at all in HK.
In addition, to education someone, the teacher have to have two seemingly contradictory beliefs in mind: 1. Students have to be foolish enough since they don't know the materials to be taught, and 2. Students have to be smart enough in order to be able to learn the materials to be taught. For me, 11-year-old students should be smart enough to learn things about sex.

weakest

2. I haven't consulted the scientific web. Sorry... I buy your point about her scientific discovery so that the rational decision making should include the consideration of the increased sexual behaviours and the consequences. However, would normal person (even in older ages) would take this in account also? Or the older the people, the more of them would take this into account also?

a. Not all people would make the same decision (not waring the seat belts) since their value judgement on the risk (being injuried in accidents) and benefit (of not wearing seat belts) are different. Also, even if it is the same individual, his decision would also be changed over time as his preference changes. Should we say those decision different from ours are irrational simply because their value judgement are different from ours?

3. In fact, I didn't attend this kind of classes (in my primary school, secondary school and university). Both of my primary school and secondary school are with religious background. Of course, in my impression, there is no such lessons about sex education from my experience. There are so many explanations for this: For example: a. I was "day-dreaming" in lessons; b. I have been absent in these lessons; c. I have forgotten about these lessons; or d. There is in fact no such lessons at all.
However, according to:
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... &extra=page%3D2
there are some schools wants to avoid students from getting the relevant info. from formal education. I am not sure that if I am the "lucky" one ("lucky" because I can avoid such info...), or you are the "lucky" one (that you can know about sex in formal education). From my personal experience, it is rare that students could get the info. in formal education (no matter how senior they are). Of course, my own personal experience doesn't mean that this is a good description of the general case in HK. My own experience may be not representative. However, it seems to me that sex education in formal education is rare.

1. Well, for the hard skills, those students alone are not likely to give up if the skills are required for their living (or important for their living). Take the washing machine as an example. By the law of demand (if the price of a good falls, the quantity demanded of the good will be increased, holding other factors constant), the "cost" of giving up is much higher for those student without parents (For those with parents, students' cost of giving up is lower, since the parents would take up the job even if they choose to give up; on the other hand, for those without parents, no parents would take up their job if they choose to give up), therefore, those with parents are more likely to give up and escape from failure.

Again, I don't think using a baby to compare with those of 11-year-old is appropriate. If we consider the swimming case, a baby don't have the ability to escape when a people throw them into water. However, if a parent tries to throw a 11-year-old into water, won't the child escape and run away if he feels that there is a danger? If the child wants to try, but get accident, he should make efforts to survive, and shout for help, but a baby don't (since he would just cry, maybe...). They have the basic ability (or potential) to survive, and without parents, they have to train themselve to explore this ability.

By the way, hope that your fd. is alright.

weakest

1.
a. By applying the law of demand, the supply side is irrelevant. If we use the law of demand to predict something about human behavior, we would consider only:
a. The price (as extrageneous variable, given in the model)
b. The quantity (as the endogeneous variable, as determined in the model)
c. The analysis of the situtation so as to see how the quantity is affected by the price.
  In addition, by the law of demand, what we are talking about is the change from a point to another point IN THE SAME DEMAND CURVE, BUT NOT THE SHIFT OF THE WHOLE DEMAND CURVE.

b. This is somehow related to the problem of how to make economic model as simple as possible. In economics, if we are to use some models to predict how a variable affect another, we would hold many other factors constant (since if there are many things could affect a variable (say B), if B changes, how can we know if a certain factor (say A) really affects B, let alone the direction and the magnitude of A's effect of B?). By holding other factors constant, we could ignore the effect of the "other factors". As such, in applying the law of demand, we would consider just 2 variables: 1 extradengenous variable (a pre-determined variable in the model): price, and 1 endogeneous variable (the variable determined in the model): quantity, and "ceteris paribus" (holding other factors constant). That's why the supply curve (supply side of the market) is not considered.
  In addition, for your (1b), I don't know what do you mean by "the supply curve is asytompotic", but i think that if the "cost would raise indefinitely", there would be no supply at all, if so, noone would learn, and all guys would simply give up. But by observation, we could see that it is not the case, therefore, it should not be the case that  "cost would raise indefinitely".

c. Economics is exactly the study of human behavior under the problem of scarcity (not enough resources). If there is enough resources, everyone would get as much as they want, and why we talk about economics?
  Besides, I guess (just guess, not sure, could you please tell me if I get it wrong?) the economic model you are talking about is a standard "cost-benefit analysis" for individual. In the "cost-benefit analysis", people would choose the option with the greatest benefit (in other words, with the least opportunity cost). However, this is based on the belief that "all of the options are really available". If there is only 1 option for the students to "choose", they can't have any "choice". For those students with parents, they can have (at least) 3 choices (but for simple, i just list that 3 only): 1. to let parents do the job; 2. do the job by themselves; 3. noone take up the job. For those students without parents, they could only have 2 choices: 1. to wash by themselves, or 2. noone wash for them. In this case, the cost of choosing "to do the job themselves" (that is, the value of to let parents do the job, or noone take up the job, whichever the value for the students is higher) of those with parents are higher then those without parents (that is, noone take up the job). If so, who are more likely to give up in the working process? I think it should be the students with parents. (The same prediction, again, from the law of demand).

d. "For student that laern how to use the washing machine, many learn to use the machine incorrectly (eventually breaking the machine, a common phenomenon)"
---> It is, at least, a good sign that they are willing to learn independently. In fact, they should be ok in using the machine (for example), if they have take a look into the instruction for use. What you are talking about is the use of machine incorrectly. However, that would be a possible risk in the normal learning behavior of learning how to use the machine also. For example, the students may mis-interpret the parent's instructions, the parents maybe themselves mis-using the machines already, etc. This possibility seems not only for those without parents to learn from.

e. "THere is 3 phenomenon:
1) The well protected and well trained.  They use the machine properly and nothing happen
2) The well protected but not trained. The cannot use the machine but will try.
3) The un-protected and clever.  They can use the machine but will break it.
4) The un-protected and "pragmatic".  They cannot use the machine, give up, and seek alternative.  (Anything from changing your clothes less often, to attempting a hand wash.)

It is just a matter fact that I observe they will give up."

---> In addition, for the observation, I believe that the are some students in all these 8 groups:
1) The well protected.  They use the machine properly and nothing happen
2) The well protected The cannot use the machine but will try, and being successful.
3) The well protected.  They can use the machine but will break it.
4) The well protected. They cannot use the machine, give up, and seek alternative.
5) The unprotected.  They use the machine properly and nothing happen
6) The unprotected. The cannot use the machine but will try, and being successful.
7) The un-protected.  They can use the machine but will break it.
8) The un-protected. They cannot use the machine, give up, and seek alternative.
  However, it is just the cases that there are more students choose to give up for the group of students with parents. (the same argument, law of demand...)

2.
It may be the case that "Then a parent throw an 11-year old intot he water, he/she will drown just like the baby. ", however, it would be the case even if the victim is a 30 (or even 40) years old woman. If she don't know how to swim, and is thrown into water by a stronger person, would we say that the woman is "irrational"? By using similar reasoning, it seems like to suggest that all victims in murder are "irrational" since they are weaker (physically) then the killer. But, for me, it is obviously not the case. Physical strength is not related to rationality. That's why I don't think "he/she lack the skills and muscles" is a reason to show their "irrationality".
On the other hand, for the mental ability part, I think the 11-year old are already capable in making their own choice. In fact, there are still some adults are drown to death, are they still "irrational"? If they are, being older is not necessary of being more rational; if they are not, are there any distinction between those drown cases of adult and the 11-year old for you to say that the adults are rational, but the children are not?

3.
For your quote:此指引主要是在推行性教育時，給學校作參考之用，不應被視作一般學科的課程指引。. That means that this is NOT the instruction that schools have to follow, but just a reference for schools, and they could choose freely to follow or not. That's why the are some (at least 3 schools, one is the school shown in the hyperlink in the post #38; another is my school, and the third one is my friend's school (according to our conversation)) schools don't teach anything about sex in formal education. As I comment, when children are young, schools don't teach them about sex since "they are too young"; when they gets older, schools don't teach them about sex since they are assumed to know that info. (in other channels?? At least, it should not be in the formal education).

4.
For the seat belt problem, if they are aware of the risk of being injured, it would be arguable if they should have moral responsibility to wear seat belts. After all, it is only themselves who are getting hurted. They can't just "transfer" the injuries to other innocents. Since they are the only people who bears the consequences, it is not sure if they should be morally wrong.

weakest

Sorry for not reply for long time...
1. In fact, the law of demand and the demand supply model are two different models, and both can be used for different predictions for different behaviors.
A. For the law of demand, if used to predict behaviors, is simply a law stating that lower prices will result in larger quantity, holding other factors constant (but what are the "other factors" to be hold constant would be a complicated problem, not only for law of demand, but for many theories also...). In fact, it doesn't need the use of supply curve, it is not related to the supply side. There is only 1 endogeneous variable (quantity), affected by the extrageneous variable (price). Therefore, it could be somehow described as:
Price = f (quantity)
To make use of the law of demand to make prediction, we have to make it clear that how a situtation would affect price, and thus affecting the law of demand (another part that we have to be careful in applying this law).
Some basic prediction of applying this law are: 1. There will be more careless driving (higher quantity) if the drivers wear seat belts. (Because the "price" of careless driving will be lowered as they have less chance of getting injured in case of car accident. And as the result of more careless driving, there will be more car accident.) 2. There will be more sex if the guys use condom (compared to those not using). (Because the "price" of sex, like getting diseases, will be lowered as they are not so likely to get disease when having sex). 3. There will be more students take a certain course when the requirement of the essay in that course is lowered (according to a lecturer of a certain course that he teaches for certain years, witnessed this prediction is confirmed by facts), etc.

B. For the supply-demand model, what we are doing is another new matter. The price is no longer extrageneous variable, but an endogeneous variable also (together with the quantity in this model). In addition, unlike the law of demand (which states that the demand curve is downward sloping), the demand curve in this model, at least in theory, may not be downward sloping, and maybe even upward sloping (when we use indifference curve approach, we may get something like "Giffen goods"). As such, economists would make use of some ecometrics approach, and do some empirical work to figure out the demand curve for analysis. But what are the extrageneous variables in this model? Basically speaking, they are "other factors".
  What I mean is that, there are many factors (other than price and quantity) are "capable" of being the extrageneous variables. In fact, the prediction by using the supply-demand model could be done by "comparative statics approach" (i.e. compare two equilibria). In this model, the intersection point of the two curves are basically the equilibrium (given the extrageneous variables, something we cannot see in the graph of supply curve and demand curve). In fact, for those points outside equilibrium, we may hear some stories like "lower price to sell more", "raise the price to earn more" to "justify" that the equilibrium point is the "reasonable point". However, to make it more straight-forward, we consider the equilibrium points only because of the practical use of making predictions. If there are so many "reasonable points" for us to consider (for each pair of supply and demand curve), the prediction would be difficult, and maybe ambigious. For the "comparative statics approach", we compare two equilibrium points (for different extrageneous variables)  to make predictions on would these extrageneous variables would affect the price and quantity. For example:
i. Before the change, the equilibrium price = 100, equilibrium quantity = 100. If the price of substitute is lowered, the demand of the good will shift downwards, and the equilibrium price and quantity will be <100 (for an upward sloping supply curve). Therefore, in this model, we would say that: If the price of substitute is lowered, the price and quantity of a good will be lowered. (We are comparing two equilibia, one is P=Q=100, another is P<100, Q<100)
ii. Before the change, the equilibrium price = 100, equilibrium quantity = 100. If there is a poor harvest, the supply will be lowered (for agricultural products), and the supply curve will shift upwards. Therefore, the new equilibrium price will be >100, and equilibrium quantity will be <100. Therefore, we would say that: for agricultural products, if there is a poor harvest, the price will be increased, and the quantity will be lowered. (We are comparing two equilibia, one is P=Q=100, another is P>100, Q<100)
  In here, we consider the equilibrium points only. If some more points are considered, the results may be ambigious.
  In fact, the concepts "quantity demanded", "quantity supplied", "equilibrium quantity", "equilibrium price" are not really something exist in this world. It sounds silly to ask someone in street "What is your quantity demanded if price =$5 for a coke?". Although we may use some statistics method to make a guess for the demand curve, but the concepts are simply used as means for the final prediction (e.g. "poor harvest leads to higher price, and lower quantity") only.

  So, my argument "those students who are protected will be more likely to give up" is simply an argument from the law of demand, not the supply-demand model.

  By the way, for your supply-demand analysis, if you believe that the unprotected can't work the machines (for example), a more straight-forward way is to say that "the quantity supplied will be zero, at whatever price". For the quantity supplied, it depicts the quantity to be supplied (able and willing) at each price in supply curve. If you say that the quantity supplied is flat (horizontial), it means that, for a given price, the quantity supplied could be any number (if the price is higher, the quantity supplied will be very large, if the price is a bit lower, the quantity supplied will be zero), that means, the unprotected are still able and willing to supply any quantity (which, i think, in this aspect, different from what you want to say...). In addition, in supply-demand model, the equilibrium is determined by the joint force of supply and demand. Therefore, for your words "It is differernt for different people.  The protected people has a flatter supply curve, the information and resources (including a helping hand from parents) they need is ready avaiable, for the unprotected, thereach their asymptoptic end quickly.", I think there are two problems:
i. What are would observe (the point "reached" by the 2 groups of students) is not necessary the equilibrium point. Otherwise, we won't observe inventory in many markets (excess supply), or people lining up for goods (excess demand). As I said, the equliibrium price and quantity are simply imaginative concepts, for the prediction only.
ii. Even if we say that the observed point = equilibrium point. There is still a problem. The equilibrium point to determined by the supply AND demand. Therefore, even if the asymptptic end point is near, if the demand curve of the two groups are the same, and if the supply curves of the two groups are flat, the equilibrium point would be the same for both groups. That means, the two groups are indifferent (and I think, this is not what you want to say also...).

By the way, I agree with you that "The moving point on the demand is only for change in supply (with price) because the supply line will combine with the demand to determine "the point", but it is only the case for supply-demand model, but not when we are using the law of demand.

Also, for your statement, "With division of labour and ecnomic of scale in a family, the supply curve also move to the left due to efficiency.  (It is not a coincident that married couple live a better life in general.  Poor Dye is still single.)" , I agree with you that more people in a family would be likely to make a better life in general, because of division of labor (that's why I always thinking of why we should have "一夫一妻制", but not "二夫二妻制", "三夫三妻制", etc. For example, under "一夫一妻制", one people are better to work for income, therefore, there remains only 1 person for housework. However, if the remaining one goes to market to buy things, should him/her carry the baby out to the market also (the market seems too crowded, and too dangereous)? Or just leave the baby at home (too dangereous also to let a baby to be alone)?). However, "efficiency" should not be something that shift the supply curve. It is simply a welfare measurement of a certain situtation, it can be maximized when marginal value for the society of the good = marginal cost for the society of the good. But it is unrelated to supply curve...

weakest

1. Unfortunately:
Option 3: "excess demand" by now in HK
Option 4: In HK, there are so many case of abuse of children by house worker (especially those foreign house worker).
Option 5: In HK, almost all markets are very crowded... (and I saw a women put a baby into a "cart", and to buy things in a very crowded market. It seems very dangerous for me...)
Option 6: If the husband is working, how can he watch TV at home? (The market won't wait until the husband is back to home in HK...)
Option 7: This maybe ok, as long as there are some fd. or relatives available.
Therefore, this problem alone could be headache for some small families. (As you said, larger families could allow division, and thus a better standard of living)
  There maybe higher cost for the family to be larger. However, isnt it make it better to allow people to have more choice available? (only 1 option (1 wife/husband) VS 2 options (1 wife/husband, or 2 wives/husbands))

2. For the "efficiency" in my previous post, it is a concept to measure welfare (how to maximize welfare given a certain level of technology, and resources) , but not the cost of production that shift up or down the supply curve. In this interpretation, the efficiency doesn't determine the supply curve. For allocative efficiency, MR (marginal revenue)=MC (marginal cost); for productive efficiency, total cost of production is minimized. It is not related to supply curve.
  If you mean lowering cost of production by technological advancement by "efficiency", I agree with you that higher efficiency could lower the supply curve, in the supply-demand model.
  But "efficiency" is always used to be a welfare measure in the course I have taken.

3. Well, I just saw "Page not found" in the 2 hyperlinks...
  By the way, what you quote is simply that "in equilibrium, quantity demanded = quantity supplied". In fact, the price and quantity are determined in this supply-demand model. As I said, these 2 are the endogeneous variables in this model. By the way, it should be noticed that in your quote, "The corresponding quantity is the quantity that would be traded in a market equilibrium", it is simply a quantity IN EQUILIBRIUM, NOT IN REALITY. In this supply-demand model, equilibrium is not something real, but only something used (as a tool) to derive predictions. Otherwise, we would see a strenge transaction of goods that have following characteristics:
A. (In Walrasian supply-demand model) There is a God-like being (hopefully, not Christian God...) that ask everyone: Give me your quantity demanded/quantity supplied. And this being (so "irrational" that don't ask for compensation at all...) would be so good to determine the price of all people. (Not sure if it is the "invisible hands" that people always mentioning now...)
B. The transaction of goods would be of no excess supply nor excess demand. Therefore, you should see no stock (for no excess supply), and no lines to line up for goods (for no excess demand).
  By the way, for the normal demand and supply curves, we tend to assume continuous demand and supply curves.

4. In normal equilibrium, there should be no shortage (Qs < Qd) (where Qs = quantity supplied, and Qd = quantity demanded), and no surplus (Qs >Qd).
  By the way, if you say "the price will moves towards equilibrium", it seems to me that you are also suggesting what I want to say: equilibrium is not the actually observed situtation.
  However, I have some conservation about if the price would really tends to equilibrium. If the price really tends to equilibrium, we should observe changes in prices of all goods (holding other factors constant). If not, how come the "price tends" to some level? (Consider a number pattern: 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, ..... Would you say this number series "tends" to some other numbers?). However, the "holding other factors constant" is itself very difficult in our everyday observation since there are so many factors that could affect price, and we just can't have "controlled experiment" in economics (for example, in argicultural, we can't control the weather change...). Therefore, even if we observe some price change, we have at least two possible explanations:
A. Price really "tends to" equilibrium
B. Change of other factors
  And how can we be so sure that the price change is ONLY caused by A, but not B?
  So, would it be more plausible to observe if the price really tends to equilibrium by the magnitude of "excess demand" and "excess supply" (if the excess demand, measured by the length of the lines for example; or the excess supply, measured by inventories for example, becomes less and less, it seems that the market "tends" to equilibrium)? However, if we use this approach, it seems that there is no such trend that the excess demand or the excess supply becomes less and less. Also, would companies be satisified to see that their inventory becomes less and less? Or they would be unsafe to observe this decreasing inventories?

  In addition, your 1.5 units example is exactly an example to show that equilibrium is not exactly the same as actuality.

  However, while "imperfect information" could make sound theoretical explanations, it could also make predictions more difficult. If such an "imperfect information" could be used to explain some dis-equilibrium, which point should we start from? Which points should we use to make predictions? What sort of prediction could we make by this new version of demand-supply model? Would we still be able make predictions like "if there is bad weather, the price will increased, and the quantity will be decreased", or we would only make some ambigious predictions like "if the weather is bad, the price may increase, remains constant, or decrease" (since there is no clear "equilibrium" point to follow)? At least, it would be difficult to perform the "comparative statics" to get predictions in demand-supply model.

5. I agree with you that the last words (ceteris paribus) is very important. It is also something difficult. For example, something like real income would be changed if price change. So, what is the "things" to be hold constant? In fact, it is also important in other models also. If there are so many variables could be changed at one time, and resulting a change in an endogeneous variable, how could we know how each of these variables affect the endogeneous variable? Therefore, I think "ceteris paribus" as something a bit different from you:
A. Yes, "nothing else change"
B. But, not only "nothing to offset the change in price", but also "nothing else is changed to make it more difficult to figure out what is the price effect, and what is the other factors' effect " (For example, if 3 factors (price, A, B) affect the quantity, and raise the quantity by 1 unit, the other factors don't totally offset the price effect, but it would be troublesome to figure out the effect of each factor). Therefore, "ceteris paribus" provide us with the convenience that we can ignore the effect of other factors, and only concentrate on the price effect. After all, this world is too complex, we have to find some ways to simplify it before economic analysis could be done.

  For the law of demand, the lower price results in higher quantity demanded. However, if used alone for prediction, we would think of demand-side only. We won't think of the supply-side also. It is just like when we simply focus on the output market, we won't consider the labor market also (unless we want to figure out something about labor in economics), and many other models. Therefore, for convenience, I would call "quantity demanded" as simply "quantity".
  Yes, we can't get all the things we desire as we have unlimited wants, and limited resources. However, what the law of demand suggest is simply that lower price will raise the quantity, but not that the quantity will be raised to infinity.

weakest

Option 4: In fact, I don't have any statistics to support my point. Therefore, the backing of my point seems not too strong. In fact, it is just a point that come up from my impression, because I often see the news of child abuse cases by foreign helpers, but didn't see the news of child abuse by local helpers.

Option 5: In fact, there are no CitySuper in every town in HK. (For people living in some places, they have to travel long to get to the nearest CityCuper...). Also, the price of the goods in CitySuper tends to be more expensive (in my impression again) than traditional markets, and too expensive for normal low-income families to buy.
  On the other hand, the two oligopolists: welxxxxe, and Parxxxxxop, in supermarket, have more branches all over HK. And for families, it is convenient for them to find either one (or both two) nearby. However, some people don't like to buy from supermarkets since the goods are not fresh enough, and of less variety. In addition, although it is not so crowded in supermarkets, the path in supermarkets are quite narrow. It is not risk-free.

Option 6:
a. This shopping pattern is not popular in HK, since people like fresh food. In addition, there would not be sufficient place of the people to store so many food for a long period.
b. Yes (despite the staff will close the door at 15min. earlier for convenience in counting stocks, but this is not of much difference). But this could only apply for those don't need to OT (over-time) much, and those don't need to work at night...

  I also think that we should open the option. And let people make their own decision. For "2wives/husbands", I mean that each woman can have 2 husbands, and each man can have 2 wives. I don't just mean each man can have 2 wives. The "/" stands for "or", but not "per".

---------------------------------
2. Benefit/cost ratio... Is that "benefit" means the profit for firms? Or the benefit for consumers? Or the total benefit of the society as a whole? (Maybe the terminlogies used in our courses are different^^)

------------------
3. Again, as I said, how can we make judgement on if the market is really "tends" to equilibrium? Price always change, it can be caused by:
a. "tends" to equilibrium
b. change by other factors
  How to make sure that it is only factor a cause the price change? How to make sure that the price change is not only caused by b?
  How about if we use the trend of the stock of inventory to judge for the tendency of "excess supply", and that of the length of lines for the tendency of "excesss demand"? It seems that there is no such trend that the stock of inventory of companies would be smaller and smaller, and the lines would be shorter and shorter over time, holding other things constant. Would companies having a certain policy on the inventory stock see the decreasing stock not as a sign of danger, and not to do something to increase the stock back to the normal level? (If we have a series of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ....; we would say that these numbers tend to a certain level (other than the existing level). But if we have a series of numbers: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...; would we say that the numbers tend to some other levels (other than 1)?)

  Yes, many things are not counted in continuous manner. But in the standard demand-supply model, when we use graphs, we would use continuous functions. However, would people challenge the demand-supply model because of this? This is simply a matter of abstraction to make prediction more convenient (by comparative statics approach). Also, before we say it is not possible to have equilibrium at which Qs=Qd since we cannot have 1.1 machines. We have to figure out if the equilibrium in the theory occurs at this level, or at other level (for example, of 2 machines). But could we really figure out the equilibrium by observation? (We don't have a God to ask every buyer: "give me your Qd at price = $1, $2, $3, ..." ; and to ask every seller: "give me your Qs at price = $1, $2, $3, ..." ; and to make horizontial summation to get the market Qd and Qs, and to set the price such that Qd=Qs, and to ask every buyer and seller to follow the price)

------------------------
4. Of course, in macro-economics, the real income is measured by the affected by the price level as the whole. Therefore, a decrease in a single good may not leads to increase in real income (since the price of all other goods may increase). Therefore, it comes up with concepts of "inflation" (increase in GENERAL price level), "deflation" (decrease in GENERAL price level) such that we can get the aggregate measure of the price level so as to measure real income. However, in micro-economics, we don't have to rely on the concepts of "inflation" to say something on real income. For example, for the law of demand, "if price of a good falls, the quantity (demanded) of that good will fall, ceterius paribus". In here, when we analysis the effect of price decrease of a certain good (say A), if we hold the price of ALL other goods (B, C, D, E, F.....) CONSTANT, the real income of the individual must be increased. On the other hand, if we hold the real income constant, the price of ALL other goods would NOT be constant, since there must be some increase in the price of all other goods to make the real income constant. If you analysis the effect of the price change of good A, but holding real income and the price of all other goods constant, you would get into trouble of getting an inconsistent story (can real income be really constant if the price of a good is lowered, and the price of all other goods are constant?). In here, we don't have to rely on the concept of "inflation" to say something about the real income.
  In fact, for indifference curve analysis, economists would say of "income effect" and "substitution effect" as two components of price change of 1 good. For the income effect, the decrease in the price of 1 good, the consumer's real income is increased. In here, we don't have to use the concept of inflation to say of the "real income" in here also. In fact, if we use 2-goods model for the indifference curve analysis, one good (say X) is the good we want to analyze, and the other could simply labelled as "other goods". There are (at least) two ways of finding out the "income effect" of the price change (Hicksian approach and Sltusky's approach (may have wrong spelling for the two names...)). I don't know which references are good for you to check. But I think some university level micro-economics textbook would have this "income-effect" mentioned in indifference curve analysis. (As I remember, Form 6 textbook do mention something about this. But I am not sure how to correspond HK's "Form" in Canada's "Grade"...)
  In fact, ceterius paribus is a way for us to ignore the effect of so many factors since the world is too complex. However, it is also a difficult job to consider what factors to be hold constant, and what factors should be allowed to change as a certain extrageneous variable varies. In using the law of demand, we usually hold the price of all other goods constant. As such, the real income of the people should be affected (when measured by indifference curve analysis). However, it is still ceterius paribus. Otherwise, we would get inconsistency.

  Also, it would be troublesome to allow excess supply or excess demand in the demand-supply model. If the cases of excess supply or excess demand can be used as the starting point of making prediction, what kinds of prediction could it make? Consider the following case:
A. Demand curve is downward sloping, supply curve is upward sloping. And both curves are continuous.
B. Equilibrium (at which Qs=Qd) price = 100, Equilibrium quantity = 100
C. If we allow excess demand or excess supply, some points like Qd = 90 (not at equilibrium) could be used as the starting point for the original demand and supply curves.
D. If the supply curve shift upwards by bad weather, the equilibrium quantity becomes 95.
E. If we allow excess demand or excess supply again, we may get a point of Qd = 92 (quantity is increased), or Qd = 90 (quantity is constant), or Qd = 85 (quantity is decreased). All of these points are outside equilibrium.
  So, what could we say about bad weather if we allow excess demand or excess supply in the demand-supply model? Nothing but an ambigious prediction: The quantity may increase, may be unchanged, or may be deceased. As such, this version of demand-supply model could be quite useless in making predictions.

  If the demand-supply model is simply a thing that can only tell us that: "You see, this model can explain lining up for goods, and stocks of inventory. When there are people lining up for goods, there is excess demand; when there is inventory, there is excess supply.", this model seems to be useful only for fun, but not of any practical purpose of making predictions. I can know that companies have stock of inventory by direct observation only, and I can know there are people lining up for good by direct observation also. There is no need for people to construct the demand-supply model to tell us about that.

--------
There are something to say about bad weather example:
A. EXPECTED price increase by EXPECTED bad weather is NOT bad weather HAPPENED. They are two different things, and they are two different factors affecting price and quantities. In your example, the price increase is caused by the expected price increase. The effect of the actual weather, another factor that affect the price and quantity, is of another new analysis.
  That's why I said it is so difficult to analysis the effect on price and quantity if there are more than 1 factors working to affect the price and quantity.
  In addition, are you sure that the quantities must be decreased by the expected price increase? The supply curve shift upwards, but the demand curve shift upwards also.

B. For the news blockage problem, that's exactly one factor that makes "EXPECTED" not the same as "ACTUAL". This would just be the case that there are 2 different factors affecting the price and quantity at different time, as it was in A.

C. Yes, the world is complex, therefore, we have to find some way to simplify it. And the working of more than 1 factors would make it more difficult to find out which factor constitute which effect to a certain endogeneous variable. Yes, it is possible to study models with multiple factors. However, we would hold some of these factors constant, or simply set up more equations within the model to find out the relationship of 2 factors. (We can't solve 2 unknowns with 1 equation, but 2 equations (at least)). Also, would you think that a model with less variables would be more simple in general?

---------
5. Well, as a matter of terminlogy, demand curve shows the relationship between "quantity demanded" and the "price". And in law of demand, it is something about the price and quantity (demanded). But in here, for convenience, I would simply say "quantity demanded" as "quantity" since the word "demanded" is not so important since we don't have to consider supply-side in here, and there is nothing of "quantity supplied" when using the law of deamnd alone to make predictions. However, it should be noticed that under this law of demand, it is NOT NECESSARY to talk about the things to be TRADED. Instead, we could make many predictions that is NOT about TRADE. For example, "with the introduction of condoms, there will be more sex behaviors" (is it reasonable to say "the wife "trade" sex behavior with husband"?). In fact, one of the advantage of using the law of demand alone, and without considering the supply side is that we can say something about human behaviors that is not about trade. The law of demand can derive many predictions about human behaviors like those I have mentioned in #45, and they are not necessary about trade.
  Also, the demand curve have to be considered with supply curve only when we use supply-demand model. When using the law of demand alone, it is not necessary to use the supply curve. It is two totally different matters. Just like we don't apply some game theory concepts into the normal supply-demand model for analysis (unless there are some other purpose to state something about strageic interaction in this supply-demand model), we don't consider the supply-side if we use only the law of demand to make prediction since the supply-side is irrelevant for our use of prediction.

  Well, by law of demand, price and quantity are negatively related. It is something of must. Otherwise, you will come up some predictions like "if the price increase, the quantity may goes up, remains unchanged, or goes down.", which is useless again.
  I think the CEO in your case is simply mentioning about the "money price" (only the money that we have to pay of a certain good), but not the "full price" (all the things we have to give up to get a certain good, like time, other goods, money, etc.) . In the law of demand, the "price" should be the "full price", but not the "money price" only. Therefore, as the CEO said, the (money) price change may not increase the quantity of buying the luxury goods, but yet, it is not the refutation of the law of demand, by the (at least) two reasons:
1. The full price is not decreased even if the money price is decreased. It is because the time cost of buying the goods may be increased as the money price falls. As the money price falls, there will be more people rushing to the shops, and this makes consumers waste more time in lining up. Therefore, the full price of the good may be not decreased simply by the price decrease.
2. CHANGE OF OTHER FACTORS. As the CEO said, it is something about human psychology. That means, by lowering money price, the "goods" itself is no longer the same good. In marketing view, pricing is itself a characteristic of defining a brend, especially for luxury goods. Therefore, by lowering the price, the goods are no longer the same good as before, but simply a more inferior version of the goods. Therefore, people will demand less of it as it is inferior. Therefore, with this effect of "other factor" (change of goods nature), there could be less people buying the goods. Therefore, this case is simply a reminder, telling us the importance of "ceterius paribus" (we have to think carefully if there are really other factors working that would affect the results), but not a refutation of the law of demand.

weakest

Option 4: As I said, it is simply my impression. I am not sure about the number of cases, and even can't say about the number of news i have seen. That's why I said I don't have strong backing of this point...

Option 5, 6: That really depends. Welxxxxe and Parxxxxp have more branches than CxC shop. Therefore, the former 2 seems to be more available to families. Also, CxC shop may also be quite crowded sometimes. But, I agree with you that: shopping in supermarket seems to be less risky. Also, I agree that people are better to learn more about refrigerator space management.

Option 7: I am not sure about this. But in my impression, there are so many people (at least, those graduates I know) have to work for quite a long time (usually, or even always)...

-------
  It is just a matter of terminology used in economics course. In fact, it is normal for people studying other subjects have some other interpretation. Just like I have so little knowledge about biology ... In fact, the terminologies have some meaning other than that in our normal use of languages.

  Basically speaking, in economics, "efficiency" is a measure of welfare. For the production of certain goods, it brings some benefit to the society as a whole, but it also brings a cost (opportunity cost, another terminology in economics) to the society as a whole. For the production of a good to be "efficient" (welfare is maximized), the "benefit - cost" should be maximized. As such, it is impossible to make someone better off without making others worse off.

--------------------
  In the supply-demand model, the equilibrium could be "stationary", depending what you mean by "stationary".

  In many economics model, by equilibrium, there would be no tendency for people to deviate from the equilibrium point. For example:
a. in supply-demand model, for normal cases, there would be 1 equilibrium point at which Qd=Qs. In this point, people won't deviate from this point. However, for other points at which Qd =/= Qs, there will be a tendency for people to deviate from this point, and tends to equilibrium.
b. in game theory, an equilibrium by dominant strategy in a game is the set of strategies choosen by all players such that if the players are in equilibrium, they won't have tendency to deviate.
  That means, equilibrium is somehow a stable point such that there will be no tendency to change. Also, if a point is out of equilibrium, there will be a tendency for people to deviate from that point. In the normal case of supply-demand model, if a point is out of equilibrium, it will tends to the equilibrium IN THEORY, the reasons (or stories) used for this is said by you in #51:
"If the price is below EQ, there will be more goods supplied than demanded.  The supplier will compete to lower the price to get the overstock sold.

If the price is above EQ, there will be less goods supplied than demanded.  The consumer will compete with higher price to get the limited supply."
  And this is the "Stories" I want to say about in point B in #45.
  In this sense, equilibrium could be "stationary" in this sense.
  But of course, the point that equilibrium is stable, and the disequilibrium is not stable is a matter in theory, but not in reality. In theory, people would deviate if it is outside equilibrium, as I just mentioned in this post. On the other hand, in reality, just as I said in some previous posts (like #50, #48...), we could not simply say the market is now "tends" to equilibrium since there are so many factors that could affect the equilibrium price, and we can't hold the "other factors" constant for a sufficient period of time to allow us to conduct some sort of "controlled experiment". I think I don't make this point clear (or even not to mention it at all... sorry^^'') for this distinction between theory and reality.
  Equilibrium is a point in which there is not tendency to change in theory. By this, we are able to make a reasonable "final" point in theory, in each set of given extrageneous variables. And this "final" point is the starting point for us to make economic analysis. It is a "starting point" since the original situtation is delineated by the given set of original extrageneous variables. After that, we would adjust one extrageneous variable, and by the model, we have a new equilibrium "final" point. After that, we would compare the 2 equilibrium points (the original equilibrium point, and the new equilibrium point), to see how the change of an extrageneous variable would affect the endogeneous variables (described in the equilibrium points). That's the "comparative statics approach" I was mentioning. The "statics" means the equilibrium points. And the equilibrium points is stable, given that the extrageneous variables doesn't change. By "comparative", it means that we would compare 2 equilibrium points to get predictions.
  For example, initial equilibrium is: price = 100, quantity = 100. After factor A (an extrageneous variable) changes, the new equilibrium is: price = 110, quantity = 90. By comparing the 2 equilibriums, we would say "if A is changed, price will increase, quantity will fall" (it is an prediction). That's what I want to say about the "bad weather example" for the comparative statics approach.

  For the "God" in Walrasian demand-supply model, it's simply some thought about the this model. In this model, in theory, it is just like some "God-like being" that can determine the price for all buyers and sellers such that Qs=Qd, and everyone would follow this price in equilibrium in theory, in this story. In theory, it is caused by "invisible hands". But this "invisible hands", in theory, seems very funny that it seems like "God" (not Christian God...) in some characteristics:
1. being so able to ask about (or know by some other means) the quantity demanded and quantity supplied of all people, at all price.
2. being so benevolent that it don't get any compensation on his work to know the price to be charged, and to set the price. (In economics, all people are assumed to be selfish, and won't be so benevolent.)
3. being so able to set the price, and everyone have to follow the price.
  That's why I said it is somehow a "God-like being". Don't you think so?^^

-----
  Well, if the model is exactly the same as fact is quite controversal (a matter of philosophy of science). But if we think the demand-supply model is the same as some markets in this world, it would be strenge for me. It seems to suggest that this "invisible hand", "God-like being" does exists in reality, and can know all people's Qs and Qd at all price level, and be so capable to set a single price, and to force everyone to follow it, and people would not deviate from this price. That's what I want to say in Point 3 in #48.

  Yes, people can't sell the food people don't have. That's why the supply curve have to be considered also with demand curve in the demand-supply model. If the quantity would be decreased by bad weather depends on the shape of demand and supply curves. It would be different cases if the supply curve is vertical, and if the supply curve is upwards sloping. Usually, we would assume a vertical supply curve for argicultural products, and this, quantity would fall by bad weather, and you are right. If I said in #50 is simply a matter of mentioning the possibility in theory of upward sloping supply curve.

  Yes, "If the bad weather do not affect the production, it is not much of an influence". That's why I said it is on argricultural products. The "bad weather" effect is not on all goods, but only for certain kinds of goods that have certain characteristics. That's why we have to make it clear that in which situtations, predictions could apply; and in which situtations, the predictions couldn't.

------------
  Yes, the real life have so many variable. It is very complex. But if we consider every factor, it would be too complicated for us to analysis. Therefore, we have to make some simplification in different economic models so that we could make predictions. So, we have to make things simple.
  For real life, there are so many factors changing over time, that's what I mean by "we can't have controlled experiments in economics".

----
  By the way, it's happy to discuss with you. I can learn a lot in this discussion process. And hopefully, you don't mind of my wordy posts as my language is not so good. ^^

[ 本帖最後由 weakest 於 2008-1-31 04:37 編輯 ]