Loyal followers of Operation Global Media Domination will no doubt have several questions at this point.
- Who’s the stupid girl and dear god raincoaster’s not talking about me, is she?
- What does one of the best music videos of the 90’s have to do with the economics of prostitution?
- Really, she’s not talking about me, is she?
- etc.
Newcomers to the ol’ raincoaster blog will no doubt have an additional question, What the hell is she talking about?
She’s talking about this.
Now, to pick up the story where we left off (have you done your homework? Skim it at least enough to pass; didn’t you learn that essential skill in high school?)…
This post, and that post, were sparked by this post on Valleywag which in fact I did not read, because I went off on my own little egotistical tangent and became far more interested in what I had to say than what Melissa had to say.
That’s not like me, eh?
Now, if you’ve read your homework you know that the general opinion among economists is that prostitution is economically not only viable but also cheaper than being married. One economist went so far as to suggest that men open accounts with their wives and pay only for services rendered, on the basis that this would save the men money overall. One presumably unmarried economist (or, if married, presumably permanently celibate after penning the column).
The consensus was that marriage had one single advantage over prostitution as far as men are concerned:
Procreation.
I’m not exactly sure how it is that all these economists are unaware of the phenomenon of surrogacy, but apparently they are. The laws around surrogacy are quite obviously not relevant to the discussion because in most of the areas studied by those economists I referenced prostitution was itself illegal. Illegality and unregulation obviously pose no meaningful barrier to entry for clients as far as these studies are concerned; things might be different if everything were legal, but the studies stand for our current situation regardless of the legality or illegality of the activities described, which presumably extends to surrogacy. If a man can find a woman who will accept cash for sex, he is presumably not constrained by conscience or threat of the law against finding one who would accept cash to carry a pregnancy to term.
What I am saying is that: these women exist. I know one. She has babies for money. It is her career. And that song is dedicated to her.
Read past the jump for the whole story.
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
raincoaster 