What is Consumer Choice

[@RockeroNato]

i should've learned about you long ago... such an awesome professor with good af didactics

[@EnglishDreadnought]

Sir, you offer the keys to the happiness of the world. All humanity has to do is reach out and take them. This is the gospel of the material, and we must all help to evangelise.

[@RextheRebel]

For me, the marginal utility of pizza doesn't start declining until slice 5.

[@AntonyDavies]

If you buy a drink at any point between slice #1 and slice #5, then you have evidence that your MU of pizza is declining.
I do, however, take your point. Pizza is so good that even bad pizza is good.

[@jeraldynsoso5478]

Nice

[@idealistka_teri]

I think Marginal utility per dollar isn't a very good way to say it.
The consumer generally looks at overall maginal utility.
And losing (spending) dollars is negative marginal utility. So he has to compare losing those dollars to gaining the slice of pizza. Therefore I'd not say it's marginal utility per dollar but rather overal marginal utility.
I get that the outcome is basically the same, but I think you're deriving the outcome in a wrong way.

[@AntonyDavies]

That's not the way textbooks approach the topic. They way they approach the topic is how I've presented it here.
Remember that the model doesn't describe *how* the person goes about making a decision, but the decision to which the person arrives.

[@idealistka_teri]

@@AntonyDavies well I prefer thinking, not textbooks.
Let's say I'd enjoy roller coaster rides and riding it doesn't cost anything.
While marginal utility per dollar would then be positive, the overal utility COULD still be negative (for example when I'd really hate to travel to the roller coaster).
That's an example in which I'd say the textbook would be wrong. And you could say 'well you have to count it together, the travel to roller coaster and then the roller coaster ride'. To which I respond simply: 'then why arbitrary not account for dollar cost as well'?
I don't like the arbitrary difference in form of one expense (dollar) but not in other (time, effort, planning, work, whatever).
Expenses can be in many forms, not only in dollars and I don't see reason to single out dollars (or money).

[@idealistka_teri]

I'd say what's presented as 'Marginal utility per dollar' is actually just marginal utility (accounting for everything)
while 'Marginal utility' (as presented) is just marginal utility with arbitrarily ignoring monetary cost.

[@AntonyDavies]

@@idealistka_teri said, "well I prefer thinking, not textbooks."
That's a recipe for wasting a tremendous amount of time. The economists who have decided to describe it this way have thought about it a lot more than you have.
"Expenses can be in many forms, not only in dollars and I don't see reason to single out dollars (or money)."
Yes, and if you check out those textbooks, you'll see that when an economist says, "price," he means all the expenses combined - not just the number of dollars you hand over.

[@idealistka_teri]

@@AntonyDavies alright, so to your pizza example. Let's say that I do not want another slice.
We could say that next slice of pizza has 0 marginal utility (and NOT negative) as it making me sick (or worsening my condition) is an expense, therefore it's accounted for in marginal utility per dollar (that is negative) and not marginal utility.
That's the problem with arbitrary boundaries.
You're right, I admit, they might have thought about it more, but that doesn't mean they saw all flaws in what they speak about nor does it explain how did they tackle this, if they did.