The more I've thought about Chicago, especially compared to less densely populated areas, the more many of the differences between big-city USA and rural America seem like a bunch of options. Below are some examples.
Option Value | Option Cost |
---|---|
Being able to talk to people having a vast array of personalities and coming from completely different backgrounds | Seeing the impoverished lives of beggars every day |
Taste of Chicago, with dozens of great restaurants to sample | Taste of Chicago with tens of thousands of people |
A wide array of parks and events around the city | Sales Taxes |
Restaurants galore for breakfast, lunch, and supper | Each individual restaurant costs more |
Some similarities and differences arise with the financial industry comparison. Similarities are that each option has a value and a cost, at least apparently to me. Differences include the fact that each individual option has different value to different people, because different people have different tastes (in the stock market, option values are typically about the same for most everybody because everyone has the same goal). Also, these options cannot be "purchased" individually -- one can either live in the city or not in the city, though those in the suberbs might have a case otherwise.
So what do you think? Am I totally off base? Is this same-old same old? What differences cannot be described with this options analogy? What options go the other way?
No comments:
Post a Comment