On 3/24/06, C Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Money, Sex, Happiness Come to the Bank of England: Mark Gilbert March 24 > (Bloomberg) -- It's not often the words ``sex'' and ``Bank of England'' > inhabit > the same sentence. David Blanchflower's appointment to the central bank may > change that.
>``What is the connection between income and frequency of sex? It is zero for both men and women,'' the paper says. < as often in economics, there are two conflicting forces at work. The richer one is, the easier it is to buy sex (directly or indirectly, with the latter being exemplified by the "trophy wife"). On the other hand, if both partners are poor, sex is a "natural," as they say, because it has little monetary cost (if "protection" is used). if the "social conservative" right gets its way, it would make "protection" illegal (especially after the fact), so that the second effect would be weakened. Thus, there would likely be a much stronger correlation between income, the frequency of sex, and the degree of happiness. ;-) -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
