A few weeks ago, a friend e-mailed me a posting he’d found on Craigslist. It was written by a “spectacularly beautiful … articulate … and classy 25-year-old girl” looking to marry a man “who makes $500K or more.”

After modestly describing herself in these terms, the woman vents her frustration with past romantic (and economic) shortcomings. “I dated a businessman who makes [about] $200K to $250K,” she complains. “But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250K won’t get me to Central Park West.”

Her posting was followed by an equally candid response from a self-reported investment banker, who wittily explains to the woman that her offer is “plain and simple a crappy business deal,” since her “looks will fade,” while his money “would likely continue into perpetuity.” His conclusion, “in economic terms,” is that she is a “depreciating asset” and he is “an earning asset.”

As you might have guessed, my initial reaction — after I was done laughing — was to try and figure out how I could make $500K. When I realized this wasn’t going to happen anytime soon, I pretended to be appalled by this hilarious attempt at online-prostitution. And to some extent, I was appalled. But I was even more impressed. Let me explain.

Though shallow and pathetic, the woman’s actions are not as crazy as they seem. In fact, they are somewhat enlightening; this woman managed to reconcile a classic tension between rational egoism and utilitarianism. (I’m only partially kidding.) How? Well, basically, by being honest. By commoditizing herself to the public, she simply gave herself the opportunity to achieve her best personal interest — marrying a rich a guy. I’m not saying the goal itself is admirable, or that a woman (or man) should value wealth over dignity, but that’s not the issue. The issue concerns basic self-advancement, which evolution dictates is the primary objective of any living thing. By searching for the man whose interests best align with her own, she uses the Internet to fulfill her own interest, which in turn produces the best public outcome.

This situation reminds me of a scene from A Beautiful Mind, in which John Nash, played by Russell Crowe, makes a few profound mathematical observations while sitting at a bar with four friends. When a gorgeous blonde woman walks into the bar, the guys decide every man is for himself. Nash, however, realizes that if each goes for the blonde, they will all come up empty handed. But if each settles for the slightly less attractive brunette girls at the bar, then each will be better off. Each individual does what’s best “for himself and the group.”

Almost anything can be viewed in economic terms — not people themselves, but certainly their individual attributes. After all, isn’t that how wages are determined? People are paid according to what their own capabilities allow them to produce. (If you disagree with this, you’re either living in your own world or you’re a communist, which is fine, but a bit outside the scope of public debate.)

If you think hard, you might realize that even your most intense social interactions are largely based on economic principles. If a man takes a woman out to an expensive restaurant or buys her something nice, he usually get something in return — often sex. Obviously sexual relationships are usually more complicated than this, and such expenditures often symbolize a more intimate feeling, but I’d bet that if you controlled all other factors, a guy who takes a woman out to dinner is more likely to have sex that night, plain and simple. It’s often a matter of matching expenses versus their expected return — you get more if you can provide more.

I don’t mean to imply that a person’s overall worth can be calculated using a single formula or scale of measurement like the ones used in Econ 101. For one, people may not agree on the value of a particular trait or characteristic, ensuring that no one person is actually “worth” more than another. But if you consider evaluating decisions based on your own personal perspective, all of your actions are based on a simple cost to benefit analysis.

The woman who made this Craigslist posting seems outrageous because she’s looking for a lifetime “romance” in exchange for money. She is presenting herself as an object looking to be bought. She values money more than love or respectability. As it turns out, most men — even the ones who could “afford” her — wouldn’t marry this woman because she’s obviously crazy. But if most of you are honest with yourselves, you might agree with the investment banker that a “lease” would not be so unreasonable.

Ben Notterman is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at bnotterman@cornellsun.com. The Scorpion King appears alternate Wednesdays.