Is Being Single a Market Failure?

Wow. Even Jon gets more action than I do. Though I suppose that after 28 years, it was about time for him to have a successful date. But seriously, perhaps I need to reassess my current quagmire when presented with evidence that a man in yellow tweed jacket has better luck than I do. Of course, this is just a cartoon, but I know that there are Jons out there in real life. Right?

I have this crazy idea that dating could be an area for public policy. After all, if Singapore has government sponsored dating programs, why can't the rest of the world? Let us consider the conditions:

1. Is there a market failure? Ben is single, ergo market has failed.

2. Can public policy produce superior outcomes? Ben having a boyfriend is clearly a Pareto-superior outcome because it makes it makes a person (me) better off without reducing the welfare of others. This assumes that my hypothetical boyfriend enjoys being with me and I do not crowd others out of the dating market: two perfectly plausible assumptions. So, if government can help me, then certainly net social welfare has increased. See diagram below:

3. Is it cost-effective? Well, I suppose I don't have a very good answer to that, seeing as how I don't really have any idea how much it would cost to implement a Find-Ben-a-Boyfriend program. I can't imagine it being much though, and of all the different options to pursue, none of them could ever come close to say, the amount of money spent on Iraq... or even on airline tickets for Congressmen. Are the benefits worth the cost? Well, if you subscribe to the idea that "money can't buy love", then surely even attempting this equation is pointless. If we are to implement Find-Ben-a-Boyfriend (now abbreviated to FBaB), then we should do so if

Benefits - Costs > 0
or Benefits > Costs
or Benefits/Costs > 1

But since the Benefits (i.e. the sappy 'Ben is in love' deal) cannot be monetarized, then we are left with an undefined fraction. So, I propose that rather than dilly-dallying in quantitative quandaries, we should just assume that "love conquers all" and that the Benefit/Cost ratio is greater than 1.

So now we have successfully concluded that, at least from an economic standpoint, FBaB is a worthwhile endeavor. Now, certainly there are other arguments as to why FBaB shouldn't be implemented, such as how it seems overly paternalistic and an intrusion into individual liberties. I'm not going to tackle that front, partly because doing so would take way too much time, but also because they have some valid points. After all, economics is not always the final-say in every rational argument, is it?

But then again, if Jon can get some on his own, why can't I? Perhaps all I need is 28 years like him.