Michael Perelman wrote:
I am not sure Michael Nuwer is correct. If both of us buy a candybar for a
dollar,
why should we get the same marginal utility?
I think that we would get the same marginal utility only from the candy
bar on the margin. That is, given the market price, we both adjust
If C-B is not possible, sports fans, how would your preferred from of
government make a decision about whether or not to undertake a project?
Michael Nuwer wrote:
As for cost/benefit analysis, interpersonal comparisons of utility are
not necessary if the analyst equates marginal benefits with marginal
costs, where benefits and costs are measured in terms of shadow prices.
Then they have determined how many, say, satellites to build,
Max Sawicky wrote:
If C-B is not possible, sports fans, how would your preferred from of
government make a decision about whether or not to undertake a project?
it should be noted that there are at least two different kinds of C/B
analysis. There's the standard approach, where the authors
From what I could see the discussion was mostly on the inapplicability of C/B
in principle, not just in practice.
Yesterday I read the Dept of Transp primer (for public officials) on C/B, and
it acknowledges the propriety of externalities in the computation.
Interestingly, the Office of Mgmt
Of course cost benefit analysis can be done and is
all the time. My problem was to try and understand how
prices can be used without assuming that utility can
be measured in interpersonal units. It is a conceptual
problem.
Certainly it would not be a good idea to use
cost-benefit analysis in
Ken Hanley wrote:
I know there are problems about measuring cost and
benefits biases in measurement etc. but my problem is
conceptual.
As I understand it modern economics does not assume
that interpersonal comparisons of utility are possible
just ordinal rankings of individual preferences.
But my understanding is that utility cannot be
measured except in any but ordinal terms that is by
ranking preferences. If marginal utility can be
represented by dollars then doesn't that imply that
there can be interpersonal comparisons of utility?
--- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. What Cost Benefit people do is to look at willingness to pay
implicitly assume that $1 = $1 util.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:00:23PM -0800, ken hanly wrote:
But my understanding is that utility cannot be
measured except in any but ordinal terms that is by
ranking
ken hanly wrote:
But my understanding is that utility cannot be
measured except in any but ordinal terms that is by
ranking preferences. If marginal utility can be
represented by dollars then doesn't that imply that
there can be interpersonal comparisons of utility?
What can be compared, in
I am not sure Michael Nuwer is correct. If both of us buy a candybar for a
dollar,
why should we get the same marginal utility?
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:34:27PM -0500, Michael Nuwer wrote:
ken hanly wrote:
But my understanding is that utility cannot be
measured except in any but ordinal
On Nov 13, 2007 12:49 PM, ken hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is so how does one make the transition to
measurement of cost and benefits in monetary terms
that is the typical mode of analysis in applied cost
benefit analysis? Doesn't the measurement in monetary
units assume there is
Ken, you might enjoy
Ackerman, Frank and Lisa Heinzerling. 2004. Priceless: On Knowing the Price of
Everything and the Value of Nothing (NY: New Press).
They do not discuss your issue, though.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
13 matches
Mail list logo
