"John D. Giorgis" schreef:
> At 02:55 PM 7/20/01 +1200 K.Feete wrote:
> >This is what I think about when you say "cost-benefit analysis". I think
> >what you *mean* is a rational method of balancing the pluses (as defined
> >by the goal) of a particular action against the minuses, which I can in
> >fact agree with.
>
> BINGO! A true cost-benefit analysis must consider *all* costs and *all*
> benefits, even if we don't usually assign "monetary" values to such things.
> If you don't, the analysis you are doing can hardly be called
> "cost-benefit" - which is why, really, I can't understand why this is even
> an issue.
Because not everybody attributes the same cost and benfit values to certain
issues?
F.i.
Benefit: No real impoverishment, even if I'm without a job and accesible school
and health system at an above average standard.
Cost: Government interference to some extent and rather high taxes.
>From the arguments I've seen sofar most Americans wouldn't accept this. So in a
nutshell that's why we cannot come to an agreement about costs and benefits for
most subjects currently under discussion.
Sonja
