John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
>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.
Ok, I'm with you so far....
>
>One of the underlying principles of economics is that *everything* has
>*value.* The unit of value is called the "util." By adding up the
>costs and benefits in "utils", you can arrive at the appropriate decision
>for any given circumstance. Economics, in large part, is an anlysis of
>how best to conduct this anlysis.
Utilitarian theory, John Stuart Mill, learned about it in Victorian Lit
class. Yup.
>
>For convenience, however, "utils" are hard to measure, so we use a
>substitute measure of value, the US Dollar. Currencies were invented as a
>simple way of allowing people to easily exchange things of value.
Well...
Part of the problem is reactionist vocabulary. There's something so...
mercenary-sounding about putting a dollar value on a piece of land, or a
species, or a life. People get upset about it even if you mean well.
Remember that one of the highest commendations is "priceless."
Part of the problem is that some people (this is not an accusation) tend
to get a little mixed-up about money. They start thinking of it as an
end, not a means. These people are liable to go about measuring things
*not* in terms of your "utils" but in terms of straight, hard, cash. And
in this case, environmental or moral concerns tend to get the short end
of the stick.
Money is therefore a dangerous symbol to use, no matter how convienient,
when you are measuring something "priceless", because you can't just
pretend that money is a convienent and utterly dispassionate measure.
That's how it started out, sure, but by this point it's picked up a
symbology all of its own, from Shakespeare's Shylock to Dickens's Scrooge
to the American Dream. Certain people get upset hearing it applied to
things that have a value, to them, that is more than money; other people
get the idea that this thing *doesn't* have a value aside from
monitarily, or at least, not one that (no pun intended) counts. Not
really. Just an *emotional* value, and emotions aren't really important,
right?
Economists, without trying to, are adding fuel to the fire by going
around and telling us that such-and-such has this "value." They'd be much
better off to use a less convinient, but also less culturally loaded,
symbol like "utils".
>>However, what you tend to *give* me is a straight $$
>>value of this vs. that,
>
>When have I done that? For example, did you see the analysis given to
>Jeroen, where I "valued" universal govt. protection for the Right to Life?
No. I am only on-list sporadically these days. I was referring more to
your general assumptions that, for example, the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve
was "worth" more as oil than as wilderness. In such discussions you've
never seemed to consider the emotional or "intrensic" value, only the
economic benefits.
The *other* problem one runs into, of course, is that "value",
particularly where personified by money, only means value in terms of
what it can give to human life. If you even remotely accept that things,
places, or animals have a value in and of themselves you can spot the
logical fallicy.
>
>>So, to return to the original subject: I am perfectly willing to admit
>>that all environmental proposals should be subject to cost-benefit
>>analysis,
>
>Yay!
>
>>if *you* are willing to admit that cost-benefit analysis is
>>merely a fairly insignificant step in a far larger process of determining
>>the "value" of an action or proposal to a person- a business- or a
>>country.
>
>Booo Hisssss!
>
>Sorry, but how can you determine the "value" of a decision *without*
>cost-benefit analysis?
Well, um, what do you mean by "value"? It's not a constant, you know,
like, say, the US dollar. (Which isn't all that constant either, come to
think of it....) One man's trash is another man's treasure, right? So, if
value fluctuates, what is it fluctuating in response to? The goal of the
person, business, or country, of course- and therefore goal-setting is a
more important component of decision-making than cost-benefit analysis,
because without a goal you've no starting point.
You *can't* determine the value of a decision without cost-benefit
analysis in some form, as stated above; but cost-benefit analysis is not
the only step or even the most important step.
Kat Feete
-------
It's an old magical principle -- it's even filtered
down into RPG systems-- that magic, while taking a lot
of effort, can be 'stored' -- in a staff, for example.
No doubt a wizard spends a little time each day charging
up his staff, although you go blind if you do it too much,
of course.
-Terry Pratchett
