At 09:51 PM 7/28/01 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>Yea, but it is a certain number of units of value that one would not
>receive. Let me give you an example, what is the value of my house? I
>would argue that it is not what I would agree to sell it for if I knew a
>charity of my choice would get the benifits of the sale, while I would be
>left with a mortgage and no house.
That's because you are confusing two transactions.
1) You sell your house
2) You spend the money from the sale of the house on something - in this
case a charity.
The real question you are suggesting above, is can your house be valued by
your willingness to donate your house to charity - which is obviously a bad
question.
>Indeed, the reason for this is the actual tradoff between an assured loss of
>the things money can buy and a small increase in the probability of living.
>Lets assume that you do understand probability. (You do, don't you?) So you
>can answer the next question straightforwardly. How much are you willing to
>pay per year to eliminate a 1 in 100,000 per year chance of dying?
>
>The advantage of this question is that you benifit/lose both ways. With
>your question, you lose one way.
Probably not very much. That means in any given year, I have a .99999
chance of living. Taken to the 80th power, the odds of me making it to my
80th year alive are .9992. Given that there are inherent risk factors in
life that are of greater odds than that, I am probably unwilling to pay
much to eliminate this risk.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
