Jim Devine writes: >> >> As I said, we should see costs and benefits as both being _vectors_ >> (arrays of numbers) rather than as being _scalars_ (single numbers >> created via bogus aggregation). The individual numbers in the two >> vectors are the relevant data, not the sums. The only way to deal with >> competing goals, imperfect information, and subjectivity is to ground >> all decisions in democracy to the extent that it's possible. We cannot >> "solve" this political problem by simply assuming that market prices >> (or some other arbitrary set of prices) represents "true" costs and >> benefits and thus can be used to aggregate. Instead of solving the >> political problem, it's hiding it and sneaking in an agenda that >> involves market-worship.
How is a citizen in your democracy supposed to make a decision? You would want the citizen to be informed, would you not? Is not a cost-benefit analysis information that a citizen should have in reaching a decision? Clearly, the cost-benefit analysis will necessarily include the subjective valuations and assumptions of the person preparing the analysis, and the citizen will have the right to reject those valuations and assumptions and substitute his own when making the decision. But that reality only highlights the limitation of the analysis, and does not contradict that the analysis is valuable information that the citizen should have in making the decision. I am trying really hard to understand your point (and Michael's point), but I don't see anything other than criticism of specific analyses when they reach conclusions you don't like. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
