On Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 19:29:14 (-0800) Michael Perelman writes: >David, the method is flawed. It may serve a rhetorical purpose, but that >is all. > >Of course, data and information is important, but cost benefit analysis is >flawed. It is not whether I agree with a particular decision.
I'm having trouble not agreeing with Shemano on this one, at least in part. If done properly, which in my mind is in the most democratic way possible (as should just about everything), cost-benefit analysis can do nothing but add to the quality of decisions reached. Note I said "add". It should not "lead to" conclusions. If you do a cost-benefit analysis and you decide "You know what, we tried to do the analysis and we just don't have any idea of the true costs of this", then you fall back to something like the precautionary principle and move forward in your decision making process. Or, if you decide that invading a country without a good reason is an act of aggression, the supreme international crime, you skip the cost-benefit altogether --- it does not have to be applied in every case. At the very least you may uncover things you hadn't thought of (perverse incentives, for example) when you first came up with your Bright Shining People's New World Order idea. Bill _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
