Michael Perelman wrote: > David, the method is flawed.
What do you mean by "the method," Michael? Do you mean a very specific way in which a particular group of economists estimates costs and benefits, or do you mean that, in general, every time humans try to estimate the costs and benefits of their actions, they are necessarily bound to reach flawed conclusions? If the latter, if flawed cost/benefit analysis is a corollary of flawed humanity or flawed human cognition, then how are humans supposed to economize their time in -- say -- a communist society? Should they not try to reduce the consequences of their actions to a common social substance (welfare or the other side of it, labor time) and compare the pluses and the minuses? If not, then how are they supposed to make their economic decisions? If the former, are you arguing then that the way a particular group of economists does cost/benefit analysis is flawed, because they are not taking into consideration total social costs and benefits, as only a communist society would? If, so, aren't you then arguing implicitly for a different form of cost/benefit analysis (communist cost/benefit analysis)? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
