--- Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[snip]


> The value biases appear in a number of ways.  For example, the
> analyses were/are based on *economic* benefits & costs.  That is,

Ahem.  These are not *economic* benefits and costs, but monetary
costs and benefits.



> only a comparison of market values are relevant.  To the extent
> that social, cultural, environmental values are brought in to the
> equation, they are expressed in market values gained or lost -
> according to the received wisdom.  The gains or losses of social,
> cultural, environmental values are not analyzed in their own terms,
> their own value set, the unique world view that underlies those
> values.  In effect, the b/c procedure commensurates
> incommensurables.
>
> Another bias, following from the above bias relates to the way and
> type of data that are selected, deemed relevant to the b/c analysis
> within the above context.  The data selected and the data
> interpretation are made within the materialistic/economic paradigm.
>  Data that are/might be more relevant to those members of society
> who value environmental, social, cultural values are not deemed
> significant to the mainstream system.
>
> Now, I am not saying that the people who do these analyses are
> evil.  They come to the analysis in that posture because they have

Gee Ray, I'd never think you'd imply that. [/sarcasm]


> that same value propensity.  All of you should know that a company,
> a political party can hire an economist, for example, who will
> provide them with the sort of answer that that particular entity
> desires.  They hire those specialists/technicians/professors who
> hold their own value sets.
>
> I am not so naive as to think that bias can be erradicated; nor do
> I think it *should* be.  The individuating biases contribute to new
> & different ways of thinking about a question/problem.  Einstein
> was the great intellectual at least in part because he was thinking
> "out of the box".  And I think that even the least of us can make a
> contribution to our understanding because of our own individual
> bias.
>
> In my view, an analysis of the sort of public issues that Lomberg
> addresses should provide information about positive and negative
> effects *in the terms* that are relevant to people who hold value
> sets along the continuum of values within the community.  Even
> developers, miners, forest company people, etc.,

What you are asking for is ultimately impossible.  It boils down to,
at least in part, getting people to reveal unobservables.  Now people
being what they are will often misrepresent these unobservables
(welfare being one of them).  Even in a small group achieving
"truth-telling" is extremely difficult if not outright impossible.
Further, a continuum of "values" would require having information
that nobody likely has access to.

Does this mean that benefit/cost analyses should not be done.
Absolutely not.  In fact, Ray's extremist position above is, I feel
highly counter productive.  Instead, a more reasonable approach would
be to do the analysis, but to be cognizant of these short comings of
benefit/cost analysis.  I am not sure where Ray learned about
benefit/cost analysis, but when it was first introduced to me the
shortcomings of it were quickly brought up.

Saying this type of analysis has problems and therefore one is going
to avoid them, is like noting a hammer is not appropriate for the
given task and then never carrying a hammer in your tool kit.


Steve


=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com