But Gus, it remains a tautology. If I turn right, I've lost the
opportunity to turn left. So what? Under any conceivable set of
circumstances doing X negates the ability to do Y. Saying that the cost
of X is (actual cost of X) + Y is meaningless. The cost of X is whatever
it is, the 'opportunity' costs are not real.
I think I'm going to let this bone go; I'm starting to sound hysterical
even to myself.
Steven
Dada is not dead
Watch your overcoat
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gus diZerega
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lomborg
The basic idea of opportunity costs is simple - how it is used in policy
debate is not.
I agree that Lomborg is not really very forthright when he opposes
anti-global warming measures with all those other good things. We are
NOT given the opportunity to choose between them. Sort of like saying,
the opportunity cost of my going to the movies is a small child starving
in Somalia. There is something deeply dishonest and/or misleading about
such a statement.
BUT
There is something to the notion. If I do X, I do not do what I would
otherwise have done if I did not do X. Call it Y. The opportunity cost
of doing X is Y. The notion is reasonable at this level.
Gus diZerega
Dept. of Politics
Whitman College
Walla Walla, WA 99362
|