 |
 |
To the List Owners, including *both* of you: I find the comments from "Steve" to me & others particularly offensive. It seems to me that one can disagree with another without trying to denigrate the other person. As "Steve" has a propensity to do and has done to me here below. But, while you list owners castigate others for being offensive, you seem to allow "Steve" the lattitude to insult anyone who holds an opinion with which he disagrees. But, perhaps he merely articulates your own opinions of those who hold points of view different from yours? I would like to have a response from **both** of you. I might say that I have a tendency to respond to others in the same vein that they use toward me. So expect that my response to "Steve boy" are within his own terms. / Ray -------------- Hello Steve: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:12 PM Subject: Re: benefit/cost was Re: Lomborg, was Re: Patrick Moore > --- 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. Ray here: In my experience, economic benefits & costs are expressed in monetary terms. However, the distinction is that social, cultural, environmental, etc., values have only minimal relationship to "monetary costs & benefits" and are not reflected in those terms. If you think differently, please provide some logical arguments. ------------- > > > > > 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] Ray here: It seems to me that an *intellectual* discussion of an issue is not enhanced by "sarcasm". That attitude, in my experience, merely impedes, distracts from the discussion. And, in my view is sophomoric and contemptible. -------------- > > > > 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. Ray here: Steve, it is obvious that you are not familiar with the literature on Multiple Objective Planning, Multiple alternatives/Multiple Aspects, (MAMA) etc. Perhaps you might benefit if you were to try to get outside the box by doing a little literature research in this field. --------------- > > 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. > Ray here: Have you ever *done* benefit/cost analysis in the public domain? I think it has much to offer *within* a particular company/corporation where the objective function is very simple/well defined. But it radically distorts the analysis in the public domain. I am not surprised that you did not learn about the sorts of limits to b/c I have noted; nor am I surprised that you have not learned about valid alternatives to that procedure for the public domain - unfortunately, you seem to have been constrained to an education in the economic discipline and have not had the intellectual capacity to question your received wisdom since your grad school days. I've been there. > 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. Ray here: Well Steve, it seems that you are not capable of dealing with the limits of one particular analytical tool and then trying to find others which might reduce those limits. You apparently are so young and inexperienced that you accept without question the received wisdom. If you don't change, you will find that in your old age you will have fallen so far behind new ideas that you don't even recognize the problems and benefits for the new world that the the several protaganists have in store for us. May I suggest that you "get with it"? You have alot to learn and the learning process is not enhanced by sophomoric comments that you have the tendency to make. Grow up. Ray