> . . .
>Right. But even in social cost benefit analysis, CBA means
>something much more specific than weighing the pros and cons of something.
Everything has to be translated and compared in money terms and that means
that many things that do not (and should not) have a market value have to be
assigned $values (like the value of a human life, human health, a species,
nature, etc.) and this raises a lot of technical, and ethical, problems.>>
If you don't measure, how do you make decisions? Any comparison of alternatives is an implicit measurement, ordinal at the very least (e.g., the good overshadows the bad). Isn't it better to bring more information rather than less to such a choice?
You might be saying CBA assigns undue wisdom to economists, which is unimpeachable, but to assign none is going a bit too far, especially for you.
I don't think you get out of the woods with cost-effectiveness, since the benefit side is "politically" determined apparently by less reference to measurable benefits and more to . . . what?
>Well, having said above that cost should be one consideration, i think we
would be better off working to combat the misconceptions about government
deficits and the national debt and the myth of scarcity in a society with
unemployed resources, etc. This is why I have a problem with the groups
that put a lot of emphasis on the dangers of the national debt when they say
we can clean up the environment and eliminate the national debt by taxing
pollution.>>
As w/Marta, you're preaching to the choir. However debt is viewed, I'm afraid that the decision to SPEND depends on the public's confidence in government efficiency. Any money spent can also be used for tax cuts. I think people realize this. There is still an onus on spending to prove its mettle.
Cheers,
Max