> 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?
The thing is that everything can't be measured in quantitative terms and personally I have a problem with some of the attempts to measure what shouldn't be. Consideration of pros and cons is not the same thing as reducing all factors to quantitatively comparable terms, i.e., $. Things like "rights" or doing what one believes is the right thing come into play. If we based our decision on CBA, we might still have slavery or child labor. All life shouldn't be governed by "economic logic" of that kind. We make decisions all the time without "measuring" in the technical sense of CBA, and I don't think it is all some kind of utilitarian ordering either. Since so many of the outcomes are decided in advance, and numbers fudged around until they get the results they want, CBA ends up cloaking power and politics in the guise of a scientific analysis. Better to work on the political process, informed by many factors, including but not limited to those related to costs.
> 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.
Sorry. I do think CBA is appropriate under certain conditions. In cases where the costs and benefits involved are identifiable and measurable with a high degree of confidence and the variables involved already have market values. Even then, it should be conducted with caution. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the problems with contingent valuation, hedonic pricing, travel cost methods and the like. I never got over that Larry Summer's memo, I guess.
By the way, why "especially for me?"
cheers,
Mat