Jim is correct in saying that there is nothing in cost-benefit analysis that excludes nonmonetary factors. The practitioners frequently do so -- when it is in their interest. For example in building dams, proponents' cost-benefit analysis generally include recreational values, which tend to be pretty arbitrary.
I guess my point is that the people whose cost-benefit analyses would be used in the staffing of nurses would not have interests that would coincide with patients or their families. At the same time, people who push their moral values onto others never bother with anything as mundane as costs-benefit analysis. On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:16:46AM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > On 10/6/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David brings up an interesting point. To what extent should we allow > > market forces > > or even then the marketized rationality of cost-benefit analysis determined > > questions, which are inherently moral. > > > > Wouldn't the logic of cost-benefit analysis suggests that perhaps more > > resources > > should go into child pornography -- to mention the sort of thing which is > > currently > > in the news. If people want to spend money for such stuff, the market > > would say > > fine. > > there's nothing in cost/benefit analysis that says that it has to be > based solely on market measures of costs and benefits. The cost of > producing child porn could easily include a "moral" cost, just as the > cost of producing steel should include the pollution (external) costs. > This cost would involve things like the way in which the child's life > would be distorted by its use in porn, which easily exceeds any > compensation the child receives. (Of course, when a child makes such a > deal (if it's not the parent or guardian who does it), it's strictly > speaking illegal. Children aren't seen as rational contract-makers.) > > It's only the Chicago school of "market-oriented" economists who see > only market costs and benefits as relevant. > > The main objection to the idea of bringing in moral costs and benefits > (and the like) is that they usually cannot be quantified. Further, if > they can be quantified, can they truly be _added_ to the market costs > (or benefits)? These are valid points. But we can think of > _democratic_ cost/benefit decisions: all of the costs and benefits > should be listed. Then people can decide democratically about whether > child porn (or whatever) should be banned. > -- > Jim Devine / "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at > present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, > ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it > arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict > with the powers that be." -- KM -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
