Skip to main content

View Diary: Cost-Benefit Analysis (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  135-trillion is, like you say, ridiculous, so it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Protestant

    is a waste of time to sit around trying to come up with supposed more and more exact numbers for such a thing. It is also misleading, because there is a huge amount of false precision that is assumed when such a number is released. Such things are always based on fairly wild estimates, but they give the illusion that a highly thorough and accurate analysis has been performed or can be performed. It is a challenge to calculate even the factors that can be easily monetized. But, many factors are difficult if not impossible to monetize.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:09:35 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You want accuracy, not precision. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Protestant

      Numbers that are solid.

      If it's ₤135-trillion, plus or minus ₤25-trillion, that hits the spot. Precision isn't the issue.

      Knowing it's impossible ??? That requires doing the scaling estimate.

      "Teachers: the Architects of American Democracy"

      by waterstreet2013 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:17:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it is validity that links a hypothesis (3+ / 0-)

        test to a real world situation. Both accuracy and precision are important in attempting to establish a convergent validity. If you cannot establish validity, then you just have numbers that are made up in someone's head without proper grounding in reality. Your examples show textbook case of this type of bad and invalid modeling. Not only is a number like ₤135-trillion ridiculous to begin with, as it far exceeds world GDP, but adding in a huge margin of error, like ₤25-trillion (roughly twice the US GDP), make the numbers even more asinine. You would be better off to just stick with the statement that it would be absurdly costly to move the entire city of London. These so-called numbers that you attempt to put on it are not only unhelpful, they're laughable.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:46:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's hardly asinine. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Protestant

          -- Take the cost of moving one family and building a new residence for them. Make that a distribution of families and estimate across normal ranges.

          -- Then do the same for businesses.

          -- Figure what a new Heathrow would cost.

          -- Do the work for the whole of London's inventory of human assets.

          Of course you get numbers that belong in an astronomy course. They're big numbers.

          But have you seen what happened to England this winter ??? It's not far off making the country less habitable -- less able to support a prosperous economy to be sure.

          GW is going to have an impact a 100 times worse.

          ₤135-trillion as a decent guesstimate for relocating London tells us that we cannot adjust. If it was ₤1-trillion, maybe we could. Even ₤10-trillion spread out over several decades might be plausible.

          ₤135-trillion says, "No!" We allow this to happen and we lose these coastal cities, not just move them. It is impossible for economic reasons to move them.

          "Teachers: the Architects of American Democracy"

          by waterstreet2013 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:01:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Monetizing some of the costs of moving a city may (2+ / 0-)

            help us know what ballpark the problem belongs in. So, I can agree with you that we need to know if it is a ₤1 or ₤10 problem. Heck, if we were moving Wichita, some people would might say, no problem, even an empty lot is more exciting ;) But, in dealing with a problem like moving London, I think we already know what ballpark were dealing with, and it goes way beyond the cost of moving a normal distribution of families. What's the value of Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, or Big Ben? Those places really go beyond simple estimates of economic value. What is the Whitehouse, the Statue of Liberty, or the Washington Monument worth? I would strongly suggest that you not try to slap a number on them. People would be rightful offended if you simply say a priceless national treasure is worth $X billion. We know without even going through valuation exercises that our national landmarks are priceless. We know that the costs of materials and logistics doesn't even begin to express the full value of these places.  

            Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

            by tekno2600 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:18:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site