4 ms·

Don't forget opportunity cost. Sure they may be investing, but if government weren't imposing a distortion, they could be investing better.

by fche 11y ago

throwaway2048 11y ago
better from the point of view of their shareholders/board, not nessisarily better from the point of view of the public.
lostcolony 11y ago
That sort of 'logic' can be used to argue against any decision that someone doesn't like, that can't be fully controlled for. "Oh, sure, ever since X happened Y has occurred, but you never know what >Y might have happened if only X hadn't, despite all historical data to the contrary!"
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  Their logic is faulty, but opportunity costs are very real and routinely analyzed in many domains, ranging from systems engineering to advertising.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    Yes, but such analysis involves formal models, so in the absence of such models we can safely shout "quackery!".
    - lostcolony 11y ago
      Or at least -some- sort of suggested mechanism by which that opportunity could and would have been exercised. "They could have invested better" - sure, they probably could have. However, there is no reason to believe they -would- have invested in a way that better serves their customers (or whatever 'better' means, that isn't just maintain the status quo), given they never have shown any inkling to do so in the past. Given no proposed catalyst to cause a change on their part, there is no reason to believe they would have changed; ergo, this particular change's leading to 'better' results equals a better outcome than this change not having occurred.
- fche 11y ago
  It's not general X and Y in play here. It's government overriding the efficiency that normally results from competitive allocation of resources.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    You have missed lostcolony's point. This sub-thread [0] should make it clear to you. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10482564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10482564
simoncion 11y ago
> ...if government weren't imposing a distortion... Interesting change of tune from our last conversation about a tremendously similar sort of thing. ;) You would do well to learn about the dirty details of telecom subsidies, tax breaks, dirty tricks, and broken promises over the past several decades.
- fche 11y ago
  It sounds like the same tune to me.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I'm unsurprised to hear you say that.

Don't forget opportunity cost. Sure they may be investing, but if government weren't imposing a distortion, they could be investing better.

by fche 11y ago

Don't forget opportunity cost. Sure they may be investing, but if government weren't imposing a distortion, they could be investing better.

throwaway2048 11y ago

better from the point of view of their shareholders/board, not nessisarily better from the point of view of the public.

lostcolony 11y ago

That sort of 'logic' can be used to argue against any decision that someone doesn't like, that can't be fully controlled for. "Oh, sure, ever since X happened Y has occurred, but you never know what >Y might have happened if only X hadn't, despite all historical data to the contrary!"

vdaniuk 11y ago
Their logic is faulty, but opportunity costs are very real and routinely analyzed in many domains, ranging from systems engineering to advertising.
- omginternets 11y ago
  Yes, but such analysis involves formal models, so in the absence of such models we can safely shout "quackery!".
  - lostcolony 11y ago
    Or at least -some- sort of suggested mechanism by which that opportunity could and would have been exercised. "They could have invested better" - sure, they probably could have. However, there is no reason to believe they -would- have invested in a way that better serves their customers (or whatever 'better' means, that isn't just maintain the status quo), given they never have shown any inkling to do so in the past. Given no proposed catalyst to cause a change on their part, there is no reason to believe they would have changed; ergo, this particular change's leading to 'better' results equals a better outcome than this change not having occurred.
fche 11y ago
It's not general X and Y in play here. It's government overriding the efficiency that normally results from competitive allocation of resources.
- simoncion 11y ago
  You have missed lostcolony's point. This sub-thread [0] should make it clear to you. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10482564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10482564

simoncion 11y ago

> ...if government weren't imposing a distortion... Interesting change of tune from our last conversation about a tremendously similar sort of thing. ;) You would do well to learn about the dirty details of telecom subsidies, tax breaks, dirty tricks, and broken promises over the past several decades.

fche 11y ago
It sounds like the same tune to me.
- simoncion 11y ago
  I'm unsurprised to hear you say that.