4 ms·

Why are we valuing this sort of stuff in money? It's frankly absurd to me. We really need better metrics. This is rapidly becoming (if it isn't already) a bas

Why are we valuing this sort of stuff in money? It's frankly absurd to me. We really need better metrics. This is rapidly becoming (if it isn't already) a basic maintenance expenditure. Fixing the roof of your house doesn't cost money in any meaningful sense other than at the specific moment that one balance decreases and another increases. It maintains the value of the house; you have to do it otherwise it falls in. It's not deadweight expenditure. Unless you use a net present value calculation that discounts the future into nothingness. Then, sure, ignore it.

harry8 7y ago
You measure it in money so that you know what the opportunity cost is for 'this' allocation of scarce resources whatever the value of 'this' is. There may be occasions where the cost will never be so high as to preclude the allocation. Value the benefit in money (which could simply be justified as being infinite in certain circumstances). "I feel emotion about this issue, let's allocate all the resources and think no further." Has generally been a very, very bad idea. Money is the only metric we have to compare unlike resources when considering allocation and it makes a lot of sense. It has little to do with our bank balances in such usage. It should have nothing to do with greed and avarice. If on the other hand you're talking about propaganda war and the misuse of analysis to either act or stall, I have little interest in commenting other than to say such propaganda techniques are evil every single time they are used and especially in the service of "right" the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thinking properly about "what will happen if we do X" is the best defence we have as a species against just about everything. I am not making a comment on how well the analysis has been done in the attached article. I note it is possible to do such things very, very poorly.

harry8 7y ago

You measure it in money so that you know what the opportunity cost is for 'this' allocation of scarce resources whatever the value of 'this' is. There may be occasions where the cost will never be so high as to preclude the allocation. Value the benefit in money (which could simply be justified as being infinite in certain circumstances). "I feel emotion about this issue, let's allocate all the resources and think no further." Has generally been a very, very bad idea. Money is the only metric we have to compare unlike resources when considering allocation and it makes a lot of sense. It has little to do with our bank balances in such usage. It should have nothing to do with greed and avarice. If on the other hand you're talking about propaganda war and the misuse of analysis to either act or stall, I have little interest in commenting other than to say such propaganda techniques are evil every single time they are used and especially in the service of "right" the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thinking properly about "what will happen if we do X" is the best defence we have as a species against just about everything. I am not making a comment on how well the analysis has been done in the attached article. I note it is possible to do such things very, very poorly.