5 ms·
It sounds very nice and morally fulfilling to denigrate any numerical calculus of welfare; but in the end you still have to deal with monetary budgets that repr
by LudwigNagasena 4y ago
It sounds very nice and morally fulfilling to denigrate any numerical calculus of welfare; but in the end you still have to deal with monetary budgets that represent limited societal supply of labor and resources.
You may try to take a moral high ground and say that people are more important than $X million, but those money also represent potential housing, cancer treatment research, green energy investment, etc that won’t be financed. You cannot get away from measuring value of time and toil of people, at least implicitly. Why not then make it explicit and be mindful of it?
- goodpoint 4y ago> It sounds very nice and morally fulfilling to denigrate any numerical calculus of welfare Many of those "numerical calculus" measure only savings in time, fuel, etc and attribute ZERO value to saving lives, improving quality of life and even improving mental health. Such calculations are not pragmatic, they are highly ideological.
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoIdeologues everywhere use statistics as a pretext for their lies. Water is wet. More breaking news at 11.
- goodpoint 3y agoYou are missing the point completely.
- ericmay 4y agoAlso in an American context “saving money” or other “efficiency gains” anrguments appeal to a broad group of people and can build consensus. You don’t need just one message, you can have different messages for different audiences to sell them on the idea. Also for the GP you shouldn’t call people out for having an email domain listed if you are too fearful to have yours listed. Be nice.