 |
|
April 9, 2014
Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease
April 8, 2014
Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease
Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear
April 4, 2014
Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children
John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet
John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds
Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves
April 2, 2014
Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?
Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities
Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene
|
| |
Jewish World Review
August 1, 2007
/ 17 Menachem-Av, 5767
Economic thinking
By
Walter Williams
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Historical costs, sometimes called sunk costs, are irrelevant to decision-making because they are costs that have already been incurred. That's something that's not intuitively obvious, even for some trained economists. On a couple of occasions, I've recommended to a graduate student, having difficulty with his Ph.D. dissertation, that it might be wise to start all over again with a different topic. The response:
"Professor Williams, but I've spent so much time on the dissertation so far." I reminded the student that the time already spent should have nothing to do with his decision to either stick with his chosen topic or choose another one. His question should be: Which choice, sticking with the chosen topic or choosing another, will more readily lead to successful completion of his doctorate?
When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, gasoline prices started rising immediately. Some people couldn't understand why prices rose for gasoline already in the pipeline long before Katrina struck. The fact that prices for gasoline produced before the disaster rose led to charges of price gouging. Many people believed that historical costs, what a retailer paid for it, should determine price.
That's patently wrong, and a simple example will demonstrate it. Say you've been selling me coffee from your large inventory for $4 a pound. A crop disaster in Brazil spikes the world coffee price to $10 a pound. What will you charge me now? If you said at least $10, go to the head of the class. Why? Because the opportunity cost, or replacement cost, of coffee is now $10. What coffee cost before the disaster is irrelevant.
You say, "Williams, I'm not greedy. I'd sell it to you for $4 until I ran out." That's great. I'd buy it from you for $4 and resell it for the world price of $10.
At the time of Katrina, gasoline retailers couldn't replace their gasoline at yesterday's prices. In other words, gasoline prices, coffee prices and any other price reflect conditions in the market today, not yesterday.
Today's debate over the Iraq War is so often discussed in terms of whether it should have been initiated in the first place, our faulty intelligence about Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and whether the Bush administration lied to the American people. Whether these observations and charges are true or false should in no way be a part of today's decision-making, for history is one of those immutable facts of life. We can change the future, but we cannot change the past, though we can learn from it.
The only costs relevant to decision-making are what economists call marginal or incremental cost; that's the change in costs as a result of doing something. That cost should be compared to the expected benefit. Think about pollution. Getting rid of pollution is a no-brainer. All that the authorities of, say, Los Angeles would have to do is to mandate that all pollution-emitting sources shut down. That would mean no driving, no manufacturing, no airplanes, no power generation and no lawn mowing. Angelenos would have perfectly clean air, but I doubt whether they'd agree that it's worth the costs. That means perfectly clean air is non-optimal, and so is perfectly dirty air. The question is, how much clean air do we want and at what cost? In other words, we should compare the additional benefit of cleaner air to the additional costs of getting it.
The idea of weighing the costs of doing something against its benefits are part and parcel of intelligent decision-making. If we only look to benefits, we'll do darn near anything because everything has some kind of benefit.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Walter Williams Archives
© 2006, Creators Syndicate.
|
|
Columnists
Toons
Lifestyles
|
