normal means & op costs

[mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)]

there are a myriad definitions of what economists consider legitimate
opportunity costs.  read James Buchanan 1966 and afterward to get a nice
introductory but deep philosophical discussion of the issue.

i wish to discuss op costs and competition fully in a later post, but for
here a brief note about op costs and normal means.

now, the understandings of opportunity costs which have ANY chance of
legitimating counterplans as opportunity cost tests of the affirmative plan
all commit to a particular MODALITY (how they use "possibility").  they are
written thus:

the opportunity cost of an action is the value of the BEST alternative which
COULD BE foregone as a result of the action.

i won't demonstrate that counterplan legitimacy depends on this "COULD BE"
MODALITY here.  nor will i argue AGAINST this definition here.  this IS a
definition still found in a few microeconomics texts, however.

now, do normal means for funding and implementation help the affplan avoid
counterplans which use the money, bricks, troops, and other RESOURCES for
something else?  nope.

under this definition of opportunity costs, the legitimate opportunity cost
of the affirmative plan's use of resources is NOT the BEST use that
otherwise WOULD BE made of these resources (that's just a disad), rather it
is the BEST alternative use of the resources which COULD BE made.  

so fiat another use for the money, bricks, and troops and show it gets more
good stuff than the affirmative plan - you've got a legitimate opportunity
cost of the aff plan.

net benefits combinations and permutations succeed, however.  doing BOTH
affplan and the counterplan is presumably better than just the counterplan
which typically means no competition and thus no opportunity cost from the
counterplan or its advantages.  the "normal means" device makes the
counterplan noncompetitive under net benefits combinations and permutations.  

there is a CONTRADICTION between 

1) this definition of opportunity costs and 
2) net benefits combinations/permutations + normal means.  

the definition says the counterplan IS an opportunity cost of the
affirmative plan while the "tests" say that the counterplan is NOT a
legitimate opportunity cost.  is it?

does this argue against the above definition of opportunity costs? 
does it argue that our current mechanisms for testing the opportunity costs
of affirmative plan are screwed up?  
does it merely argue that "normal means" is an attempt to HIDE the "real"
opportunity costs of the affirmative plan?

the teaser to the "best" answer is that there is NO definition of
opportunity costs which legitimates BOTH competitive counterplans AND net
benefits combinations/permutations.  the nasty bit is MODALITY.  and i'll
demonstrate the LOGIC soon.

thank you,
:) michael korcok :)

---

• Prev by Date: Publishing in PKD's The Forensic
• Next by Date: PlanPlan: The Korcokian competition-flaw is Wrong
• Prev by thread: Publishing in PKD's The Forensic
• Next by thread: PlanPlan: The Korcokian competition-flaw is Wrong
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page