[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: opportunity benefits

I shouldn't have to respond to this but...

On Fri, 23 May 1997 18:56:57 -0400 Michael Korcok <mk48@CORNELL.EDU>
writes:
>ain't no such thing.

Says who? You?

>not in the economics literature or anywhere else.

Yeah but it's the next logical step from opportunity cost.

>it is a silly concept.

In that frame of reference so is opportunity cost.

>  why should a proposed action get credit for 
>all
>sorts of BAD things which won't be done anyway?

For the same reason that a proposed action gets blamed for stoping
benificial things which won't happen anyway (opportunity cost).  I don't
know what that reason is because opportunity cost is an invalid way to
evaluate counterplan debate (see my previous post.)
 
>an opportunity cost is the BEST action which could be done but will 
>have
>to be foregone if an action is taken - it is the REAL cost of taking 
>an
>action.

If the opportunity is inevitable then you have a point.  You also have an
inherency argument, not a counterplan.  If the opportunity is not
inevitable then there is absolutely no lost opportunity in fiating the
plan (again see my previous post.)

>there is no corresponding concept of an "opportunity benefit".

Why, because you say?  Untill you give me a valid argument as to why an
opportunity benifit does not exist in an opportunity cost counterplan
debate then I think they are valid.  The one line, aint in the lit, just
doesn't cut it.
 
>thank you for reading,
>michael korcok
>

I don't advocate opportunity benifits.  I believe the argument is just as
invalid as opportunity cost.  My reason for defending them is to prove
just how silly and outrught abusive the concept of an opportunity cost based counterplan is.  Thank you for reading this and my origional post.


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