[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: C/P's and Opportunity Cost
On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Aaron R Klemz wrote:
> I have to agree with a lot of this, and disagree with some of it.
> However, I don't think any of this really answers the WHAT we test and
> HOW we test question that I really want people to think about.
>
> I said:
>
> > > Counterplans are often referred to as "test of the oppotunity cost" of
> > > the aff. Now, given that "opportunity cost" is defined by my econ text as
> > > being "what we give up to get more of something else" that makes some
> > > sense. But...
>
> Jonathan replies:
>
> > I can accept that counterplans are in some way a test of the oppurtunity
> > cost, but this view of oppurtunity cost is somewhat narrow, more broadly
> > it is the value of the closest alternative that we have to give up in
> > order to get something else. In debate terms, The something else would
> > be an aff case and the closest alternative would be (hopefully) what the
> > negative is presenting in the counterplan. The negative then attempts to
> > show that the closest alternaive is indeed better than (net beneficial
> > to) the aff case.
>
> Even with this revised definition this still proves my point. That point
> is - unless the CP is mutually exclusive we don't "give up" the
> alternative. For example, I run increase aid to china (for something).
> Neg counterplans with "Japan will aid China, avoids the US based disads
> and gets the same advantage." Net beneficial yes, but in no way does the
> US aiding China preclude Japanese aid. So we don't give up the
> alternative policy as a result of the plan in this case and many others
> like it.
Maybe I am missing something here, someone please tell me if I am, this
just seems to prove my point (this example I mean). The oppurtunity cost
theory is still in effect. However, now it is not US do it as choice
number one and the alternative being Japan do it, it has now mutated into
US and Japan do plan and choice two just Japan (this would I guess be a
perm debate). Now the oppurtunity cost of the aff action would be the
measurement of how much more could the US do as opposed to Japan vs. the
disads of the US action. If having the US as an added agent (added to
Japan I mean) outweighs the disads of US involvement, then the
affirmative wins. This is still cost benefit analysis, which is still
just a way to weigh the oppurtunity costs related with an action.
>
> I said:
>
> > 1) Opportunity cost is based on resource limitations >
> > > I don;t think that this concept necessarily applies to
> > > governmental action. The US government deficit spends anyway, so the idea
> > > of pure resource competition has been (rightfully, I think) widely
> > > discredited. Also, specifying funding would make the trade off explicit
> > > and defendable.
>
> Jonathan replied:
>
> > 1) It is true that oppurtunity cost is based on the resoource limitation
> > theory; however, that the government runs deficits (ie money is
> > unlimited) does not disprove the resource limitation theory. In other
> > words, there are many other resources that are limited, such as the
> > people needed to implement the plan, actual physical resources (there is
> > only such much of something, such as oil or dolphins or whatever), and
> > then my favorite limited resource, Time...time is a definite and
> > unavoidably scarce resource. To type this, I am not watching the Gordon
> > Elliot Show...
>
> You're obviously correct in the personal behavior department - my time
> spent doing one thing necessarily trades off with other potential
> activities (although I highly doubt that watching Gordon Elliot would be
> one of those activities :). In terms of governmental action, I don;t hink
> it's quite the same. To "create" mored time the government can hire more
> people to oversee a program - it takes time away from them to devote to
> maintaining a policy. The chance that this particular set of policies
> will cause us to bump up against physical resource limitation is really
> unlikely - and if that WERE the case - I think that would be a time where
> resource competition would actually be valid.
>
Personally, I feel that this would always be the case. There is always
something else that these people could be doing as opposed to the
affirmative plan. I think that most people don't understand, or at least
I didn't for a while...an example, you can't just say we send water to so
and so for such and such, there is a workability problem, ie it would
take about 2000 tankers...I agree that the government is quite large, so
time isn't that big an issue, but money still is, as well as other
resources that are too vast to list without a specific case in mind.
> Jonathan again:
>
> > 2) This line of argumentation, that the government overspends debunks
> > limits is simply wrong. Think about what has been happening in
> > government, Gingrich has been discussing letting the government go into
> > default. Not to mention, somebody some day IS going to have to pay that
> > back. A simple example, you run up your credit card bill and then
> > suddenly you stop paying, guess what everyone sees this and no longer
> > gives you credit, now when you need credit, to buy a car or house or
> > whatever, you no longer have it, so now you have to stop and pay back all
> > of your old debts. Needless to say, when the bills finally catch up with
> > you, you are in a "world of hurt"
>
> Sure, you're right in the long run - but this doesn't answer the fact
> that we do deficit spend right now. Besides, what about plans and
> counterplans that don't require expenditures? They aren;t vulnerable to
> the resource tradeoff re: cashola.
>
I think that agreeing in the long run, pretty much grants out my point
because although it is in the future, the impacts are monstrous, if our
government defaults we are on our way to hell in a handbasket. I will
agree that some plans don't require funding (although I can't think of
any right now) but they are still limited by other resources.
> > 3) A logical counterplan may also include the same funding mechanism as
> > the aff, which I believe is acceptable and takes ot the argument of money
> > all together.
>
> Competition by taking the same funding is legit? Huh? Now my "disarm the
> world" counterplan is competitive because I use the same "junk food tax"?
> This makes no sense - besides I'm talking about the mandates and not the
> logistics. Let's just leave it at this - allowing this kind of
> "competition" would mean the end of perms and competition answers.
I did not mean that this was a form of competition, what I meant and what
I though I was refering to was the fact that outlining some funding
mechanism would therfore end the oppurtunity cost debate.
>
> I continue:
>
> > > 2) Opportunity cost can't take into account "net benefits" the way often
> > > argue them
> > > ..deletia.. I'm talking about the "we solve and avoid the disad"
> > > stuff. To me, that kind of competition can't be defended by opportunity
> > > cost theory. We don't "give up" the counterplan as an option by adopting
> > > a policy that solves the same harms and avoids a disad. We could do both
> > > - it's just that it's not necessarily the best way to go.
>
> And Jonathan replied:
>
> > 1) I consider myself an economist, although no one pays me for it, after
> > all that is what my diploma says (actually my diploma is in Latin, but I'll
> > bet if someone translated it it would say Applied Economics). In any
> > event, an economist would love the way most debate rounds are judged.
> > True most economists would shutter at the argumentation that "drinking
> > chocolate milk=nuclear war", but then again anyone would shudder at this.
> > But as far as "we solve and avoid the disad", economists would love this,
> > it is called cost benefit analysis, the same term used in debate, they
> > try and drive this idea home like therr is no tomorrow.
> ..empirical proof deleted...
>
> Well, sure, but CBA being used as the decision calculus is done
> regarddless of competition. In other words, if the counterplan outweighs
> the affirmative we should, in a vacuum do the counterplan, according to a
> CBA comparing the two policies. However, this doesn;t answer the *what*
> or *how* questions again.
I'm afraid I need some sort of clarification here, what are the what and
how questions? I think they are the inards of the plan and in that case,
that is what the advantages and the disadvantages stem from, ie. step to
says "through congress" then I run my disad of distracting congress, so
this does go into the oppurtunity cost formula
>
> > 2) I think that their is clearly a choice between counterplan and plan,
> > we each advocate a policy and try and build our own up and debunk the
> > others plan. This is what its all about. In other words, I see net
> > benefits as a source of competition as well as mutually exclusive. Then
> > of course you can get into philosophically competitive...
>
> Well, I agree in the sense that if we compare the counterplan and the
> CP+Plan it is entirely possible that it would be BETTER to do the CP
> alone. However, I disagree that means that net benefits is a test of
> opportunity cost. I'm just wondering what it is a test of. In other words
> - if the counterplan is advocated as a negative policy without the fudge
> factor of the "CP justs tests" argument I think you are absolutely
> correct. If the CP is mutually exclusive I can see how the CP could be a
> "test of opportunity cost". I just don't see how the net benefits
> standard of CP competition can be used to test the aff. Maybe there is
> something that we are testing, I'm just trying to determine what it is.
>
this i think i made clear at the top of this post, but again you weigh
the perm vs just the CP.
> I continued:
>
> > > > THE UPSHOT >
> > > So what? Well, what I'm trying to get at is the idea of a counterplan as
> > > "a test". A test of what? Opportunity cost? It seems that the only true
> > > "opportunity cost" test CP would be one that is mutually exclusive. If
> > > counterplan are advocated as policy alternatives in a concrete sense I
> > > can see their utility (in the net benefit example).
>
> Jonathan sez:
>
> > As I think I have shown above oppurtunity cost can be looked at in many
> > different ways and the general theory is not debunked by deficit
> > spending. In other words, even the net benefits example can be looked in
> > terms of oppurtunity costs. After all, measuring utility, ie total net
> > of a is "this" and "total" net of b is that, comparing "this" and "that" is
> > indeed comparing the oppurtunity cost.
>
> This oversimplifies and isn't a test of oppotunity cost. This is a test
> of utility, and only a test of generalized utility not taking into
> account competition. To reprise general CP theory...
What is the difference between testing utility (comparing advantages and
disadvantages) and oppurtunity cost? I say there is _no_ differnce
whatsoever. How does one measure oppurtunity cost? First, they look at
the net benefit of the action vs. the net benefit of the closest alternative
action. This is it, nothing else.
>
> CP <>= Plan + CP (< or = /vote aff > /vote neg)
>
> According to your logic (CBA analysis), CP would win if it outweighs the
> plan, but I've already discussed why that fails. The counterplan is a
> useful theoretical entity (sorry Mike :) only when it proves that there
> is some sort of tradeoff with the plan involved in its adoption.
>
If it outweighs, then it does win, as long the discussion isn't apples
and oranges, ie it must compete on some level, whether that be mutual
exclusivity, net benefits, philosophical competitiveness. It basically
comes down to three question: could they? would they? and should they?
To lose on competitiveness a counterplan must have yes answers to all of
these. The "could they?" is covered in the realm of mutual exclusivity.
The "would they?" I see as philosophical competitiveness, and finally the
"should they?" is your net benefits. This means that you are weighing
oppurtunity cost at all of these levels.
> I also question whether this is a test of opp cost. The CP isn't
> something we necessarily "give up" by voting aff. The CP's utility may be
> reduced by the plan (to use economic terms the competing policies are
> "substitutes" for one another) but that doesn't mean we can't do both.
> How about this equation...
>
> MU(cp) MU(plan)
> ------ = -------- MU=marginal utility P=cost
> P(cp) P(plan)
>
> This would be maximal utility in this situation where adoption of the CP
> and plan would be maximally beneficial (i.e. the perfect do both perm).
> Reality is rarely this kind - if the CP and plan are substitutes for one
> another (solve the same harms) then the relative utility increase of one
> decreases the relative utility of the other. Roughly this is an economic
> way to demonstrate the net benefits concept. However, there are a couple
> of problems. First, the test assumes that our goal is to maximize utility
> in a vacuum. That does not take into account competition or permutations.
>
> i.e.
>
> MU(cp) MU(plan) MU(cp)
> ------ + -------- <=> ------
> P(cp) P(plan) P(cp)
>
> would be more accurate. However, this still isn't a test of opportunity
> cost (although maybe I'm getting a lot closer to what it actually might
> be testing?)
>
I guess this is mostly right except for one thing, marginal utility of
one vs. the other is a form of oppurtunity cost analysis as discussed above.
> I finally concluded:
>
> > > It seems that we get sloppy in our CP argumentation. Maybe we need to
> > > question WHAT exactly we are testing and HOW we are testing instead of
> > > taking it for granted that the counterplan is a test.
>
> And Jonathan said:
>
> > I don't know, I don't think that the counterplan is a test, if it was we
> > would be hypothesis testing and could run 2 billion countrplans in the
> > 1NC (someday ther may be someone who figures out a way to do this, run 2
> > billion CPs I mean). I think that a counterplan is an actuall policy
> > alternative offered by the negative team. In other words, to the
> > negative the status quo does have some problems, but so does the aff
> > plan, we think that doing this is much better than either alternative.
>
> I agree. To me it seems that negatives have an obligation to their
> advocacy regarding counterplans qua reasons to reject the aff. As to the
> idea of testing the aff plan can anyone help me figure out exactly what
> we test and how we test?
>
> Aaron Klemz
> U of Minnesota
> klem0038@gold.tc.umn.edu
>
The what we test, I still believe it to be oppurtunity cost (maybe I am
biased because it was my major, but I don't think so) whether it is one
mutual exclusive grounds or not.
The how we test is, I believe, decided in the particular debate round,
but more specifically it is, the odd calculus decided in the round, of
what is worth more to who, ie the weighing of the advantages and the
disadvantages of each.
This is pretty much it in a nutshell,
Jonathan Honiball
Economist-At-Large (in other words, nobody pays me!)
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page