The Opportunity Cost of Eating, Sleeping and Copulating

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I didn't get anything from the OP. Do you mean we waste time doing all that? But we need to waste that time doing all that. Not just that, we also need to feel the 'need' for eating, sleeping and having sex. You cannot extract human from those basic needs and I don't even mean in a biological-physiological way which is actually the first obvious one.

OP is evidence why any real research on a topic is done through journals like APSR (and the many others, I just used that as an example) and not wiki. Verbose irrelevancies generally get you a laughing reply from referees...unless you're writing for a theology journal I guess.

[SilentFutility]

The title of the thread is actually an interesting topic, well to me it is anyway.
It's shame approximately 2% of OP's post was actually about the title of the thread and little of that made sense as well, just like the rest of OP's post.
Every choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.

Too bad OP was going to discuss this, but he didn't because:
[youtube:3g5rbpna]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw[/youtube:3g5rbpna]

[stromboli]

Every choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.

Deep. Seriously, the only cogent point to come out of the OP. do a thread, my man.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You lost me after wrestling with the definition of getting laid.. I'd rather read the NYT's. :-k

[Xerographica]

The title of the thread is actually an interesting topic, well to me it is anyway.
It's shame approximately 2% of OP's post was actually about the title of the thread and little of that made sense as well, just like the rest of OP's post.
Every choice we make has some sort of opportunity cost, and analysing fundamental human behaviours with this in mind would have probably yielded some of the most interesting discussion AF has seen since we moved over to the new board.

Too bad OP was going to discuss this, but he didn't because:

Heh, too funny.  More cowbell?  What about more cayenne?  There's been more than a few times when I've put too much cayenne in my soup.

Clearly there's an optimal amount of cayenne that I should put into my soup.  Just like there's an optimal amount of cayenne that should be supplied by farmers.  Society's total welfare is diminished if there's too much or too little cayenne.  A shortage of cayenne means too many boring soups and a surplus of cayenne means that there's a shortage of other essential ingredients.  

Is what I'm saying making sense to you?  Or do we still have the same problem that I smoked too much weed?  I got too much weed and not enough cayenne?  Perhaps you don't need as much cayenne when you're high.

Basically I'm talking about the efficient allocation of resources.  Efficient allocation means optimal provision.  And optimal provision depends on...opportunity cost.

Markets allow resources to flow to where they create the most value simply because we have the freedom to spend our money/time on the things that we value most.    

Which do you value more...weed or cayenne?  Values are subjective...but clearly weed is far more costly than cayenne.  It's supply and demand.  When it comes to weed...the demand is greater than the supply.  It has absolutely nothing to do with weed being more difficult to grow than cayenne...and everything to do with cheap morals.

What are cheap morals?  Cheap morals allow you to spend other people's money on your ideas of right and wrong.  

The way the government is set up...you can demand things and then expect other people to pick up the tab.  In other words, voters skip the opportunity cost part.  They pass the difficult decisions onto their personal shoppers.

Voters are simply trying to maximize their utility.  They are behaving rationally...they want the most bang for their buck...but they are making a huge mistake.  People don't understand that the only way we can ensure an optimal provision of public goods is for each and every person to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions.  

So when it comes to answering the question of whether drugs should be illegal...we put it to a ballot vote.  But when it comes to answering the question of how much money should be spent on the drug war...we have to give taxpayers the freedom to put their own tax dollars where their morals are.  Without each and every taxpayer evaluating the opportunity costs...we're certain to end up with a surplus or shortage of drug war.  

Well...unless government planners are omniscient.  Perhaps, just like God, they know exactly when a sparrow falls and they know exactly how much you value the drug war.  If government planners can know these things...then there's really no need to allow taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.  

*filters my 1300+ passages database for "omni"*...

But where Wicksell proceeded to examine the process of preference revelation, Samuelson provided a more general definition of the efficient solution. Preference revelation is disregarded as the model visualizes an omniscient referee to whom preferences are known. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance   

Isn't that hilarious?  The current system is based on assuming that government planners, just like God, are all knowing.  

So can somebody who believes in the current system truly call themselves an atheist?  Naw, I don't think so.  

Essential though the efficiency model of public goods is as a theoretical construct, standing by itself it has little practical use.  The omniscient referee does not exist and the problem of preference revelation must be addressed. - Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance

Another word for "preference" is "demand"...as in supply and demand.  So "preference revelation" is the same thing as "demand revelation".  Here's a blog entry where I posted numerous passages on the subject...The Preference Revelation Problem.  

So what do you think?  Is this better than the OP?  Or shall I try again?  Or perhaps you should you listen to stromboli and "do a thread"?

[Plu]

And just like that, anything interesting in this topic died because you had to rehash the same bull you always post but can't adequately defend :(

[Xerographica]

And just like that, anything interesting in this topic died because you had to rehash the same bull you always post but can't adequately defend :(

What do you mean that I can't adequately defend it?  Are you saying that I made the preference revelation problem up?  Is it simply a figment of my imagination?  Did I chomp on too many magic mushrooms?  

Did you not read those passages by Richard A. Musgrave?  Perhaps you need another passage.  

So tell me...what part of the following passage do you disagree with?

How, then, are demand functions revealed? It would be disingenuous, to say the least, in an exercise whose object is to discover how demand is revealed, to assume that, ex ante, centers of power know the preferences of consuming households. We must then begin our analysis of the forces that motivate citizens to reveal their preferences by focusing on a fundamental information problem. I therefore assume that as a consequence of imperfect information concerning the preferences of citizens, centers of power will provide, except by accident, goods and services in quantities that will be either larger or smaller than the quantities desired by consuming households at the taxprices they confront, and I show that these departures from optimality inflict utility loses on these households. - Albert Breton, Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance

[Plu]

I don't disagree with any of that, it's a great theory. It just doesn't work in practice, like most theories that sound so simple when you write them down. It's ignoring the complexities of the actual world, like most theoretical systems, and that's why we never implement them but instead go for something that sounds less nice but actually works.

[Xerographica]

I don't disagree with any of that, it's a great theory. It just doesn't work in practice, like most theories that sound so simple when you write them down. It's ignoring the complexities of the actual world, like most theoretical systems, and that's why we never implement them but instead go for something that sounds less nice but actually works.

You just contradicted yourself.  If you think the current system works...then you can't agree with the passage.  So which is it?

Let's try again.  Do you agree or disagree with the following passage?

Prices must also play a more important role as a mechanism for revealing the true demand for - and therefore, indicating the efficient supply of - public infrastructure. The current disconnect between payment by users and services provided by specific infrastructure assets has led to too much public capital in some sectors and too little in other sectors. - Harry Kitchen, Physical Infrastructure and Financing

[Plu]

You're a dumbass if you can't even understand my previous post. It really wasn't that hard.

[Xerographica]

You're a dumbass if you can't even understand my previous post. It really wasn't that hard.

Passage: The current system does not work because the government does not supply the optimal amount of public goods
You: I don't disagree with the passage
You: The current system works

You obviously contradicted yourself.  Why?  Because evidently you didn't understand the passage that you said that you agreed with.  

Repetition is the key to learning...so let's try another passage.  Do you agree or disagree with the following passage?

Because of the coercive nature of government activity, two additional results come forth. First, by voluntarily purchasing an item on the market, an individual demonstrates that he values the item more than the money price. But in paying taxes, he makes no such demonstration. The government does not know, as a business does, the value individuals place on its activity. Since government cannot obtain the information and incentive by demonstrated preferences of individuals, they cannot efficiently serve individuals. - Jeffrey Herbener, Austrian Methodology: The Preferred Tax Type

[Plu]

You missed the piece about "theory versus practice".

[Xerographica]

You missed the piece about "theory versus practice".

In practice the government does actually supply an optimal amount of public goods?  Where are you getting your information from?  Can you cite any sources?  Because I can provide plenty of sources that prove that your assumption is incorrect...

Two major problems with government provision of public goods, as discussed in the previous chapter, are the problems of preference revelation and preference aggregation: it is difficult to design democratic institutions that cause individuals to honestly reveal their preferences for public goods, and it is also difficult to aggregate individual preferences into a social decision. As a result, governments are often unable to deliver the optimal level of public goods in practice. - Jonathan Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy

[Plu]

Sigh. Nevermind, I give up. You either are too dumb for or just don't want to have an actual discussion about this.

[Xerographica]

Sigh. Nevermind, I give up. You either are too dumb for or just don't want to have an actual discussion about this.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not too dumb...and I really do want to have an actual discussion about this.  Do you have any other theories?  The theory that I'm high seems to be fairly popular around here.  

How about another passage?

Voting and other democratic procedures can help to produce information about the demand for public goods, but these processes are unlikely to work as well at providing the optimal amounts of public goods as do markets at providing the optimal amounts of private goods. Thus, we have more confidence that the optimal amount of toothpaste is purchased every year ($2.3 billion worth in recent years) than the optimal amount of defense spending ($549 billion) or the optimal amount of asteroid deflection (close to $0). In some cases, we could get too much of the public good with many people being forced riders and in other cases we could get too little of the public good. - Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok, Modern Principles of Economics