How much is that clunker in the window?

foxpaws said:
You are looking at what Goldberg wants you to look at, not at what Bastiat's essay was about. Goldberg created the false analogy, and you are buying into it.
Click to expand...

Unless Goldberg was in some way mischaracterizing Bastiat's essay, the essay, in and of itself, doesn't in any way determine weather the analogy is false. You would determine that by looking precisely at what "Goldberg wants you to look at". He is the one making the analogy. To focus on anything else is to focus on the irrelevant.

Shag, that is the analogy that Goldberg is trying to draw, but since he is comparing an apple (the shopkeeper who had no choice) to an orange (the potential new car buyer who has a choice) it is a false analogy.
Click to expand...

While I could see why you would mistakenly think that, Goldberg is not drawing an analogy between the shopkeeper and the potential new car buyer.

Goldberg is drawing an analogy between a simply microeconomic example of unseen consequences/opportunity cost (Bastiat essay) and a macroeconomic example of unseen consequences/opportunity cost (the cash for clunkers program). You need to look past the individuals making the potential purcharses and focus on what the analogy is about; the negative economic consequences forced on society by the actions of the window breaker and the government, respectively. To focus on the individual making the direct purchase in each analogy is to focus on a red herring that has nothing to do with the analogy.

In the Bastiat essay, opportunity costs are forced on the shopkeeper (and the community as a whole) by the person breaking the window. In the "Cash for Clunkers" example, opportunity costs are forced on the entire American society/economy by the government through their Cash For Clunkers program.

It is that simple. The focus of the analogy is not on the individual making a purchase but on the economic consequences being forced on society in some fashion and the ignoring of the unseen consequences by those claiming the forcing of those consequences to be good.
 
Frogman said:
I'd hate to see you three arguing politics over a beer. :D

/hijack.
Click to expand...

No Monsieur Grenouille, you have not hijacked the thread - you have given me a perfect example of Bastiat's parable in another situation.

By only having beer available, you have removed my other drink choices, and we are left with the unseen consequences of not having an opportunity to pick something else...

I will never get drunk drinking beer - it fills me up to fast. Therefore the evening promises to be perhaps more coherent, but not as much fun.

If you had allowed me choices - the opportunities for other outcomes would have been available. Wine makes me mellow, who knows, I could have agreed to anything shag said. Boodles makes me a bit silly and more outgoing, the opportunity for dancing on the tables is now lost, since you won't be providing oodles of boodles. Now, if this was a close analogy to the clunker program a 3rd option would have been available that wasn't previously available. Tequila shooters. The opportunities that have been missed because I didn't have tequila shoots available... wow... definitely unseen consequences there...

Thanks for a great way to illustrate unseen consequences of being allowed only one choice... ;)
 
foxpaws said:
No Monsieur Grenouille, you have not hijacked the thread - you have given me a perfect example of Bastiat's parable in another situation.

By only having beer available, you have removed my other drink choices, and we are left with the unseen consequences of not having an opportunity to pick something else...

I will never get drunk drinking beer - it fills me up to fast. Therefore the evening promises to be perhaps more coherent, but not as much fun.

If you had allowed me choices - the opportunities for other outcomes would have been available. Wine makes me mellow, who knows, I could have agreed to anything shag said. Boodles makes me a bit silly and more outgoing, the opportunity for dancing on the tables is now lost, since you won't be providing oodles of boodles. Now, if this was a close analogy to the clunker program a 3rd option would have been available that wasn't previously available. Tequila shooters. The opportunities that have been missed because I didn't have tequila shoots available... wow... definitely unseen consequences there...

Thanks for a great way to illustrate unseen consequences of being allowed only one choice... ;)
Click to expand...
zzzzzzzzzzzzz...MAN I don't care about your personal vignettes.
 
shagdrum said:
In the Bastiat essay, opportunity costs are forced on the shopkeeper (and the community as a whole) by the person breaking the window. In the "Cash for Clunkers" example, opportunity costs are forced on the entire American society/economy by the government through their Cash For Clunkers program.
Click to expand...

Shag - since you are using the wiki version of opportunity costs I will place the 2nd paragraph here...
Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics because it implies the choice between desirable, yet mutually exclusive results. It is a calculating factor used in mixed markets which favour social change in favour of purely individualistic economics. It has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice."[3] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently.[4] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, swag, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs.​

For you to be able to look at opportunity costs you need to have a choice between items. It does deal with unseen consequences, but when Goldberg starts to weigh opportunity cost he is expanding on the original story - part 'a' of the analogy. Bastiat's fable doesn't get into the cost of a decision, or the unseen consequences of that decision, it deals with the fact that decisions have been removed, and then stops at that point.

It is Goldberg that is expanding the fable, to a place where Bastiat doesn't take it. It might be the next logical progression, but within the fable itself the idea of opportunity cost doesn't appear. Bastiat is telling people that there is a cost involved when you remove all but one decision. He isn't getting into the much more complicated idea that Goldberg is running with, that by changing the decisions or weighing the decisions differently the opportunity costs will also change.

Goldberg is certainly allowed to do that, but to say that is what Bastiat was inferring in his story isn't correct. Bastiat's tale doesn't go there, it deals only with the simple concept of bad things can happen when you remove choice. He doesn't go to Goldberg's extreme where you start to look at the unseen consequences of the choices available.
 
foxpaws said:
Than ignore them... I can't imagine that anyone is forcing you to read them... :p
Click to expand...
You're so full of yourself, you actually think anybody is impressed with your little French quotations and your anecdotes. :rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
You're so full of yourself, you actually think anybody is impressed with your little French quotations and your anecdotes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So, why aren't you ignoring me, instead of looking for opportunities to troll....
 
Frogman said:
Come now, foxpaws. "Over a beer" means over an alcoholic drink, not just a beer. Now you're nitpicking.
Click to expand...

I know - but the opportunity to compare it to Bastiat's tale was just too tempting... I rarely resist temptation... ;)
 
foxpaws said:
For you to be able to look at opportunity costs you need to have a choice between items.
Click to expand...

No, hence the whole "mutually exclusive" thing. One choice (weather forced or not) negates another possible choice. And opportunity costs deals with much more then simply "choice".

It does deal with unseen consequences, but when Goldberg starts to weigh opportunity cost he is expanding on the original story - part 'a' of the analogy. Bastiat's fable doesn't get into the cost of a decision, or the unseen consequences of that decision, it deals with the fact that decisions have been removed, and then stops at that point.
Click to expand...

Goldberg doesn't mention opportunity costs anywhere in his article. The idea of opportunity costs is what he is talking about and what the Bastiat essay is talking about when it talks about unseen consequences, but they didn't explicitly name the concept of opportunity costs.

to say that is what Bastiat was inferring in his story isn't correct. Bastiat's tale doesn't go there, it deals only with the simple concept of bad things can happen when you remove choice. He doesn't go to Goldberg's extreme where you start to look at the unseen consequences of the choices available.
Click to expand...

Then why the title of Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas.voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas: that which is seen, and that which is not seen?

Bastiat, a French economist wrote the essay to demonstrate the idea of those unseen costs in any action that effects the economy. That is what opportunity cost is.

I am not going to continue to correct your mischaracterizations just so you can mischaracterize things in a different manner in order to save face. If you truly were here simply to understand's people's opinions, as you have stated in the past, I would have no problem discussing things with you. But your pattern in this thread is one of being more concerned with rationalizing your inaccurate, quick judgment rather then understanding the analogy in question (which you clearly didn't understand, initially). I am not going to play these games with you. We are done here.
 
shagdrum said:
No, hence the whole "mutually exclusive" thing. One choice (weather forced or not) negates another possible choice. And opportunity costs deals with much more then simply "choice".
Click to expand...
But, then you say that neither of the men talk explicity about opportunity costs - but that it is implied, I guess, that you know that is what they are talking about.
Goldberg doesn't mention opportunity costs anywhere in his article. The idea of opportunity costs is what he is talking about and what the Bastiat essay is talking about when it talks about unseen consequences, but they didn't explicitly name the concept of opportunity costs.
Click to expand...
I didn't read that into the article - I am sorry - I thought that is what the analogy stuff was about - that you don't go with some implied thing if you really want a good analogy.

So, you are saying in a very 'general' way that the story of the french shopkeeper and the clunker program are similar. That in both cases there are unseen consequences. That is correct, but in an analogy, shouldn't there be closer similarities? This seems so broad that it is like saying that since there is sand on the beach in Long Island and there is sand in the Mojave desert they are the same.

Isn't the analogy pretty far removed, shag? I guess maybe I am looking for a point where it is OK to go very general - like Goldberg has. I certainly felt that the similarities need to make analogy work should be more specific - or do you go on some 'case by case' basis.

This is difficult for me. It seems like things sort of float around, sometimes you want very close analogies, and at other times a very general analogy is OK.

I am not going to continue to correct your mischaracterizations just so you can mischaracterize things in a different manner in order to save face. If you truly were here simply to understand's people's opinions, as you have stated in the past, I would have no problem discussing things with you. But your pattern in this thread is one of being more concerned with rationalizing your inaccurate, quick judgment rather then understanding the analogy in question (which you clearly didn't understand, initially). I am not going to play these games with you. We are done here.
Click to expand...

I have tried - I guess I have tried your patience as well... I really don't understand the barometer that you use when looking at analogies - this seemed very broad, too broad to be a good analogy. A single similarity - yes, the unseen consequence, but is that enough to be a good analogy? It seems in other threads this single similarity wouldn't have been enough to be deemed a good analogy. Apples and oranges are both fruits - is that enough to create a good analogy in some cases?
 
See, fox, when you get into the whichness of the why ALL THE TIME...everybody tunes out. Talk about chilling a discussion.

But maybe that's your tactic - argumentum ad nauseum.

As I've said - propagandist.
 
fossten said:
See, fox, when you get into the whichness of the why ALL THE TIME...everybody tunes out. Talk about chilling a discussion.

But maybe that's your tactic - argumentum ad nauseum.

As I've said - propagandist.
Click to expand...

Nope - this thread is running average for threads with over 10 posts about 1 to 10 on posts/views...

But, shag, I was thinking - about the generalness of the 'unseen consequence' analogy - is it OK to be that general? And don't you think that the opportunity cost thing is something that you read into this, that it is implied and using implied things isn't very good in an analogy? I would really like to know - you like to use debate terms a lot - I would like to know how broadly or how narrowly you like to define them, and what other things can 'play' within them... for instance, in analogies usually the points have to be pretty explicit to be included in the analogy.
 
foxpaws said:
Nope - this thread is running average for threads with over 10 posts about 1 to 10 on posts/views...

But, shag, I was thinking - about the generalness of the 'unseen consequence' analogy - is it OK to be that general? And don't you think that the opportunity cost thing is something that you read into this, that it is implied and using implied things isn't very good in an analogy? I would really like to know - you like to use debate terms a lot - I would like to know how broadly or how narrowly you like to define them, and what other things can 'play' within them... for instance, in analogies usually the points have to be pretty explicit to be included in the analogy.
Click to expand...
Hoping against hope to trip somebody up, eh? You're really getting boring. No wonder you live alone. :rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
This just in - the $4500 clunker cash is TAXABLE.
Click to expand...

Not that I intend to trade-in any of my clunkers for a new POS that will ultimately cost me more than maintaining my old POS', but that is one serious kick in the nuts.

Lesson to be learned: Always read the fine print.
 
I was about to pull the trigger on this deal, but ran out of time. I wouldn't be taking out a loan, and my clunker is about to explode. I like to think it would have been acceptable haha. I forget where I read it but another theory is that it's going to skyrocket the cost of low end cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 85 (members: 0, guests: 85)
Back
Top