Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45145)	8/24/2010 3:24:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Not just the tools we use to measure it, but the goals we are measuring. If everyone used the same tools and accepted the same way of measuring different goals, you would still have disagreements because the goals are different. Lets say policy X increases the wealth of the mega-rich by 100%, and the very rich by 10%, with absolutely no change for anyone else (to the extent the extra demand from the rich causes inflation, then the non-rich could be said to have their nominal income improved enough to maintain the same real income). Its a Pareto improvement, some are better, no one is worse off. Does policy X work? It certainly does if your concern is total income and wealth, or average income and wealth. Not so much if your highly concerned about income inequality. Assuming (for the sake of argument) no further reverses or new problem in Iraq, and also assuming gradual improvement from here in terms of Iraq becoming more peaceful, more secure, more prosperous, more pro-US (both in terms of the populations views, and the views and policies of the leaders), less supportive of radicalism and terrorism, and more supportive of individual liberty. Would then Iraq have been worth it? The tools you use to measure outcomes can't really give you an answer, because the goals, and the weights of different outcomes are key, not just the accuracy of the data you use. (Personally with those assumptions I'd say it was worth it, that the world is a better place for it having been done. Also I'd say the Pareto improvement from the first example was a benefit not a harm. But I know people who would disagree with both conclusions.)