Helping Liberals Understand the Opportunity Cost Concept

Yes it was. I'm not interested. I'm more interested in your continuous abuse of simple economic concepts. Do you think you can get away with it?

You've rambled and pretended its a funding issue, when in reality its a regulatory issue. Standard red herring fry up.

In other words you're reliant on deliberately misrepresenting economic terms

Nonsense! You confused economic costs, the basis of opportunity costs, with preferences. Its like stamping your foot and arguing that the slope of the indifference curve shows opportunity costs (when in fact its the budget constraint). Your abuse of basic terms shows a distinct lack of intellectual integrity

 

You say that I'm abusing simple economic concepts...yet once again you failed to provide a single real life example of the opportunity cost concept. Your failure to provide real life examples of economic concepts clearly demonstrates that you don't even understand simple economic concepts.

You want a regulation...therefore I should have to pay for its enforcement? You want a watermelon therefore I should have to buy it for you? That's how economics works?

You fail to provide a single real life example of the opportunity cost concept and then accuse me of not having intellectual integrity. That's rich.

 

I'm stating the obvious. You've abused the 'public good' term and you got opportunity costs completely wrong. With regards the latter I informed you directly why you were wrong.

I'd like you to try validity. Confusing funding with regulatory frameworks was far from cunning!

You're either deliberately fibbing or know nothing about opportunity costs. The concept drives a wedge between economics analysis and accountancy. In your OP, as I've already informed you, you made a crass error. This hogwash is a confusion of preferences (which would refer to marginal rate of substitution and such ilk) and opportunity costs (which would refer to the budget constraint):

It's pretty straightforward. Basically...whether you choose X or Y reveals your priorities. If you have $10 to spend...whether you spend it on a sandwich or a book reveals which one is a bigger priority for you. At that moment...which was a more pressing concern...being physically hungry or being mentally hungry? Was your stomach growling louder than your mind was? It wouldn't be logical to spend that $10 on your second most pressing concern...which is why nobody does it. Spending $10 on your second most pressing concern wouldn't be a waste...but it certainly wouldn't be optimal. So what if you spent your $10 on your third, fourth, fifth or 1,000,000th most pressing concern? At which point do you perceive your $10 to be wasted?

Your whole thread has been created around utter bobbins

 

You say that you know so much about the opportunity cost concept...yet you fail and fail and fail to offer a single real life example of this concept.

 

Because you don't understand opportunity costs you do not realise just how wrong you are. I referred directly[ to how it is applied to the consumer. By confusing opportunity costs and preferences, you only informed me that your whole position is based on corrupting basic economic concepts

 

What would help me realize how wrong I was about the opportunity cost concept would be if you shared a few real life examples of this concept. For example...the idea that you can't have your cake and eat it too...is this a real life example of the opportunity cost concept?

 

You don't understand the concept. There's nothing more to say on the subject

Its you providing inane cliché to hide from the error, where you confused economic costs and preference structures

 

I didn't ask you whether the saying was inane...and I didn't ask you whether it was a cliche. I asked you whether it is an example of the opportunity cost concept. Why is it so very difficult for you to answer such simple straightforward questions? Perhaps it will help you if I put it in the form of a survey question.

1. Is the idea that you can't have your cake and eat it too an example of the opportunity cost concept?

A. Yes
B. No

 

You've come out with aimless guff because you have simply made an error. Confusing preferences and economic costs really wasn't cunning, particularly as you have made a big deal about educating folk about opportunity costs. You do not understand the concept. As I said, you've effectively confused costs with the marginal rate of substitution