jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131Fair call for sure. It is always better to use information to come up with comparisons where possible.
However, in the case of the pill I don’t know if we can use revealed preferences – let alone weaker mechanisms like surveys – to come up with a true measure to compare outcomes.
This is always the problem when we have multiple pareto ranked eqm – we can’t even use market mechanisms to figure out value 🙁
]]>
Matt Nolan :
@steve
“We can’t weight welfare functions, and reach a conclusion, until we make value judgments.”
Basically I was saying those weights can be based on a survey result. Ok fair enough you can call it a value judgement, but it is an imformed value judgement because you are able to see the spectrum of utility functions and can make that judgement based on evidence. i.e. a scientific approach, rather than a judgement.
]]>Economics is always serious business 😉
]]>“but i disagree that an economic approach also has to make a set of value judgements”
We can’t weight welfare functions, and reach a conclusion, until we make value judgments.
Effectively, I see the pill as a state variable – and deciding whether the eqm with the pill available or the eqm without the pill available is preferable relies on two steps:
1) The economic analysis step where we look at how choices and the allocation of resources change – we attempt to do this in a value free way.
2) Introducing value judgments. Given how the allocation of outcomes has changed, we can introduce a welfare function and compare the two eqm, deciding which one is preferable.
It is that division that is so very important.
]]>Perhaps the value judgement you refer to is more your expectation of the spectrum of utility functions – but surely, if we wanted to research this, we could avoid a value judgement by surveying people on their views of sex, and come up with some sort of model to represent and rank utility?
I agree the article is making a value judgement and these people don’t really know if it is good or bad. but i disagree that an economic approach also has to make a set of value judgements.
]]>