Opportunity cost: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|}}{{d|Opportunity cost|/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/|n|}}
{{a|devil|[[File:Cake.jpg|450px|frameless|center]]}}{{d|Opportunity cost|/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/|n|}}


The potential advantages of taking ''this'' path that one forgoes by taking ''that'' one.  
The potential advantages of taking ''this'' path that one forgoes by taking ''that'' one.  
Line 5: Line 5:
The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t ''have'' one’s cake, and ''eat'' it.
The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t ''have'' one’s cake, and ''eat'' it.


The JC is fomenting a theory that somewhere the notion of the opportunity cost has been lost to modern discourse. The idea that you can be ''this'' or ''that'', or ''neither'', but taking any of these [[option]]s and enjoying its [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]] means forgoing the alternatives, and ''their'' [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]], is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty.
The [[JC]] is fomenting a theory that somewhere along our faltering path to eudaemonia, the idea of the “opportunity cost” has been lost to modern discourse. The notion that you can be ''this'' or ''that'', or ''neither'', but not ''all of them at the same time'' — taking any of these [[option]]s and enjoying its [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]] means forgoing the alternatives, and ''their'' [[Fruits of the contract|fruits]], is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty.
===Marriage isn’t what it used to be===
This article is in grave danger of descending into a grumpy middle-aged tract, but starts with the news, in August 2021, that [https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/research/one-in-five-weddings-now-start-with-a-prenup/ one in five weddings now involves a prenuptial agreement].  


Now the [[JC]] has no axe to grind about marriage — by all means, get hitched or don’t; see if I care — but more to the ''concept'' of what marriage is meant to be, at the outset: a ''permanent [[merger]] of social and economic interests''. It is a [[commitment]]. The combination of resources for the expected betterment of both.
===Analysts at the [[Vampire Squid]]===
You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money ''on a nine to five''?<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/group-of-junior-bankers-at-goldman-sachs-claim-inhumane-work-conditions ''Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions'']: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.</ref>


Now it may be that, along life’s rocky road, things don’t work out, but if the aspiration to permanence is to mean anything, one must at least put one’s [[skin in the game]]. You get the ''upside'' by risking the ''downside''. That you may be disproportionately wealthy, or poor, you should deal with in your [[due dilly]] — [[aka]] “courtship” in the old days — ''before'' making the decision to commit. Is this person a gold-digger? If your suspicion is “yes”, or “unproven, but not out of the question”, then ''don’t get married''.
Come now, Children of the Night. Would you read ''Faust'', if you thought the good doctor got to keep his soul? ''Das ist nicht der Deal''.
===The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment===
Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of one’s ascension up it, quite another.<ref>[[Hinterstoisser Traverse|Hinterstoisser and Kurz]], doomed climbers of the Eiger, might caution against kicking the ladder away, too. If things get sticky ahead, you might need it to get down.</ref>


To look at it this way is the regard a prenuptial agreement as a desire ''to have one’s cake and eat it too''. It is to ''refrain'' from putting [[skin in the game]], wanting instead the benefits without accepting the costs;<ref>Rather, in this regard, like appointing a [[process agent]]: okay; most [[Metaphor|metaphors]] don’t bear close examination.</ref> to refrain from drilling the holes in your longboats to stop your men running away.<ref>As, allegedly, did William the Conqueror upon making landfall at Pevensey. This knowledge has been with me since I was about five, and my authority for it is the Ladybird book about William the Conqueror, and as a result it might be entirely false. But it is a good metaphor. </ref> It makes your men ''more liable to run away''. If the idea was that, having little alternative, they should stand and fight — and, god willing, prevail — then offering a cost-free alternative seems like ''asking'' for trouble.<ref>To the evident disappointment of those who commissioned the survey, it seems there is little evidence that a prenuptial agreement leads to more divorce.</ref>
The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The [[reductionist]] certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward” — that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is ''inferred'', entirely without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.
 
===Analysts at the [[Vampire Squid]]===
You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/group-of-junior-bankers-at-goldman-sachs-claim-inhumane-work-conditions ''Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions'']: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.</ref> Come, now children. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor would keep possession of his soul?
===The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment===
Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of its ascension, quite another.<ref>[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Hinterstoisser Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurz], doomed climbers of the Eiger, might caution against kicking the ladder away, too. If things get sticky ahead, you might need it to get down.</ref>


The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The [[reductionist]] certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward”; that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is inferred quite without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.
You can’t have the certainty and orderliness of a prime mover from whom all things derive ''and'' get to do what the hell you want, ''and'' get to tell everyone else what the hell to think.  


Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects of the enlightenment: men like Hume, Smith, Mill, Bentham and Darwin — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, post modernism and the critical theories who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history.
Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects like [[David Hume|Hume]], [[Adam Smith]], John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and [[Charles Darwin]] — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, [[post modernism]] and the [[Critical theory|critical theories]] who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history. Look, knock yourself out: kick away the ladder, by all means — but be prepared for a cold night on [[Hinterstoisser Traverse|Death Bivouac]] if the weather closes in — but don’t pretend that wasn’t how you got there.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Everyone is fighting a battle you know nothing about‎]]
*[[Everyone is fighting a battle you know nothing about‎]]
*[[Change paradox]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 10:02, 7 November 2023

Cake.jpg
In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
The Devil’s Advocate

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Opportunity cost
/ˌɒpəˈtjuːnɪti kɒst/ (n.)

The potential advantages of taking this path that one forgoes by taking that one.

The principle underlying the proposition that one can’t have one’s cake, and eat it.

The JC is fomenting a theory that somewhere along our faltering path to eudaemonia, the idea of the “opportunity cost” has been lost to modern discourse. The notion that you can be this or that, or neither, but not all of them at the same time — taking any of these options and enjoying its fruits means forgoing the alternatives, and their fruits, is one that appears not to have occurred to those under the age of thirty.

Analysts at the Vampire Squid

You want to learn how to jam your stent into anything that smells of money on a nine to five?[1]

Come now, Children of the Night. Would you read Faust, if you thought the good doctor got to keep his soul? Das ist nicht der Deal.

The enlightenment cancelling the enlightenment

Kicking away the ladder is one thing: proposing to erase all records of one’s ascension up it, quite another.[2]

The enlightenment has been a serial victim of erasure. The reductionist certainty that “all explanatory arrows point downward” — that there is a single unifying principle that governs the physical operation of the universe at all points, for all times; that all scientific disciplines are consistent and reduce, ultimately, to physics, is inferred, entirely without evidence — how could there be any? — and is transparently an inheritance from Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

You can’t have the certainty and orderliness of a prime mover from whom all things derive and get to do what the hell you want, and get to tell everyone else what the hell to think.

Likewise, the liberal pluralistic disposition — also a function of the enlightenment (though, curiously, incommensurate with the reductionism it accompanied) — a product of the towering intellects like Hume, Adam Smith, John Stewart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Charles Darwin — were necessary conditions for growth of continental philosophy, post modernism and the critical theories who would now write this stale colonial tradition from history. Look, knock yourself out: kick away the ladder, by all means — but be prepared for a cold night on Death Bivouac if the weather closes in — but don’t pretend that wasn’t how you got there.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Group of junior bankers at Goldman Sachs claim “inhumane” work conditions: The Guardian, 18 March 2021.
  2. ↑ Hinterstoisser and Kurz, doomed climbers of the Eiger, might caution against kicking the ladder away, too. If things get sticky ahead, you might need it to get down.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Opportunity_cost&oldid=80149"