Re: Aspirin could Cut Lung Cancer

Posted by Southern Man on Jul 02, 2002 at 08:52

Re: Aspirin could Cut Lung Cancer (DA Morgan)

It has become evident that your ability to think logically could use some improvement. Letís try this.

Objective A costs $100 and returns $1,000 in benefits.
Objective B costs $100 and returns $100 in benefits.
Objective C costs $100 and returns $10 in benefits.

We have $200 to spend. Which objectives should we choose if we wish to maximize the benefits?

Now substitute education and supplying aspirin for objective A, building highways for objective B and researching global warming for objective C. Why are we spending money on C when we could spend it on A? If we had unlimited funds C might be acceptable but with a budget deficit A should get preference over C. Building roads is irrelevant to the decision of A vs. C.

We are spending money $18,000,000,000 on global warming research. You admit the benefits of this research are questionable. We are not spending anything on aspirin supply and education. You agree the benefits would be large. We have a deficit so we can't do both unless we bring funding or other projects into the discussion. Given the topic under discussion, it is wrong to let people die because they don't take aspirin when we are spending the money that could have saved their lives on global warming research.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]