Of course not; only a complete idiot would. Whether or not it's worth it to insure yourself against a 1% chance of dying depends on the premium you'd have to pay. And yet we are offered exactly the same absurd sales pitch as described above when we're being sold public policy. I'm referring to what is now known (perhaps misleadingly) as Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine." The name comes from the following line from the former Vice-President:
If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Quaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as certainty in terms of our response.This quote contains the very same error in reasoning as the insurance deal above; and both could be remedied if more attention was paid to the concept of expected utility.
Suppose you're trying to decide whether or not to carry out some action A. If you don't do A, there's an X-percent chance you will lose a Y amount of money. If you do A, you won't lose Y; however, doing A is costly too (say it costs Z). Expected utility says you should do A if and only if Z<X*Y. In other words, you need to compare the costs of action to the costs of inaction times the probability of bad things happening due to inaction. Cheney's doctrine focuses exclusively on the likelihood of bad outcome of inaction, without trying to balance it against the costs of action.
if only politics were logical.
ReplyDeletehow does opportunity cost dovetail with the granting of "rights"--same concept apply (tug and pull, as it is)?
ReplyDelete