Opportunity cost is largely a business term describing the impact of a decision to produce one product over another or invest in one company over another.
“Opportunity cost refers to a benefit that a person could have received, but gave up, to take another course of action,” Investopedia describes it. “Stated differently, an opportunity cost represents an alternative given up when a decision is made. This cost is, therefore, most relevant for two mutually exclusive events.”
The last sentence is the key to understanding opportunity costs — it is the decision that comes at the expense of every other mutually exclusive choice.
It is a relevant and sometimes overwhelming concept that applies to not just financial matters but many other elements of our lives.
For example, if I go to law school, it comes (most likely) at the time and financial expense of going to medical school, bartending school or studying to be an architect. But it also applies to simple matters like what to do on Sunday mornings when you cannot be in two places at the same time. Going to Cedar Point comes at the expense of everything else you could do on that particular morning, such as go to church, have brunch with the family, or fly to Rome.
In terms of personal finance, some advisors have suggested that it is one of the most overlooked considerations of decision-making.
If I decide to buy a boat, I have to consider not just whether or not I can I afford to buy the boat but whether I should purchase the boat at the expense of everything else I could buy with that money. Should I buy the boat or a car? Or should I take 10 vacations or go out to dinner 500 times?
Too often we want it all and don’t think about how one thing affects the other — we just do it and hope to figure it out later. It’s the danger of credit cards — that which allows us to delay or spread out opportunity costs by not paying only what we can afford at a given point in time.
This distinction lends itself well to the discussion of local and national budgets. Whereas state and local governments have to balance budgets, the federal government, as we all know, can run trillions of dollars in debt.
Local governments, with a finite amount of projected revenue, have to make difficult decisions. Officials have to choose between adding another police officer, fixing up a city park, repairing a road, or buying a fire truck. For the most part, it is a good requirement as it attempts to prevent local governments from going into debt. The trade-off, of course, is that poorer communities — those that collect less in tax revenue — often see their services decline. There might be fewer police officers on the roads to keep the community safe or it might take longer for roads to be repaired.
Conversely, the federal government can fall in debt — currently to the tune of $21 trillion, according to the U.S. debt clock. That works out to almost $175,000 per American taxpayer. Of course, the federal government can also sell bonds or obtain loans from foreign governments. It’s a complicated financial system but the point is: opportunity costs.
Federal opportunity costs are limited more by political consequences than actual budgetary restrictions. For example, imagine if you went to the polls in November to vote on the budget and the questions read as an opportunity cost. You’d have to choose between a border wall, improved infrastructure, larger military, or an to end homelessness.
When the government (or individuals) can borrow money, it negates the value of considering opportunity costs in decision-making.
However, as I mentioned, it can be an overwhelming, even paralyzing, concept in terms of time and money. It can be exhausting to consider that you are spending your money at the “expense” of everything else you could buy or spending your time at the “expense” of everything you could be doing.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
290. Pruitt doesn't belong at EPA
Despite promising to hire the best people, President Donald Trump’s administration has been a revolving door with Trump hiring them and then firing them in often rapid and dramatic fashion. He pledged to “drain the swamp,” but I am not sure he planned on stocking the swamp as well.
One slime-covered gator still swimming in the metaphorical political swamp is Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt is, in fact, an enemy of the EPA, describing himself as a “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” Putting him in charge of the EPA would be like putting a trophy hunter in charge of PETA. Pruitt, of course, doesn’t “believe” in climate change, to the degree that all references to climate change were removed from the agency website. The White House and EPA have sought to reverse as many as 67 environmental rules, according to the Harvard Law School’s Environmental Regulation Rollback Tracker and reported in the New York Times. Some include reversing migratory bird protections, endangered species listings, and the anti-dumping rule for coal companies. That 52 Republicans confirmed him in the Senate is embarrassing. His relationship with fossil fuel companies was apparently too lucrative to pass up.
It’s quickly becoming the Environmental Destruction Agency.
But it’s not just his environmental record, it’s also his ethics — or lack of them. Like his boss, he seems to have little regard for taxpayer money or conflicts of interest. He has allegedly rented a condo for $50 a night in Washington, D.C., from a lobbyist and purchased a $43,000 soundproof phone booth.
The Office of Government Ethics has also questioned his frequent and sometimes first-class travel, raises given to some employees, and demotion of employees who questioned his spending. Acting director David Apol wrote, “If true, it is hard to imagine any action that could more effectively undermine an agency’s integrity than punishing or marginalizing employees who strive to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations that safeguard that integrity.”
Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) said, “He’s the subject of no less than five independent investigations, he has retaliated against EPA staff who have questioned his spending habits, and he likely violated ethics rules by renting an apartment from an industry lobbyist.”
But it is not just environmentalists and Democrats who want to see Pruitt fired. Many Republicans have had enough, including, according to a Wall Street Journal report, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.
The Hill reported this spring that “Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) appear(s) to be the first Republican lawmaker to publicly request Pruitt’s dismissal. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) echoed his call shortly after. In a Tuesday afternoon tweet, Curbello said Pruitt’s ‘corruption scandals are an embarrassment to the administration, and his conduct is grossly disrespectful to American taxpayers.’”
Thus far, Pruitt has Trump’s support. In light of the turnover in the Trump administration, it is both mystifying and unfathomable that this is the guy that Trump stands with. Then again, ethics have never been anything that Trump has seemed to care much about — unless he was trying to impose them on President Barack Obama.
One slime-covered gator still swimming in the metaphorical political swamp is Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt is, in fact, an enemy of the EPA, describing himself as a “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” Putting him in charge of the EPA would be like putting a trophy hunter in charge of PETA. Pruitt, of course, doesn’t “believe” in climate change, to the degree that all references to climate change were removed from the agency website. The White House and EPA have sought to reverse as many as 67 environmental rules, according to the Harvard Law School’s Environmental Regulation Rollback Tracker and reported in the New York Times. Some include reversing migratory bird protections, endangered species listings, and the anti-dumping rule for coal companies. That 52 Republicans confirmed him in the Senate is embarrassing. His relationship with fossil fuel companies was apparently too lucrative to pass up.
It’s quickly becoming the Environmental Destruction Agency.
But it’s not just his environmental record, it’s also his ethics — or lack of them. Like his boss, he seems to have little regard for taxpayer money or conflicts of interest. He has allegedly rented a condo for $50 a night in Washington, D.C., from a lobbyist and purchased a $43,000 soundproof phone booth.
The Office of Government Ethics has also questioned his frequent and sometimes first-class travel, raises given to some employees, and demotion of employees who questioned his spending. Acting director David Apol wrote, “If true, it is hard to imagine any action that could more effectively undermine an agency’s integrity than punishing or marginalizing employees who strive to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations that safeguard that integrity.”
Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) said, “He’s the subject of no less than five independent investigations, he has retaliated against EPA staff who have questioned his spending habits, and he likely violated ethics rules by renting an apartment from an industry lobbyist.”
But it is not just environmentalists and Democrats who want to see Pruitt fired. Many Republicans have had enough, including, according to a Wall Street Journal report, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.
The Hill reported this spring that “Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Florida) appear(s) to be the first Republican lawmaker to publicly request Pruitt’s dismissal. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) echoed his call shortly after. In a Tuesday afternoon tweet, Curbello said Pruitt’s ‘corruption scandals are an embarrassment to the administration, and his conduct is grossly disrespectful to American taxpayers.’”
Thus far, Pruitt has Trump’s support. In light of the turnover in the Trump administration, it is both mystifying and unfathomable that this is the guy that Trump stands with. Then again, ethics have never been anything that Trump has seemed to care much about — unless he was trying to impose them on President Barack Obama.
Sunday, April 15, 2018
289. Orangutans deserve so much better
Orangutans are endangered primates, consisting of three species that only live in two places — the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra.
They are very intelligent and second only to chimpanzees in relation to human beings, matching 97 percent of our DNA. Orangutans are not as social as other animals — they are mostly loners, sleeping in amazing nests they build in trees each night. Dedicated female orangutans carry the responsibility of caring and protecting their young. Reproduction is slow, with females conceiving only about every eight years. Populations have dwindled due to the usual human activity: hunting, habitat destruction, and the pet trade.
As one might imagine, baby orangutans are adorable! They have big eyes and goofy red hair. They use their long arms to cling to their mothers as they learn their way around the rainforest. The problem is that they are so adorable that some people want to keep them as pets.
We live in a world in which people will do almost anything to make a few dollars. It’s a constant battle of good versus evil. It’s a battle between those who are willing to abuse and exploit other people, animals, or the environment for personal gain and those who are left to deal with the consequences of their actions. Loving and caring people donate time and money to help those in need, create regulations, and enforce laws.
For every person who throws a tire in the river, there is a group of people who give up their Saturday to fetch it out. For every animal that is rescued from an abuser, there are compassionate people who rehab and care for the animal. For every company that exploits its workers or the poor, there are agencies dedicated to holding them accountable and offering assistance those in need.
It’s exhausting. And it’s unfair that so many people have to spend their lives fighting the digressions of others.
The list of consequences is tragic: Poverty, lack of clean water, slavery, extinction, unemployment, climate change, pollution, child labor, animal cruelty, physical pain, lost homes, mental anguish, bankruptcy — and I’m just getting started.
The illegal pet trade is a billion-dollar activity and baby orangutans are often sold for a few hundred dollars to wealthy families and other cultures. Horrifically, the only way to really get a baby orangutan is to kill the mother and pry it from her dead hands.
Baby orangutans feed from the mother up to six years of age, so it is no surprise that many die in transportation from the poacher to the buyer. The baby orangutans are not just orphaned from their mothers, they are taken from their habitat and are now at the mercy of the human beings who view them not as animals, not as primate cousins, but as dollar signs.
It is an amazing sight to see baby orangutans sitting in wheelbarrows, one on top of another. Many have been seized from poachers and those who purchased them illegally. While rescued, the lifelong consequence is that they will grow up without their mother in a rehab center. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (from taxpayers and personal donations) to care for these orphaned orangutans — to clean up the mess of disgusting poachers.
Incidentally, baby orangutans are place in wheelbarrows, whether they being rescued or because they are going to a rehab activity, because they have little legs that aren’t made for long walks. They are adapted to live their lives in trees and accordingly have strong arms and hands. There are plenty of photos and videos of adorable baby orangutans in wheelbarrows on the Internet if you want to laugh and cry.
Unfortunately, for me it’s more tears than laughter. As cute as they are, they belong in the rainforest with their mothers, not in wheelbarrows. Those images, and those responsible, will haunt me the rest of my life.
They are very intelligent and second only to chimpanzees in relation to human beings, matching 97 percent of our DNA. Orangutans are not as social as other animals — they are mostly loners, sleeping in amazing nests they build in trees each night. Dedicated female orangutans carry the responsibility of caring and protecting their young. Reproduction is slow, with females conceiving only about every eight years. Populations have dwindled due to the usual human activity: hunting, habitat destruction, and the pet trade.
As one might imagine, baby orangutans are adorable! They have big eyes and goofy red hair. They use their long arms to cling to their mothers as they learn their way around the rainforest. The problem is that they are so adorable that some people want to keep them as pets.
We live in a world in which people will do almost anything to make a few dollars. It’s a constant battle of good versus evil. It’s a battle between those who are willing to abuse and exploit other people, animals, or the environment for personal gain and those who are left to deal with the consequences of their actions. Loving and caring people donate time and money to help those in need, create regulations, and enforce laws.
For every person who throws a tire in the river, there is a group of people who give up their Saturday to fetch it out. For every animal that is rescued from an abuser, there are compassionate people who rehab and care for the animal. For every company that exploits its workers or the poor, there are agencies dedicated to holding them accountable and offering assistance those in need.
It’s exhausting. And it’s unfair that so many people have to spend their lives fighting the digressions of others.
The list of consequences is tragic: Poverty, lack of clean water, slavery, extinction, unemployment, climate change, pollution, child labor, animal cruelty, physical pain, lost homes, mental anguish, bankruptcy — and I’m just getting started.
The illegal pet trade is a billion-dollar activity and baby orangutans are often sold for a few hundred dollars to wealthy families and other cultures. Horrifically, the only way to really get a baby orangutan is to kill the mother and pry it from her dead hands.
Baby orangutans feed from the mother up to six years of age, so it is no surprise that many die in transportation from the poacher to the buyer. The baby orangutans are not just orphaned from their mothers, they are taken from their habitat and are now at the mercy of the human beings who view them not as animals, not as primate cousins, but as dollar signs.
It is an amazing sight to see baby orangutans sitting in wheelbarrows, one on top of another. Many have been seized from poachers and those who purchased them illegally. While rescued, the lifelong consequence is that they will grow up without their mother in a rehab center. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (from taxpayers and personal donations) to care for these orphaned orangutans — to clean up the mess of disgusting poachers.
Incidentally, baby orangutans are place in wheelbarrows, whether they being rescued or because they are going to a rehab activity, because they have little legs that aren’t made for long walks. They are adapted to live their lives in trees and accordingly have strong arms and hands. There are plenty of photos and videos of adorable baby orangutans in wheelbarrows on the Internet if you want to laugh and cry.
Unfortunately, for me it’s more tears than laughter. As cute as they are, they belong in the rainforest with their mothers, not in wheelbarrows. Those images, and those responsible, will haunt me the rest of my life.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
288. Attacks on survivors are unconscionable
Every time there has been a school shooting in the past, it seems that we went from “thoughts and prayers” to “it’s too soon to talk about it” to “stop using this as a political issue.”
Time passes and nothing ever happens.
But after the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, these kids from Parkland stood up and said it’s time to do something — now! They grabbed the attention of the country and led conversations, protests, and marches. Enough was enough.
Unfortunately, we live in a country now where we attack others rather than try to understand. The discourse around these kids has been nothing short of embarrassing. Calling them paid actors, referencing Tide pods, asking who is paying for the marches, photo-shopping leaders, and even suggesting they learn CPR.
NBC reported that rocker Jesse Hughes — the Eagles of Death Metal singer who survived the 2015 terrorist attack in Paris —“criticize(d) Parkland student leader Emma Gonzalez as ‘the awful face of treason’ and a ‘survivor of nothing.’”
Of course, it’s all about changing the subject. No longer able to defend this disturbing part of American culture and its inexcusable lack of action, NRA supporters have resorted to personal attacks on these teenagers. Those on the right, particularly the alt-right, attack them relentlessly on social media. Some suggest they are too young to have an opinion. I would argue that when they have been a victim of a mass shooting — running for their lives, watching their friends get slaughtered — then they sure as hell get to have an opinion.
You can disagree with those who feel we need better gun control without acting like an insensitive imbecile. Bullets kill conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims, and both the rich and poor. Why does a sensible question about gun control infuriate those on the right? At least the congressmen and congresswomen who receive large amounts of NRA contributions have a financial motive to sit on their hands. But what about everyone else?
The Second Amendment is not going away, ever. One reasonable starting point in the discussion of gun control is to stop misstating the issue. What these kids and most reasonable people want to discuss is how to keep guns out of the hands of those who may use them to kill others. An Internet meme said it perfectly: “When you strip away all the partisanship, the simple fact is kids are dying and they’d rather not. They are asking for help. From adults. That’s it.”
The arguments, such as the “what abouts,” are stupid and irrelevant. What about knives? What about cars? In fact, when you look at the arguments made by those on the right, they run the full spectrum of desperation from straw man arguments to appeals to ignorance, false dichotomies, slippery slopes, and red herrings. “Those kids should be in school. Liberals are communists.” They are futile attempts to justify their cognitive dissonance.
From polls to protests, how much clearer does the American public need to be before our legislators do something? Americans simply want to discuss the availability and ease in which the wrong people obtain assault weapons, whether it is banning them, instilling age restrictions, or improving background checks.
So enough is enough. But the “enough” is not just the lack of congressional action on gun control, it is also enough of the unyielding attacks on these students.
Stand-up comedian Todd Hollowman tweeted, “Imagine being the kind of person who is more outraged at kids walking out of school in protest than at kids being carried out of school in body bags.”
Unfortunately, we don’t have to imagine.
Time passes and nothing ever happens.
But after the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, these kids from Parkland stood up and said it’s time to do something — now! They grabbed the attention of the country and led conversations, protests, and marches. Enough was enough.
Unfortunately, we live in a country now where we attack others rather than try to understand. The discourse around these kids has been nothing short of embarrassing. Calling them paid actors, referencing Tide pods, asking who is paying for the marches, photo-shopping leaders, and even suggesting they learn CPR.
NBC reported that rocker Jesse Hughes — the Eagles of Death Metal singer who survived the 2015 terrorist attack in Paris —“criticize(d) Parkland student leader Emma Gonzalez as ‘the awful face of treason’ and a ‘survivor of nothing.’”
Of course, it’s all about changing the subject. No longer able to defend this disturbing part of American culture and its inexcusable lack of action, NRA supporters have resorted to personal attacks on these teenagers. Those on the right, particularly the alt-right, attack them relentlessly on social media. Some suggest they are too young to have an opinion. I would argue that when they have been a victim of a mass shooting — running for their lives, watching their friends get slaughtered — then they sure as hell get to have an opinion.
You can disagree with those who feel we need better gun control without acting like an insensitive imbecile. Bullets kill conservatives and liberals, blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims, and both the rich and poor. Why does a sensible question about gun control infuriate those on the right? At least the congressmen and congresswomen who receive large amounts of NRA contributions have a financial motive to sit on their hands. But what about everyone else?
The Second Amendment is not going away, ever. One reasonable starting point in the discussion of gun control is to stop misstating the issue. What these kids and most reasonable people want to discuss is how to keep guns out of the hands of those who may use them to kill others. An Internet meme said it perfectly: “When you strip away all the partisanship, the simple fact is kids are dying and they’d rather not. They are asking for help. From adults. That’s it.”
The arguments, such as the “what abouts,” are stupid and irrelevant. What about knives? What about cars? In fact, when you look at the arguments made by those on the right, they run the full spectrum of desperation from straw man arguments to appeals to ignorance, false dichotomies, slippery slopes, and red herrings. “Those kids should be in school. Liberals are communists.” They are futile attempts to justify their cognitive dissonance.
From polls to protests, how much clearer does the American public need to be before our legislators do something? Americans simply want to discuss the availability and ease in which the wrong people obtain assault weapons, whether it is banning them, instilling age restrictions, or improving background checks.
So enough is enough. But the “enough” is not just the lack of congressional action on gun control, it is also enough of the unyielding attacks on these students.
Stand-up comedian Todd Hollowman tweeted, “Imagine being the kind of person who is more outraged at kids walking out of school in protest than at kids being carried out of school in body bags.”
Unfortunately, we don’t have to imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)