My friend (though we’ve never met) and fellow economist Jon Murphy recently said, in a comment on a recent post by blogger Pierre Lemieux:
If there are two options that take you off your desired path, choosing the one that takes you the least is not necessarily the best option.
I challenged Jon, writing:
Yes, of course. Think on the margins.
Jon is good at thinking around the edges. I thought you would agree. But he didn’t. Instead he wrote:
I am David. My point is that both options as presented lead me away from my goal. That means it’s time to look for a new margin or do nothing.
Commentator Vivian Darkbloom got into my side of the story, writing:
Being on the 30 yard line is not the same as being on the 10 yard line!
Answer from Jon:
Agreed. But if my goal is to be in the endzone, one play that brings me back to the 40 and another that brings me back to the 50 is both useless.
Of course, both are not mutually beneficial, but in economics we often compare two bad options and choose the less bad. Lateral thinking works here too. 40 is close to 50.
Now, if Jon had argued that the two methods are not different, he would have had a point. But he made it clear that that is not what he is arguing about.
Note: Pierre raises another issue in the comments, in response, and it’s a good point Pierre has to make. But it doesn’t match my answer to Jon.
Source link