Now that I have your attention, I want to suggest a rationalisation of economy costs.

It seems to me what we need is for someone to first measure the maximum potential economic production. The MPEP! How much money could we possibly make. If every one would just play ball and be perfect, we could all be million-zillionares.

Then, all lobby groups would apply for a quota, to determine how much money their pet cause has *really* cost the economy. Tobacco vs alcohol vs stress vs domestic violence vs littering. They would all have to compete for their own hyperbowl. There would be a ministry of economic hyperbowl, to divvy up hyperbolic claims.

I want to see some competition between some of these prime economy costers. Someone has to decide whether the sickie is going to cost the economy, or the absense of the sickie and the mental health repurcussions, in the long run, cost more.

Whether the lack of exercise, or the exercise-induced accidents can claim the 12000000001th potential dollar the economy could have produced.

The problem was highlighted to me when I thought about the overlapping nature of costing the economy claims. There needs to be an authority to validate all such claims, and give percentages claimable to all these organisations.

When someone presents to the GP for example, the GP must decipher as a primary responsibility just what are the costs to the economy.

Instead of a script for antibiotics, I think a public report into what effects this persons sickness has had on the economy, and what efforts they have made to ammeliorate this effect and what life decisions have contributed.

The Economy is the single most important thing we have, and we must worship it by quantifying the cost of everything we do against a possible negative cost on to our lord.

A toast! TO the economy! To a precision of 5 decimal points!

* The time used in writing this cost the economy about $500.

Sounds like you need a more productive job.

I am getting a headache just thinking about it.

I have calculated my headache will cost the economy about $1000 unless I take some medicine which might cost more if slave labour was used if one accounts for the funding given to human rights groups or energy used in freighting medicine to the retailer, how much carbon was used particularly if there was any flatulence occurring during the manufacturing process, or the cost to the economy if any business grants or subsidies were applied, were any chemicals subsidised by the PBS.

Yes definitely a headache coming on - this post probably cost the economy about $500 in gross terms if you include energy costs, time that could have been spent producing something (like an ear of corn or a widget), the education I received free to be able to type and write words....

This headache is getting much worse now.

That's the spirit pelican.

It's amazine how if you come up with a figure, any figure, it gives more weight to all the subjective, arbitrary decisions made with terrible bias to calculate the figure. It disguises the rubbish assertions that was used to make the figure up.

People hear something in dollars, and think it's real. As in real money has been used, or there was an actual measurement that means something.

It's counter-productive to appeal to people's sympathy in fixing societal problems by warning them it will hurt their hip pocket in some indirect way. It has the effect of encouraging a lack of empathy, and demands cynicism when the figures are so ridiculously hyperbolic.

I think another reason for the tactic is the bleeding heart lefties attempting to get attention from what they see as the heartless conservatives, in the only 'currency' that they think will work.

Then again business groups use these sort of figures to tell everyone what a terrible imposition it is that they have to pay sick leave, even when it's allowed for in the average salary package and there is a work culture where they get all this free overtime.

There is a real environment now that people say if you explicitly do anything that will hurt the economy you are letting the whole country down. How dare someone have a buy nothing day! How dare you buy overseas or choose your own holiday destination! The expectation is that the economy should be the primary concern when going about your life.

The economy worship was always implicit, but now people actually explicitly call for people to help the economy and go shopping. The health benefits from quitting smoking aren't enough, it's the economy that is the real reason to quit smoking. Women being bashed isn't a problem unless it hurts the economy.

It's a very Brave New World Huxley type thing where the motto is ending is better than mending and we worship 'Our Ford' the economy.

If only the governments would play ball and hand out some Soma.

I made the mistake of reading the first few posts earlier, a net gain to the economy of $300 as it relaxed me enough to switch tasks.

In response to questions in the VAW thread I found links to an Access Economics report commissioned by the Office for the Status of Women which I think is the basis of costing claims in that thread.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/economic_costs/Documents/VAWC_Economic_Report.PDF (Page 7)

"Without appropriate action, the total cost of violence against women and their children in 2021-22 is estimated to be $15.6 billion. The largest contributor is ‘pain, suffering and premature mortality’, at $7.5 billion. The remaining costs total $8.1 billion. The largest part is ‘consumption-related’ costs at $3.5 billion. The next largest categories are ‘production’ and ‘administrative and other’, at $1.2 billion and $1.1 billion respectively."

That paper might be a useful start for the set up of the new commission proposed here.

R0bert

What an absolutely brilliant thread.

And what a challenge to come up with something
clever. I'll have to go now and think about
issues like smoking and the effect that it
has on the economy in medical costs. I used to
smoke forty cigarettes a day! No that's ridiculous.
Make that thirty! (Actually I'm quitting tomorrow).
(joke).

What about the costs involved in travel? or how
safe are our planes? what costs to the economy
does travel involve? I remember a family member
telling us about their flight from Sweden to
Darwin, "after 36 hours of a jug-jiggling, arse-
numbing, gut-rumbling ride in a plane that she
swore was powered by rubber bands and a
two-stroke concrete mixer motor, they emerged into
a tropical rain storm at Darwin airport. It was hot,
steamy, and more oppressive than the inside of an
ice-hockey player's jockstrap after a national
final... And the beautiful smells, like bananas,
and guavas, and other tropical fruits in the air."

How do you put a price on any of that?

Ah well, back to the drawing board for me.