Comprehensive outcome: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [[economics]], a '''comprehensive outcome''' is the entire result of an event or process. It would include for instance the [[natural resource]] depletion, the [[pollution]], and any side effects of the [[production]], [[distribution]] and [[consumption]] processes. It is contrasted to a '''culminative outcome''' which is simply the obvious result visible to the buyer at the moment and [[point of purchase]], and the [[profit]] made thereby by the supplier. | In [[economics]], a '''comprehensive outcome''' is the entire result of an event or process. | ||
---- | |||
--[[User:203.249.227.3|203.249.227.3]] 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (EEST)<nowiki><math> | |||
== It would include for instance == | |||
</math></nowiki> the [[natural resource]] depletion, the [[pollution]], and any side effects of the [[production]], [[distribution]] and [[consumption]] processes. It is contrasted to a '''culminative outcome''' which is simply the obvious result visible to the buyer at the moment and [[point of purchase]], and the [[profit]] made thereby by the supplier. | |||
Another way to state this issue is [[Mike Nickerson]]'s observation that "economics is three-fifths of [[ecology]]". By focusing on only the "middle three" production, distribution and consumption problems, and ignoring [[resource extraction]] and [[waste disposal]], moves considered wise in economics load ecological processes with an ever-increasing stress. It is now very generally believed that some of these processes, such as the dumping of [[carbon]] into the [[atmosphere]], causes devastating events, say due to [[extreme weather]] and [[sea level]] rise. These in turn are visible in the ecologically-insane economics only as [[insurance]] payments. By focusing on comprehensive outcomes earlier, many economists hope to avert major disasters and harsh painful adjustment measures. | Another way to state this issue is [[Mike Nickerson]]'s observation that "economics is three-fifths of [[ecology]]". By focusing on only the "middle three" production, distribution and consumption problems, and ignoring [[resource extraction]] and [[waste disposal]], moves considered wise in economics load ecological processes with an ever-increasing stress. It is now very generally believed that some of these processes, such as the dumping of [[carbon]] into the [[atmosphere]], causes devastating events, say due to [[extreme weather]] and [[sea level]] rise. These in turn are visible in the ecologically-insane economics only as [[insurance]] payments. By focusing on comprehensive outcomes earlier, many economists hope to avert major disasters and harsh painful adjustment measures. | ||