Comprehensive outcome: Difference between revisions

revert
No edit summary
(revert)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[economics]], a '''comprehensive outcome''' is the entire result of an event or process.  
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.
----
--[[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.
9,854

edits