Jump to content

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

We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.