July 15, 2009
"Net Present Value"

One elected official knows how to make my heart beat faster.  When I met last Friday with Washington state attorney general Rob McKenna, I was pleasantly surprised to hear him use that phrase.  (So surprised that I don't recall the context.)  I have become so used to politicians, most of them Democrats, who appear unable to understand something as simple as a cost-benefit test that it was a pleasant surprise to hear one who knows the language.

And, though I didn't bring along a set of economic questions to test his knowledge, his academic history — he earned bachelor's degrees in both economics and international studies — and his general smarts, make me think that he understands the concepts, as well as knowing the words.

I have several other, more substantive, posts planned on the meeting, but I thought you might like to see this tidbit, especially if you live in Washington state.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(Knute Berger's description of the meeting is reasonably accurate, though he and I are, naturally, interested in somewhat different aspects of the discussion.

Here's a review of net present value for anyone who needs it.

You can see two earlier posts on McKenna here and here.)

Note to commenters: Please stay on topic and keep your comments civil.  In particular, avoid personal insults to other commenters.

Posted by Jim Miller at July 15, 2009 03:47 PM | Email This
Comments
1. You're thrilled that he knows something taught in Econ 101? Weak posting. Come back with something a little better.

Posted by: demo kid on July 15, 2009 04:57 PM
2. Mr. Miller, why do you tempt so many things with partisan lines? ("most of them Democrats")

The most thrilling use I've seen of distorting NPV have come from conservatives in the region who opposed Sound Transit's light rail expansion.

Posted by: John Jensen on July 15, 2009 05:06 PM
3. demo kid may be interested in what the attorney general said when I expressed my pleasure at the NPV comment. McKenna said he had tried hard to explain the concept to some political figures in the past -- without success.

Posted by: Jim Miller on July 15, 2009 05:22 PM
4. I read Knute Berger's page. I agree with a lot of what was attributed to Mr. McKenna. The exception is gangs.

Gangs are an economic problem. The more the economy tanks the bigger the problem. The solution is not community meetings and midnight basketball. It is jobs. Gainful employment with a future will solve a gang problem.

Posted by: Vince on July 15, 2009 07:52 PM
5. @3: Then say it.

And from some of the Republicans I've met, a lack of understanding of economics is endemic on both sides.

Posted by: demo kid on July 15, 2009 08:04 PM
6. Gangs are an economic problem.

No, gangs are the byproduct of a dysfunctional family structure that festers into a societal community at large problem. No amount of "gainful employment' is going to curb the real catalyst for such anti-social behavior, nor is it the cure for parents who've chosen to be held unaccountable for their little poindexters and the poor parental decisions they've made while raising the little bastards.

Posted by: Rick D. on July 15, 2009 08:41 PM
7. Well said...Rick D

Posted by: Daniel on July 15, 2009 10:14 PM
8. Another Econ term I would like the politicians (and many citizens) to learn is "Sunk Costs." I see arguments continuously that factor in sunk costs. No, in addition to NPV, when comparing alternatives, you start from today forward.

Posted by: tc on July 16, 2009 08:15 AM
9. @6: Ahhh, yes. The argument that communities "deserve" what happens to them, and that they should be so glad that they get what they do from honest, straightlaced folks such as yourself.

Please.

Posted by: demo kid on July 16, 2009 09:14 AM
10. @ 9 - The argument that communities "deserve" what happens to them...

In many respects, yes. Enough dysfunctional families will eventually constitute a dysfunctional community. As history has shown time and again.

Posted by: Rick D. on July 16, 2009 09:59 AM
11. Yes as Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) says, npv coming from conservatives in the region who opposed Sound Transit's light rail expansion is quite thrilling.

Like Rizzo in looking up npv on wikipedia there is no possible way to reconcile it with Sound Transit's light rail expansion, but I wish to sound erudite like (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives).

Golly whiz being a liberal is easy.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 16, 2009 09:20 PM
12. You are confused about the nuances of the Sound Transit debate, Confused.

Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 01:37 AM
13. Wow.

The nuances of the deebate. You must mean the nuance of npv and the Sound Transit debate?

Golly, will I ever be as smart as Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)?

Posted by: Amused by Liberal Pretence on July 17, 2009 08:22 AM
14. No, you won't.

Posted by: John Jensen on July 17, 2009 10:18 AM
15. LOL rizzo!

Just because your mommy tells you so doesn't make it so (hint: she has to!)

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 17, 2009 07:19 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?