opportunity cost

regob

hi there

im basically having a minor disagreement with another boards user in the leaving cert forum, and basically what it is over is what is the definition of opportunity cost.

i have always referred to opportunity cost as the next best alternative foregone e.g. you have enough money for a bar of choclate, and you rattle it down to two, a mars bar and a twix. if you choose the mars, the opportunity cost would be the twix.

the person who disagrees with me is basically saying that it is the value of the next best alternative foregone.

so basically thats it i need your help

thanks
regob

Time Magazine

It's the value.

This may not be the same thing as the price, as valuations of objects may differ. The opportunity cost of being in a relationship is the fun you could be having with your neighbour. That fun would presumably be free, but it would still be valuable.

regob

The Economist wrote: »

It's the value.

This may not be the same thing as the price, as valuations of objects may differ. The opportunity cost of being in a relationship is the fun you could be having with your neighbour. That fun would presumably be free, but it would still be valuable.

alright, i just always considered it as being what was given up (what you would have chosen next) in order to get a good. i trust you, thanks economist

JSK 252

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

regob

JSK 252 wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

everybody makes simple mistakes, dont be patronising

xOxSinéadxOx

I realld don't understand the first post at all!

regob

wat ya mean

Time Magazine

The question was whether opportunity cost was the value of what you don't get, or the thing itself. I clarified that it's the former. Then JSK 252 came in and acted the prick.

Thread's not going to get any better.