This election, take note of 'opportunity cost'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks

The first concept taught in every introductory economics class is the simple idea of “opportunity cost.” This is the straightforward notion that the cost of an item is measured by what you give up to get it.

I think it is an idea that separates those who make decisions from those who want to talk about them and, in application, is an idea that distinguishes serious from unserious people. As an economist, and more important a citizen-soldier, father and taxpayer, the one thing I am looking for in this election is men and women who understand the idea of “opportunity cost.”

In the coming years, we face a set of difficult policy decisions. A delay in these decisions robs the best alternatives from us all. In truth, a good many matters at issue in this election cycle are not yet really a crisis. The federal budget, energy dependency, health care and Social Security can be fixed now without life-altering sacrifice. Left unchecked, the options narrow, the necessary sacrifice grows and the future dims. They are, however, a brewing crisis. As this happens, many (on both the right and left) entirely miss the point.

One aspiring presidential candidate on the right proclaims that the nation’s problems are a “moral crisis, not a money crisis.” True, perhaps, but I neither need nor want a president to help me raise my kids, improve my marriage, or choose my church. No matter how bad I am at these, no denizen of the White House is going to do better. I want something far more from my president than helping me with my kid’s baseball practice, violin lessons and evening prayers. I want a president who will keep us free and unburden my children from debt. Mrs. Hicks and I, our family, neighbors and friends will attend to the rest.

The left is no better. We fight difficult wars in a half-dozen countries, yet the sticking point in this year’s defense budget was repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Call me crazy, but caring for soldiers is more about buying body armor and ammunition than easing an open discussion of their sexuality. For the record, and this is a potentially costly admission since I remain a serving reserve officer, I believe we should repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But we must wait until we have emerged with honor from our current wars; until then, the opportunity cost of debating it is just too high.

As they have reminded us frequently these past years, the current Congress and administration came to office with many challenges not of their making. Yet, the heaping of enormous uncertainty onto recession made matters far, far worse. As a consequence, this election will see many good folks lose their jobs in Congress simply because they followed a leadership with no sense of priorities. Still, this election will send a clear signal of priorities. And I, like many Americans, will be voting for folks who understand the simple economic concept of “opportunity cost.”•


Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Now if he'd just stay there...

  2. Daniel - what about the many US citizens who do NOT follow what the Bible teaches? The Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others who are all American citizens entitled to all rights as Americans?? This issue has NOTHING to do with "What the Bible says..." Keep all Churches separate from State! Pence's ongoing idiocy continues to make Indiana look like a backwards, homophobic state in the eyes of our nation. Can't we move on to bigger issues - like educating our kids?

  3. 1. IBJ should link to the referenced report. We are in the age of electronic media...not sharing information is lazy. Here is a link http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf 2. The article should provide more clarity about the make-up of this panel. The commenters are making this item out to be partisan, it does not appear the panel is partisan. Here is a list of the panel which appears to be balanced with different SME to add different perspectives http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=138116?formation_id=189603 3. It suggests a by-pass, I do not see where this report suggests another "loop". 4. Henry, based on your kneejerk reaction, we would be better off if you moved to another state unless your post was meant as sarcasm in which case I say Well Done. 5. The article and report actually indicates need to improve rail and port infrastructure in direct contradiction to Shayla commentary. Specifically, recommendation is to consider passenger rail projects... 6. People have a voice with their elected officials. These are suggestions and do not represent "crony capitalism", etc. The report needs to be analyzed and the legislature can decide on priorities and spending. Don't like it, then vote in a new legislature but quit artificially creating issues where there are none! People need to sift through the politics and provide constructive criticism to the process rather than making uninformed comments in a public forum based on misinformation. IBJ should work harder to correct the record in these forums when blatant errors or misrepresentations are made.

  4. Joe ... Marriage is defined in the Bible ... it is mentioned in the Bible often. Marriage is not mentioned once in the US or Indiana Constitution ...

  5. Daniel - Educate me please: what does the Bible have to do with laws? If the government wasn't in the business of marriage to begin with, then it wouldn't have to "define" marriage at all. Marriage could be left as a personal, religious, or otherwise unregulated action, with no ties to taxes, legal status, etc. Then people could marry whomever they want, and all this silliness would go away. Remember to vote Libertarian in November.