• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance Refuses to give Blood Sample to USADA

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ferminal said:
I agree with this statement. There seems to be a greater focus on opportunity cost... Lance's opportunity cost of returning to cycling has to be close to zero.

That's nice that you agree with it, but you're also wrong. I'll give you a hint: when evaluating a set of choices and the opportunity cost of forgoing one in lieu of the other you must make a risk versus reward analysis. In other words, you must risk a choice on how to invest your time or money and the risk that you may have achieved a higher return by investing your time or money in other option is the opportunity cost.

Now please get back on topic and stick to things you understand. This is not an economics forum, it's a cycling forum, and this will be my last post relating to this subject. I appologize for derailing the thread.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
usedtobefast said:
WHAT is this thread about?

Unicorn+Porn+frame2.png
 

Sprocket01

BANNED
Oct 5, 2009
525
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
This is not an economics forum, it's a cycling forum

The thing is, some people dislike Armstrong because they dislike the economic system, so the issues are mixed. Armstrong automatically becomes suspect to them because he is sponsored by multi national companies and earns big bucks and has a fondation. It's sort of hard to argue with someone who is really talking about a political ideology they have.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Visit site
MPC = dC/dY

BikeCentric says:

Now please get back on topic and stick to things you understand. This is not an economics forum, it's a cycling forum, and this will be my last post relating to this subject. I appologize for derailing the thread.


So you are saying your Marginal Propensity to Consume any more time on this thread equals zero.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
usedtobefast said:
WHAT is this thread about?

Same thing every one is, unicorns...(even I am getting tired of talking about everything Lance does.)
 
Sprocket01 said:
The thing is, some people dislike Armstrong because they dislike the economic system, so the issues are mixed. Armstrong automatically becomes suspect to them because he is sponsored by multi national companies and earns big bucks and has a fondation. It's sort of hard to argue with someone who is really talking about a political ideology they have.

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue. wtf are you talk-/babbling about
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
I agree with this statement. There seems to be a greater focus on opportunity cost... Lance's opportunity cost of returning to cycling has to be close to zero.

Ok - I am now a student of Economics for almost 3 minutes - having read two paragraphs of Wiki on 'opportunity cost'.
I am not flaming here - and admit my total ignorance, it just appeals to my nerdy inquisitive side.

Eg: LA has numerous stocks and shares - which would not be effected by his return. However his revenue stream whilst retired was through public speaking engagements which I believe are $150,000.

Coming out of retirement means he attracted appearance fee's which are +$3,000,000 add on endorsements (Michelob, magazine, Giro, Nike, Trek, Oakley).

Am I correct in saying the OC is the difference between LA's actual revenue stream during his return and what it would have been without returning?

And is the difference between OC and Risk/Reward what he would lose should he fail a dope test?
(.....videos, charts - any visual aid would be appreciated...)
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
1
0
Visit site
Opportunity Cost

I was taught that Opportunity Cost is the "Cost of Opportunities Foregone".

So if you think that instead of a comeback, Lance spent the year
boinking starlets - the cost of opportunities forgone is nil, economically speaking;)
The Opportunity Cost is low

Now if Lance spent the year studying and coming up with a cure for
cancer - the Opportunity Cost of his comeback would be very high!
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok - I am now a student of Economics for almost 3 minutes - having read two paragraphs of Wiki on 'opportunity cost'.
I am not flaming here - and admit my total ignorance, it just appeals to my nerdy inquisitive side.

Eg: LA has numerous stocks and shares - which would not be effected by his return. However his revenue stream whilst retired was through public speaking engagements which I believe are $150,000.

Coming out of retirement means he attracted appearance fee's which are +$3,000,000 add on endorsements (Michelob, magazine, Giro, Nike, Trek, Oakley).

Am I correct in saying the OC is the difference between LA's actual revenue stream during his return and what it would have been without returning?

And is the difference between OC and Risk/Reward what he would lose should he fail a dope test?
(.....videos, charts - any visual aid would be appreciated...)

I am a Finance Major, so my 2-4 terms of econ, depending on what you class as econ would roughly say, yes, I agree with your understinding. I am not quite clear on your meaning in the last sentence, though. (In bold) Please elaborate.

As for visual aids, I direct you to the babes on bikes thread in the general section. This isn't that kind of thread.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
This is probably because you're *** and lack basic reading comprehension skills, but I digress.

BikeCentric said:
This is another example of your reading comprehension problems and where mental retardation comes into play for you.

BikeCentric said:
Never go full *** Sprocket.

BikeCentric said:
Sorry but you just revealed yourself to be a complete idiot. Please restrict yourself to subjects upon which you know what you're talking about and let's all get back on topic.

So he who doesn't agree with you is *** or idiotic? Is that why you didn't respond to polishes challenge to prove your statement re econ 101? Are you capable of disagreeing with someone without abusing and demeaning them?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ggusta said:
I am a Finance Major, so my 2-4 terms of econ, depending on what you class as econ would roughly say, yes, I agree with your understinding. I am not quite clear on your meaning in the last sentence, though. (In bold) Please elaborate.

As for visual aids, I direct you to the babes on bikes thread in the general section. This isn't that kind of thread.

In economic terms I don't understand Risk/Reward.

But my view would be what actual penalties would LA incur if he was caught doping.
He earned no wage - so he would not lose that. He would however lose any prize-money. All appearance fee's and endorsements up to the hypothetical point would be banked and not be required to be returned.

So on a monetary level it would be the risk of money earned (substantial)vs what has to be paid back (little).
(or is that just OC? or does that have to be factored against it?)

As for visual aids - well 'Polish' appealed to my imaginative side by introducing 'starlets' as currency, so i got it straight away!)
 
progressor said:
So he who doesn't agree with you is *** or idiotic? Is that why you didn't respond to polishes challenge to prove your statement re econ 101? Are you capable of disagreeing with someone without abusing and demeaning them?

All but one of those responses was directed towards our oft-banned resident troll Sprocket, and as you can see it's pretty clear what my opinion towards him is.

As far as econ goes, as I already stated I'm not interested in discussing the subject with anyone who denies the concept of risk/reward as a basic precept of the discipline. Good day to you Sir.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
All but one of those responses was directed towards our oft-banned resident troll Sprocket, and as you can see it's pretty clear what my opinion towards him is..

So what if you think he's a troll. How does that give you the excuse to lay all that on?

BikeCentric said:
As far as econ goes, as I already stated I'm not interested in discussing the subject with anyone who denies the concept of risk/reward as a basic precept of the discipline. Good day to you Sir.

So instead of rising to the challenge of proving your point, or simply agreeing to disagree, you simply call the other poster a 'complete idiot' and all's good? Can't say I'm impressed.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok - I am now a student of Economics for almost 3 minutes - having read two paragraphs of Wiki on 'opportunity cost'.
I am not flaming here - and admit my total ignorance, it just appeals to my nerdy inquisitive side.

Eg: LA has numerous stocks and shares - which would not be effected by his return. However his revenue stream whilst retired was through public speaking engagements which I believe are $150,000.

Coming out of retirement means he attracted appearance fee's which are +$3,000,000 add on endorsements (Michelob, magazine, Giro, Nike, Trek, Oakley).

Am I correct in saying the OC is the difference between LA's actual revenue stream during his return and what it would have been without returning?

And is the difference between OC and Risk/Reward what he would lose should he fail a dope test?
(.....videos, charts - any visual aid would be appreciated...)

Opportunity cost covers everything, such as less family time, having to spend more time out of Texas, less privacy etc etc.

BikeCentric said:
That's nice that you agree with it, but you're also wrong. I'll give you a hint: when evaluating a set of choices and the opportunity cost of forgoing one in lieu of the other you must make a risk versus reward analysis. In other words, you must risk a choice on how to invest your time or money and the risk that you may have achieved a higher return by investing your time or money in other option is the opportunity cost.

Now please get back on topic and stick to things you understand. This is not an economics forum, it's a cycling forum, and this will be my last post relating to this subject. I appologize for derailing the thread.


Not sure why you're getting so carried away, having done many economics units, Risk/Reward doesn't feature significantly, that's my learnings, yours may be different, neither of us are incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.