The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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.
BikeCentric said:This is not an economics forum, it's a cycling forum
Boeing said:I have a large hairy penis
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.
usedtobefast said:WHAT is this thread about?
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.
usedtobefast said:WHAT is this thread about?
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.
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...)
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.
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.
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?
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..
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.
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...)
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.
progressor said: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.
BikeCentric said:Can't say I care bud.
Hugh Januss said:Can't say I'm convinced that regressor and sprocket are not one and the same.