<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog Review 649</title>
		<description>Comments for Blog Review 649 at http://adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://adamsmith.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:15:37 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://adamsmith.org/blog/misc/blog-review-649-200807051658/#comment-549</link>
			<description>Surprised ASI is supporting the use of a social planning device like CBA especially in view of links which explain the difficulties. The trouble is CBA removes a planning decision from the voting public and puts in the hands of experts. Many are intended to justify a decision already made and not all seem to count very well. The method involves arbitrary data adjustments and the process is not repeatable or transparent. The widely rubbished Stern assessment on Climate is a good example. See my http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume4/v4i1a3s1.html - Dr Alister McFarquhar</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:27:32 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
