>> Who's thinking did you say was soggy.

John's, and apparently yours.

Opportunity cost is the cost of passing up one investment in favor of another. Because of scarcity, use of a resource for one purpose means that some other use of that resource is lost. Opportunity Cost of using a resource in a particular way is the satisfaction that would have been provided by its most preferred alternative and thus foregone use. Opportunity cost is what you give up as a consequence of your decision to use a resource in a particular way.

Thus by definition, opportunity cost is always nonzero positive.

John's claim of zero opportunity cost to what is clearly a multi-month or multi-year investment in time and pioneering effort is clearly bogus.

**--** Steve




>>Does this mean I get to kick your soggy thinking no-ethics butt all over again, Joe Bob?
>
>>I have a question for you, JVB. What is the definition of "opportunity cost" and how, for heaven's sake, could opportunity cost ever be zero for anything, nevermind a complete retooling with Version 1 technology?
>
>
>How can an "Opportunity Cost ever be zero"
>
>Well for one think in Economics there is the concept of a bad.
>In other words you're better off not having it.
>Assign values to a basket of goods some of which are bad representing an opportunity and on net that cost can be zero or negative.
>
>Like moving away from an opportunity in a new lose situation.
>
>Or, when you are better off not doing anything.
>
>Who's thinking did you say was soggy.