On 3 Jan 2008 16:54:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:42:15 -0600, cavelamb himself
said:

The cost of the rescue was Zero because we ALREADY planned
to pay the crew, maintenance, CG budget even if they never rescued Joe.


And the cost of driving a Ferrari 15 miles is about $4.00, right?


What is your problem, Dave?

I'm surprised I have to explain it to you. And apparently you're not alone.

Larry makes the common error of equating "cost" with marginal cost. You
might use only $4.00 of gas to drive the Ferrari 15 miles, but only a fool
would say that the costs of driving a Ferrari are just $.27 a mile. Fully
allocated costs of rescues would be enormous.

The point you seem to be missing is that the Coast Guard has an annual
budget, which I can assure you that they spend. Now, whether some
portion of the budget is used to rescue someone or to make training
cruises is immaterial - the money is used. So "allocating" some
portion of the Coast Guard's budget to a rescue and then saying "the
rescue cost "X" dollars" is not accurate.

If, for example, the C.G. is out on a "training cruise" to burn up
their diesel budget (and I can assure you that the various members of
the US Government do strive mightily to use ALL their budget) and
diverts to rescue someone the C.G. does not immediately apply for
additional budget to cover the cost of the rescue. Therefore there is
not additional cost to the US Government and the Taxpayer.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)