I strongly agree with Sagoff’s opinion that basic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is not the best tool for decision making. As he points out, it may be the best tool for basic decisions about how much of a specific product should be produced for sale, but it cannot be fittingly applied to social and environmental issues. This is because most people think that there are things in the world that have worth that goes beyond monetary value. However, some would argue that value is merely determined by “willingness to pay.” But, though we as consumers may buy a product whose manufacturer pollutes the environment or exploits their workers does not mean that we support those actions. I agree with Colm to an extent that our personal consumer actions are often selfishly driven by personal desire while our voting/political actions are more often guided by our views of right and wrong. This dichotomy tells us that in making decisions there are things outside of mere costs and benefits that matter to people. Therefore, basic CBA is not an adequate tool for measuring the desirability of stronger labor laws or stronger environmental standards. I would like to point out that I do not think the dichotomy between consumer actions and political actions is right. People should consider what they are indirectly supporting when they purchase a specific product. This is difficult because patrons rarely have all the information about where a product comes from and how it is made, but if we made an attempt to vote with our money some of the things we value intrinsically would gain in monetary value and be given more consideration in cost-benefit analyses.