In economics we are taught that opportunity cost is the alternative forgone, or the option a person has to give up in order to get something when the resources available only permits them to make ONE choice among other alternatives.

Now, the option which is eventually chosen is obviously the choice, while the other one foregone in order the make this choice is regarded as the real cost.

Why is this so? Is it not somewhat confusing to call a foregone alternative the real cost when nothing was spent to get it? I don’t seem to get the idea.

Please economists in the hall, over to you.

Now, the option which is eventually chosen is obviously the choice, while the other one foregone in order the make this choice is regarded as the

real cost.

Now, the option which is eventually chosen is obviously the choice, while the other one foregone in order the make this choice is regarded as the

real cost.

Now, the option which is eventually chosen is obviously the choice, while the other one foregone in order the make this choice is regarded as the

real cost.

Why are you just repeating?