Measure loss of life, or loss of GDP - from terrorist attack?
From http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/09/costbenefit_of.html
Because the loss of life is so low, they measure the benefits of successful counter-terrorism measures in terms of loss of gross domestic product avoided. Trouble is, terrorism does little to disrupt economic growth, as even September 11 demonstrated.
Ok, that's really interesting, yet cold-hearted. Sounds like something some fascist Aussie armchair academics would say.
Sandler and his colleagues conducted an analysis of the costs and benefits of five different approaches to combating terrorism ... Using the case of the US, Sandler estimates that simply continuing the present measures involves costs exceeding benefits by a factor of at least 10
Ten times is too much to protect any asset. You're just throwing money into the toilet at that point.
Adopting additional defensive measures (such as stepping up security at valuable targets) would, at best, entail costs 3.5 times the benefits
I'm ok with costs that are 1.4 times the benefits for defensive measure purposes, based on what I've read about economics, national security, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Taking more pro-active measures (such as invading Afghanistan) would have costs at least eight times the benefits.
Uh. Yeah. That's why you don't invade countries to go on wild-goose-chases.
According to Sandler, only greater international co-operation, or adopting more sensitive foreign policies to project a more positive image abroad, could produce benefits greater than their (minimal) costs
No fucking shit, huh? So we improve our brand, increase the quality of the lives of the people that we touch, and work with the UN -- in order to IMPROVE our terrorist security at no additional cost, or provide ROI? This is never going to make headline news anywhere in the world. The war economy would go bankrupt.
What's that? You don't care what it costs because no one can put a value on saving a human life? Heard of opportunity cost? Taxpayers' money we waste on excessive counter-terrorism measures is money we can't spend reducing the gap between white and indigenous health -- or, if that doesn't appeal, on buying Olympic medals
But China spent tons of money on security for the Olympics in order to protect/save lives! You mean that they wasted all that money because they were already net-positive just by hosting such an event? That's blasphemy! Do you have any idea how many bomb threats happened during the Olympics? 1. That one bomb could have killed that ugly-swimmer-guy and that too-young-Chinese-girl and BILLIONS of other people!
Because the loss of life is so low, they measure the benefits of successful counter-terrorism measures in terms of loss of gross domestic product avoided. Trouble is, terrorism does little to disrupt economic growth, as even September 11 demonstrated.
Ok, that's really interesting, yet cold-hearted. Sounds like something some fascist Aussie armchair academics would say.
Sandler and his colleagues conducted an analysis of the costs and benefits of five different approaches to combating terrorism ... Using the case of the US, Sandler estimates that simply continuing the present measures involves costs exceeding benefits by a factor of at least 10
Ten times is too much to protect any asset. You're just throwing money into the toilet at that point.
Adopting additional defensive measures (such as stepping up security at valuable targets) would, at best, entail costs 3.5 times the benefits
I'm ok with costs that are 1.4 times the benefits for defensive measure purposes, based on what I've read about economics, national security, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Taking more pro-active measures (such as invading Afghanistan) would have costs at least eight times the benefits.
Uh. Yeah. That's why you don't invade countries to go on wild-goose-chases.
According to Sandler, only greater international co-operation, or adopting more sensitive foreign policies to project a more positive image abroad, could produce benefits greater than their (minimal) costs
No fucking shit, huh? So we improve our brand, increase the quality of the lives of the people that we touch, and work with the UN -- in order to IMPROVE our terrorist security at no additional cost, or provide ROI? This is never going to make headline news anywhere in the world. The war economy would go bankrupt.
What's that? You don't care what it costs because no one can put a value on saving a human life? Heard of opportunity cost? Taxpayers' money we waste on excessive counter-terrorism measures is money we can't spend reducing the gap between white and indigenous health -- or, if that doesn't appeal, on buying Olympic medals
But China spent tons of money on security for the Olympics in order to protect/save lives! You mean that they wasted all that money because they were already net-positive just by hosting such an event? That's blasphemy! Do you have any idea how many bomb threats happened during the Olympics? 1. That one bomb could have killed that ugly-swimmer-guy and that too-young-Chinese-girl and BILLIONS of other people!