4 ms·

Causing Terror on the Cheap

41 points by Garbage 16y ago

epo 16y ago
The broken window fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window as a parable was new to me. A good debunking of the justification that all this security activity is a net economic benefit to the US.
- NeilCJames 16y ago
  I read that comment too, but I am not sure 'broken windows' truly applies here. Although I believe there is net public harm from US post-9/11 "security" policies, when you consider that: a.) the spending being done on security is entirely public deficit spending not offset by tax increases or cuts in other departments, b.) the economy has been well below full employment (~58-62% employment-pop ratio during the period) and full capacity utilization (~68-81% capacity utilization during the period), c.) no other expansion of public employment and spending would have likely occurred in the past decade absent the 9/11 attacks (arguable, but there really isn't a political consensus for expanding the US welfare state), and posit that the 2000s growth rate would have taken essentially the same path absent the 9/11 attacks, then it would appear that much of the security theater policies have had a small medium-term stimulative economic effect (small because it is largely offset by increased consumer travelling expenses and time, dampening productivity). The three keys I mention above violate the pretext of the broken window fallacy (at least in the medium term, and probably in the long-term because of historically low interest rates). In a full employment situation, there would be significant deadweight loss, and in a balanced budget situation, there would be significant economic impact due to either increased taxation or offsetting spending cuts. But neither of those conditions applies to the recent US situation. The BWF assumes that the money would have been spent doing something else (more profitable), and I am pretty certain that will not be the case until the debt needs to be paid, which is unlikely to ever occur (I think the assumed future policy is to continue to roll the debt over until the singularity).
3pt14159 16y ago
For a long time I've debated writing an article in a similar vein of this one by Schneier. I studied structural engineering in University and you would not believe how easy and cheap it is. With a solid iron pipe and the right knowledge you can kill hundreds of people and delay hundreds of thousands.
- daeken 16y ago
  For the longest time, I thought about terrorism from a security standpoint. If you treat the US as a system to break, then you see a lot of weak points: bridges, trains, malls, etc (in other words, the stuff you see on 24). If you damage these, you could do a whole lot of damage to the US economy, kill a lot of people, etc. But then I realized something: destroying bridges doesn't cause fear in the same way that, say, flying a plane into a landmark building does. I used to think that the terrorists were idiots that couldn't pull off a simple attack... now I realize just how good they are at what they do: causing fear. The point of terrorism isn't to kill, it isn't to cause direct harm in any way. Those are tools to make us scared, and we've all played right into it. I'll never forget exactly where I was when I found out about the attacks on 9/11, or any of the resulting protection mechanisms; they succeeded in their goals, probably more than they ever thought they would.
  - forza 16y ago
    I can't help to think that if the US people, media and government hadn't been so busy "fighting terrorism", then events like hurricane Katrina, the BP oil spill, subprime mortgage crisis and the following recession could, if not have been avoided, at least been handled a lot better.
    - daeken 16y ago
      I think it's a serious stretch to say that, coming from someone who sees the "war on terrorism" as completely silly. Those "fighting terrorism" aren't the same people doing, say, banking oversight. While these things are both handled by the government, the government is not all one big team, it's a bunch of individual components working on totally different things with small amounts of overlap.
nir 16y ago
John Robb has been writing about these kind of tactics for a while, he calls it "Open Source Warfare": http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/note-on-innovation-in-warfare.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11...
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Terrorism is just guerrilla warfare against civilians and infrastructure. The goal is to get the most bang for the buck from cheap attacks.

41 points by Garbage 16y ago

epo 16y ago

The broken window fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window as a parable was new to me. A good debunking of the justification that all this security activity is a net economic benefit to the US.

NeilCJames 16y ago
I read that comment too, but I am not sure 'broken windows' truly applies here. Although I believe there is net public harm from US post-9/11 "security" policies, when you consider that: a.) the spending being done on security is entirely public deficit spending not offset by tax increases or cuts in other departments, b.) the economy has been well below full employment (~58-62% employment-pop ratio during the period) and full capacity utilization (~68-81% capacity utilization during the period), c.) no other expansion of public employment and spending would have likely occurred in the past decade absent the 9/11 attacks (arguable, but there really isn't a political consensus for expanding the US welfare state), and posit that the 2000s growth rate would have taken essentially the same path absent the 9/11 attacks, then it would appear that much of the security theater policies have had a small medium-term stimulative economic effect (small because it is largely offset by increased consumer travelling expenses and time, dampening productivity). The three keys I mention above violate the pretext of the broken window fallacy (at least in the medium term, and probably in the long-term because of historically low interest rates). In a full employment situation, there would be significant deadweight loss, and in a balanced budget situation, there would be significant economic impact due to either increased taxation or offsetting spending cuts. But neither of those conditions applies to the recent US situation. The BWF assumes that the money would have been spent doing something else (more profitable), and I am pretty certain that will not be the case until the debt needs to be paid, which is unlikely to ever occur (I think the assumed future policy is to continue to roll the debt over until the singularity).

3pt14159 16y ago

For a long time I've debated writing an article in a similar vein of this one by Schneier. I studied structural engineering in University and you would not believe how easy and cheap it is. With a solid iron pipe and the right knowledge you can kill hundreds of people and delay hundreds of thousands.

daeken 16y ago
For the longest time, I thought about terrorism from a security standpoint. If you treat the US as a system to break, then you see a lot of weak points: bridges, trains, malls, etc (in other words, the stuff you see on 24). If you damage these, you could do a whole lot of damage to the US economy, kill a lot of people, etc. But then I realized something: destroying bridges doesn't cause fear in the same way that, say, flying a plane into a landmark building does. I used to think that the terrorists were idiots that couldn't pull off a simple attack... now I realize just how good they are at what they do: causing fear. The point of terrorism isn't to kill, it isn't to cause direct harm in any way. Those are tools to make us scared, and we've all played right into it. I'll never forget exactly where I was when I found out about the attacks on 9/11, or any of the resulting protection mechanisms; they succeeded in their goals, probably more than they ever thought they would.
- forza 16y ago
  I can't help to think that if the US people, media and government hadn't been so busy "fighting terrorism", then events like hurricane Katrina, the BP oil spill, subprime mortgage crisis and the following recession could, if not have been avoided, at least been handled a lot better.
  - daeken 16y ago
    I think it's a serious stretch to say that, coming from someone who sees the "war on terrorism" as completely silly. Those "fighting terrorism" aren't the same people doing, say, banking oversight. While these things are both handled by the government, the government is not all one big team, it's a bunch of individual components working on totally different things with small amounts of overlap.

nir 16y ago

John Robb has been writing about these kind of tactics for a while, he calls it "Open Source Warfare": http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/note-on-innovation-in-warfare.html http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11...

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Terrorism is just guerrilla warfare against civilians and infrastructure. The goal is to get the most bang for the buck from cheap attacks.