3 ms·

I'd go with a TSA as an example of such spending. It's a net negative to the society - lots of money being spent to give an impression of security while it's pr

by d33 5y ago

I'd go with a TSA as an example of such spending. It's a net negative to the society - lots of money being spent to give an impression of security while it's proven that they clearly fail at their mission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Criticism_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Admini...

TOMDM 5y ago
Good point, I'll concede that one. I think there is some level of malicious intent implied on the grandparent that I don't think you can attribute to TSA policy makers though.
maxerickson 5y ago
If you are analyzing the impact of the TSA on basic needs in our current economy, it's very positive, providing jobs and causing minor distributed irritation that doesn't really count as a negative impact on basic needs. (You can argue that it would be better to give the money away without requiring the jobs, but that ain't the world we have)
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  Getting off topic, but I imagine TSA might inhibit travel enough that the real net impact to business would counterbalance any new TSA jobs. And it is funny that we’re not talking about security. This is a good example lol
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    The fact that it is a show doesn't make it negative towards basic needs. Like people that can't afford to fly aren't going to go hungry because of the TSA. I wouldn't be surprised if slightly discouraging business travel is anyway a net positive (it's going to take more than an irritating line to inhibit necessary travel and some amount of travel is almost certainly waste).
    - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      Oh, I definitely agree with your point. But what I'm saying is if you remove the security theater from the equation, you are left with comparing the job creation of a "pointless" but legitimate institution, versus the costs of diverting that money to different programs as well as the cost to travelers.

by d33 5y ago

TOMDM 5y ago

Good point, I'll concede that one. I think there is some level of malicious intent implied on the grandparent that I don't think you can attribute to TSA policy makers though.

maxerickson 5y ago

If you are analyzing the impact of the TSA on basic needs in our current economy, it's very positive, providing jobs and causing minor distributed irritation that doesn't really count as a negative impact on basic needs. (You can argue that it would be better to give the money away without requiring the jobs, but that ain't the world we have)

DiggyJohnson 5y ago
Getting off topic, but I imagine TSA might inhibit travel enough that the real net impact to business would counterbalance any new TSA jobs. And it is funny that we’re not talking about security. This is a good example lol
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The fact that it is a show doesn't make it negative towards basic needs. Like people that can't afford to fly aren't going to go hungry because of the TSA. I wouldn't be surprised if slightly discouraging business travel is anyway a net positive (it's going to take more than an irritating line to inhibit necessary travel and some amount of travel is almost certainly waste).
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    Oh, I definitely agree with your point. But what I'm saying is if you remove the security theater from the equation, you are left with comparing the job creation of a "pointless" but legitimate institution, versus the costs of diverting that money to different programs as well as the cost to travelers.