5 ms·
I am a little skeptical of this idea. We should spend no money fighting one threat until all greater threats (as measure by deaths/year) have been eliminated? I
by sopooneo 14y ago
I am a little skeptical of this idea. We should spend no money fighting one threat until all greater threats (as measure by deaths/year) have been eliminated? I think rather we should spend money proportionally.
And I do not think that we should completely ignore the fears of irrational people. If our citizens are unhappy because they fear something, it is worth some expense to set them at ease. Though perhaps a careful placebo would be most fitting
- nathan_long 14y ago>> Though perhaps a careful placebo would be most fitting ...which is exactly what the TSA is.
- 7rurl 14y agoA very expensive and inconvenient placebo.
- sp332 14y agoWell it's a little more complicated: you should always spend money where the most deaths prevented per dollar are achievable. So if you can save 1 life per $20 spent on thing A, and 1 life per $100 spent on thing B, you shouldn't spend any money on thing B. That's because each life saved via thing B means five people died from not having thing A (net loss of 4 lives).
- chii 14y agowhile that is good in theory, the reality is that the $100 spent on thing B is much more visible. The action from money spent saving thing A could be less visible, lower profile and generally more pedestrian, so politicians who makes these decisions go for the more flashy option and therefore garner more votes or credit. The goal has never been to save more lives - which is the root cause of the TSA's problem.