The Economics of Fear
This morning I was greeted at the ferry terminal by an armed Coast Guard and dog. They weren't really searching people, and the dog wasn't really inspecting anything. Maybe the dog didn't need to sniff closely to detect whatever he was smelling for.
Inside the terminal was another jump-suited Coast guard, sternly watching us board the boat.
On board, a passenger explained that there had been another bomb attack on a London bus.
On the water, a cute Coast Guard speed boat with an ominous machine gun mounted on the bow deck peeled off and looped back from escorting a northbound Vallejo-destined ferry to bounce alongside our Southbound boat all the way to the dock in San Francisco.
I'm not sure how effective the Coast Guard presence was in preventing any terrorist activity. I don't think the dog was really scrutinizing our scents. I don't think the speedboat would have been any use other than to radio for help and pick up survivors, should the boat have been victimized. I think the highly visible presence's main objective was visibility. The goal isn't to prevent terrorism, it's to prevent panic, to re-assure the masses that all is "under control" and that they are "safe" to go about their daily lives.
I'm not sure what it costs economically to scramble the Coast Guard to such levels of activity. I am sure that it costs less to blow up a bus in London by a factor best rendered in scientific notation. That's why the terrorist war is an economic war. Blowing up a bus: $50,000. Putting the whole US coast guard on alert for three weeks: $50,000,000. Scaring US consumers into lower productivity and expenditure and decreasing US GDP 0.5%: $50,000,000,000. That's a 1:1,000,000 effect ratio.
So why is this the way it is? Why do we lose millions in being fearful for every dollar they spend in being scary? Quite simply, either America is not the "Home of the Brave", or the powers that be don't think that we are. Listening in on conversations on the ride home, I don't think we're that fearful. No one talked about bombs on the boat.
So maybe it's not the people who are fearful, but the leadership. And I don't think they fear terrorism. I think they fear not acting fearful, and then having some terrorism happen on their watch. The public would criticize the leadership for not having taken "appropriate precautions", as if the terrorism is, in fact, preventable. And the leadership would be pilloried and scape-goated and forced to resign. So maybe it's not fear of terrorism, but fear of non-re-election that's driving us to waste money and time and give the "terrorists" the satisfaction of seeing that they affect us.
I'm not sure whether to blame the elected or the electorate.
Inside the terminal was another jump-suited Coast guard, sternly watching us board the boat.
On board, a passenger explained that there had been another bomb attack on a London bus.
On the water, a cute Coast Guard speed boat with an ominous machine gun mounted on the bow deck peeled off and looped back from escorting a northbound Vallejo-destined ferry to bounce alongside our Southbound boat all the way to the dock in San Francisco.
I'm not sure how effective the Coast Guard presence was in preventing any terrorist activity. I don't think the dog was really scrutinizing our scents. I don't think the speedboat would have been any use other than to radio for help and pick up survivors, should the boat have been victimized. I think the highly visible presence's main objective was visibility. The goal isn't to prevent terrorism, it's to prevent panic, to re-assure the masses that all is "under control" and that they are "safe" to go about their daily lives.
I'm not sure what it costs economically to scramble the Coast Guard to such levels of activity. I am sure that it costs less to blow up a bus in London by a factor best rendered in scientific notation. That's why the terrorist war is an economic war. Blowing up a bus: $50,000. Putting the whole US coast guard on alert for three weeks: $50,000,000. Scaring US consumers into lower productivity and expenditure and decreasing US GDP 0.5%: $50,000,000,000. That's a 1:1,000,000 effect ratio.
So why is this the way it is? Why do we lose millions in being fearful for every dollar they spend in being scary? Quite simply, either America is not the "Home of the Brave", or the powers that be don't think that we are. Listening in on conversations on the ride home, I don't think we're that fearful. No one talked about bombs on the boat.
So maybe it's not the people who are fearful, but the leadership. And I don't think they fear terrorism. I think they fear not acting fearful, and then having some terrorism happen on their watch. The public would criticize the leadership for not having taken "appropriate precautions", as if the terrorism is, in fact, preventable. And the leadership would be pilloried and scape-goated and forced to resign. So maybe it's not fear of terrorism, but fear of non-re-election that's driving us to waste money and time and give the "terrorists" the satisfaction of seeing that they affect us.
I'm not sure whether to blame the elected or the electorate.
posted by Kenneth at 5:18 PM
<< Home