> Trying to apply that sort of economic analysis to a statistically nonexistent phenomenon like major terrorist attacks is utterly useless by comparison. It doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate our assessment of the costs is, because we have no idea how likely they are to occur in the first place, and no framework to assess what the cost of preventing them would be.
That's complete bunk! What's so special about terrorist attacks that make them so hard to model, as compared to other things governments routinely model like inflation, technology transfer from NASA programs, etc? An absolutely ludicrous assertion.
Okay, let's do it. I'll get us started: in 2013, inflation was around 1%. About 30% of Americans were obese. There were roughly zero major terrorist attacks.
Your turn: In 2014, what will the inflation rate be? How many people will be obese? How many major terrorist attacks will occur?
You're completely off the rails here. You've devolved back into discussing the probability of dying from a terrorist attack instead of a whole system analysis. Some questions to answer your questions. Do you think the government knows things about the economy they don't release to the public but use to inform their monetary policy? Do you think the same might be true for terrorist attacks and their security posture? Does the fact that you don't know something mean that it is inherently unknowable?
So your answer is that you have no idea what the chances of a major terrorist attack are, and no way of finding out, but you think the government does, because they have secrets.
Well, there's no way for me to argue with that. Good talk.
That's complete bunk! What's so special about terrorist attacks that make them so hard to model, as compared to other things governments routinely model like inflation, technology transfer from NASA programs, etc? An absolutely ludicrous assertion.