John Campos writes:
"So, Bridgett, what in the world world does this have to do with economics?" you may ask. Well, I think terrorism is a huge issue in our society that this blog hasn't touched on too much yet, so I'd like to bring it up.I'm not much of a basketball player. Middle-age, with a shaky set shot and a bad knee, I can't hold my own in a YMCA pickup game, let alone against more organized competition. But I could definitely beat LeBron James in a game of one-on-one. The game just needs to feature two special rules: It lasts until I score, and when I score, I win.
We might have to play for a few days, and Mr. James's point total could well be creeping toward five figures before the contest ended, but eventually the gritty gutty competitor with a lunch-bucket work ethic (me) would subject the world's greatest basketball player to a humiliating defeat.
The world's greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:
(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and (2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.
The war on terror brings plenty of economical implications, including questions like how much should be spent on anti-terrorism defense, what is the impact that terrorist acts are having on the way America's major airlines do business, and what is the role that terrorist actions have played the costly, ongoing war in Iraq.
Do you think the U.S. is wasting it's money on a game of Terrorball that's impossible to win? Or are we simply doing what's financially necessary to defeat the competition?
I think the country is wasting their money on a game of terrorball because it really is impossible for us to win because there will always be another person coming up with an idea to do what others did before.
ReplyDeleteDefense spending is commonly criticized on the Left, and rightfully so. While most would not go so far as to say that the United States should not be allocating this money in such a way, many, including myself, would argue for significant cuts. In 2006, the United States spent $667 billion on defense spending, astronomically more than the second biggest spender, the United Kingdom, at $57 billion. To put it in terms of economics, this represents an abhorrently large opportunity cost; these funds could be far better spent elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the article, I would certainly agree that we are only doing our country massive damage in expending huge amounts of money against a guerrilla enemy that can achieve success with minuscule fractions of that amount (as well seen with the terrorist group that accessed information from one of our UAVs using some shareware program that cost $26 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html)). While they are not geared toward the same ability of massive and widespread destruction as we are, those we have made our opponents are able to score small victories, less expensively. Seeing as our efforts are not leading to much resembling "victory," we really should take a step back and spend our money better elsewhere.
I think that Terrorball is a very good analogy for what the US is doing. It's not that we shouldn't try to win this fight, but we are trying to win it not by practicing our basketball skills/creating a world in which terrorism has no place but instead by plowing ahead and playing a game we can't win. We would do more to combat terrorism if we did more to prevent countries from becoming failed states which makes them harbors for terrorism. A
ReplyDeleteI never really understood the reason for killing or harming people. I suppose that is why we went to war doing the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI learned this in my Environmental Science class I took last quarter. If we take all of the money that we invest in the war for just one year and invest it in environmental causes, we can start reversing pollution in that same year.
E, T
However your feelings on the two wars going on now, the United States has always had such a policy of terrorball. It is the reason we have the CIA and FBI. Terrorists can beat the US at cost benefit by shooting down helicopters costing millions of dollars, however the limited scope of focusing on just those terror aspects limit what our information branches of government actually cover ranging from the balkans to the far east, which prove to be indespensible when promoting stability with our trading partners.
ReplyDelete