Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (9197)	1/17/2006 8:26:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541977

A similar long term cost estimate that include indirect costs of the Kyoto treaty estimated the total cost at about 10,000 time higher, or $18 quadrillion dollars. When dealing with indirect costs, and when applying a dollar value to non-economic costs, and projecting the costs out over the long term precision can be very low. The answers can be off by orders of magnitude. A Pentagon study apparently concludes that better body armor would have prevented many deaths and injuries. It would be hard for the armor to be significantly better in terms of protection without also being bulkier and more difficult to move around in. Message 22061444 That being said having the newer and more advanced body armor available quicker and in larger number probably would have made sense, but its effect would be marginal in terms of reducing the number of death significantly or reducing the hundreds of billions (or trillions according to Bilmes and Stiglitz) of dollars the war cost. Tim