Haggis_McMutton wrote:not to disrupt the (pretend or not) economical discussion but I think some (probably pretend) psychology might be more interesting.
How do people evaluate the amount they are willing to spend to protect against something? Ideally it would be some simple expectation of damage calculation a'la (probability of getting into a car crash X probability the car crash isn't minor) directly correlates to amount willing to spend to avoid said car crash.
Clearly it doesn't work like that though. I'm guessing the real valuation has something to do with how often we hear about the events, presumably because our monkey brains think that how often we hear about something correlates with how often that thing actually happens, and it probably also has something to do with how horrific the possibility is perceived as being. Of course the incentive media has towards sensationalism completely fucks us in regards to that first factor, as they're encouraged to repeatedly broadcast the most unlikely of occurrences. And the 2nd one probably isn't too great either in that I'm not sure it's really more "horrific" to get killed in a school shooting than it is to get killed in a car accident.
What's my point? hell if I know, I just like to ramble.
Here's my question: would you pay $200 to $400* to potentially save you from a one in a billion (estimated) chance of your kid being shot in school? Could I also sell you lightning insurance? No? Shark insurance? You live in Montana? Hmm... zombie insurance?
* I don't care if the money is given directly to the private company who then gives a portion of it to the government in taxes or if the money is given to the government who gives it to the private company who then gives a portion of it to the government in taxes.
