First Thing, We Kill All The Virus Writers…

Overhype

from the who-else-can-we-kill? dept

Over at Slate, Steven Landsburg has come up with something of a “modest proposal” that doesn’t actually seem all that tongue in cheek where he tries to make an economic argument that we should just kill all virus writers – arguing that this makes more economic sense than killing murderers. He even admits that his numbers are rough estimates, and unfortunately, it looks like he’s using some of the hyped up virus damage estimates that have no basis in reality. There are ton of other incorrect assumptions in the piece (including how evenly distributed both the costs and the benefits of getting rid of viruses would be) that make it kind of silly all around. However, Ernest Miller makes the best point when he wonders why Landsburg doesn’t advocate killing some of those scamming company executives that have become so popular these days, who, you could argue did a lot more damage. And, that, in general is the problem with this argument. You could find plenty of actions that appear to have “cost” the industry billions of dollars and then suggest we execute those responsible – but it’s a narrow view of what factors are actually impacting the “economy” involved. For example, Landsburg leaves out the fact that if we got rid of all the virus writers, it would kill the anti-virus/security industry, which seems to contribute plenty of money to the economy as well. Where Landsburg is right is the importance of trying to quantify the costs and benefits to various actions. However, where he sets a dreadful example is in focusing so narrowly that he doesn’t admit that there are other consequences to his proposal that play into those costs and benefits.