M. Adam Davis wrote:

>> Journal, which is hardly a shill for left-wing politicians, estimates
>> the damages at $200 billion.  Even the most ideology-driven bean-counter
>> should be able to look at $131 millon on the one hand, and $200 billion
>> on the other hand, and make a sensible choice.  
> 
> Even the most ideology-driven bean-counter DID look at $131 millon on
> the one hand, and A STATISTICAL LIKELYHOOD of $200 billion on the
> other hand, and make a sensible (or so it seemed at the time) choice.

A problem arises when you look at something like this with a "quarterly
mind". Even a relatively low likelihood of, say, 1%/year adds up to
something in the neighborhood of 50%/50 years. The whole thing only starts
to make sense when you look at it with a perspective of 50 or 100 years.
And that's something that most administrations are simply not capable of --
given election cycles of 4 or 6 years or so. And neither are private
enterprises.

There is probably no government in this world (or has ever been) that can
be accused of making decisions based on relevant facts. (I mean relevant to
the question at hand, not to the next election...) 

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist