Do people and governments spend money in correct proportion to the degree of risk involved?

Question

Like, what are the chances of dying from passive smoking? of getting HIV? of dying in a terrorist attack? of dying in a car accident? etc. Is the money spent on combating these proportionate? Or do some issues get inflated by media hype, the popular imagination, and so on?

Answer 1

The short answer: No.

A long answer: No, because:

1) Politicians are not the perfect representatives they are supposed to be in theory. Theoretically they are supposed to know more about the issues than their constituents, so they can vote in the interests of everyone. In reality, they rarely have the time and/or ability to know all complexities of every issue. Thus, they have to go on gut instinct or religion or the polls from their constituents and lobbyists (which they sometimes do even if they have information against it because they know it will help them get re-elected.) See the movie "Thank You for Smoking" for some entertaining examples of these problems (website below).

2) It's pretty much impossible to take every risk into account when writing legislation. The world is just too complicated and there are too many ways to die. Take the "Death Test" also listed below to get an idea of some things insurance providers take into account when determining how much you should have to pay (and an estimate of when you will die based on things like whether you smoke or wear protective safety gear). Mind you, this is just to give you an idea. There are a certain number of people who die in very strange ways like the arsonist who boiled himself to death (see the book "strange deaths" at the 2nd website below). Thus, even the best-intentioned government officials can't take everything into account.

3) Yes, there is media hype. Combined with that, events like September 11 and Hurricane Katrina prompt the government and normal people to pour money into certain fields like counter-terrorism research and disaster relief. After September 11, for example, the Red Cross had to turn people away who were trying to give blood (because they had too many at the time. Now, of course, more blood donors are needed than volunteer).

There are many other reasons, but I think that's a good general overview to get you started. Hope it helps!

Answer 2

It seems to me that the government is lead by media, rather than need or rational thought. If you take the drink driving campaign they must have spent millions on it, when all it needed was a total drinking/driving ban Now it banning smoking in public places, when if smoking is so bad for you ban it full stop, and spend the money on help for those who are smokers to give up. We don't live in a free country any more, so why don't they make it clear "we live under a dictatorship, so if you don't fall into line you will be punished"

Answer 3

No money is not spent correctly. Money is spent based on a mix of media hype and lobbyists. Lobbyists are good at getting attention and they contact the media.

Answer 4

Each individual (or government) is continually exerting him(them)selves to dispose their capital in such a way as to maximise its utility to themselves and in so doing secure the maxim benefit for the society to which they belong or serve.
I think this is the basis of what you term your 'economy' and the capacity of its citizens and governments to make rational judgements based on perfect knowledge and availability of information. I cannot say to what extent our society conforms to these ideals.

Answer 5

Certainly not for the so called war on terror they hype it to create fear there four create a defence budget.

Answer 6

i think they roll dice and make lists IE if we roll double 6 money to nhs if both die add up to 7 then it goes to a art expedition