The TSA...

[thegreekdog]

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

[BigBallinStalin]

It's theatre pure and simple. Let's pretend that a terrorist can't get through- security theatre for the terrorists and the general public.

If the general public doesn't enjoy the security theater, why would the government still put on the security theater show?

Great question, TGD.

Here's some of the public choice approach:



Bureaucratic incentives.

If the DHS gave up control of the TSA because this would make airport security more effective, why would the DHS do so? This would negatively affect their budget and perceived importance in the political/bureaucratic circles.

Why would the TSA want to reduce its spending--even though doing so would allow security to be more effective, or just as effective?

Since the TSA gains revenue through involuntary exchange (taxes), then it has little need to be responsive to consumer preferences.



Media reaction.

People are generally uninformed, so a reduction in that broad category of homeland security could be misconstrued as "politician X wants the terrorists to kill us! He's trying to reduce (unnecessary) spending!"

But there's uncertainty in this route. Some media sources could spout that reducing such spending makes sense, and more importantly, the reductions would render TSA security less intrusive yet still just as effective. For the politician, this would be a good selling point, way to capture votes, best for the Common Good. Yeah, that's it!


Political incentives.

Uncertainty hinders the politicians' perceived profit opportunities (votes), so it could be the case that this reduction move would be too risky, thus not worth it since it would be perceived as not influential enough to gain enough votes (i.e. marginal benefits may slope downward very quickly).

If the demand for TSA officers could be decreased yet security/risks would remain the same, then it follows that some amount of TSA staff would be fired. Reducing jobs is usually not politically profitable--regardless of whether or not the money for 'creating' such jobs could have been spent or saved in the private sector. People would misconstrue this by screaming, "REAGONOMICS IS WRONG!" while supporting the broken window fallacy.


Voter incentives

(a) Most toters are uninformed and rationally ignorant. They lack the incentive to respond strongly enough because of concentrated benefits (for bureaucrats/interest groups) and dispersed costs (each voter pays a small and unknown fraction for these homeland defense programs, thus it's difficult to justify spending X amount of time and effort to become more informed, to vote accordingly, and convince others to follow suit).

(b) Since politicians run on promised package deals, then the benefit of voting on reducing homeland defense spending to a more reasonable amount is offset by the perceived costs and benefits of other political promises within one package.



The effectiveness of solving collective action problems is significantly hindered given the above problems within the current American political institutions. In my opinion, the proper incentives provided within social institutions (including 'culture') are lacking because most voters don't understand the rules of the game and why things work the way they do (they lack these incentives to discover this as well). They'll continue to lead themselves into this sub-optimal trajectory which is reinforced by the rules of the game (institutions) within the political/bureaucratic circles.

[Symmetry]

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Ah the convenient get out clause for the free marketeers. Carry on.

[MeDeFe]

It's theatre pure and simple. Let's pretend that a terrorist can't get through- security theatre for the terrorists and the general public.

If the general public doesn't enjoy the security theater, why would the government still put on the security theater show?

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Why do you ask if you already know the answer?

[Symmetry]

It's theatre pure and simple. Let's pretend that a terrorist can't get through- security theatre for the terrorists and the general public.

If the general public doesn't enjoy the security theater, why would the government still put on the security theater show?

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Why do you ask if you already know the answer?

Theatrics!

Or perhaps Greek tragedy?

[BigBallinStalin]

TSA and Poll Data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Ameri ... ative.aspx









In conclusion, "54%, think the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is doing either an excellent or a good job of handling security screening at airports."

So, security theatre puts on a pleasant show for 54% of Americans.



Framing effects come to mind (no compared to what questions). It would've been interesting to ask more specific questions, e.g. "is taking off your shoes effective for security?" "Are body scans effective?" etc.


Methods:

Spoiler

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 9-12, 2012, with a random sample of 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the total sample of 531 adults who have taken at least one air trip in the past year, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

For results based on the total sample of 245 adults who have taken three or more air trips in the past year, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points.

[Symmetry]

That the theatrics are popular doesn't mean that they are effective, which presumably is the key.

[thegreekdog]

It's theatre pure and simple. Let's pretend that a terrorist can't get through- security theatre for the terrorists and the general public.

If the general public doesn't enjoy the security theater, why would the government still put on the security theater show?

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Why do you ask if you already know the answer?

Two reasons:

(1) I'm a dick.
(2) I wanted to make sure Symmetry did not have a different answer.

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Ah the convenient get out clause for the free marketeers. Carry on.

The continuation of the unpopular TSA has nothing to do with free markets. In most instances, I would admit that it was a get out clause, but in this case it really bothers me that the government has no interest in removing the TSA, despite it's apparent unpopularity.

[Army of GOD]

I read today that a woman with a purse pistol (Ruger .380 I think?) got it past security and then turned herself in afterwards when she found out she had it.

[BigBallinStalin]

I read today that a woman with a purse pistol (Ruger .380 I think?) got it past security and then turned herself in afterwards when she found out she had it.

Suppose that this incident happened to Airport Security A+ Inc. which oversees that airport.

Do you think ASA+ Inc. would still be in business?

At the very least, do you think that the airport/airliners servicing that airport would continue hiring them?


With the TSA, there is no such incentive. With the TSA, they'll remain in business. Because they're impervious to profit-and-loss incentives. Instead, they'll get chewed out, blame will be dispersed, but they won't go out of business. No competitor is allowed to exist and take their position. This is the fundamental problem with bureaucracies--especially when they hold a monopoly over a certain service.

[Army of GOD]

I read today that a woman with a purse pistol (Ruger .380 I think?) got it past security and then turned herself in afterwards when she found out she had it.

Suppose that this incident happened to Airport Security A+ Inc. which oversees that airport.

Do you think ASA+ Inc. would still be in business?

At the very least, do you think that the airport/airliners servicing that airport would continue hiring them?


With the TSA, there is no such incentive. With the TSA, they'll remain in business. Because they're impervious to profit-and-loss incentives. Instead, they'll get chewed out, blame will be dispersed, but they won't go out of business. No competitor is allowed to exist and take their position. This is the fundamental problem with bureaucracies--especially when they hold a monopoly over a certain service.

I don't know why you're preaching to me. I agree with you on this.

[BigBallinStalin]

Because I'm a preacher! GIVE ME YOUR MONEY! I NEED ME A BLACK MERCEDES.

Spin those rims while I spin about Jesus.

[Symmetry]

It's theatre pure and simple. Let's pretend that a terrorist can't get through- security theatre for the terrorists and the general public.

If the general public doesn't enjoy the security theater, why would the government still put on the security theater show?

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Why do you ask if you already know the answer?

Two reasons:

(1) I'm a dick.
(2) I wanted to make sure Symmetry did not have a different answer.

Which kind of gets to one of the core points of my personal philosophy- if it's popular, but ineffective, are we dealing with theatrics or realism?

Neither. We're dealing with crony capitalism. BLAM!

Ah the convenient get out clause for the free marketeers. Carry on.

The continuation of the unpopular TSA has nothing to do with free markets. In most instances, I would admit that it was a get out clause, but in this case it really bothers me that the government has no interest in removing the TSA, despite it's apparent unpopularity.

Why remove the TSA? Surely the answer is to modify it so that it is actually effective. I can't see a good reason for simply removing it.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.'


You may not have to remove it, but its monopoly status contributes to its general inability in satisfying consumer demand, keeping prices low, and maintaining increasing quality. So, the TSA will have to be brought into a more competitive arena.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3907587

[Symmetry]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

Well, we're talking about airport security, not police, so that last part is not relevant--nor is municipal policing similar enough to TSA' airport security.

In that link above, I already provided reasons as to why the TSA won't do any better, so it doesn't make sense to keep advocating for reform given the fundamental constraints (bureaucratic/political incentives). In other words, put more horses in the race, or remove the old, fat one and let people bring in their own. In my opinion, both of these options will lead to the TSA horse being phased out.

The problem with not removing the TSA is that they can simply expand production through involuntary means (appeal to Congress + taxation). The TSA would become similar to a corporation that's receiving subsidies and/or getting looser or beneficial regulation in order to quash the competition. If you advocate for reform, you'll unintentionally support crony capitalism--in this sense.

Another analogy: TSA is cancer. In this case, the patient can't become healthier by simply leaving the cancer there or somehow making it less harmful.

[Symmetry]

I think you're employing more analogies than you can handle BBS. Certainly more than I can deal with. Horses and cancer?

The waters are very much muddled.

I would say that police would be more accurate. After all, the TSA is essentially providing a police service, however flawed.

[Woodruff]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

[Symmetry]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

I see more problems with privatised policing than solutions. Perhaps the biggest problem would be accountability. The TSA is, of course, a form of policing. Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think you're employing more analogies than you can handle BBS. Certainly more than I can deal with. Horses and cancer?

The waters are very much muddled.

I would say that police would be more accurate. After all, the TSA is essentially providing a police service, however flawed.

As I've pointed out and which you've failed to address, there are fundamental problems with your position on reforming the TSA and not removing them.

If you care to address the core issues, then be my guest.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

I see more problems with privatised policing than solutions. Perhaps the biggest problem would be accountability. The TSA is, of course, a form of policing. Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems.

How are those private security services and private detective agencies doing?

[Symmetry]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

I see more problems with privatised policing than solutions. Perhaps the biggest problem would be accountability. The TSA is, of course, a form of policing. Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems.

How are those private security services and private detective agencies doing?

You mean Haliburton and the like? They're profitable I guess. Depends on how much of a problem you have with their excesses.

I think I've posted about Dyncorp a few times previously. Their history of kidnapping children and selling them as sex slaves should be disturbing to even the most free market of free marketeers,

[Woodruff]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

I see more problems with privatised policing than solutions. Perhaps the biggest problem would be accountability. The TSA is, of course, a form of policing. Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems.

Different potential problems, to be sure, and potentially as serious. I'm just saying that your analogy is more accurate that way, in my opinion.

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, Sym's position is: 'the horse is fine, but we just need a different rider.

Perhaps, although pushing the analogy further, I don't see much reason for elimination of horses from the equation.

At it's basis, my criticism of the TSA is that it's not doing it's job well. That it should be eliminated is a different argument.

If I could be allowed a flawed comparison of my own- knowing that a police force has deep problems with inefficacy and corruption should be a spur to reform the force, not an argument for no police.

But perhaps an argument for a privatized police force. While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I don't think the conclusion you're coming to in your analogy is an accurate one.

I see more problems with privatised policing than solutions. Perhaps the biggest problem would be accountability. The TSA is, of course, a form of policing. Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems.

How are those private security services and private detective agencies doing?

You mean Haliburton and the like? They're profitable I guess. Depends on how much of a problem you have with their excesses.

I think I've posted about Dyncorp a few times previously. Their history of kidnapping children and selling them as sex slaves should be disturbing to even the most free market of free marketeers,

No, mall cops, neighborhood patrols, private detective agencies. You know, private security for policing services--not military ops.

Remember when you said, "Simply making it private would cause all manner of problems."

And that the topic is about TSA, airport security. And even though you wish to push it into municipal policing, I obliged by asking :

How are those private security services and private detective agencies doing?

[Symmetry]

Huh, I guess they're keeping shopping malls mostly safe. Glad to see that you're taking a few steps back on this now.