Terrorist attack; at least 36 dead, 40 hurt

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think it is just a perfect example of our time, the age of exaggeration, that the loss of some office space that happened to be in some cool looking buildings and loss of .0002 percent of our population (as individually tragic as those lost lives were) had such an effect on our economy.

Now imagine what we would turn a city lost to a stray nuke into.

I think it's a better example of you not understanding how interconnected things are in a modern global economy. The airlines didn't get hurt because they lost four planes, they got hurt because the grounding of all their flights for a few days had a crippling effect that only snowballed the longer it lasted. Not to mention the resulting fear of flying after that. People being stranded everywhere but where they needed to be didn't help much either. Then start thinking about insurance payouts to all parties on all levels (life, property, etc.). Think about all the companies across the globe that did business with firms located in the WTC that now just evaporated. Etc., etc.

Now try extrapolating that to an entire city.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I agree with you, Arrian. Going into Afghanistan was an irrational act and a waste of resources.

As you well know, that's not my position.

I was actually not aiming at Iraq either, DD.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Did the loss of two planes really matter in the big picture to the airlines when they have a fleet of thousands? No, our reaction did which though understandable, was irrational.

Geez man, it was FOUR planes. Have you forgotten even THAT?

As for the reaction being irrational was it? Cause in hindsight, once wed improved boarding procedures, added more air marshalls, banned box cutters and put steel doors on cockpits, it was impossible to repeat 9/11? But we'd already done precautions for the things that we thought were likely. Guys had hijacked planes with guns and bombs, so we had metal detectors to stop guns and bombs. Which worked pretty well most of the time. 9/11 was a case of being hit by what we didnt know we didnt know. In the immediate aftermath we couldnt know what we still didnt no. There was little choice but to shut down the national airspace, and to make major changes to airline equip and procedures. And meanwhile it was not necessarily irrational for ordinary folks to be reluctant to travel by air again.


I dont think theres any way we could have avoided significant disruptionk, even if we could have lessened it a bit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We have different levels of scale when we think that . The stock market is not a physical thing located in New York, the data that makes up the exchange is available in multiple places though since we are used to accessing it in a certain way there would be adjustment.

Your punishment in purgatory, Mr Patroklos, will be to move a major organization involving several thousand employees and complex computer and telecom resources from one office building to another. Your next punishment will be to do this in a couple of weeks, with no prior planning. Your next punishment will be to do this in a city that has a sudden shortage of office space.


You remind me of folks who insist that the human body is only worth the chemicals that make it up.

[Kidlicious]

When I think about what would happen to the global economy if a major city was attacked and millions of people died I first think of New Orleans and the effect of Katrina on the world economy. The effect of the hurricane was much smaller than I thought it might be.

Still I think if NYC was nuked or something comparable the economy would suffer much worse because people would be panic and they might very well be runs on the bank. It's the panic that will hurt the economy not the physical damage or the people who died.

[lord of the mark]

BTW, Id like to say Im saddened by what happened to the people of India. India is resilient, thank goodness, but what happens to them must not be forgotten over here.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
When you see that an apple tree in an orchard is a bad one, do you wait for the fungus to spread until it has spoiled enough to be accounted "non-trivial" in your opinion? Or you you promptly take out that infection, destroy it, and spray fungicide on the rest so as prevent further contamination?

What the hell does that mean?

[Patroklos]

I think it's a better example of you not understanding how interconnected things are in a modern global economy.

What a backwards statement, is precisely because of how interconnected the modern global economy that this shouldn't have and wouldn't have had any effect if not for irrational emotional reactions.

The airlines didn't get hurt because they lost four planes, they got hurt because the grounding of all their flights for a few days had a crippling affect that only snowballed the longer it lasted.

That is a ridiculous statement. And again, why were they grounded from more than a day? An irrational emotional reaction.

to mention the resulting fear of flying after that.

I hope you mentioned this, because it is the reason the airlines took the hit, irrational fear of flying and irrational fear to let people fly.

[quote]Then start thinking about insurance payouts to all parties on all levels (life, property, etc.). [quote]

Hardy a blip on the radar considering all the 100,000s of life insurance policies paid out every year.

The property insurance on downtown Manhattan sure did suck, but given the net value of that industry again, barely a blip on the radar.

Think about all the companies across the globe that did business with firms located in the WTC that now just evaporated. Etc., etc.

What percentage of NYC's office space was contained within the WTC? And before you try and quantify the "loss of all those businesses" (how many were wholly based in the WTC?) you may want to look up how much of the WTC was vacant.

Now try extrapolating that to an entire city.

We did, how much of any service/resource present in the Western world tied up NYC?

Geez man, it was FOUR planes. Have you forgotten even THAT?

I was specifically talking about the WTC, but your right when we magnified the scope I should have included the other two planes.

Effect on the overall outcome = none.

As for the reaction being irrational was it?

Yes. Understandable as well.

Cause in hindsight, once wed improved boarding procedures, added more air marshalls, banned box cutters and put steel doors on cockpits, it was impossible to repeat 9/11?

Did grounding flights for a week (or whatever it was) help in any of that. In fact, can you think of any positive effect that action had period after the first few hours?

And meanwhile it was not necessarily irrational for ordinary folks to be reluctant to travel by air again.

Yes it was, especially if they were still driving their cars around with a greater chance of injury/death.

Just as irrational as the people on TV talking about being scared of driving over bridges after Minnesota.

I dont think theres any way we could have avoided significant disruptionk, even if we could have lessened it a bit.

That is a blatantly false comment, especially now that we know not grounding a single flight would have had added nothing to the tragedy.

Your punishment in purgatory, Mr Patroklos, will be to move a major organization involving several thousand employees and complex computer and telecom resources from one office building to another.

Businesses do that all the time.

Your next punishment will be to do this in a couple of weeks, with no prior planning.

What does this have to do with anything?

Your next punishment will be to do this in a city that has a sudden shortage of office space.

Name me one major US city with a shortage of office space.

You remind me of folks who insist that the human body is only worth the chemicals that make it up.

That is a blatantly personnel comment and entirely unnecessary (and undeserved).

[Patroklos]

It's the panic that will hurt the economy not the physical damage or the people who died.

Exactly

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos

Did grounding flights for a week (or whatever it was) help in any of that. In fact, can you think of any positive effect that action had period after the first few hours?

At the time we did not know if there was a follow up plot, a hidden cell, etc and we had not yet implemented new procedures. Given what we knew at the time, it made sense.

Yes it was, especially if they were still driving their cars around with a greater chance of injury/death.

If you assume they make transportation mode choices to minimize fears of death, which obviously they dont. They weigh costs, time, convenience, and danger, among other factors. If a mode suddenly looks worse in one factor, it may be rational to switch modes, even if that mode is STILL superior to the other mode you switch to.

For example, if Amtrak is 50% cheaper than air, I may well go Amtrak even though its much slower. If its only 10% cheaper, I might switch to air. This kind of choice happens all the time, in transportation, and in most other industries as well.

That is a blatantly false comment, especially now that we know not grounding a single flight would have had added nothing to the tragedy.

IE with hindsight, that we couldnt possibly have had then.

I have not been in a motor vehicle accident in years. Ergo, all the time, energy, and discomfort of putting on seat belts that time has been wasted?

You cant do retrospective cost benefit on a precaution against an unlikely event that way.

Businesses do that all the time.

yes, and its costly and disruptive.

What does this have to do with anything?

To show why what NYSE and other lower Manhattan orgs had to do post 9/11 was even MORE costly and disruptive than ordinary business moves.

Name one major US city with a shortage of office space.

Manhattan, right after 9/11.

That is a blatantly personnel comment and entirely unnecessary (and undeserved). Retract it.

You are correct, one should criticize the post, not the poster. I was wrong.

What I SHOULD have said, was that the line of reasoning expressed by your posts on this thread, reminds of the line of reasoning that suggests that a human body is worth a few dollars, the worth of the simple chemicals that it can be reduced to.

[lord of the mark]

BTW since 9/11 every federal agency, and most corporations, have created continuity of operations plans.

These will probably decrease the impact of any future attack, but also represent a substantial cost themselves.

[Patroklos]

At the time we did not know if there was a follow up plot, a hidden cell, etc and we had not yet implemented new procedures. Given what we knew at the time, it made sense.

What other airplane bombing/hijacking has prompted the majority of a continent to ground all its planes for a week?

If you assume they make transportation mode choices to minimize fears of death, which obviously they don’t.

Is it your position that those who refused to fly after 9/11 were not making that choice out of a fear for safety/life? Seriously?

Explain why it is not irrational (even if understandable) for someone to forgo a method of travel because the already infinitesimal chance of death increased an irrelevant amount while at the same time using another mode of transport that is many times more dangerous.

IE with hindsight, that we couldnt possibly have had then.

Its not hindsight, it was obvious that to pull another hijacking off like that became immediately impossible. Grounding the planes was entirely unnecessary, especially once ever pilot, flight attendant and passenger was aware of a threat.

Did it hurt to be extra careful? No, but don't blame the economic impact on the actual attacks, it was our reaction that caused it, some may think the loss to the economy was worth it for the warm fuzzy. In fact most do, but don't pretend that wasn't caused by us.

I have not been in a motor vehicle accident in years. Ergo, all the time, energy, and discomfort of putting on seat belts that time has been wasted?

Does the act of putting your seat belt on have any negative effect/cost what so ever?

To show why what NYSE and other lower Manhattan orgs had to do post 9/11 was even MORE costly and disruptive than ordinary business moves.

Did I say it should have zero effect? In the end does the fact that the Schwab offices in NYC might have to relocate have any effect, or should it, on the operations of Church's Chicken in Charleston SC?

Manhattan, right after 9/11.

Manhattan, but what about NYC. Was there a shortage or just a shortage because people didn't want to move to a medium wealth high rise in the Bronx?

What I SHOULD have said, was that the line of reasoning expressed by your posts on this thread, reminds of the line of reasoning that suggests that a human body is worth a few dollars, the worth of the simple chemicals that it can be reduced to.

If I were really pursuing that line of thought I would have said something like losing a miniscule percentage of office space in NYC amounts to the damage of losing brain cells to a single bong hit.

[Kontiki]

Patty, I'm not going to go into a line by line response to your post. Suffice it to say, you seem to not quite grasp that interconnected does not equal interchangable. Perhaps its a military midset where you train for interchangability, I don't know. But the rest of the world doesn't work like that.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos

What other airplane bombing/hijacking has prompted the majority of a continent to ground all its planes for a week?

I know of no other hijacking that resulted in much more than the loss of a plane and its passengers, as opposed to 3000 people on the ground, and a major office complex.

Is it your position that those who refused to fly after 9/11 were not making that choice out of a fear for safety/life? Seriously?

Explain why it is not irrational (even if understandable) for someone to forgo a method of travel because the already infinitesimal chance of death increased an irrelevant amount while at the same time using another mode of transport that is many times more dangerous.

My position is that folks added a fear of death or injury to an existing set of factors used to weigh mode choices. Also the impact of the inconvenience of the check in procedure.

Its not hindsight, it was obvious that to pull another hijacking off like that became immediately impossible. Grounding the planes was entirely unnecessary, especially once ever pilot, flight attendant and passenger was aware of a threat.

Ah, the "everyone will pull off a United Flight 93" argument. Of course the hijackers on THAT flight didnt realize THAT would happen, one presumes that any future hijackers will count on it, and will prepare accordingly. Look, I dont recall thinking at the time that another hijacking was impossible, and I am unconvinced now that short of the full panoply of measures taken, it would have been impossible.

Does the act of putting your seat belt on have any negative effect/cost what so ever?

For sure. Time, inconvenience, and discomfort. Im sure we could come up with other examples though, if that one is too trivial. Cost of insurance? Discomfort of bicycle helmets (when Ive never fallen on my head). It applies in general to ex post cost benefit of costly strategy to reduce risk.

Did I say it should have zero effect? In the end does the fact that the Schwab offices in NYC might have to relocate have any effect, or should it, on the operations of Church's Chicken in Charleston SC?

Huh??? I dont know. Whats your point?

Manhattan, but what about NYC. Was there a shortage or just a shortage because people didn't want to move to a medium wealth high rise in the Bronx?

There is very little office space in NYC outside Manhattan. Theres more in all of greater NY, but IIRC the entire greater NY market was impacted, if not as severely as Manhattan. And if youre gonna relocate to Stamford, youre going to have significant disruptions to youre labor force that will also be costly.

If I were really pursuing that line of thought I would have said something like losing a miniscule percentage of office space in NYC amounts to the damage of losing brain cells to a single bong hit.

Im not personally familiar enough with bong hits to judge the quantities involved. My point was about reductionism.

[Patroklos]

Im not personally familiar enough with bong hits to judge the quantities involved. My point was about reductionism.

And my point is about exaggeration. Of all the problems the world has today, reductionism is not one of them. Grossly magnifying the impact of every occurance is rampant.