A major terrorist attack in the US (50%) most likely with a connection to Pakistan.
I would be very happy to accept a bet with you on those odds if there’s a way to sort it out. I’d define major as any attack with more than ten deaths.
I occasionally offer people bets, but I think this has been the first time for me that the subject of contention is the right shape for betting to be a real possibility.
Do you have a PayPal account? I’d be willing to wager $50 USD to be paid within 2 weeks of Jan 1st 2011 if you’re interested. I can provide my email address. That would rely on mutual trust but I don’t know of any websites that can act as trusted intermediaries. Do you know of anything like that?
How about this wording? “10 or more people will be killed on US soil during 2010 as the result of a deliberate attack by a party with a political goal, not overtly the act of any state”. And if we hit an edge case where we disagree on whether this has been met, we’ll do a poll here on LW and accept the results of the poll. Sound good?
I’d like to change the wording slightly to “on US soil, or on a flight to or from the US” if that’s alright with you (even though I think an attack on an aircraft is less likely than an attack not involving aircraft). A poll here sounds like a fair way to resolve any dispute. I expect to still be reading/posting here fairly regularly in a year but I’m also happy to provide my email address if you want.
The term “terrorism” is usually taken to mean an attack on civilians, though as a legal matter, this is far from settled. This definition would exclude the Fort Hood shooting, where the targets were soldiers. In any case, the bet is over non-state, politically motivated killing, which is broader and would include Fort Hood, I think.
FWIW: The targets at Fort Hood were soldiers, but predictably-disarmed soldiers. In the area Hasan attacked, the soldiers he shot at aren’t allowed to carry weapons or even have them within easy reach. So it’s more analogous to shooting up a bar frequented by soldiers that takes your weapons at the door.
Plus, his attack was intended to spread terror, not to achieve a military objective (any weakness he inflicted on the army capability itself was probably a secondary goal).
I was going to ask whether people would classify the recent attack on the IRS building in Texas as terrorism. It wouldn’t qualify for the bet either way because there was only 1 casualty but I’m curious if people think it would count as terrorism?
Bob Murphy’s post, excerpting Glen Greenwald, summarizes my position very well. In short:
1) What Stack did meets the reasonable definition of terrorism: “deliberate use of violence against noncombatants to achieve political or social goals by inducing terror [in the opposing population]”.
2) Most of what the government is classifying as terrorism, isn’t. Fighting an invading army, no matter how unjust your cause may be, is not terrorism. Whetever injustice you may be committing does not additionally count as terrorism. Yet the label is being applied to insurgents.
3) It’s in the government’s interest, in taking over the terrorism label, that Stack not be called a terrorist, because he seems too (otherwise) normal. People want to think of terrorists as being “different”; a middle-aged, high-earning programmer ain’t the image they have in mind, and if they did have that in mind, they’d be more resistant to make concessions in the name of fighting terrorism.
Excellent question! If such an attack happens this year, I’d say it wasn’t a terrorist attack, but if mattnewport felt that it was I’d pay out without making a poll.
I’d lean towards saying it was a terrorist attack but I’m sufficiently uncertain about how to classify it that I’d be happy to let a community poll settle the question.
Re: “10 or more people will be killed on US soil during 2010 as the result of a deliberate attack by a party with a political goal, not overtly the act of any state”.
How come “Pakistan” got dropped? A contributing reason for the claim being unlikely was that it was extremely specific.
From the wording, it seemed that the 50% was for any attack, not just one with Pakistan involved. I think I’m on to a pretty good bet even without it. It’s not as unlikely as a US state seceding, but I didn’t want to wait ten years :-)
The US State seceding is something that many of my friends sit around contemplating. We have had speculations about whether it will be a state like Mississippi, or South Carolina (Red), or if it will be a state like California or Oregon (Blue).
The Red States are pretty easy to understand why they might wish to secede from the heathen atheistic socialist nazi USA… But, the motivations for a Blue State are a bit more complex.
For instance, in California, I have noticed a lot of people complaining about how much money this state pays into Social Security, yet only gets back about 10% of that money. If we were able to get back all of it, instead of supporting states like South Carolina or Mississippi, we would be able to go a long way toward solving many of our own social ills. Not to mention that many in CA chafe under having to belong to the same union as states such as those I have mentioned, and thus have issues with being able to even pursue social solutions that might pay off big (Stem Cell research, Legalization & regulation of narcotics, work and skills training for inmates—and socialization skills for the same, infrastructure work to which the USA is slow to commit, and so on).
All of these are also issues that Red States like to brag about being able to focus on if they were to secede. The only problem with most Red States is, just like in the Civil War, they have little to no economy of their own. Texas (Maybe Florida) is really the exception. Also, should a Red State secede, most of the best and brightest would flee the state (Academics usually don’t like working under ideological bonds, for instance).
It will be interesting to see what would happen should a state try to secede. I think it could be the best thing that could happen to our country if things continue to become divisive.
As I understand it, our economy is in such dire straights because most of the money in CA’s taxes leaves the state instead of staying in it.
I could be wrong about that. I am mostly dealing with facts I have obtained from Gov’t web sites, so the data could be skewed.
Your statement only deals with the management and not the fiscal reality of the cash flow in CA. It is true that we have a financial shortfall, but that could be the case with anyone, even if they made billions of dollars a year if all of that money was being taken by another party. No management in the world would be able to help in that situation.
Texas is another big tax donor state, yet they turn budget surpluses mostly. The difference is California doesn’t bother to balance their out of control spending with their revenues.
Texas, though, doesn’t contribute more to the US Budget than they get out, and… I hate to say this… Both GW Bush, and his predecessor in the Governors office did pretty good jobs managing the State.
During the Office of Rick Perry, they had some tremendous problems (I am from Texas, and technically, it is still a state of residence for some of my bills). Texas and California are however, the only two states (NY Possibly an exception, but only barely) that could really stand as an independent country in this day and age (They both did so in the past under very different conditions).
Upon thinking about it a bit. CA does have a more out of control spending problem. I still think that the problem could be remedied by a more equitable share of their Federal Tax money (not just Social Security) being returned to the state. Regardless of whether that happened, fiscal responsibility is needed. It doesn’t do any good to increase an income if the expenses rise disproportionately.
California’s uniquely awful budget crisis is mainly due to the state’s consitutional amendment that requires a supermajority to raise state taxes (and the fact that it’s never in the Republican minority’s political interest to agree to a tax hike), along with the lawmakers’ shortsighted tendency to cut taxes when the economy was in great shape.
I knew that I wasn’t imagining that bit about the Fed Taxing v spending.
I was also aware of the supermajority thing. Although, I wonder exactly how much of a Republican Schwarzenegger really is (I hope I spelled his name right. I can’t be bothered to find out). He has many beliefs about the rule of law and government that I find to be very at odds with the Republicans, and all I can really find that binds them together is his extreme misogynism and love of guns (alright, I could look further and find more, I am sure, but my point is that he is really a populist candidate/politician who just happened to land in the Republican’s back yard).
CA’s budget crises can also be traced to several Texas Energy companies (Does Enron mean anything to anyone) who gouged the state in all kind of manipulative practices during the late 90s/early 00s.
Also, never mind that California is responsible for around 12% − 14% of the USA’s total economy, or that we have a GDP, all on our own of around 2 trillion dollars (the largest in the USA, and I believe that we are right behind England or France in total GDP)… Yeah, never mind all that (to the naysayers of California).
I’m not sure that the acts of a single person with no associations with anyone else are really the sort of thing I had in mind, but it’s too late to refine the bet now, so we’ll see whether people think such a thing counts if we need to.
“10 or more people [...] as the result of a deliberate attack” seems to suggest that 10 assassinations in 2010 would probably not qualify—unless it was proved that they were all linked. My summary of the link is that there have been few terrorist attacks against Americans on American soil recently.
That was 99% confidence that the response will be disproportionate to the magnitude of the attack, if an attack takes place, not 99% confidence that there will be an attack. My odds of an attack were 50%. I think an attack is fairly unlikely to be on an aircraft—security is relatively tight on aircraft compared to other possible targets.
I’ll agree that if anything happens, or even if something doesn’t (is thwarted), the response will be silly and disproportionate. However, I still think you’re way too high with 50%.
A declaration of war, curtailment of liberties, or other expenditure of resources more than ten times the loss of resources (including life, which is not priceless) it tries prevent.
I am more confident of winning as you’d expect. But I’m finding it counterintuitive to adjust my subjective probability for losing the bet in proportion to the portion of the year that’s lapsed, which means either my initial probability was too low or my current one is too high.
Incidentally, if you have a specific probability for an event occurring in 1 out of 365 days, say, or not occurring at all, you could try to calculate exactly what probability to give it occurring in the rest of the year (considering that it’s August): http://www.xamuel.com/hope-function/ / http://www.gwern.net/docs/1994-falk
(Actually calculating the new probability is left as an exercise for the reader.)
A major terrorist attack in the US (50%) most likely with a connection to Pakistan.
I would be very happy to accept a bet with you on those odds if there’s a way to sort it out. I’d define major as any attack with more than ten deaths.
I voted all the betting comments up because I think this is awesome. Does this kind of thing happen often here?
I occasionally offer people bets, but I think this has been the first time for me that the subject of contention is the right shape for betting to be a real possibility.
Do you have a PayPal account? I’d be willing to wager $50 USD to be paid within 2 weeks of Jan 1st 2011 if you’re interested. I can provide my email address. That would rely on mutual trust but I don’t know of any websites that can act as trusted intermediaries. Do you know of anything like that?
For $50, trust-based is OK with me.
How about this wording? “10 or more people will be killed on US soil during 2010 as the result of a deliberate attack by a party with a political goal, not overtly the act of any state”. And if we hit an edge case where we disagree on whether this has been met, we’ll do a poll here on LW and accept the results of the poll. Sound good?
I’d like to change the wording slightly to “on US soil, or on a flight to or from the US” if that’s alright with you (even though I think an attack on an aircraft is less likely than an attack not involving aircraft). A poll here sounds like a fair way to resolve any dispute. I expect to still be reading/posting here fairly regularly in a year but I’m also happy to provide my email address if you want.
Do you think this was a terrorist attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
The term “terrorism” is usually taken to mean an attack on civilians, though as a legal matter, this is far from settled. This definition would exclude the Fort Hood shooting, where the targets were soldiers. In any case, the bet is over non-state, politically motivated killing, which is broader and would include Fort Hood, I think.
FWIW: The targets at Fort Hood were soldiers, but predictably-disarmed soldiers. In the area Hasan attacked, the soldiers he shot at aren’t allowed to carry weapons or even have them within easy reach. So it’s more analogous to shooting up a bar frequented by soldiers that takes your weapons at the door.
Plus, his attack was intended to spread terror, not to achieve a military objective (any weakness he inflicted on the army capability itself was probably a secondary goal).
I was going to ask whether people would classify the recent attack on the IRS building in Texas as terrorism. It wouldn’t qualify for the bet either way because there was only 1 casualty but I’m curious if people think it would count as terrorism?
Bob Murphy’s post, excerpting Glen Greenwald, summarizes my position very well. In short:
1) What Stack did meets the reasonable definition of terrorism: “deliberate use of violence against noncombatants to achieve political or social goals by inducing terror [in the opposing population]”.
2) Most of what the government is classifying as terrorism, isn’t. Fighting an invading army, no matter how unjust your cause may be, is not terrorism. Whetever injustice you may be committing does not additionally count as terrorism. Yet the label is being applied to insurgents.
3) It’s in the government’s interest, in taking over the terrorism label, that Stack not be called a terrorist, because he seems too (otherwise) normal. People want to think of terrorists as being “different”; a middle-aged, high-earning programmer ain’t the image they have in mind, and if they did have that in mind, they’d be more resistant to make concessions in the name of fighting terrorism.
Excellent question! If such an attack happens this year, I’d say it wasn’t a terrorist attack, but if mattnewport felt that it was I’d pay out without making a poll.
I’d lean towards saying it was a terrorist attack but I’m sufficiently uncertain about how to classify it that I’d be happy to let a community poll settle the question.
Could you email me so I have your address too? paul at ciphergoth.org. Thanks!
Had limited Internet access over the New Year, I’ve sent you an email.
I think I won this one—have emailed the address you sent me. Thanks!
EDIT: paid in full—many thanks!
Fine with me. My email is paul at ciphergoth.org. How exciting!
Re: “10 or more people will be killed on US soil during 2010 as the result of a deliberate attack by a party with a political goal, not overtly the act of any state”.
How come “Pakistan” got dropped? A contributing reason for the claim being unlikely was that it was extremely specific.
From the wording, it seemed that the 50% was for any attack, not just one with Pakistan involved. I think I’m on to a pretty good bet even without it. It’s not as unlikely as a US state seceding, but I didn’t want to wait ten years :-)
The US State seceding is something that many of my friends sit around contemplating. We have had speculations about whether it will be a state like Mississippi, or South Carolina (Red), or if it will be a state like California or Oregon (Blue).
The Red States are pretty easy to understand why they might wish to secede from the heathen atheistic socialist nazi USA… But, the motivations for a Blue State are a bit more complex.
For instance, in California, I have noticed a lot of people complaining about how much money this state pays into Social Security, yet only gets back about 10% of that money. If we were able to get back all of it, instead of supporting states like South Carolina or Mississippi, we would be able to go a long way toward solving many of our own social ills. Not to mention that many in CA chafe under having to belong to the same union as states such as those I have mentioned, and thus have issues with being able to even pursue social solutions that might pay off big (Stem Cell research, Legalization & regulation of narcotics, work and skills training for inmates—and socialization skills for the same, infrastructure work to which the USA is slow to commit, and so on).
All of these are also issues that Red States like to brag about being able to focus on if they were to secede. The only problem with most Red States is, just like in the Civil War, they have little to no economy of their own. Texas (Maybe Florida) is really the exception. Also, should a Red State secede, most of the best and brightest would flee the state (Academics usually don’t like working under ideological bonds, for instance).
It will be interesting to see what would happen should a state try to secede. I think it could be the best thing that could happen to our country if things continue to become divisive.
That’s why California’s economy is 20 billion plus in the red. And has been for years. Fine fiscal management.
That’s why your governor has gone begging Washington for a bailout. Off of our backs, not yours.
You folks should secede. You’d save the rest of us from yourselves.
-- Born an bred in California, escaped the insanity as soon as I could.
As I understand it, our economy is in such dire straights because most of the money in CA’s taxes leaves the state instead of staying in it.
I could be wrong about that. I am mostly dealing with facts I have obtained from Gov’t web sites, so the data could be skewed.
Your statement only deals with the management and not the fiscal reality of the cash flow in CA. It is true that we have a financial shortfall, but that could be the case with anyone, even if they made billions of dollars a year if all of that money was being taken by another party. No management in the world would be able to help in that situation.
Texas is another big tax donor state, yet they turn budget surpluses mostly. The difference is California doesn’t bother to balance their out of control spending with their revenues.
Texas, though, doesn’t contribute more to the US Budget than they get out, and… I hate to say this… Both GW Bush, and his predecessor in the Governors office did pretty good jobs managing the State.
During the Office of Rick Perry, they had some tremendous problems (I am from Texas, and technically, it is still a state of residence for some of my bills). Texas and California are however, the only two states (NY Possibly an exception, but only barely) that could really stand as an independent country in this day and age (They both did so in the past under very different conditions).
Upon thinking about it a bit. CA does have a more out of control spending problem. I still think that the problem could be remedied by a more equitable share of their Federal Tax money (not just Social Security) being returned to the state. Regardless of whether that happened, fiscal responsibility is needed. It doesn’t do any good to increase an income if the expenses rise disproportionately.
Actually, Texas does contribute more than they get back. Texas gets 94% of federal tax contributions back. California gets 79% back.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
Based on that map we can also see that more agriculturally focused states do well from federal tax dollars. I assume this is mostly farm subsidies.
You are correct about federal taxing vs. spending with respect to states.
California’s uniquely awful budget crisis is mainly due to the state’s consitutional amendment that requires a supermajority to raise state taxes (and the fact that it’s never in the Republican minority’s political interest to agree to a tax hike), along with the lawmakers’ shortsighted tendency to cut taxes when the economy was in great shape.
(N.B: it’s spelled “dire straits”.)
I knew that I wasn’t imagining that bit about the Fed Taxing v spending.
I was also aware of the supermajority thing. Although, I wonder exactly how much of a Republican Schwarzenegger really is (I hope I spelled his name right. I can’t be bothered to find out). He has many beliefs about the rule of law and government that I find to be very at odds with the Republicans, and all I can really find that binds them together is his extreme misogynism and love of guns (alright, I could look further and find more, I am sure, but my point is that he is really a populist candidate/politician who just happened to land in the Republican’s back yard).
CA’s budget crises can also be traced to several Texas Energy companies (Does Enron mean anything to anyone) who gouged the state in all kind of manipulative practices during the late 90s/early 00s.
Also, never mind that California is responsible for around 12% − 14% of the USA’s total economy, or that we have a GDP, all on our own of around 2 trillion dollars (the largest in the USA, and I believe that we are right behind England or France in total GDP)… Yeah, never mind all that (to the naysayers of California).
Oh, I see—sorry!
I looked into who was going to win such a bet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_and_acts_of_terrorism_against_Americans
...looks like a reasonable resource on the topic.
I’m not sure that the acts of a single person with no associations with anyone else are really the sort of thing I had in mind, but it’s too late to refine the bet now, so we’ll see whether people think such a thing counts if we need to.
“10 or more people [...] as the result of a deliberate attack” seems to suggest that 10 assassinations in 2010 would probably not qualify—unless it was proved that they were all linked. My summary of the link is that there have been few terrorist attacks against Americans on American soil recently.
Agreed.
What makes your think 2010 is the year? I mean, this has even been floating around lately. And at 99%^h^h^h50% confidence!
That was 99% confidence that the response will be disproportionate to the magnitude of the attack, if an attack takes place, not 99% confidence that there will be an attack. My odds of an attack were 50%. I think an attack is fairly unlikely to be on an aircraft—security is relatively tight on aircraft compared to other possible targets.
I’ll agree that if anything happens, or even if something doesn’t (is thwarted), the response will be silly and disproportionate. However, I still think you’re way too high with 50%.
You must specify disproportionately high, or disproportionately low.
I thought disproportionately high went without saying (but then I would with a confidence level that high wouldn’t I?)
A declaration of war, curtailment of liberties, or other expenditure of resources more than ten times the loss of resources (including life, which is not priceless) it tries prevent.
Is there a standard method for assigning a numerical value to liberties?
The money those people would pay to avoid the loss of liberty, had they the option.
That’s a valid measure, but it would require a fairly complicated study to actually get a value for it.
And it’s complicated by loss aversion.
I’ve added this prediction to PredictionBook: http://predictionbook.com/predictions/1565 based on the description at http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bets_registry
So now that 2010 is more than half over with no attack that I know of, have you or mattnewport’s opinions changed?
(I notice that domestic terrorism seems kind of spiky—quite a few in one year, and none the next: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamist_terrorism_in_the_United_States omits entire years but has several in one year, like 2007 or 2009.)
I am more confident of winning as you’d expect. But I’m finding it counterintuitive to adjust my subjective probability for losing the bet in proportion to the portion of the year that’s lapsed, which means either my initial probability was too low or my current one is too high.
Incidentally, if you have a specific probability for an event occurring in 1 out of 365 days, say, or not occurring at all, you could try to calculate exactly what probability to give it occurring in the rest of the year (considering that it’s August): http://www.xamuel.com/hope-function/ / http://www.gwern.net/docs/1994-falk
(Actually calculating the new probability is left as an exercise for the reader.)