Thread: Worst Car Accidents

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

No I'm not celebrating it either, but both areas of life (crime and crashes) do create a lot of employment and the corresponding economic activity.

Can you imagine having hundreds of unemployed barristers, prison officers, insurance people etc sponging off the public purse. So in a perverse way criminals and dangerous drivers serve as a benefit to society!

I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

John

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Agree with everything you say anout suffering. However if we didn't have cars, there would be less people injured on the roads and therefore we wouldn't nees so many emergency services, economics has everything to do with it.

Most importantly with no car crashes and the economy behind them we wouldn't get reality TV shows like "Most amazing car crashes", "Cops", "Highway Patrol", "Motorway Patrol", "Road Warriors" and we wouldn't be watching it on YouTube!

Half of the Baby Boomers wouldn't have been conceived.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Half of the Baby Boomers wouldn't have been conceived.

I always thought it was due to "Drive In Theatres"

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

John

I would tend to agree - according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the global economic cost of motor vehicles alone was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003. To put things inperspective, that's nearly 2 pounds of rice for every man, woman and child in Africa. Now factor in every other preventable crime and think of the economic cost.

I'd like to imagine that those employed in the prevention of crime and mopping up after car crashes, etc, would find just as fulfilling work in other areas. And lets take police, hospital staff, etc. They are notoriously overworked and understaffed. Imagine the benefits to us as a whole if they could actually focus on the ill, rather than just the had-a-few-too-many-to-drink-and-had-an-accident??

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I am afraid I have to disagree - crime and crashes consume economic activity rather than creating it - each of those people employed in these areas could be much better employed in some useful activity - and youo also have to offset against this economic activity the reduction is spending by those who lose - spending on a new car that would otherwise be spent elsewhere, loss of work due to injury etc etc. You can only make this sort of thing into a positive by looking at things in a one-eyed view - same as the theory that war is positive for the economy!

John

Hi John

This could turn into one of those soapbox debates. Crime and crashes do cost (are a net loss to) the economy in financial terms. However the employment of large numbers of people in all the various associated areas create economic activity in their own right, much of it internally generated.

It is all very well to suggest that the society would be better off investing that economic activity in other areas of social benefit, but would that activity actually occur, would Government or industry actually fund it, would the citizens want to have their tax money spent on activities for community benefit if it wasn't an identified need?

The fact that crime and crashes occur, creates needs that must be met and those needs are met by employing people. People who would not be employed without those needs.

Just food for thought.

Diana

Originally Posted by mike_ie

I would tend to agree - according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the global economic cost of motor vehicles alone was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003. To put things inperspective, that's nearly 2 pounds of rice for every man, woman and child in Africa. Now factor in every other preventable crime and think of the economic cost.

I'd like to imagine that those employed in the prevention of crime and mopping up after car crashes, etc, would find just as fulfilling work in other areas. And lets take police, hospital staff, etc. They are notoriously overworked and understaffed. Imagine the benefits to us as a whole if they could actually focus on the ill, rather than just the had-a-few-too-many-to-drink-and-had-an-accident??

I disagree, there are thousands of accidents in Africa every year which not generate money in the economy, the cost of them denied money for food for the population.
Alos no one have take into consideration the financial cost alone of trauma and hours lost of work.
HERE is a good document about these issue.

As I said before, I lost my mother due to a vehicle accident (she was run over by a driver drunk crossing the traffic lights) and I believe that is morally wrong look into benefits in the economy as a result of tragedies.
There are no gains.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

I disagree, there are thousands of accidents in Africa every year which not generate money in the economy, the cost of them denied money for food for the population.

I think you misunderstand my post. I was arguing that the global economic costs of car accidents is around $518 billion per year. Had those accidents NOT occurred, that money could instead feed every man, woman and child in Africa.

I've attended my fair share of accident sites over the years - I'd be more than happy to find something else to do with my time if these accidents were never to occur.

Originally Posted by mike_ie

I think you misunderstand my post. I was arguing that the global economic costs of car accidents is around $518 billion per year. Had those accidents NOT occurred, that money could instead feed every man, woman and child in Africa.

I've attended my fair share of accident sites over the years - I'd be more than happy to find something else to do with my time if these accidents were never to occur.

The issue is: would that money be spent on buying a kilogram of rice for every man, woman or child in Africa? I suspect the insurance/finance companies would divest the savings in dividends to shareholders and the people of Africa would continue to starve.

And all the people who attend to the needs of the victims at the roadside, will continue to their good works whether paid or unpaid.