Per-capita-income in Pakistan is somewhere between $600 and $2,000. (The former being what Pakistan's government says; the latter is the CIA's estimate. Score another one for intel?) The income in tribal areas--where Osama is thought to be lurking--is almost certainly less than the country-wide average. That's because Waziristan and the other areas are primarily rural. Plus, Pakistan's government, trying to bring the region to heel, imposed an "economic blockage" of the region for part of the past year.
So $10,000 would make you pretty comfortable for a time, $100,000 would make you damn rich, and... $25 million, well that's got to an unimaginable sum. There's been one way to get that last big Pay Day: Fingering Osama. Is doubling the bounty to $50 million, as the administration appears to be planning to do, going to actually increase people's incentive? Unimaginable + unimaginable still equals unimaginable.
P.S. I'm not opposed to increasing the bounty; I just doubt it will do any good. And god help us if it's a significant part of the U.S.'s strategy (hope) for getting the guy.
P.P.S. I imagine there are some economic theories that bear this out. Namely there's probably a point of dimishing returns for all economic incentives. Am I right, Brad?
UPDATE. Somebody is thinking creatively. From this week's U.S. News & World Report:
U.S. "officials concede that sheepherders in Afghanistan often don't understand the value of $25 million, and they are looking into offering other forms of compensation. For his part, bin Laden, citing authority from the Koran, promises his followers who die in attacks on westerners a stable of virgins. Counters one official, 'We can't come up with 70 virgins, but we can come up with goats'."
