It's a pretty graph, but oh do I ever wish it was just a bar chart or something. Comparing areas accurately is difficult.
For instance, comparing the Chinese gov't stimulus package versus the New Deal. The two squares look just about equivalent despite one being a full 14% larger. Other methods of comparison could make that pretty clear.
14% larger is just about equivalent. It's certainly within the error bars on the inflation numbers. (Consider the price of a megabyte of memory in 1940 versus today, or free-range beef, or ivory, or Viagra, or insulin.)
A bar chart would make it hard to compare things more than an order of magnitude apart, and a logarithmic scale would make it impossible to show relations "A as a part of B".
Maybe in this case, but since he's not showing the error bars nobody really knows. The question of whether 14% difference is significant isn't even something you are able to cogently discuss within the bounds of this infographic.
Multiple comparisons across bar charts could cover the same points of the current chart (you're not really comparing things of greater than an order of magnitude apart with any sort of accuracy), but I'm also not terribly defensive of the bars. There's just nothing all that great about area comparisons of squares, especially when the layout is somewhat arbitrary.
We know he's trying to correct for inflation, and we know the error bars on inflation numbers over such a long period of time are pretty enormous. How much Xanax would you pay for a house with an uninterrupted view of old-growth redwood forest?
Upwards - It would probably take more than $1 per person!
I'm assuming the number was originally a guess at the money that would have to be poured into research to achieve RE < C, because less than $100 per person for a total switch to renewables is clearly wrong. That's a bit too handwavey to be included amongst other hard figures on a graph like this though.
standing armies can only exist because of universal high taxation which is a relatively new phenomenon. monarchies couldn't afford major wars because they only raised about 10% in taxes.
and of course once you have a standing army you have to justify its expenses. use it or lose it as they say.
I believe the "Gram" part of the title comes from the names of other types of plots. For example, histogram or correlogram. This plot deals with dollar values in the billions, hence "The Billion Dollar Gram".
By the way, for military economist types - could someone explain to me exactly why the Iraq war costs so much? I mean, what specifically costs?
You've got increased wartime pay to soldiers, and pay to defense contractors. Energy costs and munitions. Construction and military engineering...
...and then what? It's a counter-insurgency, it's not like the military is unloading cruise missiles or nuking cities or getting aircraft shot down. What costs so much? Once the conventional warfare ended, the military construction/engineering/bases were built, and all the troops and gear were in place, wouldn't the costs be not-so-highly elevated over keeping a standing army and regular training? Just ammunition, increased wartime pay, and defense contractors no?
I guess it's kind of an ugly supply chain in hostile territory in the desert, but Saudi Arabia and Turkey are nominally allied, so it shouldn't be too hard to buy/ship food and ammunition through there. There's lots of cheap oil and refineries nearby. Where's all the money going?
I'm not a military economist type, but I'll take a stab at this.
Apart from the costs you cite, which are certainly significant, there's the cost of replacing equipment, much of which dies quite quickly in the desert.
There's also the cost of oil (which the US buys, and doesn't just steal out of Iraq's oil wells, as far as I know). Believe it or not, the US military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. Here's an interesting article about it:
From the figures in that article, I'd estimate that the US military uses about $10 billion a year in oil, at today's prices.
Contractors are a huge expense. From what I've read, there are as many contractors in Iraq as there are US military personnel, each getting paid much, much more than a soldier.
According to the following article, the US spent about $100 billion on contractors between 2003 and 2008:
Unfortunately, as outrageous as the money wasted on the war is, the human cost has been much worse, and it may not be fully paid for generations to come.
These are some very serious numbers you mention here. Just take a look at this TED talk - just $8 billion to halve the number of people without access to drinking water.
Imagine what can be achieved with hundreds of billions, if used constructively.
$100 billion on contractors? wow
Why can't the US military increase the pay for the soldiers, hire more soldiers and reduce the number of contractors? These contractors are in it just for the money, don't have any respect for laws/human life as blackwater has repeatedly demonstrated.
They should really think twice, thrice before starting any war, and especially an unnecessary one.
"Why can't the US military increase the pay for the soldiers, hire more soldiers and reduce the number of contractors?"
Soldiers aren't paid very much directly, but the indirect costs are huge, including at least room and board, training, and future benefits including medical care (via the VA system, currently almost $113 billion/year).
Quickly Googling for estimates of the cost gives answers between $350,000 and $400,000 per soldier per year.
So, to answer your question, we don't because it'd cost more.
The war on terror was an excuse to funnel billions to the pockets of handpicked contractors in Iraq.
Then the stimulus, billions upon billions went to the hands of corporate thugs who got fat checks to continue spending more and more without compromise.
Politics is the greatest robbery of all times and propaganda its greatest weapon.
As long as they feed us manipulated news and keep us on the verge of mental collapse, they will do whatever they want with us, and our money.
First, terrorism that wasn't, then the recession that didn't. I know they are planning the next alarmist event to steal more and more from us.
For instance, comparing the Chinese gov't stimulus package versus the New Deal. The two squares look just about equivalent despite one being a full 14% larger. Other methods of comparison could make that pretty clear.