The Scale Of Money
from the spend-a-few-hours dept
No one I know puts "scale" into perspective better than Randall Munroe at xkcd. If you haven't seen the latest, you should take the time to dive into what may be his largest image ever (and he's known for creating large images) dealing with money. I warn you, though, it may suck up a lot of time as you go through it:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Brain Drain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brain Drain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brain Drain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
energy section wrong?
I don't know where he gets the number that wind could be almost as cheap as gas for the entire country (120 billion vs. 78 billion.) The other figures look dodgy as well. You'd have to build a LOT of hydro capacity to power the entire country.
Running across obvious errors made me less interested in the rest of the chart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: energy section wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: energy section wrong?
The label on that section is "price of enough electricity to power all US homes for one year, by plant type." That sort of implies that you COULD power all homes using all plant types. Since Geothermal, Hydro, Wind and Solar are all geographically limited (not available everywhere), that's misleading at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: energy section wrong?
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: energy section wrong?
Google is your friend, you should learn to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: energy section wrong?
That's not almost as cheap, that's over 50% more expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want More Fascinating Stats Graphics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scrooge McDuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Now for the mandatory disclosure. So-called claims for "deficit reduction" are a disingenuous play on words. There is NO actual deficit reduction, what is being proposed is to spend slightly less then originally proposed. The US will still have deficit spending along with increasing debt.
To phrase this a bit differently. Hypothetically, blame Bush proposes to buy a $20,000 clunker of a car. Obama gets elected and now proposes to by an extravagant luxury $100,000 car. The people get upset, so Obama downgrades his proposal to only buy a stripped down $50,000 sports car while lamenting over this sacrifice. He now claims to have "saved" (reduced the deficit by) $50,000. No mention of the fact that unfunded deficit spending increased by $30,000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
If there was an actual plan to eliminate the budget deficit, that would be great. Sadly, that won't be coming from our current Congress and probably won't come from the next if the people in the US don't wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
I just don't see Congress (now or in the future) ever having a backbone stiff enough to do what is required here unless/until the criteria that makes YOUR Congressmen/woman the best thing since buttered bread because they bring home the bacon shown to be the con game it has always been at the expense of everyone else.
In other words, we will not get out of this crisis until congress rediscovers that they have a duty, responsibility, and constitutional mandate to actually work collectively towards what is best for the entire country. We are too parochial in our vision which is why we have the mess and seeming corruption we have now.
Just because YOUR community and/or demographic is doing well in this environment does not mean that you will not sink with the rest of the Titanic passengers when this is all said and done...
Too much trees vs forest going on; and if we don't all get our collective heads out of the sand, while you might save your favorite tree, the forest is still going to die off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Definition of fair is everyone pays the same.. not some pay more and others pay nothing... and as a "collective" how can you not agree? Everyone pays the same...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
And hey, let's cut medicare/medicaid. Medical spending will rise even faster with old people unable to collective bargain for care, leading to them dying much sooner (as they can't afford medical care). That's a perfect solution to budget problems. I completely agree that my grandparents should just hurry up and die, so the rest of us don't have to pay for their inevitable health decline.
And Fair Tax. Hmmm. Yes, I think it's completely fair that 10% of the population gets 73% of all income. Nothing at all unfair about that. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Er, you're saying each of those drains beyond the defense budget?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Pensions/Health Care/Welfare (of the 2011 budget, spending) 59%
Defense - 25% (including 3 armed conflicts, agreed or not)
Source - www.usgovernmentspending.com
All for cutting, but make it across the board... because if your just going to cut defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
While Medicare will be solvent for at least the next 35 years, we need to continuously borrow money to support the Industrial Military complex and the wars we keep getting into because some politicians think we are the world's police force. It is not social welfare, but rather corporate welfare that is killing us slowly...
LOL, and how do you explain the prosperity and growth under Clinton in the 90's when tax rates were at a much higher level and the decline in both growth and prosperity under Bush II? Me thinks you may need to go back and study that chapter more closely...
The flat tax is a scam to reduce the tax rate for the top 1% while increasing the taxes for everyone else. Couple that with the fact that as a total of income a Janitor might have to greatly sacrifice and go without while that multinational CEO would not have his/her life effected at all.
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
It is not social welfare, but rather corporate welfare that is killing us slowly... - 37% of the total budget was social welfare... and growing the Obamacare hasn't even started yet.. Source see above post
Corporate Welfare - is part and particle to current mind sets of those in government, and we most likely agree to end it (in fact i would make them pay it back)
"LOL, and how do you explain the prosperity and growth under Clinton in the 90's when tax rates were at a much higher level and the decline in both growth and prosperity under Bush II? Me thinks you may need to go back and study that chapter more closely..."
Proven - Reagan Tax policy worked - www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
OK ill go to the Clinton Tax Level if you go back to the Gingrich Spending levels (adjusted it would put us 200 Billion in the black) - Suggested by Alan Greenspan (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/would_you_accept_clinton_tax_r.html)
The flat tax is a scam to reduce the tax rate for the top 1% while increasing the taxes for everyone else. Couple that with the fact that as a total of income a Janitor might have to greatly sacrifice and go without while that multinational CEO would not have his/her life effected at all. -
I didnt say Flat Tax I said Fair Tax which are very different, 1 is a system like the present, the other (Fair Tax) is a consumption tax, so the billionare that buys a fancy car or plan will pay much higher taxes than a janitor (that is refunded for any purchase necessary for life, food, drugs, and the like). (Fairtax.org)
So before you start your babble know your facts.. i put my sources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Industrial Military complex - Karl Marx turn of phrase
---
Or Eisenhower. They're certainly easy to confuse.
---
37% of the total budget was social welfare
---
And your point is?
---
Proven - Reagan Tax policy worked
---
Several points there: you do realize Reagan raised taxes several times (I only ask because very few of those who put Reagan forth as an icon to be followed do) after seeing that those 1981 cuts put the government on an unsustainable course?
And is income concentration a good thing? Because those tax cuts started the concentration of wealth in this country:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
(see the first paragraph after Figure 5, in particular)
Do high taxes actually retard economic growth?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/12/tax-rates-and-gdp-growth/
---
OK ill go to the Clinton Tax Level if you go back to the Gingrich Spending levels
---
I wouldn't mind some of that. Clinton-era (Gingrich, if you prefer) military/defense spending levels would certainly be good. But most programs have gotten more expensive as the population has grown. You want to adjust those figures for population growth? I'd have to look into it in more detail, but that might work.
As for the fair tax, I'm not too keen on going to a pure consumptive model. First, you've got a lot of exceptions to take care of, as you noted. But those exceptions could easily make the system as convoluted as the current system.
More importantly, it probably ends up reducing taxes on the rich, as it wouldn't tax capital gains (where the rich make the majority of their money). If you don't tax capital accumulation, then you've set up an excellent system for a class system (you know, an aristocracy). That's a great deal for absolutely killing social mobility (you know, what supposedly makes America great).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Try again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about perspective.
Thinking about the posters myself... I'm just not sure what wall to put them on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]