4 ms·

The Billion Dollar Gram

50 points by andreyf 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago
Hey, now I don't feel so bad about the Iraq war anymore! We found a different boondoggle to waste all our money on.
reitzensteinm 17y ago
$515 billion to shift entire world to renewables? That's got to be off by 2 orders of magnitude.
- eru 17y ago
  In which direction?
  - reitzensteinm 17y ago
    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.
    - eru 17y ago
      Yes, it's a bit hand-wavy. Though after RE<C the transition is essentially self-funding.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  Came here to say the same thing. It's not even certain it's feasible, let alone put a price tag on it.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Damn this makes me angry. Look at all the awesome shit we could pay for if we had the motivation...arg!
- jrockway 17y ago
  Seriously. Cancel the Iraq war and everyone could get free cocaine!
- orangecat 17y ago
  I suspect the estimated costs of that awesome shit are about as accurate as the initial estimate for Iraq.
lionhearted 17y ago
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?
- 321abc 17y ago
  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: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199 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: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7557995.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7557995.stm Then there's all the money that's simply "lost". For example: "How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 There are no doubt many other expenses, such as the new $600 million "embassy" in Iraq (which is going to cost $1.2 billion a year to operate). For more details see the Congressional Budget Office's report on the "Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Test... and "The Three Trillion Dollar War": http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393334171 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/... 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.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
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.
- eru 17y ago
  I would not use "monarchies" as the contrast. There have been republics in the past, too.
michael_dorfman 17y ago
That really is a beautiful visualization.
Ardit20 17y ago
Someone forgot Afghanistan!
TweedHeads 17y ago
Thieves. 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.
- fuzzmeister 17y ago
  Comments like this are why I no longer visit Digg and Reddit, and I don't like seeing them on HN. Also, please define "they". You can't just blame all of the problems in the world on a pronoun.
mhb 17y ago
I don't understand the value of this being a 2D representation. Wouldn't the data be easier to understand in a bar graph? Also, why is it called The Billion Dollar Gram?
- mbergins 17y ago
  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". Edit: fixed italics
tel 17y ago
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.
- kragen 17y ago
  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".
  - tel 17y ago
    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.
    - kragen 17y ago
      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?
int2e 17y ago
Some of the rectangle sizes look wrong. Compare "Walmart Profits" to "OPEC Climate Change Fund". Compare Google to Facebook.
jwecker 17y ago
meh. To be fare I'd like to see "Worst Case" boxes for everything else...

50 points by andreyf 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

Hey, now I don't feel so bad about the Iraq war anymore! We found a different boondoggle to waste all our money on.

reitzensteinm 17y ago

$515 billion to shift entire world to renewables? That's got to be off by 2 orders of magnitude.

eru 17y ago
In which direction?
- reitzensteinm 17y ago
  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.
  - eru 17y ago
    Yes, it's a bit hand-wavy. Though after RE<C the transition is essentially self-funding.
radu_floricica 17y ago
Came here to say the same thing. It's not even certain it's feasible, let alone put a price tag on it.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Damn this makes me angry. Look at all the awesome shit we could pay for if we had the motivation...arg!

jrockway 17y ago
Seriously. Cancel the Iraq war and everyone could get free cocaine!
orangecat 17y ago
I suspect the estimated costs of that awesome shit are about as accurate as the initial estimate for Iraq.

lionhearted 17y ago

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?

321abc 17y ago
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: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199 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: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7557995.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7557995.stm Then there's all the money that's simply "lost". For example: "How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 There are no doubt many other expenses, such as the new $600 million "embassy" in Iraq (which is going to cost $1.2 billion a year to operate). For more details see the Congressional Budget Office's report on the "Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan" http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Test... and "The Three Trillion Dollar War": http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393334171 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/... 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.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

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.

eru 17y ago
I would not use "monarchies" as the contrast. There have been republics in the past, too.

michael_dorfman 17y ago

That really is a beautiful visualization.

Ardit20 17y ago

Someone forgot Afghanistan!

TweedHeads 17y ago

Thieves. 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.

fuzzmeister 17y ago
Comments like this are why I no longer visit Digg and Reddit, and I don't like seeing them on HN. Also, please define "they". You can't just blame all of the problems in the world on a pronoun.

mhb 17y ago

I don't understand the value of this being a 2D representation. Wouldn't the data be easier to understand in a bar graph? Also, why is it called The Billion Dollar Gram?

mbergins 17y ago
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". Edit: fixed italics

tel 17y ago

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.

kragen 17y ago
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".
- tel 17y ago
  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.
  - kragen 17y ago
    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?

int2e 17y ago

Some of the rectangle sizes look wrong. Compare "Walmart Profits" to "OPEC Climate Change Fund". Compare Google to Facebook.

jwecker 17y ago

meh. To be fare I'd like to see "Worst Case" boxes for everything else...