The Billion Dollar Gram
informationisbeautiful.net
informationisbeautiful.net
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.
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".
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.
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.
and of course once you have a standing army you have to justify its expenses. use it or lose it as they say.
Also, why is it called The Billion Dollar Gram?
Edit: fixed italics
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?
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
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
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
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_Test...
and "The Three Trillion Dollar War":
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.
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pritchard_invents_a_water_f...
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.
Calling it a "war" is misleading.
Malthusianism? They invade to secure the extraction of the oil they need for the invasion army.
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.
Also, please define "they". You can't just blame all of the problems in the world on a pronoun.