?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I find I can't really comprehend millions billions and trillions anymore whenever some jackhole in Washington proposes spending obscene amounts of money. It's all just 0's after a while and loses all connection with any sort of tangible meaning. I sometimes wonder if this sort of disconnect with reality is why most people don't really get worried about spending or debt or anything else financial that takes place on a governmental scale. We're more likely to get cheesed about a government official stealing $80,000 then discovering that 9 billion dollars in federal spending is currently unaccounted for in Iraq. The former has meaning to us. It's around the price of 3 new cars or a very modest house out in some flyover state. We can relate to it and we can measure its magnitude. Tell us that someone walked off with 9 billion and it's like something shortcircuits in our brain.

Now if I, someone who has probably had more education than 95% of the country and follows politics for entertainment feels this way, I can only imagine how the average person feels. That's why I found a way to roughly sketch just how massive some proposed piece of spending actually is. All I have to do is take the massive amount and divide by the number of US households and that gives me a useful number that puts things into perspective.

So, lets take Obama's recent call to spend 447 billion dollars on a new round of stimulus spending after the previous one tanked and didn't accomplish all that he wanted. Certainly that ridiculous graph showing that the previous round of stimulus spending would cap our unemployment rate at 8% turned out to be a farce. I don't know whatever happened to his council of economic advisers who published that piece of crap, but I hope they got pummeled about the head and shoulders by someone. I'm willing to take on faith it was simply an honest screwup rather than someone on the economic team massaging the model to try to put a brighter spin on things, but it's clear that someone was horribly wrong. Here's that graph btw, if you're interested.



So, perhaps this new influx of 447 billion dollars can fix what 787 billion couldn't. And how much is 447 billion? Well, the census estimates that there are around 150 million households in the US right now. If we divide 447 billion by 150 million we get a figure of around $3,000 per household. That puts it into a realm that any person can digest as to the scope of the thing. It's not a perfect measure as in reality the cost would differ greatly depending on how much a family pays in taxes. After all, if you pay nothing, then in effect you would be getting a good chunk of benefit at little to no cost. If you're part of the 55% of the population who actually pays income tax, then you're already shouldering more of the load for this though the amount will vary.

While I think it's a neat sort of way to put spending into perspective, I'm not certain it's knowledge that should be widely disseminated. If you give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone, you can't blame the monkey. There are times when collective spending and sacrifice is needed for the greater good. Infrastructure projects are one example and education or fire/police another. You can argue about the amount of spending and the waste involved, but there are few people who really think we should spend nothing upon it. Giving people information so they can put this spending into context may just cause a mass financial NIMBY effect where no one would want to pay for anything.

Oh well. I still think it's sorta interesting.

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
socarefully
Sep. 9th, 2011 10:54 am (UTC)
'We're more likely to get cheesed about a government official stealing $80,000 then discovering that 9 billion dollars in federal spending is currently unaccounted for in Iraq. The former has meaning to us. It's around the price of 3 new cars or a very modest house out in some flyover state. We can relate to it and we can measure its magnitude. Tell us that someone walked off with 9 billion and it's like something shortcircuits in our brain.'

Depends how you look at it and who you are....

For me $80,000 is the price of a middle end sports car.....9 billion dollars is enough money to buy all of (or at least most of) Kensington Palace Gardens (if you could get everyone to sell).
henwy
Sep. 10th, 2011 02:44 am (UTC)
It just goes to prove that you have ritzier tastes than I do.
jirel
Sep. 9th, 2011 04:17 pm (UTC)
I didn't listen to the spiel, but I heard a newscaster talking about what was supposedly going to be said. What I noticed was that my unemployed white middle-aged educated female friend didn't fit in any of the plans that mostly seemed to be aimed at little educated low income workers.
henwy
Sep. 10th, 2011 02:46 am (UTC)
That's the way it usually goes since the thinking often is that the educated don't need help as much. Once the economy in general recovers, those people bounce back easily. Even now, the unemployment rate among college educated people is under 5%. It's obviously harder for the middle aged though. Even when hiring starts back up...most companies will probably want to build for the future.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

domo costume
henwy
In the darkness the trees are full of starlight
Facebook Page

Latest Month

September 2018
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Teresa Jones