Washblog || Rate my graphic: Economic costs of war

Rate my graphic: Economic costs of war

By dinazina
Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:25:19 AM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Building the base

I'm designing flyers to portray the costs of war--both economic and human costs. My forte is graphic design, not facts `n figgers, so I ask for feedback.

I find adding images compels the viewer to study the chart and provokes a reaction that lists of figures with lots of zeros don't. Please suggest corrections or other changes.

PDF file for printing

What struck me most was something I hadn't thought of before:the vastness of the departments included in the smallest slice of the pie (6%) called "Physical resources." More below:

It includes the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Commerce--this is infrastructure, am I right? Highways, bridges, railways, dams, levees, ports. Power grids. National parks. National monuments.

PLUS Homeland Security, which includes FEMA. PLUS the Army Corps of Engineers. Katrina, anyone?

Plus "Non-military energy"--does this include research into alternative energy sources?

PLUS environmental protection.

I thought of the continual maintenance that homeowners must invest in, just to keep the property from falling into disrepair. What if a homeowner neglected his large, aging property for decades, in order to pay the mortgage, utility, food, gas, and medical bills, plus traffic tickets, high-priced entertainment, compulsive betting, and vast gun collection? AND maxed out his credit cards on those things?

Maybe he still mows the lawn and puts up Christmas lights to make a nice appearance, but what about the roof, the plumbing, the wiring, the furnace, the water heater, the fencing, the windows, the chimney, the insulation, the gutters, the locks, the paint, the rugs and furnishings? What about checking for allergens, gas leaks, termites, toxins? What about hazardous waste disposal?

In time, every "physical resource" needs cleaning and small repairs; then major repairs; then replacement. The value goes down the toilet. Is this what we have to look forward to? The U.S. as a fixer-upper?

Doing a Google search, I found this disturbing "Report Card" on infrastructure
Grade point average: about 1.5.

**************

I plan for a Side 2 for this flyer, with bar charts, one portraying the deficit since 1990, and for today's military spending vs the world and vs previous administrations.

One statistic I've read stated that the Bush 2 administration has spent more on military than all other U.S. administrations since Washington--combined. My husband says that's not a useful statistic unless adjusted for the cost of living differences, etc. Now I can't remember where I found that info. Anyone have a link?

< 2008: Which candidate turns Red states Blue? | If you want to save Washington from ... >

Rate my graphic: Economic costs of war | 18 comments (18 topical)

This is great!

Perfect. How could this be improved, I dunno.

One suggestion, minor -- The little babies in test tubes in Human Resources -- maybe those are beds, not test tubes? Can we mess the sheets up a bit? How about a mother holding a child? Or family with baby?

by noemie maxwell on Sun May 21, 2006 at 12:36:26 PM PST

* 1 5.00 1 *

Test tubes? by dinazina, 05/21/2006 12:45:53 PM PST (5.00 / 2)

Surprising that the interest on the debt is so low

It's a good graphic, I think it does a great job of conveying stuff with the little pictures pasted on it.

There is a similar pie chart included in the 1040 booklet the IRS sends me every year. It shows military outlays for FY 2004 as 23%, which is much smaller than what you've got here.

by m3047 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 01:08:15 PM PST

* 3 5.00 1 *

That's explained here: by dinazina, 05/21/2006 02:02:54 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

I've changed the babies

to a family.

by dinazina on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:33:51 PM PST

* 5 5.00 1 *

It's a nice graphic

... but none of the numbers will stand up to examination.

For instance, suppose we had sat out WW II (a hidden assumption in your "Past Military" category). We'd have saved money, but we might have incurred other costs (especially after Germany and Japan developed nukes, and we had none) ... possibly resulting in significant losses of current tax revenue.

The $2,251B total is outlays, not taxes, and that's the unified budget total, i.e., including several hundred billion dollars in social security outlays.

And this methodology counts past, present and future military costs in the current year -- meaning that wars in other years will be essentially cost-free (unless you double-count them). And your sources don't account for past/present/future costs of non-military programs on the same basis.

Sorry.

by RonK Seattle on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:20:18 PM PST

* 6 5.00 1 *

I follow some of what you're saying, but... by m3047, 05/21/2006 05:24:42 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

Thanks very much, all, by dinazina, 05/21/2006 06:17:41 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

From what I understood by dinazina, 05/21/2006 06:36:05 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

pie chart no. big number, however.. by m3047, 05/21/2006 10:00:25 PM PST (none / 0)

No SS funds by dinazina, 05/22/2006 04:34:29 AM PST (5.00 / 1)

Trying to make sense of this by RonK Seattle, 05/22/2006 10:16:55 AM PST (5.00 / 1)

Interview with Stiglitz by DWE, 05/22/2006 12:46:23 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

the gun at the top is not used by

the u.s. military - in any large quantities anyway (more or less). I think it might an Austrian assault rifle.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm

as a spreadsheet lover, YOU really come up with some great picture stuff.

the 2 guns below the gun at the top are the same gun, M-16 variant, which is the standard issue assault rifle (more or less).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm

"more or less" = in general, for those who need everything to be engineering document precise.

I've read somewhere that the variant of the M16A2 (what is basically in your graphic), the M-4, is preferred in Iraq, as the shorter barrel and telescoping buttstock are easier to use jumping in and out of humvees,

BUT --- these kind of details are really not that important to the graphic's purposes.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sun May 21, 2006 at 07:40:38 PM PST

* 10 5.00 2 *

Weapon geek! But you're right... by dinazina, 05/21/2006 08:45:53 PM PST (5.00 / 2)

Maybe this will help

When it comes to Federal budgets, one needs to understand how the govt. talks about spending. It is usually grouped into two general categories:
Mandatory spending which includes Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, other means-tested entitlements and also interest payments.
Discretionary spending which includes national defense and all other non-defense discretionary spending. (Discretionary spending is that which is subject to annual legislative appropriations.)

Dina, if you want a pie chart with ALL spending by the Federal Govt. you would need to include Social Security (the payments). However, that will considerably shrink your defense slice of the pie chart.

Your chart might be far more worthwhile for your purposes if you just focus on the discretionary spending because that is what Congress has the most power over. Right now it seems your chart might be a bit mixed. I think that maybe you were wanting to focus on discretionary spending, but the title makes it sound like it is a chart of all Federal spending.

You are right...a lot of people are amazed at how small the percentaage is for 'general government' and it has been a small part of the entire Federal budget even under previous administrations.

I don't have time to look for charts/data for discretionary spending, but you can probably find the info on the OMB http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ or CBO http://www.cbo.gov/web pages

I know that discretionary spending is way up under the Bush administration compared to the Clinton administration.

by Cherisse on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:21:57 PM PST

* 16 5.00 1 *

Yes, my chart is discretionary spending by dinazina, 05/22/2006 01:37:14 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

Sharp

Hi DinaZina. Great stuff.

One of my formative memories is the voice of Carl Sagan explaining that just one B1 bomber would cover the costs of our public education. Recently, I saw footage of Eisenhower relating military costs to civic items. Like 1 tank is worth 6 homes. Etc.

In the graphic you posted, I consider the upper right slice labeled "Military" to be overhead. Expenses that are necessary, but unproductive. Whereas everything on the left is an investment. Money that will earn more money.

I get all sorts of pissed off when I hear about the "free market" and "lesser government". I only care about the efficient allocation of resources (which is sometimes facilitated by capitalism and open markets) and investing in the future.

by zappini on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:48:27 AM PST

* 18 none 0 *

Rate my graphic: Economic costs of war | 18 comments (18 topical)

RE-ELECT
ALEC FISKEN
Seattle Port Commission

www.rentonfacts.com
RENTON FACTS

FISKEN'S PORT WATCH
Environmental Issues

REAL CHANGE
HOMELESS EMPOWERMENT PROJECT

PIRATE TELEVISION
Challenging the Corporate Media Blockade

Watch Live or Archived Shows:
Seattle SCAN
South End PSA

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

Blog Directory

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login

Make a new account

Recommended Diaries

Anti-Gay Activist Running for Renton City Council
Help prevent a fundamentalist, anti-gay activist from buying her way into local politics.
By Renton Citizen (5 comments)
What the Kenmore City Council Doesn't Want You to Know
There was a forum for candidates running for Kenmore City Council last Wednesday. If you are a Kenmore resident and you
By technogramma (27 comments)
Douglas County is the only county in Washington State that does not have a weed board.
The county commissioners and other "Private Property Rights "activists have been fighting the state and county residents for years on this
By Dixie (5 comments)
Political Graphics 101: 34th LD lit deconstructed
As part of my highly opinionated, ruthlessly honest series on political graphics, I zero in on campaign lit from the 34th.
By dinazina (6 comments)
Gulliver's Travels
Jeb Bush came to town today and stopped by to speak with the Microsoft Political Action Committee. Most memorable metaphor on
By BryceM (8 comments)
WA Insurance Commissioner Says: Don't Believe the Hype (Yes on R -67)
Today I received the email copied below from Mike Kreidler, Washington State's Insurance Commissioner. It contrasts interestingly with the letter full
By noemie maxwell (2 comments)