Friday, September 30, 2011

America's Favorite Imported Beers

Beer Sampling - City of Alexandria, VA It's Friday, we did the nation's taxes yesterday, so we're getting a jump start on the weekend. Today's list comes from the BeerFathers, who were kind enough to list the top 10 imported beer brands for 2010:




  1. Corona Extra

  2. Heineken

  3. Modelo Especial

  4. Corona Light

  5. Tecate

  6. Labatt Blue

  7. Labatt Blue Light

  8. Dos Equis XX Lager Especial

  9. Stella Artois Lager

  10. Heineken Premium Light Lager



And their comments:




TheBeerFathers Notes on Top Imported Beer Brands:


  • Newcastle fell off the list from last year at #10, and they were #7 in 2007. That explains their ramp up in advertising lately – their Newcastle commercials are actually quite great. It’s tough to see them drop off because they were by far the highest rated beer from RateBeer.com on the list with an overall 47 out of 100. Hopefully they can make a strong comeback.

  • It’s still surprising to me that Guinness Draught is not on the list. They fell off last year after a #8 ranking in 2007. Shock!

  • Heineken. Still a case study in marketing.

  • Dos Equis continues to hold strong at #8, riding the strength of their still brilliant commercials featuring The Most Interesting Man in the World.

  • The highest rated beer on this list at RateBeer.com is Stella Artois, with an 18 overall. It is a 92 by style though (Euro Trash Lager Pale Lager).




None of the import brands crack the top 10 beer brands by U.S. market share, where Bud Light appears to dominate, claiming 28.5% of the total U.S. market. (Just in case you were wondering what's most likely to be on draft at a local neighborhood bar in the U.S.!)

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Design Your Own Flat Income Tax!

Honk If You Hate the IRS - Source: Real Clear Markets What if you were in charge of reforming the U.S. individual income tax? Would you consider ditching today's excessively complex tax code in favor of something much, much simpler? Something like a flat income tax, perhaps?



If so, you've come to the right place! Our latest tool puts you in the driver's seat for determining how the nation's, and your own, fortunes would fare under such a system!



In the tool below, all you need to do is enter the percentage income tax rate that would apply to all Americans, from Warren Buffett on down to his pool of non-amused secretaries, along with the value of a single tax credit, which would be provided to each individual American, again regardless of who they are.



After that, if you want to see how your or your family's income taxes might change as a result of your dramatic proposal, enter your household's total money income (whether you earned a salary, wages, capital gains, and/or dividends) and the number of individuals who would be covered by it (sorry, pets and other livestock need not apply!)
































Flat Tax Data
Input Data Values
Flat Income Tax Rate [%]
Value of One Individual Tax Credit [$]
Your Household's Tax Data
Your Household's Total Money Income
Number of Individuals Covered on Your Tax Return




















































How Well Would the Federal Government Do With Your Flat Tax?
Estimated Results Values
Aggregate Total Money Income
Aggregate Income Taxes, Before Tax Credits
Aggregate Total Tax Credits
How Much Money Would the Government Collect?
Estimated Results With Your Flat Tax in 2010 Actual Income Tax in 2010
Aggregate Income Taxes, After All Tax Credits
... as a Percent of 2010 GDP









































How Well Would You Do With Your Flat Tax?
Calculated Results Values
Your Basic Income Tax, Before Tax Credits
Your Tax Credits
Do You Owe, Or Will You Get a Refund?
Amount of Taxes You Owe, Or...
Amount of Your Refund
Your Effective Income Tax Rate and After Tax Income
Your Effective Income Tax Rate (After Tax Credits)
Your After Tax Income




About the Tool



We used our model of the 2010 aggregate distribution of household total money income for the U.S. in generating the "how would the federal government do with your flat tax?" portion of the tool, along with the U.S. GDP for 2010, and the IRS' count of the number of exemptions reported on tax forms for 2009 (the most recent year this data is available.)



The rest was just simple math! (Trust us - you should see how the IRS does quadratic equations!)



Final Thoughts



In 2011, it took 72,536 pages to document the ins and outs of the U.S. tax code. We whipped our tool up yesterday afternoon. If you're into simple, this is about as simple as it gets.



Do you think anyone in Washington, D.C. wants that?



Data Sources



White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. Table 2.1 - Receipts by Source: 1934-2016. [Excel Spreadsheet]. 14 February 2011. Accessed 28 September 2011.



Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2011 (Second Estimate). 26 August 2011. Accessed 28 September 2011.



Internal Revenue Service. Selected Income and Tax Items for Selected Years (in Current and Constant Dollars). Individual Complete Report (Publication 1304), Table A, 1990-2009. [Excel Spreadsheet]. Accessed 28 September 2011.



Image Credit: Real Clear Markets (thanks guys!)

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

The Aggregate Distribution of U.S. Household Income in 2010

According to Snopes, Willie Sutton was famous for two things, one of which wasn't true:




Sutton is famous for two things: His fascinating career as an illegal withdrawals specialist (bank robber, that is) and for a pithy rejoinder supposedly uttered in response to an inverviewer's query about why he robbed banks. While lore would have it that the band robber replied "Because that's where the money is" to that common question, Sutton denied ever having said it. "The credit belongs to some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy," wrote Sutton in his autobiography. "I can't even remember where I first read it. It just seemed to appear one day, and then it was everywhere."




So, if you were a modern day illegal withdrawals specialist, seeking to go "where the money is" with respect to the incomes of those who earned it in 2010, where would you go?



To find out, we estimated the number of households within each $1,000 increment of total money income from $0 to $10,000,000 in the United States, using U.S. Census data. We then calculated the aggregate amount of income within each $1,000 income increment by multiplying our estimated number of households by the value of the midpoint of the income increment.



Our first chart shows what we found:



Aggregate Income for Each $1,000 Increment of Total Money Income for Households Earning $0 to $10,000,000 in the United States, 2010

This chart shows that the aggregate distribution of income in the United States is heavily weighted toward the lower end of the chart, however the horizontal scale makes it difficult to see which incomes correspond to the greatest amount of aggregate income.



To make those values easier to read, we switched the horizontal axis to be in a logarithmic scale. Our second chart shows the results:



Aggregate Income for Each $1,000 Increment of Total Money Income for Households Earning $0 to $10,000,000 in the United States, 2010, Logarithmic Scale

Here, we clearly see that most of the aggregate income earned by U.S. households in 2010 is to be found between the median household income figure of $49,455 and the mean household income figure of $67,530, which would put you in the neighborhood where Americans households collectively earn well over 50 billion dollars per year.



If you'd like to widen your target rant to include those households that collectively rake in more than 20 billion dollars per year, you'll find those households between an annual income of $16,000 and $161,000.



Or, if you just care about the income range where Americans collectively make more than 10 billion dollars per year, you'll find that money earned by households with annual incomes between $8,500 and $221,500.



And now you know where the money really is!



Data Source



U.S. Census. Current Population Survey. Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement. HINC-01. Selected Characteristics of Households by Total Money Income in 2010. Accessed 13 September 2011.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Dear White House Staffer...

Letter Writer - Source: training.fws.gov

We've got good news, bad news and really bad news for you this morning, White House Staffer! The good news is that for the first time in months, the average national price of gasoline in the United States has fallen below $3.55 per gallon, so we've finally taken down the "Good Morning, White House Staffer" feature that we've been running since mid-April. Just as promised!



The bad news? The reason gasoline prices have fallen is because the outlook for the economy has gotten much worse. Much like the last time it happened, just after U.S. gasoline prices peaked at $3.96 per gallon in early May 2011. When we took matters into our own hands and pushed gasoline prices lower at that time by accelerating the change in outlook.



Because that outlook has gotten much worse, and also because of what that means for jobs, the really bad news we have for you is that basically, you're hosed. Please review the following chart to understand why:



U.S. Unemployment Rate and Real Motor Gasoline Prices (and Projections) Shifted Two Years Later, January 1978 - August 2011

Given the current strength of the housing market in D.C., we recommend acting sooner rather than later in putting your house up for sale, then renting for the rest of your tenure in our nation's capitol. Plus, this is also a very good time to update your résumé.



But then, if you've been paying attention, you probably have already done that, haven't you?



Data Source



U.S. Energy Information Administration. Short-Term Energy Outlook - Real Energy Prices. [Excel spreadsheet - monthly real U.S. City Average Motor Gasoline Prices]. Accessed 14 September 2011.



Previously on Political Calculations



Monday, September 26, 2011

The S&P 500: Noisily Flailing About

You may have noticed that stock prices have been flailing around quite a lot lately:



S&P 500 Index Value, 1 September 2011 through 23 September 2011

What we can tell you is that investors have been reacting to quite a lot of noise in the market, specifically related to what actions the Federal Reserve might take with respect to a new round of quantitative easing.



We know that noise is behind the change in stock prices, because the fundamental driver of stock prices, the cash dividends per share that are expected to be paid in the future, have been rising sharply since 12 September 2011:



Expected Future Trailing Year Dividends per Share for the S&P 500, as of 26 September 2011

We know that the change in expectations for what the Federal Reserve will be doing with respect to a new round of quantitative easing because of the timing for when stock prices underwent their most significant change biggest dip for the month on 22 September 2011. Here, when it became apparent that the Federal Reserve would not follow through on the expectation that it would launch QE 3.0 any time soon, stock prices reacted in response.



In this case, stock prices fell because investors had to suddenly factor in the increased potential for deflationary or near-deflationary conditions to re-emerge.



But even with all that noise, the main driver of today's stock prices continues to be the change in the expected rate of growth of dividends per share, specifically those that apply for the second quarter of 2012:



Accelerations of S&P 500 Average Monthly Index Value and Trailing Year Dividends per Share, and Futures as of 26 September 2011

If we had to pick a quarter that would be mostly likely to see recession in the future, it would be the second quarter of 2012. Since a recession would most likely be accompanied by falling prices, there's your most likely source for today's expectations of future deflationary conditions.



As for what that might mean for stock prices going forward while such expectations exist, consider the following chart:



S&P 500 Average Monthly Index Value vs Trailing Year Dividends per Share, December 1991 through 23 September 2011

The trajectory we're showing for stock prices with deflationary expectations runs largely parallel to the trend that existed from June 2003 through December 2007, which was characterized by the expectation of a steady level of future inflation.



Without that expectation of a steady and positive level of future inflation, but rather a steady, but much lower, or near-deflationary level of inflation, we would expect stock prices to follow a parallel trajectory with respect to their dividends per share, provided investors continue to expect rising levels of dividends with passing time.



The wild card then would be changes in the expected level of dividends per share in the future, which could then send stock prices reeling, much like what happened following December 2007.



We'd really like to be able to nail down a real forecast, however we don't yet have the data we would need to be able to quantify the effect of changing expectations of future inflation on stock prices. In that sense, today's market volatility is especially interesting, because it's generating the data we would need to do that.



But then, we're pretty sure that most investors would really rather not be part of our science experiment....

Sunday, September 25, 2011

MONETARY HISTORY CALENDAR - September 26-October 2

SEPTEMBER 29

1897 – BIRTH OF GRAHAM TOWERS, GOVERNOR OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF CANADA, 1934-1955
In testimony in 1939 before a Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce of the Canadian Parliament when asked whether banks create money, he stated,
“That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel…The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all…Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money…As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.”

2008 – STOCK MARKET CRASH
The Dow Jones plummeted by 778 points, its largest one-day drop in the history of the New York Stock Exchange. The crash was caused by the elimination on controls of the financial sector and was the logical consequence of allowing the financial industry to control our monetary system.

OCTOBER 1

1936 – DEATH OF LOUIS MCFADDEN (R- PA), CHAIRMAN OF THE US HOUSE BANKING AND CURRENCY COMMITTEE
"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the poeple the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers…The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board."

OCTOBER 2

1869 – BIRTH OF MOHANDAS GANDHI
'Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."
"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.”

---------------------

Why this calendar? Many people have questions about the root causes of our economic problems. Some questions involve money, banks and debt. How is money created? Why do banks control its quantity? How has the money system been used to liberate (not often) and oppress (most often) us? And how can the money system be “democratized” to rebuild our economy and society, create jobs and reduce debt?
Our goal is to inform, intrigue and inspire through bite size weekly postings listing important events and quotes from prominent individuals (both past and present) on money, banking and how the money system can help people and the planet. We hope the sharing of bits of buried history will illuminate monetary and banking issues and empower you with others to create real economic and political justice.
This calendar is a project of the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee. Adele Looney, Phyllis Titus, Donna Schall, Leah Davis, Alice Francini and Greg Coleridge helped in its development.
Please forward this to others and encourage them to subscribe. To subscribe/unsubscribe or to comment on any entry, contact monetarycalendar@yahoo.com For more information, visit http://www.afsc.net/economiccrisis.html

Friday, September 23, 2011

How Much Weight Will You Really Lose?

Are you dieting and/or exercising to lose weight right now? And how much weight do you expect to be able to lose and keep off by following your weight loss plan?



You've probably heard that rule of thumb that says you can lose one pound by either eating 3,500 fewer Calories over time or by burning 3,500 more Calories through exercise. And you might very well have heard it from some seemingly reputable sources, like NBC's Today show or from the winning contestants on that network's show The Biggest Loser.

The only problem with that kind of math is that it doesn't work in real life. Here's what we learned on that topic last year, when we looked at what might happen to our weight if we started eating one extra chocolate chip cookie (or 210 extra Calories) every day:




What happens in real life is that your body's metabolism will adjust over time to compensate for the additional calories you're consuming, in such a way that the amount of weight you might gain will be much smaller than what that 3,500 calories = 1 pound relationship would predict.




One way to look at that situation is that the weight you would gain would also cause you to burn more calories, which limits how much additional weight you would actually gain in that situation.



The body's process of metabolic compensation then works in reverse if you're trying to lose weight. Here, many people will recognize that force at work if they ever had the experience of succeeding in losing some weight, but reaching that certain point where it became really tough to lose any more.



Kevin Hall is a biologist at the U.S. National Institute of Health whose research into the body's metabolism has led him and his colleagues to publish a new paper in the Lancet medical journal, which quantifies how a person's metabolism adjusts when they change their calorie intake or physical output.



Better still, they developed a web-based application where you can apply the mathematical model they've built based upon their research for yourself!



We took their tool for a test drive and were pretty impressed. In our first screen shot of what the Human Body Weight Simulator can do, we entered the data for a 35 year old woman who is 5 feet, 8 inches tall and weighs 170 pounds, whose daily physical activity is very light.



We then had the tool calculate what it would take, just in reduced food intake, for our heroine to lose 10 pounds in 30 days.



Human Weight Simulator Results - 170 lb, 5'8

Here, we find that our heroine can lose the 10 pounds in 30 days by cutting her typical daily intake of 2,123 Calories down to 1,205 Calories.



After that, assuming she ups her food intake up to 2,057 Calories per day, her weight will rise back up to 162.8 pounds, where it will then hold steady at that level indefinitely (provided her Calorie intake and physical activity levels also remain steady!)



For our next screen shot, we specified a lifestyle change for our hypothetical woman, where we started her making just one change on the first day of her new diet plan: we put her on a 2,000 Calorie per day diet, just 123 Calories per day less than her estimated baseline diet value.



Human Weight Simulator Results - 170 lb, 5'8

Here, after one year, her weight had dropped to 162.1 pounds. Adjusting the number of days to span two years (730 days), her weight had dropped to 158.4 pounds.



Three years later, her weight had dropped to 156.7 pounds. After four years, she hit 155.9 pounds, as her weight loss flattened out and her weight began holding steady. Ten years later, our simuluated heroine was maintaining a steady 155.1 pounds, about 15 pounds below her starting weight of 170.



By contrast, if every 3,500 Calories not consumed really leads to one pound of weight loss, after reducing her diet by 123 Calories per day over 10 years, our hypothetical woman would have lost 128 pounds, putting her weight at 42 pounds.

Overall, we found the NIH's Human Body Weight Simulator provides highly informative results, which are based on solid science.



On the user interface side of things however, we have some issues, as we found it to be somewhat of a mixed bag. Although the tool provides slider controls for the graphed portion of its output, it would be really nice to have a similar control for the time period displayed.



Likewise, we'd love to be able to have a control that would allow us to read the data points at various points along the graph, rather than directly entering the number of days.



All in all, the NIH's Human Body Weight Simulator meets our Silver Standard for online applications. Based on its strong information quality, we highly recommend it.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Ohio Get FraACTive


Produced by the Ohio Alliance for People and Environment and NEOGAP (Network for Oil and Gas Accountability and Protection).
http://vimeo.com/27156186

Kucinich proposes landmark jobs plan

How democratizing our monetary policy can create millions of jobs....without raising the debt or inflation.
http://kucinich.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=X7EX6WS6JW7AZSDNJHSVS5UZXM

---------

Since corporations aren’t creating enough jobs to address our chronic unemployment crisis, the public sector must fill the void. A major impediment to funding any federal jobs program, however, is that the cost would add to the ever-rising federal debt.

A congressional bill, the National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act, was just introduced that would spend US created money into circulation to exclusively fund the repair of our crumbling infrastructure and education systems. Seven million US jobs would be created.

Why borrow money from banks (which create money as debt) that need to be repaid with interest when We the People can create money interest-free, as stipulated in Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution?

The NEED Act, introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, wouldn’t be inflationary since the amount of created US money would match the amount of created physical wealth.

The NEED Act would also end the bank practice of creating money as debt via loans (to both individuals and the government) and loaning money many times in excess of their reserves.

Thank Rep. Kucinich for his sponsorship of this urgent bill and encourage every other area US Representative and Ohio Senators Brown and Portman to support it.

Why Hiking the Top Income Tax Rate Won't Fix President Obama's Deficits

How much does the top income tax rate affect how much money the government collects each year?



That question is relevant today because of the President's latest idea: the "Buffet Rule", which would impose higher income taxes on people who earn over one million dollars a year.



But would the government actually collect more money? Let's find out by doing some math that the President doesn't seem to have done!



The chart below plots the ratio of total government Revenue Per Household (RPH) to the Median Household Income (MHI) for the U.S. for each year from 1967 through 2010. The chart also plots the maximum income tax rate that the topmost income earners in the United States have had to pay for each year from 1967 through 2010.



Ratio of Government Revenue per Household (RPH) to Median Household Income (MHI), with Maximum Income Tax Rate, 1967-2010

The nice thing about the government RPH to MHI ratio is that if the high income earners who are affected by changes in the maximum income tax rate, we'll see it in how the percentage of revenue collected the government per household changes with respect to the median household income changes over time.



Here, if a tax cut really slashes the amount of money that the government collects from these taxpayers, we'll see it show up as a decrease in this ratio following the timing of when a tax cut is implemented. We will likewise see the reverse pattern following a tax hike.



What we do see indicates that the maximum tax rate has little to no bearing on how much money the federal government collects per household in any given year. Since 1967, the government's RPH to MHI ratio has risen steadily on average, indicating that the U.S. government is collecting more and more money per household over time, with the changing level of the topmost income tax rate having little to no effect on the rate of that change.



With that being the case, there is no legitimate reason to set higher income tax rates today, as they are now demonstrated to have little to no effect on how much money the government collects in any given year. Increasing the top income tax rate in the U.S. is simply not an effective strategy for closing the gap between the government's spending per U.S. household and how much it collects in taxes per U.S. household, making any ongoing effort to do so an utter waste of time that could be put to much better use.



As for what does affect the government's RPH to MHI ratio, we would identify two main factors. First, the real progressivity of the U.S. tax system has increased from 1967 through the present (the Tax Foundation shows a snippet of this happening from 2000 to 2005). In other words, those with higher incomes have been paying a increasing share of taxes in the U.S., which is the main factor skewing the overall trajectory of this ratio upward over all this time.



Second, recessions appear to be bad for both billionaires and the government's tax collections. But perhaps that's to be expected when you progressively come to rely too much upon a too small a number of people for your revenue.



So spending a lot of time then to try to make the government become even more dependent upon the random year to year fluctuations of the incomes of a much too small number of people to try to get more money from them would be just plain stupid.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Biggest Driver of U.S. Government Revenue

What's the biggest single factor that determines how much money the U.S. federal government will collect in any given year?



For our money, it's Median Household Income. The chart below, which shows the relationship between median household income and the total receipts of the U.S. government for each year since 1967, the earliest year for which we have median household income data, shows why we think that:



Total U.S. Government Tax Collections vs U.S. Median Household Income, 1967-2010

Here, we found that a simple power law relationship exists between the amount of median household income in the United States and the total amount of money that the federal government collects each year, which is why we've opted to show both the horizontal and vertical axes on a logarithmic scale: a power law relationship becomes a straight line when graphed on such a chart.



All in all, given the variation we observe from year to year, the formula we presented on the chart will be accurate to within 12% of the actual amount of money collected by the U.S. government in any given year if you only know the median household income, and often much less than that amount. That's pretty remarkable considering how much, and how often, U.S. income tax rates have changed since 1967.



But then, you don't have to take our word for it. You can use the tool below to do the relevant math for yourself:
















Median Household Income
Input Data Values
Median Household Income

























Approximate Government Revenue
Calculated Results Values
Estimated Amount of Money Collected by U.S. Government



And now, you would just need to compare your results with the OMB's historical tables for "Total Receipts".



Speaking of variation, most of what we observe in the data may be linked to the economic situation of the U.S. Here, we see the government really raking in high dollar amounts during the inflation phase of economic bubbles (say 1998-2000 and 2005-2007 for example), while recession years see the government raking in much lower amounts, especially during the deflation phase of economic bubbles (2001-2003 and 2008 to the present.)



Data Sources



U.S. Census. Income Data, Historical Tables. Table H-5. Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder -- Households by Median and Mean Income: 1967 to 2010 [Excel Spreadsheet]. 13 September 2011. Accessed 20 September 2011.



White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. Table 1.1 - Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789-2016 [Excel Spreadsheet]. 14 February 2011. Accessed 20 September 2011.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Itemized Tax Deductions of the Rich and Famous

What tax deductions do the rich and famous, as well as all other Americans who earn more than $200,000 per year, claim on their U.S. tax returns, and how much do they claim for each?



Using the most recently available tax return data for 2009, we found out and visualized the results into the following chart:



Itemized Tax Deductions for People Earning $200,000 or More in 2009

In 2009, people with incomes over $200,000 claimed $67.8 billion in itemized tax deductions on their tax returns for that year. Of that amount, the largest share of $22.8 billion, or roughly 34% of the total, was claimed through the mortgage interest tax deduction.



The second largest category was the tax deduction for paying state and local income, sales and personal property taxes, which absorbed $20.1 billion, or about 30% of the total.



We should note that people filing income taxes have been able to claim both deductions on their federal income tax returns since the income tax went into effect in 1913. The only difference is that Americans used to be able to claim all the interest paid on their debts, rather than just their mortgage interest, which was changed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986.



Meanwhile, charitable contributions accounted for $19.1 billion of the total deductions claimed by those earning $200,000 or more in 2009, or 28% overall.



Combined, these three categories of itemized tax deductions represent over 91% of all the itemized tax deductions claimed by people who earned $200,000 or more in 2009.



All other tax deductions, covering things like real estate taxes, medical deductions, child care, etc. amounted to less than 9% of the total $67.8 billion claimed by these high-earning taxpayers



Data Source



Joint Committee on Taxation. Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2010-2014. 21 December 2010.

Monday, September 19, 2011

David Cobb of Move to Amend to visit Ohio in October

Speaking and willing to Speak

David Cobb, one of the major leaders of the national Move to Amend, will be a keynote speaker at the Midwest Power Shift conference in Cleveland, October 21-23.

Midwest Power Shift will bring together thousands of young people together to promote climate justice.
http://midwest.wearepowershift.org/

Cobb will speak at the conference on Friday night, October 21 and co-lead a workshop on Saturday, October 22 on ending corporate rule and Move to Amend.

He is available to speak afterwards around the area/state (preferably in locations in Northern Ohio) on:
Saturday night, October 22
Sunday morning (a lay church sermon), October 23
Sunday afternoon, October 23
Sunday evening, October 23

Here’s a written and video interview of Cobb
http://www.duhc.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-commons-interviews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SRnHkqT6_I

If interested in bringing David to your area for a program (or sermon in the case of Sunday morning), contact
gcoleridge@afsc.org or call 330-928-2301.
 

End Corporate Rule: Create Real Democracy


Power Point Presentation by Greg Coleridge
Constitution Day program
Kent State University, Tuscarawas Branch
September 15, 2011
http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/EndCorporateRule.pdf

MONETARY HISTORY CALENDAR - September 19-25


SEPTEMBER 19

1881-- DEATH OF PRESIDENT JAMES GARFIELD (R, OHIO)

"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." A few weeks after making this statement, Garfield was shot. He died two months later.


SEPTEMBER 21 

1950 –FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE LIMIT RAISED

The popular FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) limit is raised by Congress to $10,000. The FDIC insures commercial bank deposits against loss due to bankruptcy or default. It was created following the Great Depression when depositors lost their savings when banks collapsed due to speculative investments and/or depositor fears which led to a run on banks.

 

SEPTEMBER 22

1956 -- DEATH OF FREDERICK SODDY, NOBEL LAUREATE

“It was recognized in Athens and Sparta…centuries before the birth of Christ that one of the most vital prerogatives of the State was the right to issue money.”

On money: "To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government."

 

SEPTEMBER 23

1998 – TALK BY MICHAEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS

Monetary policy is in the hands of private creditors who have the ability to freeze state budgets, paralyze the payments process, thwart the regular disbursement of wages to millions of workers and precipitate the collapse of production and social programs.

 ----------------------------

Why this calendar? Many people have questions about the root causes of our economic problems. Some questions involve money, banks and debt. How is money created? Why do banks control its quantity? How has the money system been used to liberate (not often) and oppress (most often) us? And how can the money system be “democratized” to rebuild our economy and society, create jobs and reduce debt?
Our goal is to inform, intrigue and inspire through bite size weekly postings listing important events and quotes from prominent individuals (both past and present) on money, banking and how the money system can help people and the planet. We hope the sharing of bits of buried history will illuminate monetary and banking issues and empower you with others to create real economic and political justice.
This calendar is a project of the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee. Adele Looney, Phyllis Titus, Donna Schall, Leah Davis, Alice Francini and Greg Coleridge helped in its development.
Please forward this to others and encourage them to subscribe. To subscribe/unsubscribe or to comment on any entry, contact
monetarycalendar@yahoo.com  For more information, visit http://www.afsc.net/economiccrisis.html 

 

Obama vs America: 2012 Spending Edition

How much can typical Americans actually afford for the U.S. federal government to spend? And how does that compare with the amount of money that President Obama would really like to spend?



Now that we have the median household income data for 2010, we can update our chart showing the relationship between the amount of federal spending per household against the U.S. median household income to answer those two questions! The results are illustrated below:



U.S. Total Federal Outlays per Household vs Median Household Income, 1967 through 2010

In the chart above, in addition to tracking the historical amount of U.S. government spending per U.S. household and U.S. median household income since 1967, we've also indicated the amount of federal expenditures per household that President Obama has indicated he wants to spend in future.



President Obama has described that future spending in the Mid-Session Review of the Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2012, which runs from 1 October 2011 through 30 September 2012.



We've also indicated the additional amount of federal government spending per U.S. household that the President is currently demanding that the U.S. Congress act to support his jobs bill (aka "The American Jobs Act"), which he hopes will duplicate the "success" of his 2009 economic stimulus package. For that measure, the President would like to spend an additional $447 billion in 2010, which works out to be about an additional $3,800 per U.S. household.



Finally, we've also shown just how much money that typical Americans can afford for the U.S. government to spend per household through the Zero Deficit Line (ZDL). The ZDL represents the amount of money that the government can collect through taxes for a given level of median household income for the nation.



Data Sources



U.S. Census. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2010 - Historical Income Tables. Table H-5. Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder -- Households by Median and Mean Income [Excel Spreadsheet]. 13 September 2011. Accessed 18 September 2011.



White House. American Jobs Act. 12 September 2011. Accessed 18 September 2011.



White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2012, Historical Tables. 14 February 2011. Accessed 18 September 2011.



White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2012, Mid-Session Review. 1 September 2011. Accessed 18 September 2011.

Friday, September 16, 2011

How Far Should You Drive for Cheaper Gas?

Here's the situation: you have two gas stations to choose between for your fuel needs. One station is closer to you than the other, but the one that's further way is selling gas at a cheaper price than the closer station. Which station should you choose to fill up at?



Yes, these are the kinds of questions we seek to answer here at Political Calculations, or rather, the kinds of questions that we make tools for you to answer for your own needs! Enter the indicated data into the input fields of the tool below, click the "Calculate" button, and we'll do the math to figure out which station you should go to!
















































Vehicle Fuel Consumption Data
Input Data Values
City Mileage [mpg]
Highway Mileage [mpg]
Estimated Fuel Needed [gallons]
Gas Station Data
Input Data Station 1 Station 2
Distance To [miles]
Percentage of Highway Driving
Fuel Price [$]







































Where Should You Gas Up?
Calculated Results Station 1 Station 2
Amount of Fuel [gallons]
Total Fuel Cost [$]
The Bottom Line
Which Station Should You Fill Up At?




Of course, it's entirely possible that you're one of those people for whom time doesn't matter. If that's not you, perhaps Mark Perry's point applies:




XKCD/920 Cartoon

"And if you drive a typical car more than a mile out of your way for each penny you save on the per-gallon price, it doesn't matter how worthless your time is to you - the gas to get there and back costs more than you save." Source.




The real question to ask then is "how much is your time really worth?"

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Gas Prices, the Unemployment Rate and Desperation

On Valentine's Day 2011, we explored the correlation that appears to exist between what motor gasoline prices are today and what the unemployment rate will be two years from now. At the time, we found that:


While the correlation is far from a perfect match, what we do see suggests that Americans can indeed use the real price of gas at the pump to reasonably anticipate how the unemployment rate will change two years down the road.




We then went on to create a tool where anybody can plug in the average price of gasoline today to forecast the U.S. unemployment rate two years later (we later simplified the tool, which is currently featured at the top of our website in our "Good Morning, White House Staffer" feature.)



At the time, we offered a vision of two possible scenarios based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration's projections of average U.S. motor gasoline prices that would play out through the end of 2012 (emphasis ours):




For example, using the default data for our tool, which takes the average retail price of motor gasoline in the United States from 21 February 2011 and pairs it with the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from January 2011, our tool projects that the unemployment rate will be about 8.3%, which is lower that the 9.0% unemployment rate reported in January 2011, suggesting a mild improvement from now until then.



However, if average gasoline prices rise quickly to exceed $3.50 per gallon across the nation, as they already have in California, our tool would project that no significant improvement in the U.S. unemployment rate will take place over the next two years.




This year, we've watched the second scenario take hold. What's more, those higher gasoline prices have forced the White House to alter its view of how the U.S. economy will perform through the end of 2012 (emphasis ours, again):




President Obama's mid-session budget review confirms what most private and government projections have recently concluded -- that the economy is considerably weaker than earlier forecasts held, and won't fully recover from the Great Recession for years.



Most troubling, both for the country and for Obama politically, is that near-term unemployment is expected to remain significantly higher than expected, averaging 9 percent in fiscal year 2012.



Obama's budget office initially calculated its economic forecast based upon data available through June. Even that data presaged an 8.8 percent average unemployment rate in 2011 and an 8.3 percent average rate next year. But the mid-session review got delayed, and when the Office of Management and Budget revised it to incorporate the data through the end of August, the picture became much gloomier. Unemployment will average 9.1 percent this year, and 9.0 percent next year, OMB concluded, and won't dip below 7 percent until 2015 at the earliest.




Don't those numbers look familiar! Our site's "Good Morning, White House Staffer" feature would appear to be attracting its target audience!



But they would really rather you not think the much higher-than-they-expected unemployment rate they now expect through the end of 2012 has anything to do with the average retail price of gasoline in the United States:




The revised figures "reflect the substantial amount of economic turbulence over the past two months," OMB says, triggered by the European debt crisis, the earthquake in Japan, congressional brinkmanship over the debt ceiling among others. They also take into account the fact that GDP growth in the first half of fiscal year 2011 turned out to be significantly lower than originally thought.




Because that would mean having to admit that the higher-than-expected gasoline prices that we've seen this year are not so much an accident, but rather, a signature achievement of an administration that has consistently sought to increase gasoline prices in the U.S.:





Odd that the Obama administration wouldn't want to trumpet or draw attention to the successful achievement of another one of the President's major domestic policy objectives.



Instead, the President is becoming increasingly desperate as he tries to force the U.S. Congress to pass another massive stimulus package to try to "create or save" more jobs that even his party's leaders in the Senate are hesitant to take up.



Because maybe, just maybe, those White House staffers have finally worked up their own chart showing the correlation of average U.S. gasoline prices and the U.S. unemployment rate two years later, and realized that it looks like this:



U.S. Unemployment Rate and Real Motor Gasoline Prices (and Projections) Shifted Two Years Later, January 1978 - August 2011

Going by the elevated motor gasoline prices that have come to characterize Barack Obama's years as U.S. President, it appears that the U.S. unemployment rate will skyrocket up to 11% early in 2013 if the correlation between gasoline prices and the unemployment rate two years later continues to hold.



Regardless, whoever wins the Presidential election in November 2012 is going to have their work cut out for them in cleaning up what looks to be one big man-caused disaster.



Data Sources



U.S. Energy Information Administration. Short-Term Energy Outlook - Real Energy Prices. [Excel spreadsheet - monthly real U.S. City Average Motor Gasoline Prices]. Accessed 14 September 2011.



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, LNS14000000, Seasonally-Adjusted Unemployment Rate. Accessed 14 September 2011.



Previously on Political Calculations