The GOP fell short of forcing Democrats to vote for a raise in the minimum wage. Why? The Republicans cleverly couched a raise for this country’s working poor in a distasteful estate tax cut for the super rich. Among other things, the bill would have exempted estates worth $5 million or less from any estate taxes whatsoever, costing the government $268 million in revenue over 10 years.

The Republican strategy of sweetening their death tax cut with a Democrat-friendly minimum wage increase reminds me of when we used to wrap our dog’s heartworm pill in bacon to get him to swallow it. But the estate tax cut is no remedy - it’s just a bitter pill for poor Americans.

There’s been plenty of hot air in Washington, DC this week, thanks to our politicians, Al Gore’s movie (which causes global warming), and our forefathers (who paved a swamp and called it the capital).

So Statastico set out to see what could possibly hold more hot air than a politician. Ironically, it’s a pet project of the U.S. military that holds the most hot air (ok, it’s helium): the proposed High Altitude Airship. It’s conceptual, but the plan was to build 500 foot-long blimps that hovers 65,000 feet over the earth to “detect and track incoming ballistic missiles as they approach U.S. coastal regions.” Dear god. Makes those those ubiquitous Goodyear blimps that hover 1,500 feet over domed football stadiums seem downright sensible.

So how many breaths does it take to fill up some common things that are full of hot air? The average adult lung capacity is about .18 cubic feet (5 liters) of air. So it would take one breath from about half a million politicians to fill up the average hot air balloon. There aren’t enough politicians to get the job done, but I’m betting that they can call in some help from the lobbyists.

Sources: Statastic research, wikipedia, balloonhq, Goodyearblimp.com, missilethreat.com

Notes: Wikipedia now estimates adult lung capacity at 6 liters. This comparison used 5 liters which was previously cited in Wikipedia. Average hot air balloon has a basket with a capacity of 3-4 people.

With crude oil prices hovering around $75 per barrel, big oil companies once again announced record profits yesterday. Congressional inquiries into price fixing went nowhere, primarily because oil companies don’t need to fix prices. They have a U.S. population addicted to driving (never mind what makes the car go), high switching costs, and fuel standards that make China look progressive.

How did this happen? After the record oil prices in the late 1970s - prices that produced the 1981 U.S. historical high of $3.01 per gallon (in 2006 dollars) - Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were made more stringent. From 1978 to 1981, U.S. car and truck fuel efficiency standards rose by 24%.

Then came the cheap oil of the 1990s and the SUV revolution. As a percentage of income, the average American was able to buy three times more gas in 1998 than they could in 1980. Fuel standards reflected the cheaper oil. CAFE standards in 1983 were 24.8; in 2004 the average was 24.7 miles per gallon (MPG). The U.S. has long lagged behind Europe in fuel efficiency standards, but more surprisingly, even the developing world makes us look bad.

China’s red-hot economy has meant a rapid shift from bicycles to cars, and the government is taking stern measures to increase fuel efficiency. One major difference with the U.S. CAFE standards is that Chinese standards are based on weight rather than class of vehicles. The lightest vehicles in China were required to get 38 MPG in 2005, increasing to 43 MPG by 2008. Contrast that with the U.S. CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG for cars.

The United States fuel efficiency peaked nearly two decades ago, and today the oil companies are posting record profits. But don’t blame the oil companies. They’re just small-brained, carnivorous, profit-making sharks that swim and devour money. It’s the bloated American, SUV-loving consumer that we should blame for willingly wading into these shark-infested waters. Chomp!

Notes & Sources: # Historical Real GDP per capita is in 2006 dollars. 2006 GDP estimated by statastic.com using latest Economist forecasts. Gas prices are the annual average gas price and were adjusted to 2006 dollars.
^CAFE fleet standards for cars and trucks. 2005 and 2006 data unavailable, so 2004 standards of 24.7 MPG were used.

As U.S. casualties continue to mount in Iraq, there are increasing calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democrats remain divided on withdrawal as a viable strategy for the midterm election. Our involvement in Iraq is a political issue in Washington to be sure, but not for the right reasons.

Even if you support troops and want to prevent the further loss of American lives, it’s imperative to look beyond our own losses. Iraqi civilians are dying at the rate of 100 per day according to the United Nations. In June alone, more than 50 Iraqi civilians died for every one of our soldiers. And their deaths are increasingly cruel.

These questions might help frame the debate over a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq:

1. Are our troops exacerbating the problem or are they preventing further violence in Iraq? An Army commander in the documentary “Operation: Dreamland” commented that (paraphrased), “At this point, we are here to protect one thing: ourselves.”

2. Will the withdrawal of American troops increase the bloodletting in Iraq and lead to a full-scale civil war? If so, our current investment of troops and money might look like child’s play compared to our later involvement in a civil, or even a regional war.

3. If we left Iraq immediately and it turned into a flourishing democracy and ally, would our military credibility still be permanently weakened? Withdrawal also writes a recipe for how to engage our military in asymmetric tactics such as the use of IEDs. Iraqi insurgents have clearly learned that we didn’t stay the course in Somalia in 1994 after our troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Unfortunately, our involvement in Iraq is more likely to be determined by domestic politics rather than by considering the hard questions.

If we divide the U.S. into Bush states and Kerry states based on the 2004 election, we can gain some insight into how troop casualties might affect the elections. Of the 11 states that were competitive in the 2004 presidential election (less than 5% difference between winner and loser), all but two states have higher troop losses per capita than the average of the states that Kerry carried.

With support for the war in Iraq slipping and the plummet of Bush’s approval rating, those red swing states with higher-than-average fatalities are unlikely to have the stomach for U.S. troop losses that they did two years ago.

Consider this: on a per capita basis, 585 times more Iraqi civilians than U.S. troops were killed in the month of June. Redeployment is more complicated than short-term domestic politics. Let’s hope the politicians realize that by considering how our policy will affect troop losses well beyond the midterm elections.

Notes: U.S. troop losses as of 7.26.06

Sources: Statastic research; Iraq Coalition Casualty Count; USA Today; U.S. Census

Bush announced that he would be sending more troops to Baghdad at the request of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bush commented that “Obviously the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops.”

This comes on the heels of the United Nations reporting that Iraq averaged more than 100 civilian deaths per day in June. The UN report was surprisingly precise in its numbers which were based on data provided by the Iraq Ministry of Health and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad.

The UN report included grim, yet matter-of fact, examples of the violence: “On 10 June, 7 bodies were found in the river ‘Malih,’ in Wasit Governorate. The victims wore civilian clothes; some were handcuffed, tortured and shot in the head. Dead bodies are regularly found in the same river.”

At Iraq Body Count (IBC), academics and peace activists have been keeping a separate record of civilian deaths based on news reports from at least two media sources. This tally includes detail that was noticeably absent from the UN report: Iraqi violence seems to be increasingly cruel. According to statastic.com analysis of IBC data, 1.4% of deaths of deaths in April, 2006 involved beheading or decapitation. This rose to 3.5% in May, and 4.4% in June.

These grim excerpts help reveal the scope of the brutality in June alone:

• June 29: Two decapitated bodies found in Kirkuk
• June 10: Severed heads of two brothers kidnapped in Baquba found
• June 10: Seven bodies found beheaded, tortured in Al-Maleh river
• June 6: Nine severed heads found in Hadid
• June 3: Eight severed heads of a Sheik and cousins who were construction workers in Hadid, (found) near Baquba
• June 1: Four men, some of whom detained by police in north Baghdad, found beheaded in Hibhib, near Baquba

It’s impossible for us to imagine death by decapitation. Such a murder would make the U.S. national news, talk shows and media swirl for days, if not weeks. But in Iraq this summer, an average of one civilian is beheaded every day .

Notes: The IBC Web site states that it underestimates the true number of casualties, although they do attempt to incorporate aggregated data from morgues that was not accounted for in media reports. IBC reports minimum and maximum civilian deaths, both are determined by discrepancies in media reports about the same event. The chart above uses the minimum monthly toll.

Because IBC data relies on media reports, any difference in reporting will naturally affect the nature of the data. For example, increased violence may inhibit journalists from reporting some civilian deaths. If violence reduces mobility of journalists, they minght inadvertently over-report especially brutal civilian deaths, thereby increasing the percentage of reported deaths that involve torture or decapitation.

Sources: Statastic research; Iraq Body Count Database; United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI)

The term net neutrality has been the subject of half-page ads in the Washington Post, bumper stickers, even ironic t-shirts. Unfortunately, all of the advertising, partisanship, and hipsters may be obscuring the importance of a difficult debate about the evolution of the Internet. If the father and grandfather of the Internet can’t agree, what can the rest of us do?

Let’s try to understand the term net neutrality. When a consumer wants a good, service or information from the Internet, they surf an almost infinite number of web sites. Here’s the only catch: in order for a consumer to have access, they have to pay for the connection. In return consumers have equal access to all web sites.

But some broadband providers have started complaining that not content is alike. The consumer may be requesting enormous amount of data in a streaming movie, or a few 1s and 0s in an email message. So the broadband providers want to start charging the content producers for their bandwidth usage. Sure, the producers don’t have to pay these tolls, but if they don’t their competitors’ web sites might load faster.

Content providers assert that they are merely responding to consumers by sending the information they request. Broadband providers claim that with these new fees, they can build even bigger, faster networks that consumers will love.

So the producers of content are actively lobbying Congress to push for what they call “net neutrality.” This so-called neutrality is actually regulatory legislation that would prevent broadband providers from a discriminating against particular companies. It would apply common carrier rules to the Internet, ensuring that all Internet traffic is managed on equal terms, protecting startups that might not be able to compete with bigger, faster web sites.
But wait a second, it’s not just Internet giants such as Google that use an enormous amount of bandwidth, so do newcomers such as youtube.

Let’s say I’m at a startup and our business strategy is to stream movies faster than anyone else. We’ve allocated half our budget to pay Comcast cable for broadband priority. And then a pokey competitor sues. How long would it take the courts to determine what’s fair? Would bad network neutrality legislation stifle innovation more than the status quo? (Just ask Ted Stevens.) Many techies are opposed to net neutrality because they’re worried that the government just wouldn’t move fast enough if there were net neutrality violations.

But if broadband carriers start charging content providers for bandwidth, what’s to prevent them from acting more like monopolistic cable companies? Couldn’t they start packaging Internet “channels” based on which company is bidding the most? Maybe, but not for long. Current broadband providers are still under the supervisory eye of Department of Justice (anti-trust), FCC (content) and FTC (consumer protection).

So it seems to come down to the market of broadband providers. If our goal is consumer choice and innovation, then we need more competition between the carriers. How much is there? Only about 50% of Americans have two or more broadband options.

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world? Let’s have a look at the statastic. Even though the U.S. is twelfth in the percentage of the population with broadband connectivity, we do have three competing broadband options: cable, DSL, and satellite. As a nation, we have a healthy broadband competition relative to the rest of the world… even if it doesn’t seem that way in your neck of the woods.

Sources: Statastic research, OECD

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an editorial that put the estimated death toll from the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo at 3.9 million, the equivalent of the entire San Francisco Bay Area population.

The war, which has involved as many as six nations, started in 1998 and continues to this day. The International Rescue Committee and The Lancet found that 98% of the deaths were due to treatable disease and malnutrition, largely the result of displacement during conflicts in the east. The remaining 160,000 deaths were a direct result of fighting.

The quality of the data in the editorial and the reports on which it is based are very impressive; the results are not. By comparing our response to the conflict in Congo with other recent wars and natural disasters, we find a discouraging record:

• -On a per capita basis, 30 times more United Nations Peacekeepers were deployed to Kosovo, where 12,000 people died, than to Congo where 3.9 million people have died this far.
• -The dollars of international aid distributed to Aceh, Indonesia in the wake of the tsunami was almost 100 times higher than the aid that has flowed to Congo.
• -In 2005 the media reported on Darfur more than 5 times more often than on the conflict in Congo.

The lessons from the data are clear:

1. 1. The media is more likely to report on wars that have been labeled genocide.
2. 2. The media is less likely to report on festering wars with no apparent good guys and bad guys.
3. 3. Media reports drive world attention. World attention drives donation rates, the reaction of our governments, and the deployment of U.N. Peacekeepers
4. 4. Citizen donations are fickle.  Governments are ultimately responsible for addressing conflicts such as that in Congo.

To learn more about the war in Congo, visit the IRC web site. There is also a link to take action by writing your Senator (assuming you’re not a Washington, DC resident).

Sources: Statastic research, International Rescue Committee, Wikipedia, Washington Post.

Every so often, Jeffrey Sachs tries to humiliate the U.S. into increasing its foreign aid. It’s true: While we give away about $19 billion annually in foreign aid, it’s not much relative to our Gross National Income. The Dutch give away about 5 times more, and we’re usually toward the bottom of the rankings for industrialized nations.

But even our Official Development Assistance - grants that promote economic development in low income countries - doesn’t really get to the poorest countries on earth. The United Nation’s Human Development Index (HDI) helps quantify a country’s progress in areas such as health, education, and general economic welfare. One might think that this would be a pretty good guide to foreign aid benefiaries. But the five most under-developed countries on earth only receive $186 million in aid from the U.S., about 7% of what Israel receives annually.

At more than $10 billion in 2005, Iraq alone accounts for 45% of our total foreign aid. So the U.S. is spending about half of its development assistance solving a problem that we helped create. Actually, if you look at the top 4 countries that we give assistance to, it reads like a who’s who of failed U.S. foreign policies: Iraq is devolving into civil war, Israel has lost our roadmap to peace, Afghanistan cultivates poppies and terrorists, and we have outsourced Sudan’s genocide.

The bottom ten countries on the HDI index are miserable, conflict ridden places. But are they better off with or without our so-called aid?

Sources: Statastic, Wikipedia, United Nations Human Development Report

Notes: The “least developed countries on earth” is based on the 2003 United Nation’s Human Development Index.  Several countries that might have appeared near the bottom of the HDI were not ranked in 2003, many because of recent conflicts.  Statastico would like to give proper credit to the abject underdevelopment of the following countries that may have made the top 10 most miserable places to be a citizen, had they been ranked: Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Liberia, Afghanistan, and Monaco.  Ok, maybe not Monaco.

Given the choice, Statastico would rather read expertise than opinion. Recent polls concentrate on the latter. More interesting, however, is the wide gap between the public’s opinion and the opinion of experts. So why the obsession with public opinion polling?

The media use polling data not only to guide their own stories and advertising, but often as the basis for stories. So reporting what people think to the people who are thinking it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

And then there are the politicians. They guide their district gerrymandering, their campaign messages and financing with public opinion polls. And of course politicians themselves also guide public opinion. Just look at how many times the phrase “addicted to oil” has appeared in the media, and you’ll understand why the public suddenly has a passion for energy independence.

But experts are polled less often. The Atlantic Monthly often polls its foreign policy experts, and Foreign Policy recently released polling data highlighting the divide between the experts and the public. These types of polls are crucial to moving debates forward.

So what informs public opinion? The average American is not devouring policy blogs, obsessing over exit strategies in Iraq, evaluating the efficiency of turning corn into ethanol; they’re not even reading newspapers. They’re thinking about what to have for dinner, searching for low airfares, and keeping up with the latest news about Brangelina.

The public is also increasingly fragmented. The Internet facilitates specialization of interests and opinion, so Americans who do pay attention to the news are more likely to get it from a partisan source. Public opinion polls supposedly help us understand the political climate, but politics are shaping that opinion. Polling the public on important issues is no more than politicians’ PR departments checking to see whether their messaging sticks.

So please poll the experts. Statastico doesn’t care what the American public thinks about pulling out of Iraq. We should care about what Iraqis think. We should care about what experts in the State Department think. Instead of obscuring scientific consensus as the Bush administration has done with global warming, help us understand possible solutions. Scientists and experts are not always right, of course. But politicians’ job is to listen to the experts and help the public understand real options for hard problems.

Sources:

1: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

2: http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/thepopularfront.html

3: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1009a1GlobalWarming.pdf

4: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The polling data about scientific consensus and global warming is based on a scientific review of 928 scientific papers related to global warming. None of the papers reviewed, “disagreed with the consensus position.” Several scientists do disagree with different aspects of global warming. Here is a list of scientists who disagree with the global warming consensus.

The Internet has been available in the developing world almost as long as it’s been here in the U.S. Internet cafes were popping up in Cameroon in the mid 1990s before the local Peace Corps volunteers even knew how to use them. Penetration rates, however, lag predictably behind the richer countries in the north. But the lack of telecommunications infrastructure is something of a blessing in disguise: developing nations have the potential to leapfrog technologies. Cell phones and VOIP prove easier than installing costly land lines, and there’s no need for telephone poles and copper cable if governments can create WiFi and WiMAX zones around burgeoning urban areas.

Wired Magazine recently featured a map with average prices for one hour of online access in Internet cafes around the world. Statastic used the average hourly price as a percentage of daily wages to provide a glimpse into the state of Internet access in a selection of low to middle income countries.

The chart below begs several questions. Could lowering the cost of public Internet access lead to higher usage rates? What is the demographic profile of the average Internet user in the developing world? Should multi-lateral donors subsidize the cost of public Internet access?

Among this small sample, D.R. Congo, Nigeria and Kenya are the three most expensive places for locals to access the Internet, relative to income. They also have some of the lowest usage rates. But these countries have several other characteristics in common: low literacy, high rates of corruption, and a high level of inequality. These countries may simply have a limited number of Internet cafes that cater to tourists, corrupt officials and the wealthy locals who are lucky enough to have an education and a job.

Brazil’s usage rates are surprisingly high. Perhaps Brazil’s high inequality can help explain how 14% of Brazilians have regular access to the Internet despite the fact that one hour in an Internet café costs nearly one sixth of average daily wages. Just who are those fortunate 14%?

Sources:
http://internetworldstats.com
WIRED Magazine, May 2006

Yesterday marked the first-ever launch of the Space Shuttle on Independence Day.  NASA’s manned space program continues to slowly emerge from the shadow of the Columbia disaster.  While newspaper headlines focused somewhat warily on the Shuttle launch, the $700 million Mission to Mars program was under attack by cost-cutting democrats in Congress. The measure failed by a wide margin, but it highlights the constantly-embattled NASA budget.

Although NASA’s recent manned space missions lack the scientific rigor of their unmanned deep space research, manned space flight captures the public’s imagination – and political support for NASA.  The NASA budget is surprisingly small – only $16.7 billion in 2006 – paltry by Pentagon standards. In real terms, NASA’s budget has been declining since 1991, and that’s likely to continue in the near future.

Less that half of NASA’s 2006 budget (about $7 billion) is applied for space operations such as the Shuttle and the International Space Station. The rest goes toward earth science, deep space exploration, research and development.  To give a point of comparison, the annual budget for NASA is about the same as the cost of 2 months of Iraqi occupation, 167 brand new F-22s, 2 more years of failed research for missile defense systems, or about 2 quarts of Tang for every person on earth.

¹$100 million per fighter
²Based on Cost of Estate Tax repeal of 2007-2016 is $369 billion
³2001-2006 Missile Defense spending was $43 billion
⁴Based on 2006 Budget of $101.8 billion
⁵ Only $4.19 for enough Tang to make 4 quarts
⁶http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR2006062800247.html
⁷Based on 2006 Peace Corps Budget of $317,440,000
⁸http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting
⁹Based on 2006 EPA Budget