http://lawcenter.giffords.org/costs-of-gun-violence-statistics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Friday, February 23, 2018
Guns Sales vs Cost
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566
POPKEN, B. (2015, December 3). America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.nbc.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566
Economic impact for 2017. Cost for 2012. Sorry for the mismatch. I will investigate.
Visit my Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/
stevenlevymath
Please leave comments
and requests.
POPKEN, B. (2015, December 3). America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.nbc.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566. Economic impact for 2017. Cost for 2012. Sorry for the mismatch. I will investigate.
POPKEN, B. (2015, December 3). America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.nbc.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566
Economic impact for 2017. Cost for 2012. Sorry for the mismatch. I will investigate.
Visit my Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/
stevenlevymath
Please leave comments
and requests.
POPKEN, B. (2015, December 3). America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://www.nbc.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566. Economic impact for 2017. Cost for 2012. Sorry for the mismatch. I will investigate.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Military spending
World total 1,686 100%
1 United States United States 611.2 611/1682 = 36%
2 China China[a] 215.7 1.9
3 Russia Russia 69.2 5.3
rest 790
https://youtu.be/3h0v-VbWY5I
1 United States United States 611.2 611/1682 = 36%
2 China China[a] 215.7 1.9
3 Russia Russia 69.2 5.3
rest 790
https://youtu.be/3h0v-VbWY5I
Sunday, January 28, 2018
bottom 40%
Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2013 to 2016: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf
Percentile of net worth
Less than 25 † .2 … –13.8 –12.1 12
25–49.9 32.3 39.8 23 37.0 44.7 21
50–74.9 173.3 192.0 11 183.2 204.1 11
75–89.9 521.6 605.0 16 563.2 659.3 17
90–100 1,930.0 2,387.5 24 4,150.0 5,336.0 29
Percentile of net worth
Less than 25 † .2 … –13.8 –12.1 12
25–49.9 32.3 39.8 23 37.0 44.7 21
50–74.9 173.3 192.0 11 183.2 204.1 11
75–89.9 521.6 605.0 16 563.2 659.3 17
90–100 1,930.0 2,387.5 24 4,150.0 5,336.0 29
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Who has the largest economy?
Script
Easy Graphs Production
Who has the largest economy?
By Steven A. Levy
From the CIA World Factbook, Jan 4, 2018
Figures are for 2016.
Using GDP (official exchange rate)
The whole world is 76 Trillion Dollars
USA is 19 Trillion.
China is 11 Trillion.
The rest is 46 Trillion.
But if we use Purchasing Power Parity China is first.
Total world 120 trillion dollars.
China is 21 trillion dollars.
USA is 19 trillion dollars.
The rest of the world is 80 trillion.
Reference:
Easy Graphs Production
Who has the largest economy?
By Steven A. Levy
From the CIA World Factbook, Jan 4, 2018
Figures are for 2016.
Using GDP (official exchange rate)
The whole world is 76 Trillion Dollars
USA is 19 Trillion.
China is 11 Trillion.
The rest is 46 Trillion.
But if we use Purchasing Power Parity China is first.
Total world 120 trillion dollars.
China is 21 trillion dollars.
USA is 19 trillion dollars.
The rest of the world is 80 trillion.
Reference:
From the CIA World Factbook, Jan 4, 2018
GDP (purchasing power parity)
"sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States in the year noted". This will make comparisons between countries more accurate. If goods and services are two time more expensive in country A over country B, then if B's GDP is half, they may seen equal because goods are more expensive in A.
GDP (purchasing power parity)
"sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States in the year noted". This will make comparisons between countries more accurate. If goods and services are two time more expensive in country A over country B, then if B's GDP is half, they may seen equal because goods are more expensive in A.
World
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$120.2 trillion (2016 est.)
$116.7 trillion (2015 est.)
$113.1 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
GDP (official exchange rate):
SGWP (gross world product): $75.52 trillion (2016 est.)
USA
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$18.62 trillion (2016 est.)
$18.12 trillion (2015 est.)
$17.43 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
country comparison to the world: 3
GDP (official exchange rate):
$18.62 trillion (2016 est.)
China
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$21.29 trillion (2016 est.)
$19.7 trillion (2015 est.)
$18.23 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
country comparison to the world: 1
GDP (official exchange rate):
$11.23 trillion (2016 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity)
World, 120.2, 100%
USA, 18.6,
China, 21.3
Rest,0
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$120.2 trillion (2016 est.)
$116.7 trillion (2015 est.)
$113.1 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
GDP (official exchange rate):
SGWP (gross world product): $75.52 trillion (2016 est.)
USA
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$18.62 trillion (2016 est.)
$18.12 trillion (2015 est.)
$17.43 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
country comparison to the world: 3
GDP (official exchange rate):
$18.62 trillion (2016 est.)
China
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$21.29 trillion (2016 est.)
$19.7 trillion (2015 est.)
$18.23 trillion (2014 est.)
note: data are in 2016 dollars
country comparison to the world: 1
GDP (official exchange rate):
$11.23 trillion (2016 est.)
GDP (purchasing power parity)
World, 120.2, 100%
USA, 18.6,
China, 21.3
Rest,0
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Who owns stock in America?
How to quote
Last, First M. "Article Title." Newspaper Title [City] Date Month Year Published: Page(s).
Viser, M. and Rppeport, A. "Populist words not matched by deeds." Boston Globe 12/3/2017. Pages A1, A6.
Last, First M. "Article Title." Newspaper Title [City] Date Month Year Published: Page(s).
Viser, M. and Rppeport, A. "Populist words not matched by deeds." Boston Globe 12/3/2017. Pages A1, A6.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Carbon Pricing
Massachusetts has to reduce emissions from the fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas. These emissions cause global warming. We are facing a deadline we will not meet. The 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act calls for reduced emissions. The goal for 2020 is 25% less than the 1990 level. It is unlikely we can meet that deadline.
We are also behind in meeting the deadline for 2050. That deadline is an 80% reduction in emissions from fossil fuels. Other countries use a plan called "carbon pollution pricing". This plan is reducing global warming pollution emissions around the world.
The state legislature is proposing two bills on carbon pricing. Senator Mike Barret is the sponsor of bill S.1821. Representative Jennifer Benson is the sponsor of the second bill, H.1726. Altogether, there are 79 sponsors. That would be almost a quarter of the legislature.
These bills put a tax on coal, oil or gas that is imported into Massachusetts. The state would rebate all or part of the revenues back to state residents and businesses. Everyone would get an incentive to reduce fossil fuel use in order to keep more of their rebates.
One of the bills would set aside some of the revenues for a Green Infrastructure Fund. This bill would help municipalities pay for energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency projects. These bills would reduce air pollution. Bay State residents would be healthier.
Each year Massachusetts spends over 20 billion dollars on fossil fuels. Both bills would help us keep more of that $20 billion. Eventually we will grow our own renewable energy businesses. That means more good jobs for our residents.
Governor Baker recently voiced his support for the Paris Accord. His key interest is the emissions reductions targets. Most economists agree that putting a price on carbon pollution is the single most effective way to help us meet those targets. It would encourage shifting to cleaner, more reliable renewable energy systems. We do not have time to wait. Let us put a price on carbon pollution now.
We are also behind in meeting the deadline for 2050. That deadline is an 80% reduction in emissions from fossil fuels. Other countries use a plan called "carbon pollution pricing". This plan is reducing global warming pollution emissions around the world.
The state legislature is proposing two bills on carbon pricing. Senator Mike Barret is the sponsor of bill S.1821. Representative Jennifer Benson is the sponsor of the second bill, H.1726. Altogether, there are 79 sponsors. That would be almost a quarter of the legislature.
These bills put a tax on coal, oil or gas that is imported into Massachusetts. The state would rebate all or part of the revenues back to state residents and businesses. Everyone would get an incentive to reduce fossil fuel use in order to keep more of their rebates.
One of the bills would set aside some of the revenues for a Green Infrastructure Fund. This bill would help municipalities pay for energy efficiency, clean energy, and climate resiliency projects. These bills would reduce air pollution. Bay State residents would be healthier.
Each year Massachusetts spends over 20 billion dollars on fossil fuels. Both bills would help us keep more of that $20 billion. Eventually we will grow our own renewable energy businesses. That means more good jobs for our residents.
Governor Baker recently voiced his support for the Paris Accord. His key interest is the emissions reductions targets. Most economists agree that putting a price on carbon pollution is the single most effective way to help us meet those targets. It would encourage shifting to cleaner, more reliable renewable energy systems. We do not have time to wait. Let us put a price on carbon pollution now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)