In a recent Cabinet meeting, President Obama called for a $100 million spending cut in 90 days from the various federal departments as a sign of budget discipline. While this is nominally quite a large number, it was pointed out correctly by many people that this was in fact a negligible fraction of the total federal budget; for instance, Greg Mankiw noted that the cut was comparable to a family with an annual spending of $100,000 and a deficit of $34,000 deciding on a spending cut of $3. (Of course, this is by no means the only budgetary initiative being proposed by the administration; just today, for instance, a change in the taxation law for offshore income was proposed which could potentially raise about $210 billion over the next ten years, or about $630 a year with the above scaling, though it is not clear yet how feasible or effective this change would be.)
I thought that this sort of rescaling (converting $100 million to $3) was actually a rather good way of comprehending the vast amounts of money in the federal budget: we are not so adept at distinguishing easily between $1 million, $1 billion, and $1 trillion, but we are fairly good at grasping the distinction between $0.03, $30, and $30,000. So I decided to rescale (selected items in) the federal budget, together with some related numbers for comparison, by this ratio 100 million:3, to put various figures in perspective.
This is certainly not an advanced application of mathematics by any means, but I still found the results to be instructive. The same rescaling puts the entire population of the US at about nine – the size of a (large) family – which is of course consistent with the goal of putting the federal budget roughly on the scale of a family budget (bearing in mind, of course, that the federal government is only about a fifth of the entire US economy, so one might perhaps view the government as being roughly analogous to the “heads of household” of this large family). The implied (horizontal) length rescaling of is roughly comparable to the scaling used in Dubai’s “The World” (which is not a coincidence, if you think about it; the purpose of both rescalings is to map global scales to human scales). Perhaps readers may wish to contribute additional rescaled statistics of interest to those given below.
One caveat: the rescaling used here does create some noticeable distortions in other dimensional quantities. For example, if one rescales length by the implied factor of , but leaves time unrescaled (so that a fiscal year remains a fiscal year), then this will rescale all speeds by a factor of
also. For instance, the circumference of the Earth has been rescaled to a manageable-looking 6.9 kilometres (4.3 miles), but the speed of, say, a commercial airliner (typically about 900 km/hr, or 550 mi/hr) is rescaled also, to a mere 150 metres (or 160 yards) or so per hour, i.e. two or three meters or yards per minute – about the speed of a tortoise.
All amounts here are rounded to three significant figures (and in some cases, the precision may be worse than this). I am using here the FY2008 budget instead of the 2009 or 2010 one, as the data is more finalised; as such, the numbers here are slightly different from those of Mankiw. (For instance, the 2010 budget includes the expenditures for Iraq & Afghanistan, whereas in previous budgets these were appropriated separately.) I have tried to locate the most official and accurate statistics whenever possible, but corrections and better links are of course welcome.
FY 2008 budget:
- Total revenue: $75,700
- Total spending: $89,500
- Budget deficit: $13,800
- Additional appropriations (not included in regular budget)
- Iraq & Afghanistan: $5,640
- Spending cuts within 90 days of Apr 20, 2009: $3
- Air force NY flyover “photo shoot”, Apr 27, 2009: $0.01
- Additional spending cuts for FY2010, proposed May 7, 2009: $510
- Projected annual revenue from proposed offshore tax code change: $630
Other figures (for comparison)
- National debt held by public 2008: $174,000
- Held by foreign/international owners 2008: $85,900
- National debt held by government agencies, 2008: $126,000
- National GDP 2008: $427,000
- National population 2008: 9
- GDP per capita 2008: $47,000
- Land mass: 0.27 sq km (0.1 sq mi, or 68 acres)
- World GDP 2008: $1,680,000
- World population 2008: 204
- GDP per capita 2008 (PPP): $10,400
- Land mass: 4.47 sq km (1.73 sq mi)
- World’s richest (non-rescaled) person: Bill Gates (net worth $1,200, March 2009)
- 2008/2009 Bailout package (TARP): $21,000 (maximum)
- 2009/2010 Stimulus package (ARRA): $23,600
- Tax cuts (spread out over 10 years): $8,640
- State and local fiscal relief: $4,320
- Education: $3,000
- “Race to the top” education fund: $150
- Investments in scientific research: $645
- NSF allocation: $90 (was initially $42)
- ARPA-E: $12
- Pandemic flu preparedness: $1.50 (was initially $27, after being dropped from FY2008 and FY2009 budgets)
- Additional request after A(H1N1) (“swine flu”) outbreak, Apr 28: $45
- Volcano monitoring: $0.46 (erroneously reported as $5.20)
- Salt marsh mouse preservation (aka “Pelosi’s mouse“): $0.00 (erroneously reported as $0.90)
- Market capitalization of NYSE
- Value of US housing stock (2007): $545,760
- Credit default swap contracts, total notional value:
- US trade balance (2007)
46 comments
Comments feed for this article
4 May, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Taoconomics: Rescale us : Core Economics
[…] Mathematician Terry Tao has devoted two seconds of his efficient attention to putting large numbers into perspective using the Mankiw rescaling; that is, $100m to $3 or the size of the US Federal Budget relative to an average family’s budget. The idea is to take big numbers a divide them by 100m/3. Tao does this for a ton of stuff in order to put things into perspective. He writes “This is certainly not an advanced application of mathematics by any means, but I still found the results to be instructive.” […]
4 May, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Zygmund
Thanks for posting that. It’d be nice if more news outlets reported numbers in this manner; xkcd had made a similar point not long ago.
http://xkcd.com/558/
4 May, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Greg Kuperberg
This table is a great summary of what is going on.
The ARRA number is deceptively large, for two reasons. First, ARRA is split between tax cuts and spending increases, while most of the other figures in the table are either revenue or spending, but not both. Second, ARRA is a multiyear program; about half of it will take place in FY 2010. Relative to other figures in the chart, the ARRA term should ideally be split up. [I’ve made some changes to reflect this suggestion – T.]
A related numerical exercise is to estimate your household’s relationship to federal fiscal numbers using your own adjusted gross income. The United States GDP is about 60% more than total AGI reported to the IRS. (In fact the ratio is close to the golden ratio.) So to estimate your relationship to fiscal item X, you should compute X*1.62*(your AGI)/GDP, where GDP = 427,000 in Terry’s units.
For instance, if your household reported $100K in AGI, then the conversion factor from Terry’s units to your household fraction is .379. In this case, your household fraction of the NSF was $68.
4 May, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Putting the Budget into Perspective « Insular, Extraordinary
[…] May, 2009 Terence Tao has a great post about contextualizing the US federal budget. I thought it would be fun doing this for Japan’s […]
4 May, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Anonymous
I do not know where else to post this question:
Is there any way that I get notice E-mails every time a new article on Terry’s What’s New has been created?
I do know that I can subscribe to the selected ones so that I get notice E-mails when new comments have been put specifically for those articles, but… I would just like to get notice E-mails every time new article has been put up, not comments though.
5 May, 2009 at 10:58 am
U.S. Economy Made Understandable | The Right Opposition
[…] a look at The federal budget, rescaled at What’s New. You will have to overlook some of the math-speak at first but then scroll down […]
5 May, 2009 at 11:05 am
Readings | Venture Capital Bloggers Network
[…] The federal budget, rescaled (Terry Tao) […]
5 May, 2009 at 11:36 am
Mike
Wow! I really like the way you did this. It makes things a great deal more realistic when dealing with these massive numbers.
5 May, 2009 at 11:42 am
The Federal Budget Rescaled « Mike’s Space
[…] Tao, apparently a gifted mathematician, rescaled the numbers of the federal budget to amounts even I can understand. Give his blog a […]
5 May, 2009 at 3:27 pm
jason
great info. love the $3 spending cut lol….
5 May, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Top Posts « WordPress.com
[…] The federal budget, rescaled In a recent Cabinet meeting, President Obama called for a $100 million spending cut in 90 days from the various federal […] […]
5 May, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Chris Sogge
Great post!!! Scaling it always a good test. I’m impressed by this entry.
I believe that the philosophy of 100 million of cuts versus a deficit of 1.7 trillion, is that 100 million sounds larger due to the “100” compared to “1.7”. Normal people don’t think about the number of “zeros”. Obama is a good salesman.
5 May, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Information and Display « The Twofold Gaze
[…] am being abstract so I’ll just say what brought on this discussion: good displays of information don’t always have to be flashy, sometimes a table will do. Terry Tao has a really cool break down of the several of the numbers that are relevant to the […]
5 May, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Anonymous
Interesting post.
There’s a neat Douglas Hofstadter essay called “On Number Numbness” that appears in his collection “Metamagical Themas” that’s about this topic. He even coins the nice term “innumeracy” for the lack of ability to understand (using some type of simple analysis like in this post) large numbers.
5 May, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Anonymous
Very interesting post. Though, to be fair, one must point out that most families don’t need to spend money on protecting their borders and family members, nor are they expected to contribute money to research and development. Also, there is a non-scalable element to the $100m figure: unlike a $3 cut, a $100m cut involves overhead such as cancellation fees and damage payments.
6 May, 2009 at 2:22 am
Understanding the US Federal budget - Politics & Current Affairs Forum
[…] GDP 2008: $427,000 More in Terry’s blog post here. Conclude what you will from it __________________ Of all the beasts which God allows In […]
6 May, 2009 at 2:25 am
roadkill
Excellent idea. Discussion at http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/us-politics-forum/66337-understanding-us-federal-budget.html
6 May, 2009 at 4:53 am
Exciting New Blogs and New Posts « Combinatorics and more
[…] Terry Tao illuminatingly rescaled the US budget to match incomes and expenses of a single […]
6 May, 2009 at 10:57 am
Haelfix
Amusing, the credit default swap numbers are so enormous its mindboggling.
7 May, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Carnival of Mathematics #52 « The Number Warrior
[…] Tao has rescaled the United States federal budget to the scale of 100 million:3, to give a better perspective of the impact of spending. (I’ve […]
8 May, 2009 at 1:46 am
Nets Katz
What I read in the newspaper is that the 2009 budget is 3.4 trillion with a deficit of 1.7 trillion. (Which motivates Mankiw’s choice of rescaling.) That budget is 100,000 with a deficit of 50000. I didn’t need the rescaling to notice the deficit was half of the budget.
By comparison, Fort Knox gold holdings rescale to just under 4.5 ounces whose spot value is around $4000. M2 money supply reported by the Fed for March 2009 (I have to multiply the number of billions by 30) is $250,908. M2 represents all physical currency + individual checking accounts plus savings accounts, but does not include certain institutional savings accounts included in M3 which is no longer published.
One power that typical law-abiding families do not have when paying their bills is the power to counterfeit money. But the federal reserve can, thereby continuously rescaling the units in this discussion. Recently
as part of quantitative easing, they are buying newly auctioned treasuries, and the press reports that this accounts for the calm in the
bond markets despite the large deficits and Chinese caution about buying
our bonds. It would be interesting to note in rescaled dollars at what rate the Fed balance sheet is expanding, but I don’t believe this is public information. It is the portion of our deficit that we are currently paying
with the printing press.
Interest rates, of course, need not be rescaled. The ten year bond rate is 3.35%. The 10 year TIPS rate is 1.75%. This predicts a 10 year forward average inflation rate of about 1.6%.
8 May, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Math Bloggers at Play « Let’s Play Math!
[…] The federal budget, rescaled […]
8 May, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Terence Tao
Gold is indeed a tiny part of the modern world economy; the supply of gold has not grown nearly as fast as the world population multiplied by the material standard of living in recent centuries. In these rescaled units, the total amount of above-ground gold stocks in the world (about 160,000 tonnes, according to the sources I could find on the internet) becomes about 170 ounces (with about 2-3 ounces being mined every year), so given the rescaled world population of 204, there is not even enough physical gold available to have a 1 oz gold coin per person. So any return to the gold standard nowadays would either have to use quite minute quantities of gold to back one’s coins, notes, and savings accounts, or else to use gold to back only a small fraction of the outstanding monetary supply at any given time.
9 May, 2009 at 12:53 pm
James
Anytime I feel like looking at the deficit I take a look here:
http://perotcharts.com
Our government talks about irresponsible folks. If any of us ran our households like our government what would happen with that huge number. One of the main things we should be wondering is what is being given up to continue to have other countries give the US money. At some point creditors collect.
11 May, 2009 at 12:42 am
Georg
Rescaling monetary amounts is not compatible with rescaling other dimensionful quantities, though: it you rescale lengths like money, the price per area of land will go up by the inverse of the scaling factor, and the price per volume of, e.g., oil will go up like the inverse scaling factor. If you rescale areas like money instead, the price per volume will still go up like the inverse square root of the scaling factor. And if you rescale volumes like money instead, the price per area will now go down with the cube root of the scaling factor squared. The problem is that different goods are measured and sold in different dimensionful units.
11 May, 2009 at 8:33 am
Terence Tao
Dear Georg,
Yes, I mentioned dimensional distortions in the main post. For the purposes of economic rescaling (rescaling the national economy to resemble a family economy), one way to minimise distortion is to rescale horizontal distances but not vertical ones. (Note that the national economy and the family economy experience more or less the same vertical scales, but widely different horizontal scales.) This will then rescale volume and (the horizontal component of) area the same way (and in our economy, the horizontal component of area is far more important than the two vertical components).
Of course, this is no free lunch: this type of rescaling radically distorts slopes and hence geographical features (a hill would become something resembling an obelisk, for instance), and the physical properties of matter become highly non-isotropic (in particular, any physical phenomenon involving vertical rotation would be highly distorted). But for economic purposes (e.g. visualising oil reserves, gold reserves, arable land reserves, etc.) this non-isotropic scaling seems to suffice. For instance, with this rescaling the strategic national oil reserve consists of about 20 barrels of oil (with US daily consumption being about 0.6 barrels; worldwide proven reserves seem to be of the order of 40,000 barrels or so, though accurate figures seem to be difficult to obtain here). (If instead one wanted to conceptualise physical phenomena, e.g. climate change, then I would instead recommend an isotropic scaling, even if this means for instance that the atmosphere becomes only a few meters thick, and oceans become more like shallow ponds.)
11 May, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Greg Kuperberg
Dimensional distortions are a tongue-in-cheek disgression from rescaling the federal budget and certain other economic resources. If you rescale the federal budget to your own adjusted gross income using the formula that I mentioned, i.e. rescale spending item X to X*1.62*(your AGI)/GDP, then it is a meaningful estimate of how much the government spends on X on your behalf. If you report a mid-range AGI to the IRS, then this meaningful rescaling only differs from Greg Mankiw’s thought experiment by a modest factor.
Maybe the most misleading aspect of this rescaling, though, is that less than half of the spending will ever be covered by from income taxes. Much of it comes from payroll taxes, and some of it comes from corporate taxes. This year and next year much of it is inflationary spending — but that spending is meant to prevent a deflationary collapse of the economy.
13 May, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Fields medal winner Terence Tao rescales… « r3fresh [ simple comments ]
[…] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/the-federal-budget-rescaled/ […]
14 May, 2009 at 10:05 am
Ford
Wouldn’t it be simpler to divide by US population to get spending and debt per capita?
I always thought line-item veto could be a good idea IF total items vetoed had to add up to at least 10% of the total. Otherwise, it would be used more to control Congress (by letting allies but not enemies fund “pork”) than to balance the budget.
14 May, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Terence Tao
Dear Ford,
Since the rescaled US population here is close to 10, one can simply drop one more digit to get approximate per-capita data. But this makes the government look a bit on the small side; per-capita, after all, includes children and other non-working age citizens in the denominator, and also the federal government is only about a fifth of the US economy anyway. Since personal budgets are typically made on the family level, rather than a per-capita (or per-one-fifth-of-capita) level, it seemed more intuitive to me to pick a rescaling that would map the federal budget to what is roughly the size of a family budget. A population size of 9 is also about the bare minimum needed to crudely approximate a representative slice of the population as far as age ranges, incomes and genders are concerned; in contrast, per-capita data needs to be compared against an “average” citizen, as opposed to, say, a healthy, working-age male at the peak of his earnings capacity.
31 May, 2009 at 12:23 am
randform » Blog Archive » scaling facts
[…] a recent post on his blog Terence Tao had the idea to scale the US budget and other data with the scale factor […]
4 June, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Putting it in Perspective « OU Math Club
[…] Terence Tao’s blog a few weeks ago he had a very interesting post about the federal budget of all things. If you watch the news you […]
10 June, 2009 at 12:08 pm
mlinksva's status on Wednesday, 10-Jun-09 20:08:00 UTC - Identi.ca
[…] Simple+clever https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/the-federal-budget-rescaled/ […]
11 August, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hyde Park Blvd » Blog Archive » Rescaled Reality
[…] entire post and commentary are available here. Tags: economy, math, Terry […]
7 September, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Tracy M (churaesie) 's status on Tuesday, 08-Sep-09 06:48:04 UTC - Identi.ca
[…] The federal budget, rescaled « What’s new a few seconds ago from xmpp […]
14 April, 2011 at 5:49 pm
jsk
All the latest Federal Budget News http://www.2012federalbudget.com
14 September, 2011 at 5:54 am
California
[…] absoluto, el mundo de los números (ni siquiera la política económica de EE UU le es ajena: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/the-federal-budget-rescaled/). Terrence Tao es el Mozart de las matemáticas; como dicen muchos de quienes lo conocen: “si […]
4 January, 2012 at 4:48 pm
human mathematics
Also, the difference between 7, 6, and 5 family members working would be pretty significant.
If you think the family is “too big”, you could say that they are caring for 1-2 grandparents, who don’t work.
4 January, 2012 at 9:19 pm
human mathematics
Actually, thinking about the 9 people as an extended family (not necessarily even living under the same roof) makes the thought experiment quite clearer.
5 January, 2012 at 10:12 pm
human mathematics
Terence, the CBO links are now 404’ed. :(
15 October, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Visualizing Vastness - NYTimes.com
[…] another important topic that bewilders most of us because of the gigantic numbers involved. In an illuminating blog post, the mathematician Terry Tao brings those numbers down to size by converting them to their […]
16 October, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Size of the Federal Budget | Admiral Hornblower
[…] another important topic that bewilders most of us because of the gigantic numbers involved. In an illuminating blog post, the mathematician Terry Tao brings those numbers down to size by converting them to their […]
28 November, 2012 at 9:47 am
Lesson Plan | Understanding the Mathematics of the Fiscal Cliff - NYTimes.com
[…] the Budget to Household Size: The world-famous mathematician Terence Tao suggests rescaling federal budget numbers by converting $100 million to $3. This has the effect of scaling the entire federal budget of $3.54 […]
28 November, 2012 at 10:49 pm
The Learning Network: Lesson Plan | Understanding the Mathematics of the Fiscal Cliff | Easy Nulled Script
[…] the Budget to Household Size: The world-famous mathematician Terence Tao suggests rescaling federal budget numbers by converting $ 100 million to $ 3. This has the effect of scaling the entire federal budget of $ […]
19 June, 2021 at 7:13 pm
Who’s Afraid of Big Numbers? - The Inzider
[…] money become more comprehensible if they are reframed in terms of more familiar amounts. In a 2009 blog post, the mathematician Terry Tao rescaled the entire United States federal budget to the annual […]
29 June, 2021 at 3:09 pm
Scaling and Fame | Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP
[…] was referenced for a post he wrote in May 2009 when Barack Obama was working on his first budget as President. The ratio of […]