Will Trump Win ?

Online surveys are not entirely in his favor. But I will analyze them. COMING SOON

Fact Checking Income Inequality Beliefs PART 1

I previously addressed income inequality a year ago and would like to conduct a deeper investigation that is more factual and precise. We will first analyze a few statistics and debunk them or support them before heading into the truth of the matter. I before thought it was problematic. But I was wrong, he is my updated version.

1): The 1st Caption may convince you how income income inequality is catastrophic and how the top 1% are like super wealth pigs. You may also think that as the wealthy people get really rich, the income of the middle class drops. 

Solution:

A: Actually if you consider the 1990s to be a period of great economic prosperity and that everyone was pretty happy, then it would be fair to use it as a reference point as your target. Well, it appears that if you compare the top 1% share of wealth you will see that during the period of prosperity it was at 15% and increase to 20%. Thus, the top 1%'s wealth distribution of 20% of GDP is not going to tear apart your economy like they claim.

B: If you look at the first graph, you see massive increases (and decreases) in salary for the top 1%. But if you look at the lower level folks, you see that they are steadily increasing. They are not decreasing however, this means that these super wealthy people are transferring wealth from you and to them because otherwise your salary would decrease dramatically as they increase. This is not the case in the graph; thus that can be debunked.

C: You will find that as the top 1% salary growth crashes, the lower levels don't really drop too much. This is probably because of stocks and bubbles. Actually, most of the top 1% people are heavy stock people and thus this statement would make sense. Also, if they get super rich on stocks, it does not hurt the economy at all because stocks and thus contributing to income inequality, it does not hurt people economically at all. For instance, it doesn't mean they need more healthcare, surgeries, transportation, protection, etc as any low level person. In fact, it even helps the economy if they win big on stocks because that means companies that employ thousands of workers will grow.

CONCLUSION: INCOME INEQUALITY IS NOT AS BAD AS IT SEEMS OR IS PRESENTED.

Oh, by the way. The last graph is deliberately misleading because it does not start as 0. This creates an illusion that fluctuations and changes are bigger than they actually are. It is deliberately misleading by huge proportions to trick people. And Also.... since it seems you, Crazy Clinton have coined the term "FACT CHECK" on Trump and policies that make you look bad. Maybe I should write a post fact checking you ?

Bias in News Organizations

Coming soon.

The Dakota Pipeline

The Dakota Pipeline, proposed by the Dakota Energy company has began construction.

A): The Bakken pipeline will stretch 1134 miles.
B): The construction cost is 3.4 Billion Dollars.
C): It will create only 40 permanent jobs and 8000 temporary construction jobs.
D): The company was able to use eminent domain to seize land in certain states.
E): The pipe is 30" in diameter and will be buried to a depth of at least 4 ft underground.
F): It will transport approx 20,000,000 gallons of oil per day.

 Environmental Issues: "No moisture required"

A): The pipeline is buried. This is an epic failure.  It appears that it is to hide the unaesthetic aspects. And leaks so that regulators can't fine them lots because you really don't know if it's leaking or not if it's underground. Also, it would be almost impossible for regulators to prove it because you can't really pinpoint the exact section that is leaking. The environmental problem is not from 1 massive leak but rather ten thousand little tiny leaks across 1134 miles which would add up to thousands of gallons of oil over time due to rust, erosion, settling, etc. Also, the oil will evaporate from the pipeline too which will add up to lots of oil as well.

Solution: Build your damn pipe line above ground and make it illegal for them to build it underwater because it will directly contaminate drinking water. Prevent them from building it under the river and make them make their own bridge to carry the pipeline over the river.


B):  Pipeline tech is very 19th century. In fact, unlike computers which have gone from massive things the size of rooms to the size of a cookie, pipeline technology has remained the same. Thus, leaks and failures are very common. Pipelines are made of 1/2 steel and are expected to last forever. However, the leak a lot.


Solution: The government should have a law that each pipeline must have a pipeline bot per mile. And, the pipeline must be made of 2 pipelines so that if there is a leak, it can be captured. Also, the government should subsidize these innovative technologies to help make pipelines more Eco friendly. And encourage them via grants and education/engineering.
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/how-it-works-pipe-bot-seeks-leaks

GIVER ME A THUMBS UP AND COMMENT. 

Social Issues:

Not yet complete. Coming Soon.

Government Simulations and Science

It would be interesting if the government took of a small plot of land, around 80 square miles and used it for simulations. For example, they could create 3 countries and experiment with them. The government would get citizens to move into the 3 countries and run a civilization similar to that of the U.S. However, there would be simulations. For example, in one country, all the factories might move to the other country, and researchers would measure it's economic effects. Or, maybe one country might devaluate their currency and scientists could see how it effects things. Or even, introduce compulsory vegetable policies and see how it effects health. Or even, increase the minimum wage. I think that this would be a really beneficial way for government to start being scientific and innovative. They could run REAL simulations instead of sticking to flawed policies. It would also have real advantages. Instead of collecting data from other countries, you can ensure accuracy and even take data on the smallest effects that simply cannot be achieved without running your own real, human simulation.

Moving the U.S into the Burj Khalifa

I think that ideally, everyone should live in cities. The reason being is that it is the most effective solution to housing massive populations in small regions.

A): There are environmental damages when people spread out such as suburban areas. For instance, it takes 1000 acres of land to house 2000 people when a sky scraper can house them in a 10 acre plot. Think about the deforestation, in efficient use of resources, and consumption of space in a small planet with a growing population.

B): Skyscrapers can last for a thousand years, where a house usually deteriorates in a few hundred. Thus, resources can be preserved efficiently.

C): You can have massive forests and lots of land for farming and wilderness with the saved space.

The cost of Burj Khalifa is 1.5 billion USD. The Sq ft is 3.3 million. Thus, price/sq ft is 454 USD.
Assuming a person can live very comfortably in 500 sqft, it would cost 320,000,000 people x 500 sqft x 454 USD= $ 72 trillion to house us all.

And the amount of land it would use ? Unfortunately, I could not find the exact footprint so I am going to take a guess. At

* Not that bad. Look at our 20 trillion Nat. debt and I think that you could save excess gov't revenue for 100 years and come up with the 72 trillion. I also think that with scale and mass production and innovative techniques/engineering  costs will drop dramatically, so it would be more like 30 trillion.

Trump Cartoon

Coming Soon

Hillary Clinton Cartoon

*I USED GOOGLE DRAW TO MAKE THIS CARTOON> THANK YOU GOOGLE and People who took the pictures which I borrowed and reformatted in this cartoon. 

This Cartoon depicts Hillary as JEKYLL and MR.HYDE. TO SEE FULL IMAGE
CLICK HERE:

LEAVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION.