poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (12/17/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 17 Dec 84 Volume 4 Number 110
Contents: Safety Nazis
Wealth
Inman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 16:18:30-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: safety test crash
Regarding the airplane crash to test the new antimisting kerosene:
At least one news broadcast I heard claimed that the FAA was going to
try to *require* its use, even after the fiasco test crash. Talk about
not learning from mistakes...!
annette
------------------------------
Date: 7 Dec 1984 5:36-PST
From: knapp%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
JoSH,
I think that the figure $250K/life is too high. The last time I read
of such a thing, it was in regard to a freeway interchange, and the
(State of California, I believe) allowance was $25K/life. That was
several years back, but inflation isn't that bad. Sorry, no reference.
One does suspect that the valuation of life is not consistent across
various causes of death. Does anybody out there know of a tabulation
of both preventative and compensatory costs of death, indexed by
cause? It probably turns out that we all die bankrupt.
David
[Sounds reasonable. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 84 01:58:47 est
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Subject: Re: Safety Nazis
This characterization of the FAA seems unfair. They certainly wanted
to find out whether the anti-misting fuel would work, but the stuff
has enough problems that its chances of ever being made mandatory were
always a bit uncertain. [Sample problem: it doesn't pump well.] Any
"Notice of Proposed Rule-Making" coming out of this test would have been
more like a "Notice of Serious Tradeoff Evaluation" in reality.
Also, how many lives it would save is a function of the assumptions you
make about safety and crash rate. Most of the casualties in the worst
air disaster in history -- the runway 747-747 collision at Tenerife --
were from the fire that immediately followed the collision. This is a
fairly common pattern in air crashes: fire and fumes kill far more
people than impact.
As for whether the money would have been better spent elsewhere... the
FAA doesn't have the authority to do that.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 16 December 1984 00:20-EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: how much is a life ''worth''?
Date: 4 Dec 84 13:10:24 EST
From: DIETZ at RUTGERS.ARPA
Re: Safety Nazis Strike Out at Edwards AFB
You probably saw on TV that test crash at Edwards AFB last weekend.
The antimisting kerosene, which was supposed to prevent a fireball
when the plane's wings were ripped, didn't work, so the FAA probably
won't be able to require its use. What I found interesting was the
cost/benefit analysis that came out afterwards. On average, requiring
the use of the additive would have cost $800 million/year, and saved
30 lives. I suspect the FAA was publicizing this test because it didn't
have a chance of getting the stuff required without public clamour.
[$800 million could save about 3,200 lives if spent on things like
highway modernization or increased ambulance availability. The rule
of thumb is $250K/life as the marginal funding level in many things
like that. --JoSH]
I would like to see a reference for this assertion, if one exists. How
inclusive is the phrase ''many things like that''?
-- Steve
[ Moderator -- Please don't edit or append to this message. Thanx. ]
$$
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 84 17:08:33 est
From: Larry Kolodney <lkk@mit-eddie>
Subject: distribution of wealth in the USA
[forwarded from another list]
> >When is the last time you saw ANY newspaper present information about the
> >distribution of wealth in this country? Occasionally they present information
> >about the distribution of income, never about the distribution of wealth.
Always willing to throw some facts at a discussion, here is some
data on 'wealth' in the US. The source data is the Statistical Abstract
of the US, 1978 edition, with adjustment to the present for inflation and
an assumed 2.7% per year increase in real wealth (this is the average
historical rate).
NATIONAL WEALTH -- The value of the United States and everything in it
except the people is 13.75 Trillion dollars, of which 10.5 Trillion
is privately owned. The major components are: Land, 3.1 Trillion;
Residences, 3.2 Trillion; Other Structures, 4 Trillion; Equipment, 2
Trillion; and Households, 1.45 Trillion.
PERSONAL WEALTH -- The components of personal wealth are (in Trillions)
Real estate - 4.5, Stock - 2.6, Bonds - 0.5, Cash & Savings - 2.2,
Debt Instruments - 0.2, Life Insurance - 0.4, Misc. - 2.5, less Debts
- (-2.4).
WEALTH DISTRIBUTION -- These figures are approximate and interpolated
values. Real estate is assessed for tax collection, Stocks & Bonds are
traded on exchanges. Hence, there is fairly accurate data on amounts.
Who owns what, on the other hand, is only investigated at death for
estate taxes, so the data is not as good. With those caveats, the
table below gives the distribution of wealth in the US.
Wealth Class Net Worth ------------Percentages--------------
(K$) of population Cum. Cum. Wealth
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Superrich >7500 .1 .1 22
Very rich 4000-7500 .3 .4 39
Rich 1500-4000 .6 1 52
Very wealthy 750-1500 .8 1.8 61
Wealthy 300-750 1.2 3 66
Moderately " 175-300 2 5 71
Upper Upper 100-175 5 10 77
Upper 66-100 10 20 86
Lower Upper 52-66 5 25 90
Upper Middle 30-52 15 40 96
Middle 8-30 25 65 99
Lower Middle 0-8 20 85 100
Poor <0 15 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545
and more ....
Subject: more on the distribution of wealth in US
Newsgroups: net.politics
Distribution: net.politics
THe following is from the December 9 issue of PARADE magazine:
Intelligence Report by Lloyd Shearer
A government survey of consumer finances and wealth distribution,
conducted on a continuing basis by the Federal Reserve Board and six other
federal agencies, reveals the following findings as of 1983:
* The top 2% of American households - those whose wealth was more than
$455,000 per family - held 28% of the nation's household wealth.
* The wealthiest 2% owned 71% of all tax-exampt municipal bonds, 38% of
all taxable bonds, 22% of the individual checking accounts, 13% of the
money market accounts, 23% of certificates of deposit, and 12% of the
money in savings accounts. They also owned 62% of all stocks in private
hands and 42% of all the real estate purchased as investments.
* The top 10% of American families - those eraning more than $50,000 a
year - reported average financial holdings of $123,693, compared to an
average of $18,539 in holdings for families earning $25,000 to $30,000 a
year.
* The typical American family had a net worth of a little under $25,000
- an increase of 18% over the typical family's worth in 1977, even after
adjusting for inflation.
* Almost 20% of all American families had a negative net worth, meaning
that they had more liabilities than assets.
* More than 17% of all Americna households has a net worth of more than
$100,000.
* Houses constituted the major asset of the average American family.
* Home mortgates accounted for 75% of the total household debt.
The basic trend of the survey indicates a growing concentration of
wealth in the coffers of a small number of families with high annual
incomes.
------------------------------
Subject: waiting till I find out more...
Date: 17 December 1984 00:33-EST
From: Howard D. Trachtman <HDT @ MIT-MC>
Date: Tuesday, 20 November 1984 21:56:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: LaDouche and Bobby Inman
Have you ever met Inman? I find it extremely hard to believe that he
would give LaRouche the time of day, much less meet with him. What
was the documentation for this report?
No, I haven't nor did I author the original article. I forgot the date, but
(ret) Adm. Bobby Inman will be speaking at MIT as part of the LCS (not LSC!)
distinguished lecture series sometime early next year.
--Howard--
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------