Alternative Energy Research vs Weight Loss Products {Infographic}

I agree with Daniel.  The scale is neither linear nor properly logarithmic.

The presumption of the author is breathtaking.  I may not choose to spend my money on some of those things, but who is to say what are ‘non-essential products and services’?  Overdraft Fees are not exactly discretionary payments for many people.

Spending on Lotteries is in large part redistribution of wealth, as the gamblers receive money back as prizes, and the beneficiaries would otherwise have to raise funds by some other means; only the administration costs are actually ‘spent’.  

In the President’s 2012 budget proposal released in February, the Administration recommended spending $8 billion on “clean energy and technology programs”, from a total Department of Energy budget of $29.5 billion (http://www.energy.gov/news/10064.htm).  This seems to have been left off the so-called ‘infographic’.

Spending on research does not automatically lead to scientific developments.  Some problems do yield to ‘blood and treasure’, but sometimes spending all the money there is will hardly accelerate progress.

Hydrogen research globally has been running at nearly $1 billion per year for the last decade or so; the US government has spent billions on it.  To date, it has produced precious little to show for this.  There are those who would argue that even $0 is too much, and the money would have been better spent on tanning, psychics and weight loss.