Submitted by IndeterminateYogurt t3_zzp93v in dataisbeautiful
Comments
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2cz73q wrote
thanks! yeah, the World Bank thankfully supplies metadata regarding regions. Generally a great source for socioeconomic data that is easy to use! Theres even an R package to download data directly from their servers.
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dh2kg wrote
Actually used a different one (quite a while ago, can't remember the name), but this one looks even more functional, so thank you for the recommendation! :D
MMAgeezer t1_j2di87f wrote
Ah okay cool, this was just the first one that came up upon searching! It has really nice features like cached data and the ability to search for indicators with regex.
remembermereddit t1_j2e2kb0 wrote
If only you took the colorblinds into consideration. I can't make anything of it unfortunately.
MMAgeezer t1_j2e7kbr wrote
For anyone reading this:
You can display a list of colourblind pallets directly in RStudio, run the following with RColorBrewer installed:
display.brewer.all(colorblindFriendly = TRUE)
[deleted] t1_j2fstsj wrote
[removed]
distinct_cabbage90 t1_j2djcyz wrote
And its more understandable and clearer to everyone.
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2cvgov wrote
Data: data.worldbank.org, data sets for gdp, population, defense spending, percentage of defense spending.
Tools used: R with ggplot2
Explanation: The black line represents 2% of GDP spent on the military, hence countries above that line spend more.
Therealdickjohnson t1_j2dl65s wrote
A little note on the graph saying the black line represents 2% would help.
soveraign t1_j2ec0ew wrote
Agreed. Once you figure that out the presentation is quite interesting.
popejubal t1_j2dqrqx wrote
The US spends more than $4500 per capita on military. Your chart looks like the US spends about $1000 per capita. What number did you use for US military spending for this chart?
[deleted] t1_j2dtqwb wrote
[deleted]
popejubal t1_j2e9fr1 wrote
It should still be noticeably higher because each measure is only 10 times the last. Not having horizontal lines makes it hard to see as well.
This data is interesting, but it is not beautiful.
Better__Off_Dead t1_j2fgf2r wrote
In 2020 it was $2,187 per capita on the military, but they spent $11,945 per capita on healthcare.
As far as % of GDP, in 2020 it was 3.7% on military and 16.8% on healthcare.
newaccount721 t1_j2d2w39 wrote
Very cool. Thanks for sharing.
mungerhall t1_j2d9juw wrote
Is this one of the data sets you used?
[deleted] t1_j2dbgf5 wrote
[removed]
ltethe t1_j2dlced wrote
What’s nuts is that in the 18th century, military spending was around 30% of GDP for many countries.
poktanju t1_j2dnghx wrote
Some reports say this is still the case for North Korea.
edit: source for the doubters:
>That accounts for 13.4 to 23.3 percent of the country's average GDP of $17 billion during the period.
Just_a_Guy_In_a_Tank t1_j2e5ix3 wrote
Well that’s fitting since North Korea is in many ways still living in the 18th century.
Pabrinex t1_j2doizj wrote
Really? Which ones?
Most countries would have had tax bases of only 10-20% of GDP back then so even if say, 70% of the national budget went on defence that'd be implausible.
Archmagnance1 t1_j2dt126 wrote
I assume they mean during the big conflicts because armies would be levied and trained specifically for conflicts instead of having standing armies. It's not absurd to think that during the napoleanic wars, the prussian expansion wars, and german unification wars that countries would be spending that much of their GDP. In peacetime though, i highly doubt it. Even during the naval revolution from 1860(ish) on through WW1 i doubt it reached 30% GDP, even the Royal Navy.
Rhydsdh t1_j2fqfir wrote
It's because back then defence was the primary function of the state. The welfare state had not been invented yet, and governments had far fewer responsibilities than they do today.
jakubkonecki t1_j2d26ss wrote
Can't always tell which label belongs to which point.
Can't tell why only certain counties are labelled.
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dbj26 wrote
yeah just getting into geom_label_repel, definitely not perfect :D
[deleted] t1_j2dq1dv wrote
[removed]
agingmonster t1_j2d56ge wrote
Both dimensions are per capita almost forcing linearity under naive assumption which doesn't relate to your main message or insight. Consider changing y axis to % of GDP to defence to make meaningful insight stand out.
JustOneAvailableName t1_j2dhnsy wrote
As both are per capita, the diagonal line is 2% of GDP
ChunkyFart t1_j2fcdw1 wrote
Looks more like 1% tho
de6u99er t1_j2cwu4n wrote
How many of those countries are NATO members?
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2czt9s wrote
Its a dataset with 146 countries, cleaned up for NA's and such. So probably around all 30, maybe one or two less.
Xelaxander t1_j2dowd4 wrote
Hope you didn't clean up NAmibia
[deleted] t1_j2d6e52 wrote
[deleted]
s3maph0re t1_j2d9vrs wrote
Actually incorrect, there is no obligation in NATO to spend 2%. What the 2% comes from is a 2006 pledge by members, but that was non-binding and is a "target" not a minimum.
gscjj t1_j2dfyjc wrote
Which basically means they (most of the EU) will never do it, and the US will be the bulk share of NATO missions.
cowboy_henk t1_j2dgott wrote
Many countries used to not spend that much, but have recently increased their spending in light of the war in Ukraine. Many are now at or above 2%.
_arc360_ t1_j2ehtqj wrote
They should have done it a decade ago
JustOneAvailableName t1_j2dih9m wrote
Although I do agree that europe could use a boost to it's army, I think it's mainly in a reduction in bureaucracy and investing more in domestic military industry. The EU has 20% more military personnel and thrice US's reserve. A large reason why expendenture is so much less is that it's aimed at defense and not oversea power projection. I.e. no aircraft carriers and nuclear subs
GarbledComms t1_j2djxoz wrote
But the US kind of needs the power projection capability to be a useful alliance member. Having a strictly territorial-defense oriented US military wouldn't do NATO any good. If it can't get to the battle, what use is it?
Archmagnance1 t1_j2dsmqq wrote
Yes but that wasn't the point. The point was explaining the different approaches. The US is an ocean away from anyone that isn't Central America or Canada. European NATO members were a couple hours train ride at most (besides the UK) from the reason NATO was formed, the USSR. Different geographical locations require different solutions.
KristinnK t1_j2draex wrote
Historically this hasn't been a problem, since the hypothetical war NATO was designed to fight was with the Soviet Union, and that war would happen when the Soviet Union actually invaded alliance members.
The situation today is quite different. The present and future threat is an aggressive China. For the continental alliance members to be useful in that fight they would need to invest heavily in power projection. And that simply isn't going to happen until China has already gone rogue, and will come too late to make any difference (see the war in Ukraine for reference).
Instead the U.S. will have to lean on allies in the Western Pacific. A re-armed Japan is going to be key, as well as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines and Australia. Defensive alliances with Vietnam and Indonesia also need to be established. China needs to be put in a position where a stunt like that of Russia in Ukraine would be absolutely suicidal to Chinese society, economy and instustry.
gscjj t1_j2djhsg wrote
Sure, the sit and wait strategy. Only problem is that doesn't stop enemies from getting to you in the first place.
The US has spent 25 billion in military aid to Ukraine which is practically double the aid from the EU. And Russia isn't advancing on our doorsteps.
If the US spent zero, there's a good chance Ukraine would be a Russian state by now becuase the EU couldn't do it alone, that's sort of what I'm saying.
StationOost t1_j2dkacq wrote
No one spend more in Ukraine than Europe. Military aid is just a part of what is necessary.
Til_W t1_j2dnsap wrote
An extremely important part though.
StationOost t1_j2dpcjc wrote
It's an important part, but American military aid is overpriced so any comparison of monetary value is useless. There is a lot you can do with 10 million, other than having a single missle.
Til_W t1_j2dqt3p wrote
Yes, but if you want to repel an invasion, you do need missiles, there's no way around it. Humanitarian aid is very important for lessening the pain that is already there, but it isn't going to stop Russia from hurting more.
StationOost t1_j2dt920 wrote
Missiles aren't that effective for defense. You can buy 100 million bullets for the price of 1 missile.
Til_W t1_j2duxpy wrote
TBH, this is a really stupid take and makes me think you're not that familiar with the topic of defense.
You can't stop a main battle tank with your rifle, actually no armored vehicle - you'll at the very least want AT missiles for those. And if you haven't noticed yet: Russia has a lot of these vehicles.
Now, if you were talking about non-AT AG missiles like HARM, you need those for defense (and retaking territory) too, mainly for attacking behind the lines equipment like artillery and air defense, which both are extremely important for supporting your enemies offense.
In case you missed it, it's no longer WW1.
StationOost t1_j2e60g2 wrote
I didn't say you should try to stop a tank with a rifle, what a stupid suggestion. I'm saying that most of the warfare in Ukraine is by infantry right now. If that is "WW1" for you, whatever.
Til_W t1_j2eqxkc wrote
You said that "missiles are not that effective for defense". If Ukraine is being invaded using e. g. lots of armored vehicles and you claim that missiles are not effective, what should they use instead? You only mentioned your "100 million bullets".
Adressing the current situation on the ground: So what? Infantry needs to be supported by vehicles, artillery and missiles to be properly effective. Zelensky was specifically asking for more Patriot systems (AA missiles!) just a week ago, they need them to shoot down Russian cruise missiles which are targeting Ukrainian infrastructure - yet you claim sending missiles is not effective for defense - huh?
If you're so convinced, please give me a concrete example of what missile that the US is sending to Ukraine is not effective or a waste of money.
^(And I don't think sending 100 million bullets would be worth it instead, Ukraine isn't actually short on mags. What they will need a lot of is AA missiles and artillery munition such as shells or GMLRS missiles.)
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dgb9z wrote
You could argue tho, that the "We can kill anything that moves wherever it is in less than 30 seconds"-ability the US gets for not spending a bit of the money on healthcare and education is a bit overkill and a bit unneeded.
Knows_all_secrets t1_j2dhyh7 wrote
Doesn't the US spend just as much of its money on healthcare as other OECD countries? It's just an awful system so people need to pay too.
Therealdickjohnson t1_j2dkye6 wrote
Yes. The US spends a higher percentage on healthcare than any other country. Significantly higher than other ocad countries. Problem is the system is not efficient. Huge amounts go into administrative costs because it isn't centralized. Wages for health professionals are also a lot higher in the states than any other country. And drug costs are higher than everywhere else too.
DecentlySizedPotato t1_j2dn9ou wrote
Military spending, even in the US, is almost an order of magnitude smaller than social security spending. Many western European countries have about 20% GDP spending on social security (including healthcare, public pensions, etc.). The US spends 3% of GDP in defence, most EU countries 1-2%. So defence spending is almost a rounding error here, it can be increased or decreased without almost affecting social security spending.
mkosmo t1_j2dzh0b wrote
It’s only perceived as “overkill” and “unnecessary” until you need the USA’s help. Then you’re glad that the US spends money on defense so her friends don’t have to.
[deleted] t1_j2dgpcn wrote
[deleted]
StationOost t1_j2dk67z wrote
Unlikely, European countries do not need to increase their defense budget, regardless of the US being part of NATO. Unless you think the US declares war on Europe.
dosedatwer t1_j2e4cot wrote
And vice versa for curtailing emissions.
jrhooo t1_j2ecy1i wrote
FWIW that agreement was freshly recommitted to in in Dec of 2022 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_210091.htm#:~:text=Allies%20agreed%20NATO's%20civil%20and,increase%2C%20respectively%2C%20over%202022.
IkeRoberts t1_j2dmqg2 wrote
How much is that target driven by the desire of the US defense industry to sell more stuff?
That industry has a lot of influence on policy, and a policy that increases sales and profit is great for business.
mkosmo t1_j2dzjwe wrote
There’s plenty of defense industry globally. Most sovereign states prefer local defense goods.
IkeRoberts t1_j2e4dyn wrote
Qatar, Saudi and Greece are the outliers on the chart. They don't have domestic defense industries. Greece is NATO.
mkosmo t1_j2e54ne wrote
They’ve been rebuilding: https://newlinesinstitute.org/greece/the-recent-turnaround-of-the-greek-defense-industry/
MMAgeezer t1_j2dgznv wrote
Most countries actually don’t even reach the 2% guideline.
Only the UK, US, and Greece have met the target every year for the last 8 years.
Mnm0602 t1_j2djnq6 wrote
US remembers 2% GDP spending on military like I remember the cost of my college apartment 15 years ago.
jonyprepperisrael t1_j2cxdlm wrote
How Israel isnt in 1st place? We spend so much on military
Rauko7 t1_j2dbhlp wrote
It's not total spending, it's percentage of GDP
vrenak t1_j2dd11o wrote
Qatar is expanding like crazy, because SA looking sus...
Just_a_Guy_In_a_Tank t1_j2e5qvu wrote
Perhaps military sales to other countries are not counted. Israel exports a huge amount of arms.
sheldonzy t1_j2dmo1c wrote
Gotta fund the religious as well 🤷♂️
Federal_Fisherman104 t1_j2dau38 wrote
AUS & NZ say hi
Where do we get lumped in this graph?
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dclwb wrote
Hi back from germany :)
SquirrelAkl t1_j2de7vu wrote
Huh, that’s higher than I would have thought.
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2det1y wrote
its relative, and not about overall spending: both NZL and AUS have a high gdp/capita, and a high defspending/capita.
[deleted] t1_j2dowpy wrote
[removed]
Jinxedchef t1_j2di6pv wrote
I always try to tell people that by GDP the US military spending isn't that far out of whack. But compared to revenue it is way too high.
omegasix321 t1_j2ew93g wrote
Yup, and it's not like all of it just goes into making a shit ton of bombs either. A good third of the budget is just for salaries and maintenance of existing equipment. We could legitimately cut half of the budget and still be the largest, best-maintained, and most modern military on the planet.
The real money waster is bullshit blank cheque contracting(over 400B in 2021) and outright money laundering/theft. There's a reason the pentagon has never passed an audit. Over half of its assets are just straight-up unaccounted for.
The modern U.S. military is a money sink for the corrupt and greedy, and every single politician that votes for yearly budget increases are complicit.
emerging_potato t1_j2dzma3 wrote
Why not just put the % of GDP per Capita on Military Spending on the y-axis? This way the audience wouldn’t need to do the math themselves.
CageyLobster t1_j2dvwu7 wrote
Isn't 2% a NATO requirement?
androbot t1_j2dhw0y wrote
It would be great to see labels for the top 10 or 20 countries by GDP (total, not per capita). This is a neat visualization.
virtuouspapaya t1_j2cx9v9 wrote
Very interesting! Would also be interesting to do analysis by these regions. I can tell by looking at the graph that a much higher percentage of the Middle Eastern countries are above the threshold than in Africa.
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2czj55 wrote
Same graph with labels removed and lin. regressions for country groups, if thats what you mean? a bit messy tho.
MMAgeezer t1_j2dhw56 wrote
Can you do that again with log-log transformations in the linear regression, to match the plot and idea behind using this kind of plot? Thanks!
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dkrsx wrote
I used this:
# geom_smooth(
# method = "glm",
# formula = y ~ x,
# method.args = list(family = gaussian(link = 'log')),
is that not how to do a log-log-transformation in ggplot2? So far haven't worked with a lot of log-scaled data
EDIT: ah, seems to only log y. That explains the curvature.
MMAgeezer t1_j2dqnod wrote
Actually, if the plot is already using transformed data inside the ‘aes()’ call, then you should be able to just use this if I’m not mistaken:
> geom_smooth(formula = y ~ x, method='lm')
[deleted] t1_j2dhop6 wrote
[deleted]
BicycleGripDick t1_j2dibw5 wrote
Ah, it looks like the Subsaharan is ripe for the picking!
IkeRoberts t1_j2dmztl wrote
US and China are both happy to lend them money to buy our weapons.
BicycleGripDick t1_j2dvbgd wrote
That’s not how you win Risk; Africa is worth 3 troops a turn.
Boonpflug t1_j2dmrrw wrote
the linear fit seems off could be log or sqrt fit better
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dn9sr wrote
Its a line indicating 2% of gdp, should've added a label to make it more clear
Boonpflug t1_j2fs8z6 wrote
Oh, I missed that, thank you!
JayKane1 t1_j2dx4fa wrote
Why do some of the colors not match the legend
japanesepiano t1_j2egxx0 wrote
The log scale is somewhat misleading. It makes it look like Ukraine and Russia aren't that far apart when in fact Russia is roughly 4x higher per person (and has many more people) than Ukraine leading to a huge imbalance in available weapons in the current war.
pastdecisions t1_j2eox2q wrote
Wait a second, is that Europe spending money on military? Who could've thought
Stillwater215 t1_j2f8mq3 wrote
Nice graph. Though I would actually take out having it be “per capita.” Since you’re using that for both axes, it’s actually not having any effect on the data points.
[deleted] t1_j2d2k58 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j2d5wl3 wrote
[deleted]
Xelaxander t1_j2dov07 wrote
Interestingly the correlation coefficient seems to be larger than 1.0.
[deleted] t1_j2dqiv4 wrote
[removed]
Scharnvirk t1_j2drjz4 wrote
Perks of living close to russia
markth_wi t1_j2dvxqk wrote
The inconpicuous beige dot with the 100k GDP and Polish levels of military spending....that's Switzerland....isn't it.
JayKane1 t1_j2fwh26 wrote
Why do the colors not match the legend?
[deleted] t1_j2dz4en wrote
[removed]
Savvsb t1_j2e0j5j wrote
This truly is beautiful (the data, not what it represents)
hassanhamadc t1_j2e1nsy wrote
It's alright but colors are not clear and I wished points were numbered and sorted highest to lowest in a legend on the side. Maybe harder to implement than I imagine.
Bikeboy76 t1_j2e32az wrote
UK please, darling.
hswerdfe_2 t1_j2e4d4d wrote
Nice. But I suggest the removal of the alpha, as it just makes it more confusing, adding no new information to the plot.
Just_a_Guy_In_a_Tank t1_j2e56zq wrote
Canada and Mexico slackin on the North American Defense Union ^TM
OutrageousBirb t1_j2e88hx wrote
What are those countries in Latin America?
Ravingraven21 t1_j2e8zr1 wrote
Why are they both normalized per capita? If it's just Defense vs GDP, what does per capita have to do with it on both axis?
[deleted] t1_j2eib0f wrote
[deleted]
CapitalHighHDLR t1_j2esrz8 wrote
That’s bullshit of you to combine Europe and Central Asia. Not distinguishing between Western Europe and the rest of it is one, but this?
mrmalort69 t1_j2f5qd6 wrote
This is a good way of visualizing it, you could also make the dots big and small representing the population of the country?
[deleted] t1_j2fclb7 wrote
[deleted]
Better__Off_Dead t1_j2ffjbw wrote
The US federal government spends 3.7% of its GDP on the military, but they spend 16.3% on healthcare.
MattrixLarr t1_j2fjdj6 wrote
Which country of LATAM is that green point on the bottom left?
[deleted] t1_j2flmv8 wrote
[removed]
MyriadSounds t1_j2dtcxz wrote
Thanks for that, great graphic. Why did you choose exactly these 10 countries to be named specifically? Also sad that so much money is spent on military.
saneinsouthRI t1_j2f4ihs wrote
Saneinsouthcounty: It sure would be great if it were impossible to even do this graph due to lack of data
MetaCalm t1_j2drn0o wrote
Thanks.
But what a waste. What an effing waste for mankind to spend that much on protecting him from self.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_j2du8os wrote
It got us internet so I’m not complaining
r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2drtuz wrote
High military spending is very much not a good thing. While necessary for most countries, military spending is not really productive, it doesn't help build a better, more capable society and it's a lost opportunity to spend on things that would.
That's at best case, at worst case someone starts thinking that all that spending should really be put to some use and goes and does something catastrophically stupid like invades a neighbor.
That in modern world almost universally ends badly for all parties involved.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_j2duudi wrote
It could be more efficient but it isn’t that bad a large portion of the US budget goes into healthcare and r&d
Am you are after all writing this text against military spending against on a thing developed using military r&d, mainly the internet (and likely on a GPS enabled device)
pk10534 t1_j2ela2u wrote
It’s bizarre you’d claim defense spending isn’t productive when defense spending in the US alone gave the world GPS, the internet (ARPANET), EpiPens, BugSpray, Duct Tape, Computers via the Army Research Laboratory, Nuclear Energy, Walkie-Talkies, and more.
I would consider quite a few of those inventions to be instrumental in our building of a “better, more capable” society.
r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2emklp wrote
These are all unintended side effects, inverse of collateral damage really. Imagine if the same sums that go to military would have been put towards R&D with a goal of civilian use to begin with.
pk10534 t1_j2endsf wrote
Those aren’t “unintended side effects” they were purposeful research projects. Do you realize how much money and planning and coordination went into projects like ARPANET, in conjunction with universities and the corporate world? To act as though these were accidents as if the DoD just stumbled into making GPS or ARPANET is just incredibly naive, to the point of sounding purposely facetious. You’re just making these claims that have no basis in reality and completely ignore the history of these projects and defense spending because you don’t want to admit that it has resulted in some pretty innovative projects.
r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2eysmd wrote
Of course they built them for a purpose, for the purpose of military use. It just happened that they were also incredibly useful for civilian use unlike many other DoD projects, but these projects weren't funded with that in mind.
pk10534 t1_j2f0z9c wrote
Does it really matter what the intended purpose was..? You stated that it never led to a better society, I’ve now given you quite a few examples of when defense spending absolutely led to a better society.
r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j2f6ouw wrote
You are cherry-picking random good accidents, what about all the rest of the military spending that had no other value than the military type? And do you think these advancements wouldn't have happened in civil sector anyway? They happened in military research because that's where the money went, not because military spending is inherently useful.
bnogal t1_j2drhjw wrote
Fake info.
Around 30% of countries says they spend more than 2% of GDP on their military.
farmallnoobies t1_j2da15b wrote
Cool.
Is there a similar plot for offensive spending rather than defense?
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dbk4c wrote
AFAIK there is no difference
Horror-Score2388 t1_j2derqq wrote
how could you possibly separate spending lmao
farmallnoobies t1_j2dg4i4 wrote
Well they claim to have done just that by calling it defense spending...
yes_its_him t1_j2do2ro wrote
That's not really what that term 'defense' means.
There's no distinct 'offense' budget.
dewlocks t1_j2ehgpr wrote
It’s a valid question. Not sure why the downvotes. It’s one of those things that is said so often, defense = military, no one really thinks about what the offense would be.
Wouldn’t all non-defense spending be offense spending? Transportation, agriculture, education etc. everything non-military related?
farmallnoobies t1_j2f356v wrote
Instigating wars and attacking other countries for their assets sure feels like offense rather than defense.
vrenak t1_j2dczaw wrote
Where do you put the cost of an artillery grenade?
4D51 t1_j2dmv3m wrote
That's probably one of the difficulties with this sort of comparison. Some things can't be divided neatly into offence or defence. Fighter jets can do both, for example.
There's also the "none of the above" category that can differ wildly from country to country. Does the naval budget include a yacht for the head of state? Does the army double as a police force? Is the military in charge of completely random shit like hydro dams? Sweden is famous for using highways as air force bases. Does that mean they can count highway construction as defence spending?
kthnxbai123 t1_j2cw4er wrote
This is very neat! I like that you color coded the regions also.