Shrimp on a Treadmill Calculator/Understanding the algorithm

The following explains the rationale that is used to operate the Shrimp on a Treadmill Calculator.

Basic formula
$$p$$2 $$ = [ (c * p$$1$$)/165 ] * 100 ;$$

$$p$$P $$ < = 30$$

Translation: Percentage is product of 100 times the quotient of the factor of the vileness category times the pricing bracket, divided by 165. Preferable percentage is at or below 30.

Definitions for sliding scales
There are two sliding scales to determine the SoaT rating of a government spending project.


 * 1) Vileness
 * 2) Cost

Vileness defines how morally wrong or unnecessary that allocation of taxpayer dollars is. There are super-tier groups to the eleven categories that define this sliding scale:


 * 1) Perfectly Understandable (1 and 2)
 * 2) Irritating, But Somewhat Forgivable (3 and 4)
 * 3) Immoral (5, 6, and 7)
 * 4) Abominable (8 and 9)
 * 5) Diabolical (10 and 11)

Cost measures in brackets approximately how much money a group of taxpayers is forced to pay for the given project. More on that below.

Dimension 1: Vileness
How indefensible the reason for spending is. A "1" means perfectly understandable uses of public money. The higher up this scale goes, the harder it is to justify use of public money for that type of project.

Private sector goods factor

 * If there is no benefit of private sector goods being produced by the program, add 0.75 to category score before multiplying by 100.
 * If there is some benefit of PSG, then subtract 0.25 from the category score before multiplying by 100.

Dimension 2: Actual cost
How much is being spent, within certain brackets. Either one time or on a regular schedule.


 * 1) < $5,000
 * $5,000 - $30k
 * 1) $30K - $100K
 * 2) $100K - $500K
 * 3) $500K - $1M
 * 4) $1M - $5M
 * 5) $5M - $10M
 * 6) $10M - $50M
 * 7) $50M - $100M
 * 8) $100M - $500M
 * 9) $500M - $1B
 * 10) $1B - $50B
 * 11) $50B - $500B
 * 12) $500B - $1T
 * 13) > $1T

How to use
To use the SoaT algorithm, merely multiply the vileness tier of a government spending project by the cost bracket. The product of these two factors divided by the highest product possible for the scale is the SoaT index rating for that government project. Values lower than 0.01 are automatically rounded up to 0.01, so that the end result score may be listed as a percentage.

Examples

 * Example 1: Shrimp running on treadmills "for science" (i.e., the NSF's self-interest) &rarr; Tier 7 x Bracket 3 = 21 / 165 = a SoaT rating of 13%.
 * Example 2: Obamacare &rarr; (Tier 9 + 0.75 ) x Bracket 15 = 135 / 165 = 89%, almost three times the amount of unjustifiability required by the scale to be deemed wasteful in the first place! That's like having three times the legal limit of alcohol in one's blood when caught driving drunk!
 * Giving money to Egypt while under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood ranks at 78%! The same goes for giving money to Libya.  That's over 2-1/2 times the minimum requirement!


 * Lowest product possible: 1
 * Lowest possible score: 1%
 * Highest product possible: 165 (higher if 0.75 is added to Tier 11)
 * Highest possible score: 107% (if 0.75 is added to Tier 11)

Chart
The following is a chart of what the index can look like and what predictable results are without the +0.75 or -0.25 factors:



(Click to see full size.)


 * Values in blue are deemed "reasonable" spending for a government.
 * Values in green are deemed "slightly wasteful."
 * Values in yellow are "wasteful."
 * Values in orange are "extremely wasteful."
 * Items in red are "impeachable."

Disclaimer
Due to the general inflexibility of the calculator's relatively simple algorithm, it should be used as a supplement to common sense; but not employed as a substitute for it. If corruption is readily apparent in a policy decision to the point that the exact amount of money involved is irrelevant, then appropriate action should be taken against it - regardless of the calculator's opinion. As a general rule, anything the calculator estimates to be above 30% wasteful should probably warrant auditing and / or criminal investigation.