If you change the settings from millions of dollars to percent change it gives you a better idea of what’s going on historically. I am not advocating deficits, big government or Obama; I am just saying:
Thanks. You are right. Just change the settings in Rand’s link to “percent change” from “millions of dollars”
The point of the graph is to show something. Changing the graph so it doesn’t really show anything kind of defeats the purpose.
To argue it’s no big deal… Well ok, you can make that argument.
You don’t mind if some of us continue to think it is a big deal, eh?
If you look at the chart in terms of percent change instead of unadjusted 2012 dollars you will notice that there were other spikes in the deficit that were actually greater than the present one. You can also compare previous, greater spikes with the economic and world events that occurred concurrently. Context and relative percentage change are relevant to the discussion.
Also, if you ask your mom to read it to you again, you will not I made the disclaimer,”I am not advocating deficits, big government or Obama”. Also, they might point out to you that I made no argument that “it’s no big deal”.
Where did I say that changing the graph doesn’t show something ELSE?
Where did I characterize you as saying “it’s no big deal?”
Read a bit more carefully.
The original chart is impressive because of the cliff. Showing a different chart to make a different point is a way of de-emphasizing that point.
Your mom says you need to stand in a corner and look at the original chart for a while then tell everybody in class why it IS significant.
Or perhaps you should just ask Rand why he brought it up in the first place?
you can make that argument
Was a sloppy statement for which I apologize. It can be read in two ways. My meaning was, “That argument could be made.”
If you also adjust the chart to show last 10 years, you see a bit more information.
This chart is racist.
I think graphing it against GDP would be much more meaningful. The dollar amounts make WW2 seem like a relatively minor event.
Jay,
Yes, or the CPI to correct it for the decline in the value of the dollar since 1971.
Tom
Rand,
Thanks. This supports a paper I presented in February showing the need to return to a gold standard as it shows clearly the fluctuations that started in 1971 when the U.S. left it.
Tom
Too many govt. control freaks like fluctuations. Democracy in action.
Yes, Thomas, I’m saying it would be better if I were emperor.
If you change the settings from millions of dollars to percent change it gives you a better idea of what’s going on historically. I am not advocating deficits, big government or Obama; I am just saying:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=FYFSD
Your link provides no specfic graph.
Thanks. You are right. Just change the settings in Rand’s link to “percent change” from “millions of dollars”
The point of the graph is to show something. Changing the graph so it doesn’t really show anything kind of defeats the purpose.
To argue it’s no big deal… Well ok, you can make that argument.
You don’t mind if some of us continue to think it is a big deal, eh?
If you look at the chart in terms of percent change instead of unadjusted 2012 dollars you will notice that there were other spikes in the deficit that were actually greater than the present one. You can also compare previous, greater spikes with the economic and world events that occurred concurrently. Context and relative percentage change are relevant to the discussion.
Also, if you ask your mom to read it to you again, you will not I made the disclaimer,”I am not advocating deficits, big government or Obama”. Also, they might point out to you that I made no argument that “it’s no big deal”.
Where did I say that changing the graph doesn’t show something ELSE?
Where did I characterize you as saying “it’s no big deal?”
Read a bit more carefully.
The original chart is impressive because of the cliff. Showing a different chart to make a different point is a way of de-emphasizing that point.
Your mom says you need to stand in a corner and look at the original chart for a while then tell everybody in class why it IS significant.
Or perhaps you should just ask Rand why he brought it up in the first place?
you can make that argument
Was a sloppy statement for which I apologize. It can be read in two ways. My meaning was, “That argument could be made.”
If you also adjust the chart to show last 10 years, you see a bit more information.
This chart is racist.
I think graphing it against GDP would be much more meaningful. The dollar amounts make WW2 seem like a relatively minor event.
Jay,
Yes, or the CPI to correct it for the decline in the value of the dollar since 1971.
Tom
Rand,
Thanks. This supports a paper I presented in February showing the need to return to a gold standard as it shows clearly the fluctuations that started in 1971 when the U.S. left it.
Tom
Too many govt. control freaks like fluctuations. Democracy in action.
Yes, Thomas, I’m saying it would be better if I were emperor.