Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was going to explain why the decision to graph rates of increase over time is misleading, but I thought, why bother? Happily, others (Yglesias and DeLong) have already done it for me.
|
(dunno how I missed this one--thank you poorly executed last-visited cookies).
The quarrel, if any, should be the use of a line graph rather than a bar graph, which is how these figures are usually presented. So, instead, imagine bars the height of which for each quarter is equal to where the line is.
Rates of increase over time
are relevant and appropriate. First, the GDP figures that are reported are increases (decreases)--economic growth is measured by growth, not standing still. If standing still were what was expected, then we would see simply absolute figures, a la the stock market. Second, as a graphic-presentation mechanism, actual numbers would be difficult to to demonstrate a trend with. There's almost always growth (and this is historically true), so it's an ever-rising chart that rises either faster or slower.
While Shultz's RA should have used the "bar chart" option in Excel, the general point remains the same. Although Clinton maintained a steady growth rate for most of his terms, both Bush 1 and 2 have increased the growth rate from where it started. Whether any of this has meaning or importance is another question.
