El Guapo wrote:He could so easily win a third term were that constitutionally permissible.
And that drives the GOP insane.
Hate to interrupt your little leftie orgy you are having here....
But I have to say I know a bunch of Republicans that would gladly vote for Bill Clinton over Barack Obama now that we have seen how bad it can be.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
I continue to hope that my favored candidate has a change of heart and enters the race.
Mike Huckabee did in Arkansas exactly what you guys are proposing needs to be done here. He raised taxes. The difference? He said he was forced to raise taxes for a defined period of time to fix a problem and that he would lower them when that problem was fixed. What did he do? He did exactly what he said he was going to do and reduced them when the problem was fixed.
I trust none of the current politicians in power to keep their word on something like that.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:I trust none of the current politicians in power to keep their word on something like that.
I don't trust the federal government to keep its word on something like that, let alone politicians who will most likely be out of office by the time any debt fix is complete.
BTW, I bet it's Rick Perry instead of Hucakbee.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
msduncan wrote:I trust none of the current politicians in power to keep their word on something like that.
I don't trust the federal government to keep its word on something like that, let alone politicians who will most likely be out of office by the time any debt fix is complete.
BTW, I bet it's Rick Perry instead of Hucakbee.
Probably so. I just favor Huckabee because he has demonstrated through action that he will do what he says in a situation that requires something unpleasant like the tax increases in Arkansas.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
msduncan wrote:
But I have to say I know a bunch of Republicans that would gladly vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama now that we have seen how bad it can be.
The "arguments" here sort mostly into two groups: One rails on about how "runaway entitlements" are leading to a deficit explosion. The other advises that Social Security can be "saved" in the long run by timely changes, typically involving a mix of taxes and benefit cuts, including, notably, yet another rise in the age of eligibility for the program.
Neither point of view makes much sense.
....
Considering the havoc that the financial crisis wreaked on the home values and pensions of ordinary Americans, proposals that Democrats should roll over and join Republicans and the Peterson Foundation in cutting Social Security is outlandish. As profits for the banks the American people rescued soar, it marks a new low in the Democratic Party’s long retreat from the New Deal’s glittering promise that ordinary Americans, too, deserved to share in prosperity.
5% warrants a yikes? That's a misleading graph, since they don't put the natural min/max of 0/100. Also, where's the commentary, the information about how the calculation is made?
A 5% drop in civilian employment. Okay. This isn't a new data point in the conversation. Unemployment went from 4.x% to 9.x%. That's pretty much the 5% difference in the graph. Data without context is just numbers. I would expect a Harvard economics professor to understand both the proper way to present numbers in a non-biased way (if he wants) and the need for an explanation of what he's presenting.
Isgrimnur wrote:5% warrants a yikes? That's a misleading graph, since they don't put the natural min/max of 0/100. Also, where's the commentary, the information about how the calculation is made?
A 5% drop in civilian employment. Okay. This isn't a new data point in the conversation. Unemployment went from 4.x% to 9.x%. That's pretty much the 5% difference in the graph. Data without context is just numbers. I would expect a Harvard economics professor to understand both the proper way to present numbers in a non-biased way (if he wants) and the need for an explanation of what he's presenting.
That's 5% of the adult population out of the workforce. Yikes is a polite understatement. It's awful--we've hit a 30 year low at this point in the employment ratio.
Also, what is misleading about it? That is government data and is generally considered reliable. What would a natural min/max of 0/100 going to accomplish when as a nation we've never approached a 0% or 100% employment rate? My only comment would be I'd be more interested in it being expanded horizontally to give a historical comparison.
Isgrimnur wrote:That's a misleading graph, since they don't put the natural min/max of 0/100. Also, where's the commentary, the information about how the calculation is made?
I don't think it's misleading as it's clearly labeled. It shows a precipitous drop that occurred largely during the "economic meltdown." It also shows the subsequent lack of recovery. To show it on a 0-100% scale wouldn't reveal the relevant detail.
A 5% drop in civilian employment. Okay. This isn't a new data point in the conversation. Unemployment went from 4.x% to 9.x%. That's pretty much the 5% difference in the graph. Data without context is just numbers. I would expect a Harvard economics professor to understand both the proper way to present numbers in a non-biased way (if he wants) and the need for an explanation of what he's presenting.
It's not new data but it's a new look. I don't see anything biased in the presentation.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
It's misleading in that it's zoomed in with no natural zero point on the y-axis. Which is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia calls out as a no-no.
The most commonly seen "sensationalization" of graphs in the popular media is probably when the graph is drawn with the vertical axis starting not at 0, but somewhere just below the low point in the data being graphed. Both upward and downward trends are exaggerated, for a more exciting look.
...
For this reason, the graph ... is misleading. It is certainly more exciting than the "flatter" equivalent, but to be accurate, the graph should have been created with the vertical axis starting at 0.
If I were presenting the data, I would have started with a 0-100% y axis, and then made it clear that I was zooming in on a limited time frame and vertical section. This graph doesn't show anything outside of the last several years. Where are the historic comparisons? Where it the explanation section that details what he's trying to get across? It's a drive-by posting at best.
Isgrimnur wrote:It's misleading in that it's zoomed in with no natural zero point on the y-axis. Which is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia calls out as a no-no.
That's because it's abused on Wikipedia. They're calling out misleading graphs.
To say that all graphs need to start at zero and run to the top value (or 100%) is absurd. The graph in question here isn't misleading. The first thing I did was look at the axis labels and from there it's pretty clear. It may have been out of context in this thread, I'll grant that, but it still isn't misleading IMO.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
It gets misused everywhere. I'm not saying every graph EVAR needs to have a 0-point intersection to be valid. And I expect people of this board to be more savvy about graphs than I do the internet as a whole, so the reaction of the forum members is not the one I'm concerned about.
I went looking for the source. If it had been attached to a detailed post about this guy's thoughts on the subject, I doubt I would have even mentioned the graph. But the post on his blog was the graph and the graph only. Between the issue with the axes and the complete lack of commentary, I felt like it was the equivalent of a drive-by post by the author.
If the post was some GraphJam item, I wouldn't care. but this guy's a Harvard professor? I suppose I've victimized myself in this case by having the unrealistic expectations that he actually attempt to educate his readers and not just present data in a vacuum. To me, it's either his incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead. But I suppose I shouldn't see malice where the explanation can more easily be incompetence.
malchior wrote:Here is a graph from Calculated Risk of the same data but from 1960 on. It is centered from 53 - 69% -- that scoundrel!
I still don't get how anyone can call it misleading. In a historical context this is still pretty bad.
Isgrimnur wrote:My beef is with the graph's creator.
Other than calling Mankiw incompetent or a poor teacher (he's neither), you have thus far failed to demonstrate that the chart as presented is in any way misleading.
If your gripe is against reality as expressed in those figures, then welcome to the club!
malchior wrote:That's 5% of the adult population out of the workforce. Yikes is a polite understatement. It's awful--we've hit a 30 year low at this point in the employment ratio.
Really? Awful?
Define that. Increased death rates? Malnourishment? Social upheaval? Wars? Or are we just worried that people can't buy their next iphone?
If we are so precipitously balanced on the knife edge that civilization can't handle a 5% drop in employment, we're doomed anyway.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
Isgrimnur wrote:My beef is with the graph's creator.
Other than calling Mankiw incompetent or a poor teacher (he's neither), you have thus far failed to demonstrate that the chart as presented is in any way misleading.
If your gripe is against reality as expressed in those figures, then welcome to the club!
You are familiar with the source, I would imagine. I am not. I have no idea as to the quality or content of his teaching content or his blog. As this is my first impression of Mr. Mankiw, it is a poor one.
As for failing to make my case, I have cited a source that indicatse why the graph could be considered misleading, especially without explanatory context. Your unwillingness to accept it as such is not my issue.
Yes, historically, it's bad. And it may have been unintended by the original graph maker*, but the initial impression is misleading because it paints a picture thats different (in this case that it's much worse).
*I know, when I taught Google spreadsheets, that I would point out to students to make sure to set the graph axis to zero to make the graph clearer, because it defaults to the above behavior. I don't think Excel has this behavior defaulted, though.
Isgrimnur wrote:My beef is with the graph's creator.
Other than calling Mankiw incompetent or a poor teacher (he's neither), you have thus far failed to demonstrate that the chart as presented is in any way misleading.
If your gripe is against reality as expressed in those figures, then welcome to the club!
You are familiar with the source, I would imagine. I am not. I have no idea as to the quality or content of his teaching content or his blog. As this is my first impression of Mr. Mankiw, it is a poor one.
Some of us do due diligence before opening our mouths to malign others. Some of us don't.
As for failing to make my case, I have cited a source
Wikipedia.
that indicatse why the graph could be considered misleading, especially without explanatory context. Your unwillingness to accept it as such is not my issue.
I'm a Tuftean at heart. Truly. But your complaint fails to connect regardless of my unwillingness.
Thanks. The use of graphical distortion in propaganda is one of my areas of academic specialization, so I'll fall back on that. But I appreciate the links, even though they do nothing to establish your point in this particular case. You have failed to establish the guilt of this innocent chart. That's just the way things are.
I have no issue with the data represented, as I've been the one tracking monthly unemployment numbers in EBG.
Your ability to identify and diagnose misleading visual displays of quantitative data needs work. I guess it got some exercise right here!
My cites clearly call out the lack of a zero point as a contributing factor as to a misleading graph, of which this particular specimen is guilty of. I make no contention about the motivations of Mr. Mankiw, especially as he did not deign to enlighten us as to the point of posting the graph. My contention that the graph, to an uninformed and untrained observer (of which there are few that frequent this board), could be misleading and has the potential to be deliberately used in that manner stands as my opinion.
Just because something is not misleading to me or you because we know what to look for does not invalidate the argument in a general case.
Other than counter-arguing my point of contention, you have given me absolutely no evidence to sway me to the contrary, and I will not take your argument on faith or from authority.
a) this is not new information. Nothing happened recently that we weren't aware of yesterday. Or the day before.
b) Grund's limited commentary (yikes!) combined with the narrowly defined axis, gives the implication that this is somehow a new and serious event that evokes an emotional response. Which is sorta fine, I guess. But that info was nearly identical yesterday, last week, last month or even last year.
Yikes is warranted when we first realize the pit we're in. Yikes is not what I'd expect after spending 6 months in the pit. 6 months in the pit warrants a "we're still stuck down here, not much positive happening".
Yikes is what you say when you get shot in the gut. 6 months after the gut shot you say "my gut is still sore", or "damn, this pain is just as bad today as it was when I got shot".
But Grund knows this. It's not like he chooses his words at random.
GreenGoo wrote:My (limited) issue with the graph is that:
a) this is not new information. Nothing happened recently that we weren't aware of yesterday. Or the day before.
b) Grund's limited commentary (yikes!) combined with the narrowly defined axis, gives the implication that this is somehow a new and serious event that evokes an emotional response. Which is sorta fine, I guess. But that info was nearly identical yesterday, last week, last month or even last year.
Seeing "old" data in a new and novel way can really bring home the "yikes." This is the point of graphically displaying statistics.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
GreenGoo wrote:My (limited) issue with the graph is that:
a) this is not new information. Nothing happened recently that we weren't aware of yesterday. Or the day before.
b) Grund's limited commentary (yikes!) combined with the narrowly defined axis, gives the implication that this is somehow a new and serious event that evokes an emotional response. Which is sorta fine, I guess. But that info was nearly identical yesterday, last week, last month or even last year.
Seeing "old" data in a new and novel way can really bring home the "yikes." This is the point of graphically displaying statistics.
Unemployment rates are discussed here on a nearly daily basis, exactly because they are a major cause of concern and economic indicator. I would expect yikes from random people on the street. Not from R&P. It's not that I object to the information re-presented in graph form. It's just that I'm left scratching my head that any regular reader of R&P would be all "yikes" when they viewed it.
It's particularly useless as it only describes the current downturn without historical context to compare it to, so all it describes is that the US employment situation has dropped precipitously since the bottom dropping out of the housing market and banking crisis. "Well, duh" is how I respond to that. I just fail to see how it's a yikes moment for anyone paying attention. We have a multi-page thread in EBG that discusses the impacts to peoples lives of this economic crisis.
So, basically, my issue is not the graph, but responses that seem to indicate surprise at what the graph indicates.
*shrug* I guess I'm surprised people are surprised.
Isgrimnur wrote:My cites clearly call out the lack of a zero point as a contributing factor as to a misleading graph, of which this particular specimen is guilty of.
Permit me to help you identify the specific fallacy in your reasoning.
"If misleading, then doesn't start at zero" does not imply "if doesn't start with zero, then misleading".
"If doesn't start at zero, then possibly misleading" does not imply "if doesn't start at zero, then definitely misleading".
You're moving fallaciously from the lefthand proposition to the righthand proposition in either the first or second case.
Arcanis wrote:The too big is an issue the fact that you have 2 different Y axis to deal with depending on which line you are looking at makes it worse.
I didn't even realize that it had a second Y axis. Heck, I can't even read the entire key.
am I supposed to be looking at the blue line or the black line?
Isgrimnur wrote:My cites clearly call out the lack of a zero point as a contributing factor as to a misleading graph, of which this particular specimen is guilty of.
Permit me to help you identify the specific fallacy in your reasoning.
"If misleading, then doesn't start at zero" does not imply "if doesn't start with zero, then misleading".
"If doesn't start at zero, then possibly misleading" does not imply "if doesn't start at zero, then definitely misleading".
You're moving fallaciously from the lefthand proposition to the righthand proposition in either the first or second case.
These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
I still say it's misleading - even if it's unintentional. It's omitting context and visually gives the impression that the the change is more impressive than it actually is. If a portion of the graph needs to be blown up to give the details, it can be done while also giving context, as mentioned before. It's not as if we can't afford to both provide details and context - pixels are not an endangered species.
As for the second graph - assuming I'm reading it right - it's saying that we're now doing as bad as we did in the mid-70s? This is news?
I suppose I would think the steepness of the recent decline is more notable (and that's not clear in the original graph, either)
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Gotta agree with you here. Isgrimnur using Wikipedia as his first citation to make his point was a bad foundation from which to work, as well.
As an aside, I had an attorney cite Wikipedia at me to make a point at work very recently. I laughed, as it was quite the sign of desperation on his part.
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Was that post really good for diplomacy?
I'm known for my light touch.
I'll never understand why you seem to take pride in talking down to others.
Isgrimnur wrote:These are not natural law statements on my part, and I have never made any claim that my opinion on them is anything more than that. I consider the graph to be misleading, you do not. Let's chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on.
You are mistaken. But we can pretend it's a difference of opinion if that's what's good for diplomacy.
Was that post really good for diplomacy?
I'm known for my light touch.
I'll never understand why you seem to take pride in talking down to others.
I don't understand why you don't get it. The way is by no means shut.
I'm not sure who you are, but the nick looks familiar enough that I have to assume you've been around here for a few years.
