So you're saying we don't have a major monetary crisis coming?

Did I say that? I never gave an opinion on that. All I said was that the graphs are bullshit, which they are. It's really just horribly misleading statistics.

Beyond the fact that statistics as a whole tends to be misleading without huge amounts of context I think you're being extremely dismissive of the information presented where a simply skeptical view is called for.

The only substantive point you raise is inflation but inflation doesn't explain why certain metrics presented, like National Income, which have never gone negative before are now hugely negative (similar stories with several other graphs).  Beyond that inflation doesn't change the implications of the sharp slopes on the most recent decade of the unadjusted graphs.

Having said that, you're certainly right that adjusting for inflation provides critical context which raises mitigating factors to the conclusion of unavoidable full-scale catastrophe, but it doesn't kill the point outright.

Not to mention that even the inflation adjusted graphs are pretty striking by themselves:

In short, yes there is some misleading information here, but I don't think declaring all of it utterly useless is right and I don't think it makes for a very good argument.

Finally a well made reply! =P

You're right that this data does show a awful recession, I've never believed this was anything less for America. However it wasn't a depression (to the best of my knowledge at least) and isn't a full scale catastrophe.

These graphs do show concerning things but they hugely exaggerate them by not taking into account inflation. Most of the graphs shown are rendered near useless by not taking into account inflation, you can only view adjacent points with any reasonable fairness - not the entire timeline.

Also it's worth noting that most of the graphs do not include the only economic crisis worse than the latest one, the great depression.

I may have been overly dismissive of the information presented in the graphs but blatant abuse of statistics irks me.

"Statistics are like ladies of the night, once you have them down you can do what you like to them"

Inflation doesn't affect most of those graphics that much. Almost all of them are year-on-year comparisons, you wouldn't see a huge difference due to inflation on those because the inflation effect doesn't accumulate if you're always comparing to the previous year only.

No inflation still does change it hugely. A 1B difference between 1945 and 1946 is more than a 10B difference between 2005 and 2006.

Yes but... I still don't see inflation affecting these graphs much. I think this would be a lot easier if you pinpointed exactly which graphs you think are misleading.

The first, fifth and eighth ones can't be affected by such factors, as it's the first time they're going negative. The second one was only negative once before, and that was at a very recent time where inflation wouldn't make a big difference. Similar things can be said for the two last graphs.

The third one could actually be affected, but let's look at it closely. From 2000 to 2010 it shows an increase from 2 to 3.4. That is a 70% increase, WAY more than inflation.

The fourth one is showing way too big increases to be explained by inflation as well.

The sixth one is inflation adjusted.

The seventh one is in percentage and year-on-year, so inflation would show equally no matter the place in the graph.

I think you didn't think about your claim that inflation was a significant factor in explaining the reality in these graphs.

Inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

edit - fixed link.

The big concern here, should not be an issue about the numbers themselves, but about the fact that none of those graphs have stopped moving in the wrong direction.

Rath says this is not a Depression. How do we know that, when we don't know where this ends? We are still failing at an alarming rate.

All of them except for the ones taking inflation into account and the percentage change YoY are badly misleading. Yes there may be shocking information still within these graphs but they are an atrocious way of showing it clearly designed to exaggerate and mislead, if they took inflation into account it would be far more reasonable. And yes I did think about my claim and I stand by my claim. I'm actually suprised nobody else has agreed with me, it's truly atrocious statistics.

@Mafoo. Well I don't know if it was a depression but we aren't falling at an alarming rate, at least not by the most common indicator.

Of course it remains to be seen whether this is a true recovery or purely a result of economic stimulus.

Oh yeah...let's borrow hundreds of billions, print hundreds of billions, artificially inflating the economy and call it growth.

No, it doesn't remain to be seen as it is directly the result of the influx of more borrowed and printed money.

You can't have a recovery without savings and a reduction of debt. If I owe $1,000, have $5 in savings and borrow $900...just because I only need $95 to go doesn't mean I'm recovering. Now I have to pay back the borrowed money too. Not only have I not recovered, but I had to spend that $5 I had to help pay it off so now I've even more broke than before.