Graphic of the Day

From Don Surber; link via Instapundit.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Imagine how bad it would be without the recovery plan, really.

    Like, in the 20s.

  • CatoTheElder||

    This graph can't be right ... all I hear and read in the news says that economic recovery started in the third quarter!

    Remember eight years ago when the MSM lambasted Bush for his "jobless recovery" with an unemployment 5.0%? You don't have to be a Republican to discern media bias.

  • ||

    Rush Limbaugh is a Traiterous ASSHOLE!! anyone who listens to that drug addict is just a fucking asshole that should be shot in the head. You my little one, are not an american!!

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Do you have a single scrap of evidence to support your conclusion? Because according to the White House's numbers, without the plan we would've been at 9%. On what are you basing your new claim that we would've been at 20% or more?

  • ||

    Just wait it will be in the 20s. WITHOUT the recovery plan, we would already be recovering, really.

  • Abdul||

    It's almost like a couple of Ivy League grads aren't smarter than the entire frigging economy.

  • ||

    Hahaha... very well said.

  • ||

    God bless the Stimulus.

  • ||

    I got it wrong too...I estimated that with the stimulus that we'd see a lull in the unemployment rate around 7%, and then sometime in the next year or so, there would be a spike increasing it to over 10%. Without I figured we'd work our way up to 8% or so, level out, and then slowly work our way back to 5% over the next couple of years. However, I underestimated how bad the economy was a bit, but also seriously underestimated how terribly the stimulus would be executed.

  • ||

    That graph has a white backrgound, and is thus racist.

  • ||

    See, Paul Krugman was right. He said the stimulus was too small!

  • ||

    Yeah, I bet that would be the official response. "WE NEED TO PRINT MORE MONEY!"

  • Ben||

    That is because he is simply overcompensating.

  • ||

    'backrgound' was deliberate. Proper spelling is racist.

  • ||

    He said the stimulus was too small!

    She said his stimulus was too small.

  • ||

    I was debating whether or not is was appropriate to crack a smile over the ineptitude on display here, the argument against it being the fact that 1 in 10 people don't have a job. Then the alt-text popped up. I didn't just smile, I laughed.

  • Kevin||

    The economy was not unresponsive to the stimulus.

  • Paul Krugman||

    Stop playing hard to get. Everyone knows you libertarians really like stimulus.

  • B Minus||

    Stop pretending to be Paul Krugman and falsly accusing libertarians... Idiot...

  • ||

    WIN. That should be the title of this post.

  • ||

    Barack the Stimulator has a really, really big idea in mind

  • ||

    Shit, Kevin. I laughed and cringed at the same time.

  • ||

    Still can't see alt-text with a mouse-over in Firefox, but I can see it if I right-click and view "Properties."

    What's tragic about this is that with lots of deregulation and government retreat from meddling in the freeish market, coupled with a true reform of the tax system, we could go into high-growth mode again. We may still go into an unexpected overdrive if we have one of our technological breakthroughs again. Which would mask the criminal ineptitude of government in economics. Again!

  • ||

    Kevin,

    Oh, right. Now I get it. Nice.

  • Typical Journalist||

    At this rate, we'll have 100% unemployment within a generation.

    Don't stand around and try to figure out what to do, just do ANYTHING!

  • ||

    At this rate, we'll have 100% unemployment within a generation.

    We'll all work for the govt (assuming we have govt approved political beliefs).

  • ||

    We'll all work for the govt (assuming we have govt approved political beliefs).

    And those without such beliefs are racist anyways, so fuck 'em.

  • ||

    Your guyz are not using the proper terminology. What the unenlightened called "unemployed" the enlightened call "green workers." They are "green" because they use zero carbon commuting, conserve resources with their "conservation salaries" (aka, unemployment benefits), and preserve the environment by not using anything. Soon, they will starve, die, decompose, and improve the soil. Win-Win

  • ||

    Dramatically cutting back on corporate taxation would get us out of this really quick. No matter what people like to think, we compete against other countries for jobs. If our regulation and taxation is more onerous than an alternative, companies will move if they can. Give companies a significant incentive to be here, and workers will be in higher demand. It's not terribly complex.

  • hurlybuehrle||

    Too true. I work for a multinational, and am really stunned by how many people I work with are interested in leaving for offices outside the US.

  • Nash||

    For further evidence please see Michigan, their unemployment rates and their corporate tax rates. Coincidence? I think not.

  • @||

    I'm confused. Does the graph indicate:

    A) Bureaucrats are stupid fucks
    B) Democrats are craven liars
    C) Reality is an untamed bitch
    D) All of the above
    E) Suck it, Chicago!

  • ||

    *sigh*

    Who wants to bet that the pols will simply decide that MORE stimulus is required?

    Do I have any takers?

    Anyone?

    Hello?

  • ||

    If the ecoinomy continues to nosedive for two more months, Stimulus II (III if you include Bush's $300 rebate) will be proposed and probably passed.

    Hey, whats a terabuck or two among friends?

  • ||

    ecoinomy...

    Since RC is busy today, I'll fill in.

    Sweet, sweet RC'z Law.

  • Mike M.||

    Oh well, close enough for government work.

  • ||

    Free helf care would fix much of this.

  • ||

    This would have never happened if there was a democrat in the White House.

  • ||

    It's Bush's fault! Has Obama opened the first envelope too many times yet? Oh yeah, and Bush is the reason the Olympics are going to Hugo's neighbor instead of the fine upstanding morally straight city of Chicago.

  • ||

    Aresen,

    Are we stimulating Canada, too?

  • ||

    Jeez, PL
    Canada is frigid, unable to be stimulated.

    Everybody knows that.

  • ||

    But, not unresponsive.

    Everyone knows how easy Canada is.

  • Roman Polanski||

    Frigid, but not unresponsive, sounds like my kind of girl. I hear the age of consent is only 16 there too. Which makes it much more believable.

  • ||

    Well, Obama gave them a share of GM.

  • kbolino||

    1. Graphs should ALWAYS have scales on every axis.

    2. When measuring zero-based quantities (unemployment is, the month is not), the scales should ALWAYS start at zero.

    Otherwise, the magnitude of differences can easily be manipulated.

    I'm not arguing that unemployment isn't a serious problem, and I'm sure that the differences between actuality and the White House's estimates are large.

    It just never hurts to be straightforward.

  • Matt||

    For the "graph police" here's one with both axes labelled and scaled:

    http://mises.org/images/3701/Figure1.png

  • kbolino||

    The axis still starts at 3%. Do some digging and you'll find that the responsibility for the original sin belongs to the government. The administration used a scale from 3% to 10% to exaggerate the differences between their own two incorrect predictions.

    No need to get so defensive.

  • Autodidact||

    People with a brain can quickly determine that each line up is 1% and each line across is 6 months.

  • roystgnr||

    What is "straightforward" depends on what data you're plotting and what it is being used for.

    Your weatherman does not need to plot temperatures in Rankine with the axis at absolute zero, or even in Fahrenheit with the axis at the "fake zero" of that scale; people need to be able to see day-to-day differences even at the cost of forcing them to think about the y axis scaling.

    And in this case, if the difference between "without stimulus package" and "with stimulus package" is small enough that it fits entirely within the graph, then there is no point in making the graph larger; the difference between "projections" and "reality" is on the same scale. That's a normalization that is particularly appropriate in the context of the political point being made.

  • kbolino||

    Indeed. If to be "straightforward" the graph must have its axis start at zero, then it would also follow that the top of the axis must be one hundred percent. Such a graph would not however been meaningful in the context of unemployment, which has never reached its theoretical minimum or maximum values (in the latter case, not by a long shot).

    I suppose then that the most "straightforward" scaling would depend upon the time frame under consideration. For the small time frame of the graphic presented here (late 2008-end of 2009), the scale as chosen might be appropriate (~7.3%-10%).

    Probably should have thought this through a little more first.

  • hmm||

  • hmm||

    doh missed the first post.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Yah. Not making a clear indication of a suppressed zero and exaggerated vertical scale is a lie of omission (and a favorite way to add "punch" to your statistics, of course).

    In this case the data is there (the labels on the real world data points allow you to deduce the scale, but still...

    Doesn't surprise me in the least to hear that this particular manipulation came originally from supporters of the stimulus.

    Make your kids read "How To Lie With Statistics", and if they are up to it the Tufte. Go read them yourselves if not already familiar with the subject.

  • Distinguished Gentleman||

    Everyone needs to calm down and not be so unpatribigoted. All our stimulus really needs is a "surge."

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Just a question of time.

  • ||

    @, can I answer both D and E?

  • @||

    Yes! It's a trick question.

  • ||

    Obama: The tap water coming out of that faucet is too hot -- let's cool it down.

    Cranks open the "hot" lever even more. Steam starts billowing out of water.

    Libertarians: You fool! That's not the "cold" lever.

    Obama: Shut up, racists! I know what I'm doing. I just didn't turn the faucet far enough to "cold".

    Voters: It burns! It burns! Cool it off.

    Obama: No problemo!

    Cranks on "hot" lever some more.

  • ||

    "All those vicious teabaggers want to do is to flush the toilet while you're in the shower..."

  • ||

    This Graph makes a perfectly good Friday Funny. Unlike Bok.

  • Bok||

    Warren is never funny.

  • hmm||

    Need to add a correction and comparison for historic levels.

  • I, Kahn O'Clast||

    While I was and remain against the stimulus a couple of thoughts: First, less than a third of the stimulus has been committed (let alone spent) and the bulk of the spending is scheduled for next year (it always was thus).

    Second, large portions of the stimulus are not targeted to things that create jobs instantly -- there really is no equivalent to the programs of the 30's. Some do, most - like the tax cut portions and extensions of benefits -- do not.

    Third, employment typically only recovers well after the recession is over. And that makes sense: businesses hire only when they need too and can no longer extract extra productivity out of current workers.

  • ||

    Fair enough. But why didn't the Obama administration take all of that into account when they came up with their economic predictions with/without the stimulus?

  • Vi Agra||

    Off Topic:

    Obama failed to get the Olympics. Mitt Romney in 21012!

  • Vi Agra||

    2012. Damn!

  • hurlybuehrle||

    It might take until 21012 before I can stomach voting for Romney.

  • ||

    Fuck! That's it! Our enlightened betters know that the world's really going to end!

  • ||

    Despite the numbers above, the stimulus has to be working beyond Joe Biden's wildest dreams!

  • Zeeshan||

    I think Obama is doing all he can, the recession is so deep because of the previous government that it would be hard to turn around the numbers quickly.

  • ||

    If by "doing what he can" you mean spending money like a girl with a newly issued credit card, then yes, he's doing what he can . . . to drive the economy to the ground.

  • Suki||

    HEY! I have my own credit cards ;)

  • roystgnr||

    Sure, he may have failed utterly at *predicting* the economy, but *controlling* it is so much easier, so there's no reason to think he's not doing super at that! What kind of heartless person would think otherwise? Will we be taking away blind people's drivers' licenses next???

  • reply to this||

    Shut the fuck up, lefty affector of weird Britishisms.

    reply to this

  • ||

    To channel the climate modeling dunderheads:

    "It's worse than we expected!"

  • ||

    Uh, the BLS Discloses It Has Overrepresented Payroll Data By 824,000 Or 15%

    The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2009 total nonfarm employment of 824,000 (0.6 percent).

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

  • JB||

    ObamaFAIL

  • db||

    Why no alt-text in Firefox?

  • Suki||

    Because Chrome RULEZ!

  • Suki||

    Thank GAWD Black unemployment is only 15.4%. If we had some racist administration they would all be dead!

  • ||

    The author of this post needs to cite a credible source that can be verified. Anyone can draw a graph.

  • ||

    People posting don't seem to understand what exactly this graph proves. It successfully demonstrates that the administration incorrectly estimated 2009 unemployement. That's it. And it isn't very shocking, since almost no consensus economic forecasts have ever been all that accurate when dealing with volatile situations.

    It makes no value judgement about the stimulus's benefits, or whether or not we would have been better or worse off without it.

  • Neu Mejican||

    JeffyB,

    Careful. The gloating frenzy might get you.

  • ||

    " It successfully demonstrates that the administration incorrectly estimated 2009 unemployement."

    Estimates based on overly optimistic projections of the stimulus's effect.

  • mash||

    If you want more empirical evidence that stimulus packages [which is another word for taking employment capital away from employers and giving it to useless programs] hurt the recovery rather than help it, look at Japan's growth since 1989 when their government thought it could stimulate recovery, only to realize that taking money from employers hinders employment.

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/009850.asp

  • ||

    Did they used IPCC computer models to produce this forecast?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement