Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Economics

Graphic of the Day

Matt Welch | 10.2.2009 2:04 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

From Don Surber; link via Instapundit.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The FDA Is Not Sure Whether Smoking Is Worse Than Not Smoking

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

Economics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (86)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Jaybird   16 years ago

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

    Like, in the 20s.

    1. CatoTheElder   16 years ago

      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.

      1. RealAmerican   16 years ago

        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!!

    2. CaptainSmartass   16 years ago

      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?

    3. Todd   16 years ago

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

  2. Abdul   16 years ago

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

    1. Todd   16 years ago

      Hahaha... very well said.

  3. Pro Libertate   16 years ago

    God bless the Stimulus.

  4. aelhues   16 years ago

    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.

  5. Johnny Longtorso   16 years ago

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

  6. Hazel Meade   16 years ago

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

    1. sage   16 years ago

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

    2. Ben   16 years ago

      That is because he is simply overcompensating.

  7. Johnny Longtorso   16 years ago

    'backrgound' was deliberate. Proper spelling is racist.

  8. Johnny Longtorso   16 years ago

    He said the stimulus was too small!

    She said his stimulus was too small.

  9. Legate Damar   16 years ago

    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.

  10. Kevin   16 years ago

    The economy was not unresponsive to the stimulus.

    1. Paul Krugman   16 years ago

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

      1. B Minus   16 years ago

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

    2. sage   16 years ago

      WIN. That should be the title of this post.

  11. oldtimer   16 years ago

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

  12. Xeones   16 years ago

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

  13. Pro Libertate   16 years ago

    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!

  14. Pro Libertate   16 years ago

    Kevin,

    Oh, right. Now I get it. Nice.

  15. Typical Journalist   16 years ago

    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!

  16. Johnny Longtorso   16 years ago

    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).

  17. Xeones   16 years ago

    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.

  18. fresno dan   16 years ago

    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

  19. aelhues   16 years ago

    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.

    1. hurlybuehrle   16 years ago

      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.

    2. Nash   16 years ago

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

  20. @   16 years ago

    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!

  21. Aresen   16 years ago

    *sigh*

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

    Do I have any takers?

    Anyone?

    Hello?

    1. J sub D   16 years ago

      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?

      1. JW   16 years ago

        ecoinomy...

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

        Sweet, sweet RC'z Law.

  22. Mike M.   16 years ago

    Oh well, close enough for government work.

  23. bigbigslacker   16 years ago

    Free helf care would fix much of this.

  24. JW   16 years ago

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

    1. sage   16 years ago

      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.

  25. Pro Libertate   16 years ago

    Aresen,

    Are we stimulating Canada, too?

    1. J sub D   16 years ago

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

      Everybody knows that.

      1. JW   16 years ago

        But, not unresponsive.

        Everyone knows how easy Canada is.

        1. Roman Polanski   16 years ago

          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.

    2. Todd   16 years ago

      Well, Obama gave them a share of GM.

  26. kbolino   16 years ago

    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.

    1. Matt   16 years ago

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

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

      1. kbolino   16 years ago

        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.

    2. Autodidact   16 years ago

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

    3. roystgnr   16 years ago

      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.

      1. kbolino   16 years ago

        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.

    4. hmm   16 years ago

      http://michaelscomments.files......mpdata.jpg

      here ya go.

      1. hmm   16 years ago

        doh missed the first post.

    5. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   16 years ago

      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.

  27. Distinguished Gentleman   16 years ago

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

    1. Ebeneezer Scrooge   16 years ago

      Just a question of time.

  28. aelhues   16 years ago

    @, can I answer both D and E?

    1. @   16 years ago

      Yes! It's a trick question.

  29. prolefeed   16 years ago

    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.

    1. JW   16 years ago

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

  30. Warren   16 years ago

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

  31. Bok   16 years ago

    Warren is never funny.

  32. hmm   16 years ago

    Need to add a correction and comparison for historic levels.

  33. I, Kahn O'Clast   16 years ago

    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.

    1. Hunter   16 years ago

      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?

  34. Vi Agra   16 years ago

    Off Topic:

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

  35. Vi Agra   16 years ago

    2012. Damn!

    1. hurlybuehrle   16 years ago

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

    2. Hazel Meade   16 years ago

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

  36. Old Mexican   16 years ago

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

  37. Zeeshan   16 years ago

    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.

    1. Old Mexican   16 years ago

      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.

      1. Suki   16 years ago

        HEY! I have my own credit cards 😉

    2. roystgnr   16 years ago

      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???

  38. reply to this   16 years ago

    Shut the fuck up, lefty affector of weird Britishisms.

    reply to this

  39. DanD   16 years ago

    To channel the climate modeling dunderheads:

    "It's worse than we expected!"

  40. tgs   16 years ago

    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

  41. JB   16 years ago

    ObamaFAIL

  42. db   16 years ago

    Why no alt-text in Firefox?

    1. Suki   16 years ago

      Because Chrome RULEZ!

  43. Suki   16 years ago

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

  44. Speaker-to-Animals   16 years ago

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

  45. JeffyB   16 years ago

    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.

    1. Neu Mejican   16 years ago

      JeffyB,

      Careful. The gloating frenzy might get you.

    2. Hazel Meade   16 years ago

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

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

    3. mash   16 years ago

      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

  46. kbettik   16 years ago

    Did they used IPCC computer models to produce this forecast?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Shocking Mistake

Charles Oliver | 7.11.2025 4:00 AM

Trump Wants Harvard To Hand Over Info on Over 10,000 International Students

Autumn Billings | 7.10.2025 5:18 PM

The People Who Wrecked N.Y. Schools Love Zohran Mamdani

Matt Welch | 7.10.2025 5:03 PM

The Department of Homeland Security Says Trump's Immigration Enforcers Are on a Mission From God

Jacob Sullum | 7.10.2025 3:15 PM

Trump's 50 Percent Copper Tariff Will Drive Up Prices for Tech, Homes, Military Equipment, and More

Eric Boehm | 7.10.2025 2:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!