Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveRetiring
Hmmmm, the chart shows for example, 1944 as let's say $10M. The average wage in 1944 was probably around $20/week.
It is $6,000,000,000,000 for 2002 where the average wage was about $600/week. Doesn't that make THE CHART dollars out of whack by to 600:20. Either adjust UP the 1944 DOLLAR figure relative to the average wage (or whatever) or adjust the 2002 DOLLAR DOWN.
|
Ok, I’m not a “money man”, but I have done some technical charting for brokers from time to time.
I do not think the “level” is the important information portrayed in the chart, but rather the rate of increase from year to year. Even if the value of the dollar also grew during Clinton’s reign, he managed to stabilize the growth of the debt.
That said, yes, the chart itself is somewhat misleading in that it seems to show that the debt grew much faster during the combined Republican admins, whereas the “real” numbers are an average of 8.3% per year for Democrats and 9.3% per year for republicans.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveRetiring
Er, pardon me also, but in the interests of accuracy, you can't get "more exponential" the data trend is either "exponential" or not.
|
Well, I think you have “true” exponential growth (as used in math), but it’s also a term that can be used nontechnical:
“The phrase exponential growth is often used in nontechnical contexts to mean merely surprisingly fast growth. In a strictly mathematical sense, though, exponential growth has a precise meaning.”
In the former sense, you can have shades of exponential growth (i.e. more or less exponential growth).