Obfuscated In Plain Sight
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park writes:
Looking at this chart, you might think non-farm employment has returned to pre-recession levels. No, the left side (Y-axis) measures CHANGE in jobs.
In other words, we’re no longer losing 7 million jobs per year as we did in 2009, we’re adding a million or so per year. But we’re nowhere close to where we were before the whole thing tanked.
Charts are supposed to make data EASIER to understand, to REDUCE confusion. What this one does is exactly the opposite. Since the guy releasing the chart is a Nobel Prize winning economics professor as well as a big Obama supporter, I have to wonder why.
Hat tip: http://www.powerlineblog.com/page/2?layout=blog
Joe Doakes
Como Park
I’ll quibble with Joe on one point.
Charts are supposed to make data…serve a purpose. Usually, that purpose is “make it easier to understand”, it’s true. But by no means always.
In this case, the Administration is using them to conceal facts in plain sight, and gull the low-information voter.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:38 am
No attempt to gull anyone.
The Bush policies caused the jobs to tank.
The Romney Ryan policies are a complete repeat of the failed Dubya policies — and even THEY don’t try to deny it.
The Obama administration policies, DESPITE obstruction from the right that was willing to hurt the country for political gain, succeeded.
It is not obscure at all — although Joe is a big one for cherry picking, and ignoring the rest of the facts…. like the one where the numbers are now HIGHER than before the big decline, under Obama.
You just don’t LIKE the numbers because they don’t support your ideology.
October 12th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Speaking of SUPPORTING your ideology DG, where’s your homework?
or is this another case of a DG drive by?
on 9.29.2012 DG said:
We seem to have had another ‘drive by’ commenting, where someone visits, makes an comment full of unsubstantiated accusations, and then runs away when they can’t provide facts to refute a substantive refutation of their accusations.
Sad. But typical of the reactionary/progressive ideology that puts what they want to believe in place of what is factual.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:03 am
The recession was not caused by the collapse of the financial markets dragged down by sub-prime mortgages promoted by Clinton under CRA, enabled by Jamie Gorelick lowering standards at Fannie Mae and protected by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd insisting everything was fine. No, Bush’s policies caused the recession.
In other news, the American consulate in Benghazi was not attacked by terrorists in a carefully planned and well-executed attack that disrupted our intellegence gathering network in North Africa and emboldened our enemies. No, YouTube did it.
You know, Mitch, it’s a damned good thing you have such an excellent fact-checker available to tell you what to believe. Otherwise, you’d be left to rely on your lying eyes. And Democrats everywhere would hate that.
.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:15 am
The only good thing to say about the comment of Penigma’s Chihuahua is that it wasn’t the length of a small novel.
Where’s the homework?
October 12th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Dog Gone said:
“The Bush policies caused the jobs to tank”
Which “Bush policies”?
“The Romney Ryan policies are a complete repeat of the failed Dubya policies”
Which “Romney Ryan policies” correspond to which “Dubya policies” you are referring to, but do not identify.
“and even THEY don’t try to deny it”
I wouldn’t either. I would give such a idiotic argument any significant amount of my time. It is “it’s Bushes fault” trying to sound intelligent, and failing.
“You just don’t LIKE the numbers because they don’t support your ideology”
An now you’re trying to be funny.
October 12th, 2012 at 11:12 am
s/would/wouldn’t/ — hehe
October 12th, 2012 at 11:35 am
The Bush policies caused the jobs to tank.
No liberal has ever been able to explain what they mean by “Bush policies”.
It’s like economics are magic to them.
October 12th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Troy for the win.
DG – is “hit and run” all you plan to do on this site? If so, it’s getting tiresome.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Mitch, she’s playing tit-for-tat.
I tried to engage in rational discussion at her blog for a couple of months around the time of the Aurora shooting. It was hopeless.
But reading Penigma is like watching a snake swallow a mouse: horrifying, and also fascinating. I found myself going back to leave occasional comments though I didn’t bother to attempt to answer the ten thousand pointless irrelevancies she would throw in response. In short, I became a drive-by comment troll. She’s returning the favor here.
Okay, point made, Dog Gone. I won’t comment at your blog any more. I won’t even read it. So you can leave Mitch alone now.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
My parody of a typical comment-reponse at Pen’s place:
Me: It’s called the “Civil War” not the “Civilian War”, which destroys whatever point you were trying to make. Also, Richard Nixon was never the president of the Teamsters Union.
Them: So that’s how you justify American soldiers raping and murdering Iraqi woman?