"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
news
"Ignoramus17377" wrote in
message
...
From Barron's:
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/Debt-Service.jpg
I'd say it's the dangers of a lack of growth of disposable income
Ig.
--
JC
That graph says that debt service was at its highest three years ago,
and
that all components are now on the way down.
Here's a better graph of the current situation. This probably is the
source
for the graph above:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TDSP?cid=97
The Barrons graph went back to the 1930s, and showed debt et al at
levels equal to toady, just before WW2. The FRED plot only goes back
to
1985, depriving us of the context. One assumes that the Fed has the
data somewhere.
Joe Gwinn
Well, take a look, Joe. Those are interactive graphs -- you can set them
back to the beginning of the data series. Set the time range to something
other than "Max" and it will open a new graph with additional tools to
set
the time range.
And, in addition to FRED, there's an archival dataset called ALFRED...
http://research.stlouisfed.org/tips/alfred/
..., another set of the St. Louis Fed's research data, with which you can
go
back to the beginnings of when the data was kept and see additional data.
The Barrons graph certainly used the same data, but it's too coarse to
tell
you what's happening now. Some of the FRED data goes back to 1929.
Most stop short. But some do go back a goodly bit, such as to 1919. It
will take some digging to find the few long-term data series.
The historical contexts are always interesting but you have to be aware
of
the history of events and financial structures to recognize what they're
telling you. Another thing to watch for: Some of that data is just total
numbers for the country, not per-capita, so population increases have to
be
taken into account.
Most of the data is adjusted for inflation, but, again, look at the title
of
the graph. And if you want to go beyond the FRED data, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) has much more. It's just not as slick in the
graphing department as the FRED data is.
Takes lots of research to be sure. But we do have to widen our view if
we are to have any idea what is usual versus unusual.
Joe Gwinn
I have to provide the black-box warning: For some personality types, it's
addictive. d8-)
There is another entire layer of this data, which is for the real hard-core.
It's the various Census reports, which break things down into fine particles
and that go back as long as data was kept. As it is now, and as it's been
for decades, the data is presented in spreadsheets that don't even have
plain-language labels. It's all coded numbers and letter combinations.
Sorting through it, with the aid of a spreadsheet program, is deadly. But
it's what I used to have to do to produce reports on manufacturing
industries, for years.
There's a heap of data available, though, if you have the need or interest
to get into it. The FRED graphs are a vast improvement and the government
has made great progress in making all of this stuff more accessible and
manageable. It's an ongoing project.
It's reached the level of practicality that I don't hesitate to suggest that
people with a strong interest in what's happening with our economy take some
time to look into it. The things you're looking at, FRED and ALFRED, are
really worthwhile. It dispels a lot of myths and it shows how superficial,
and often misleading, press reports can be.
You seem to be interested in gaining some historical perspective and for
that, the data is great.
--
Ed Huntress