"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"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.
Umm. This explains a lot... starting with but not limited to the
glasses .......
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.
I certainly do not have the energy to be mining those old spreadsheets,
so FRED is going to be useful.
My more general complaint about many statistical arguments one sees is
precisely that they don't go back far enough to see how things really
work. Like those financial models that failed to include market
crashes, thus leading some companies into failure.
Joe Gwinn
You can learn a lot by looking at those graphs, even if you don't have a
background in the field. But be cautious in drawing conclusions.
Particularly with the historical data, the history *itself* needs context --
a historical view of events and trends in policy, changes in the state of
technology, and so on -- to make sense of it.
For example, it's a common misconception that manufacturing has been in
decline in the US for a long time, which people conclude after seeing how
the percentage of GDP represented by manufacturing has dropped, and after
looking at employment figures. But manufacturing has in fact steadily
climbed in dollar output. The rest of the economy has just grown faster, and
productivity improvements keep reducing the need for workers.
There are many stories like that.
--
Ed Huntress