Deficit has a Numerator and Denominator
1 Aug 2011Ok, I’m pretty bored with the debt graphics, but Barry Ritholtz today had a few that illustrate the problem quite well.
This one makes clear our deficit is as much a result of falling revenue as it is of rising spending:
The same numbers in percent of GDP make sense when you take the recession shading into account:
I highly recommend you read the article and discussion over there.
Comment Form
What is Chart Porn?
An addictive collection of beautiful charts, graphs, maps, and interactive data visualization toys -- on topics from around the world.
Categories
- Bailout (118)
- Chartporn Related (3)
- Commentary (21)
- Culture (669)
- Emerging Markets (66)
- Employment (245)
- Environment/weather (133)
- Finance (298)
- Food (92)
- Global Economy (373)
- Graphic Design (bad) (26)
- Graphic Design (general) (183)
- Graphic Tools (23)
- History (158)
- Housing (162)
- Humor (204)
- Innovative (183)
- Interactive (545)
- Internet/tech (97)
- Maps (578)
- News Media (34)
- Politics (329)
- Reference (97)
- Science (331)
- Source: Economist (101)
- Source: FT (92)
- Source: NYT (147)
- Source: Ritholtz (76)
- Source: USA Today (27)
- Source: Washington Post (90)
- Source: WSJ (135)
- Sports (58)
- Stock Market (74)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Updated regularly (76)
- US Economy (553)
- Video (22)
- Aram Korevaar: This chart is now being used as a projection in which countries such as China see themselves as in a [...]
- David: Welcome back Chart Porn! [...]
- J S: Thanks for the great story. Miss reading this blog. Hope to see you more active again. [...]
- jake: I lived in a DC row house for 6 years, and I'm writing this comment from my tiny 1 bedroom apartment [...]
- ronny pettersen: Hilarious and unfortunately accurate... ;-) [...]
2 Responses to Deficit has a Numerator and Denominator
Matt
August 1st, 2011 at 10:02
Too bad he switched the colors of the lines between the graphs.
Matt
August 1st, 2011 at 16:33
Hmm… we had a pretty big drop in revenue from 2001-2004, but it started to come back after that. Things probably would have been fine if not for the housing bubble bursting, although the bubble probably produced a lot of revenue. If the Fed hadn’t kept rates so low from 03-05, then that revenue spike in 07 would be a hill, and who knows, maybe it would still be going up.
Our problems don’t stem from not taking in enough revenue. They stem from spending too much (historical average is 18-19% of GDP). Greece can’t solve its problems by taxing its citizens more, and neither can we. This is a bi-partisan problem. Bush shouldn’t have cut taxes if he was going to spend like he did. Obama shouldn’t have increased Bush’s 20-21% to 25-26%. Both would be a lot more popular if they spent less, not if they taxed more.