« See what I mean | Main | Playthings in the unreal world 2 »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341e992c53ef012876b6c825970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Playthings in an unreal world:

Comments

zbicyclist

1. Any country can be evaluated relative to any other country. The US is not always correctly valued, it's just the standard for the index.

Similarly, if we have a price index in which 1984=100, it's not that prices were perfect in 1984, it's just that you have to index relative to something.

2. Why should zero be in the middle? Remember than +100% is the same as -50%; indices are not symmetric around zero.

3. Perhaps the price is so high in Norway because the alternative is a McLutefisk?

pushmedia1

"the Economist has gone the way of USA Today in embellishing its graphics with distracting, loud, uninformative images"

Its clear in The Economist's case that the picture isn't meant to convey anything about the information being displayed. The Ronald McDonald picture is just a picture (that happens to be very, very near the chart). This isn't true for many examples from USA today. My question is: are pictures adorning articles always junk charts?

ACLS

The obviously silly theory might have a better fig leaf if it claimed that the resulting percentage, rather than directly stating the over/undervaluation of currency, instead gave it as a proportion to whatever the over/undervaluation of the US dollar might be. So China's currency would actually only be 50% as undervalued as the US dollar's over/undervalue, which remains unknown.

Anything we can do to make this kind of garbage less fun is a boon to society.

Bill Mill

two thoughts:

1) Either the Ronald McDonald picture is very poorly photoshopped into the interior McDonald's scene or it's the only known 15-foot Ronald McDonald statue.

2) The choice of the US dollar is presumably because it's the world's reserve currency. So, yes, while this index will never show the over or under valuetion of the US dollar, it's a reasonable choice, and whichever currency you start from will always show 0 by default.

It would be fascinating to see small multiples of the "big mac index" chart using a few key countries' currencies as the baseline of the index.

Bill Mill

@ACLS:

> The obviously silly theory might have a better fig leaf if it claimed that the resulting percentage, rather than directly stating the over/undervaluation of currency, instead gave it as a proportion to whatever the over/undervaluation of the US dollar might be.

The chart says "local currency under/over valuation against the US dollar".

Which is to say, it *does* claim that the resulting percentage is in proportion to whatever the over/undervaluation of the US dollar might be. Get off your high horse.

L. Zoel

The statements "China's currency is undervalued compared to the US dollar" is equivalent to "the US dollar is over-valued compared to China's currency".

So, yes, the US dollar can be overvalued (and is compared to the Chinese yuan).

The reason the US dollar is at 0 on this chart is because the statement "the US dollar is over/undervalued compared to the US dollar" is obviously false/nonsensical.

Matthew

In general, and as is the case, if there are more and larger bars to the right of zero than to the left then the US currency is undervalued, and vice-versa. You might wish to weight the bars by each country's immportance, say in global trade or economic output.

Having zero in the middle wouldn't work. Norway's currency is nearly 100% overvalued against the dollar, but if you reversed it the dollar is only 50% undervalued. Maybe a log scale would convey this graphically more accurately?

Finally Economist charts have got more cluttered in recent years but I think - aside from it obliterating the US which I think unfortunately is deliberate - this isn't too bad.

Al

I wouldn't call the Big Mac Index a "favorite plaything" among economists. It's just a bit of dry humor--a tongue-in-cheek price index over one item. It is not meant to be taken so seriously. Jeez.

gardnertoo

"...under this economic "theory", the US$ can never be over- or under-valued..." Exactly so. The basis of this index is a product 'manufactured' in the US. Therefore it's price in US dollars is taken as the "correct" price, against which the others are compared.

derek

My rule is "can I crop the picture out and only show the chart?" If yes, it's just nearby. If no, it's junking the chart up.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Vimeo and NYU. See my full bio.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues