« Loss aversion | Main | Bubbles of the same size »



The problem that Wall Street didn't consider was that their investments were changing the whole economy. Debt was rising massively, until of course the first default happened. Then the money flows reduced and there wasn't the same available to pay debt.

They simply maximised for the local system and then found out that the global mattered.


If you're interested in the better statistic:

"One recent study found that a person who inherits the mutation has a 28% chance of developing Parkinson’s by the age of 59, 51% by the age of 69 and 74% by the age of 79."


Jon Peltier

Re the Freakonomics charts. Don't look at them as bar charts, look at them as step charts. Not as good as a smooth continuous curve, but it shows the distribution in other ways without giving equal weight (equal bar thickness) to grossly unequal sample/bin sizes.


"I don't see why the first, and simplest, chart has a problem."

It doesn't really, as far as the data it's trying to show. The problem is trying to convey the extra information about how many people are affected in each tax bracket. The reason is how many people actually get this wrong. Charlie Gibson famously failed to appreciate this in *two* elections -- debates in 2004 (Kerry v Bush) and 2008 (Obama v Clinton). Somehow, the Democratic talking point of top 1% or whatever never makes it through (according to poll, I think). Personally, I think most voters aren't really thinking about taxes as much as other issues. Democrats worry otherwise. I think this is why the second chart is getting a fair bit of play in the liberal blogosphere.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter