File talk:USDebt.png

The % of GDP graph should start at 0. It hurts so little to add a little more space at the bottom and is misleading, making it look like we almost paid off our WWII debt in the 70s when it was not really that close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a zero on the y-axis helps, so I altered both parts to include zero. Thanks for the suggestion! O¹⁸ (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Gross Debt Chart[edit]

In the plot line for gross debt, there is a dip at about 1998-2000, and I simply don't understand where this is coming from. The tabled data shows marginal, but still positive increases for those years.

Am I missing some detail? That really seems to be the only discrepancy, and I don't understand where it is coming from. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missing something. The y-axis of the chart labels it as real, and the graph is of real debt. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I feel stupid now. Thanks for clearing that up. But that brings up another question. The debt as a percentage of gdp graph is, clearly, meant to add the real perspective. Why is it necessary to display the gross debt in real terms at the cost of displaying it in nominal terms? It seems like we lose perspective that way. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is really difficult to understand what a nominal graph would mean. Also, obviously the two frames look different, deflating and GDP indexing are quite different, wouldn't you agree? But if you really want it, there is an undeflated graph further down the page. 0¹⁸ (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree. I was doing some research that involved the deficit record of US Presidents in recent history, and have been running across a bunch of inconsistencies in wiki articles, particularly those regarding the last few years of Clinton's presidency. So I've been trying to figure out if there is a method to the madness, or figure out what to change to make them consistent.

I just thought the dip in the graph is a little misleading, since the gross debt never decreased in nominal terms. However, it's pretty clear that you've got this under control. Consider all questions answered and all objections withdrawn. Keep up the good work. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal Libertarian, keep in mind that this graph does show that the debt did decrease in Clinton's term in real terms, which is more important than in nominal terms. i.e. if the deficit was always less than inflation then we would be paying it down (if very slowly). 0¹⁸ (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first point, but not the rest. I fear this is rather pedantic, but I would like to make a couple of points. First, importance is relative. In this case, it entirely depends on what information you are trying to convey. Second, increasing at a lower rate than inflation does make the debt less significant, i.e. easier to pay off, but it is distinct from paying it down. In particular, the latter requires conscious action. You wouldn't say keeping money in your mattress is spending money in real terms, even though in real terms your savings are disappearing. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal Libertarian, I would say that keeping money under your mattress in a time of inflation is spending its interest. You've got to learn to think in real terms! 0¹⁸ (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that real terms are very important, but I still feel it is a mistake to disregard nominal terms. After all, the world is run in nominal terms. Apocryphal Libertarian (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The world only appears to work in nominal terms because today's dollars are both nominal and real. For example, if the world worked in nominal terms you could pay back your debts by handing over an unmature bond with the face value of the debt or an escrow account that earned interest and was not yet worth the amount of the debt. Now it is true that we don't know what a January 2011 dollar will be worth in January 2010 dollars now, so we have to guess about the future. The past is less relevant because we can't take out a loan for past dollars, but when we present figures (like the cost of a car or the amount of debt) it is substantially more easy to interpret (honest to the reader) to deflate to current year dollars. 0¹⁸ (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when does this chart get updated ?[edit]

at current rates to the debt to GDP ratio it will continue to increase and reach 94.9277% in early next year its already at 94.9274% now. when might a updated chart showing debt to GDP ratio and the total debt in nominal terms be updated showing the statistics in 2010 rateher than 2009? by the way the bugest deficit continues to fall currently but becasue we do have a deficit it does not matter if goverment spending is lessening casue any deficit right now continues to add to the debt. but buget deficit is not on this chart but im just saying that this debt bubble is a hugh problem in the USA. im just wanting to know when this chart gets up dated. 69.208.10.149 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

It reads: "United States Government Originally uploaded by O18 (talk) to en:Wikipedia (log)." That is shoddy. Is this data from the Department of the Treasury? It needs an exact source and it should have grammatically proper punctuation. Nicmart (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]