This is the most depressing chart in the world

http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-global-economic-revisions-2016-2

by timmilton • 10 years ago

58 89 10 years ago

businessinsider.com

eCa• 10 years ago

It is depressing due to the Y-axis not starting on zero.

forgetsusername• 10 years ago

It is depressing due to the Y-axis not starting on zero

It depends on what the focus of the data is. In this case the emphasis is on the difference between the series', not their relative distance from zero. So there's nothing wrong with truncating the axis, particularly on a line chart; why have a bunch of white-space at the bottom?

Context is everything.

btrask• 10 years ago

Putting too much "emphasis" on certain parts of the graph is precisely what starting the axis at zero is supposed to protect readers from. Context is what we're trying to see!

Edit: And in this case it wouldn't have hurt readability at all. Their point still would've come across just fine.

maxerickson• 10 years ago

Start y at zero is not an absolute rule. For a chart like this where it was not aimed at the general audience, and where the chart is intended to forecast change over time, zooming in is fine.

baldfat4• 10 years ago

I have very little understanding about economics but I always am scared of large GDP growth because it seems like that is when we go into recession due to bubbles. 1980s led to the recession of the early 1990s. The mid 1990s growth became the 2007-2009 "Great Recession." So this shows growth and it is steady so I don't find this depressing.

edited one word

drjesusphd• 10 years ago

The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism. In order to convince investors to risk their money, the economy must promise a more handsome return on their investment. That's why it's "bad news" when the economy "only" grows by 1-2% per year.

coldtea8• 10 years ago

The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism.

That sounds more like a solution.

brbrodude• 10 years ago

The gods are unhappy with us :c With should have some offerings process going so the money rains again..

baldfat4• 10 years ago

The chart shows 3% to 3.5%.

saiya-jin• 10 years ago

so we don't support that much casino-style gaming with prospects of billions... not that depressing outlook. mankind will survive and adapt to much worse things than only 1-2% growth.

Show some child abuse/slavery/deaths-by-US-bombs/born-with-cancer-or-hiv graphs, that's way more depressing than this pathetic... something

rorykoehler2• 10 years ago

I know it's extremely unpopular with a segment of the economic/political philosophy fundamentalists but maybe it's time to accept that capitalism is flawed and not a cure all solution. Just because something worked under a certain set of conditions doesn't mean it will work well if at all under another set of conditions. Our conditions are clearly changing and we should adapt accordingly.

YeGoblynQueenne2• 10 years ago

edited one word

Dammit. Now I want to know what word that was and how many instances of it did you change. :(

baldfat4• 10 years ago

I was stupid and read article on ecology and this.

EDIT was:

ecology -> economics

cel1ne2• 10 years ago

THIS is the most depressing chart in the world:

https://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-00180...

dozzie6• 10 years ago

This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.

claudius• 10 years ago

Well, if the first assumption doesn’t hold, we’ll have to restrict our usage even more. Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.

coldtea8• 10 years ago

Yeah, damn that scientific consensus.

tomjen32• 10 years ago

Not really. 2c isn't a problem unless you have brought too expensive beach-front property in Malibu or something. Humans will adapt, it is what we do second-best.

SturgeonsLaw• 10 years ago

I guess those affluent villagers living in huts in the Pacific Islands will just have to relocate to Manhattan's Upper East Side?

Kristine1975• 10 years ago

I can think of a lot of depressing charts. One showing the IMF's "five year plan" failed is not among them.

guard-of-terra• 10 years ago

For me, post-demographic transition population pyramids are much more depressing. We can live without growth. Can we live without us?

Something like https://alfinnextlevel.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/736px-pop...

decasteve• 10 years ago

Troubling, but a positive sign is that extreme poverty is below 10%: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-ex...

There are fewer hungry people in the world today compared to 20 years ago, in spite adding 1 billion people to the planet.

coldtea8• 10 years ago

Why should we expect or even want constant growth?

Is current level of growth even sustainable? (regarding environment, lifestyle issues --stress, depression, etc.--, quality of production, time for people to adapt to new paradigms, etc)?

How about less "growth" and better distribution, more quality, less rat racing?

ceronman• 10 years ago

For the industrialized world, yes, this sounds reasonable. But bear in mind that the biggest portion of the world still has alarming poverty rates. Those need growth.

jjoonathan• 10 years ago

A rising tide lifts all boats and it's easy to hand-wave away the fact that it raises some boats much more effectively than others as a necessary compromise. A falling tide will be just as uneven but without a placating excuse. The true power dynamics become undeniable.

xlayn• 10 years ago

I would like to add a reference from the article that supports your point of view.

that lowered forecast eventually prove too aggressive.

As you mention better distribution is key, I would add this could spark more spending and therefore growth.

doki_pen• 10 years ago

I would expect as more of the world becomes automated and work becomes easier, we would see more economic growth.

dmm2• 10 years ago

In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Life becomes a zero-sum game. This is a qualitative change. The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most.

collyw2• 10 years ago

Certain people seem to have more than enough to share around. Instead they seem to concentrate on accumulating more of it by (often by taking it from other people).

SonicSoul• 10 years ago

are you sure those are the only 2 options? that's like saying you can't improve your apartment w/out influx of new furniture.

TelmoMenezes• 10 years ago

Life is already a negative-sum game for the majority of people. The common citizen has to work more and more hours and still gets diminishing returns, while a very small percentage of the population accumulates an increasing chunk of the resources.

Zero-sum game would feel like a huge improvement for most.

cookingrobot• 10 years ago

It's better when things get cheaper, which is the opposite of growth.

coldtea8• 10 years ago

In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else.

Part of my point is that there are more than enough resources, what's needed is better distribution. Plus some scaling down the over-consumption of crap.

Besides this "taking it from someone else" is already the case with the growth model, were not only a tiny fraction of the population has a huge percentage of the world's wealth (debt aside, I know those arguments too), but people can be making $1000 Armani suits for 12 hours a day in the third world just to have the same, or even worse, quality of life as they did before their country was forced into globalization.

For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world, as colonialists, neo-colonialists, slave owners, democrary-bringers etc, plus heavy internal forcing of people (e.g. the rural population) to become factory workers.

Now we've come to the point technologically that we don't need all those people anyway -- not even the service industry which we invented as a stop gap to have people employed.

baldfat4• 10 years ago

The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most

Explains the top 1% and the actual drop in slices of pie. The issue we have is we don't even realize in the States that our pie slice is smaller but the amount is slightly larger. So our pie is a few percentage points down but we have $3,000 more so no one notices.

mindslight• 10 years ago

Growth usually refers to a second derivative, whereas "getting more resources" is a first derivative.

If someone produces the same 5 widgets/month for 10 years, their business has not grown yet they've been creating resources the whole time.

The two are only equivalent when we assume that income matches expenses (no savings), which is a fundamental problem with the modern economy.

glomph• 10 years ago

Eat the rich.

pjc503• 10 years ago

That would be great, but zero growth also implies zero return on investment, and lots of current capitalist economic structures don't really work in that environment.

(Yes, growth is ultimately unsustainable, but I think there's a long way to go in bringing up e.g. large areas of Africa to Chinese growth levels)

ryandrake2• 10 years ago

Maybe society should start coming up with economic structures that do work in an environment of zero or negative return on investment, instead of just closing our eyes and pretending "forever growth" is a realistic plan.

user_0001• 10 years ago

infinite growth with finite resources is obviously a dumb plan. I think the problem with the graph is not that growth will slow down, but catastrophically crash with total devastation upon our species.

When with a bit of planning and foresight it could all be avoided.

Is a shame

pizza234• 10 years ago

Growth is intrinsic in the human condition and society; if there isn't growth, then there is some underlying problem.

I agree with the sentiment about distribution, quality, etc., but it's a completely separate domain, and I think it's crucial not to mix them.

VLM2• 10 years ago

I propose you're getting overly philosophical.

We live in a hyper-financialized economy. That means everything relies on (cheap) debt. A lot of debt repayment plans relied on "everything is awesome" as economic prediction, as a justification for the initial investment. What happens to all those financial plans when growth predictions impact reality like a bug hitting a windshield? That might be a little problem.

Top to bottom, from the worlds largest alternative oil source projects down to housing bubble mortgages and high credit card balances. Oh no fears the predictions show high growth into perpetuity that'll take care of everything eventually. Until it doesn't. Whoops.

There is also the ongoing implication of lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice (or five times in this example) shame on me. So you can make deals based on lies about the future one time, two times, three times. But its getting to the point that future predictions are now assumed to be lies, and that has major effects on current deal making. Whats the effect on your commission today for selling a loan balance based on now-2% vs a couple years ago selling a much higher loan balance based on now+3%? Can you even sell loans now? Can a hyperfinancialized economy survive a debt market freeze up? A lot of players won't. Get the printing presses fired up for the inevitable bailouts...

tomjen32• 10 years ago

What do you want more of? Health, leisure time, vacations, quality food, a better environment, more children living past their 1 (or fifth) birthday?

Growth gets you that.

Growth has made it possible to buy a fridge, an oven, a vaccum cleaner, a dishwasher and a washing machine, all for relatively trivial amounts of money. Together they made it possible for litterally millions of women to persue their dreams (whether that is to have a career, start a business or just spend more time with their children). I have no idea what kind of magic the future could hold, but I find it extremely destressing that anybody could even ask that question.

Oh and if you don't why a washing machine is necessary, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...

xlm17172• 10 years ago

If you stop the growth, there will be more rat racing. Our current level of growth isn't sustainable because at best it's flat, at worst it's trending downward. This will lead to even more stress, depression, etc., even worse quality of production. Sure, people will have more time, but they will be too desperate to take the time to adapt to new paradigms. And try getting someone to worry about the environment when they are already worrying about making rent.

ryandrake2• 10 years ago

There's already a word for "growth for the sake of growth": Cancer

dschiptsov2• 10 years ago

Which proves that GDP forecasts especially on a global scale is bullshit.

Continuous growth is another idiotic concept with contradicts with fluctuating, co-evolutionary nature of vastly complex competitive ecosystems (multi-level host-parasite co-evolution).

The difficulty is the same as with forecasting weather in areas with unique microclimates - each tiny valley in Himalaya has its own. One has to monitor its unique conditions to find recurring patterns and constraints.

Global forecasts of wastly complex processes are bullshit and attempts to use avarages is bullshit too.

There are thousands niche microeconomies witchin every region in the wirld, each controlled by its own unique constraints and variables and influenced by some variables of neighborhooring and related niches, etc. There are also climate, sociological, political, cultural factors, etc.

All such complicated models are wrong. They, like myths and religions, have no connection to actual reality while being taken on faith by corresponding sectarians.

mikebelanger• 10 years ago

GDP isn't bullshit, but it doesn't necessarily matter as much as other macroeconomic measures. For instance, some other commenters here have mentioned demographics, our projected carbon footprint, or levels of extreme poverty as being a more important focus.

dschiptsov2• 10 years ago

Forecasting is.

wimagguc• 10 years ago

Why did the IMF predict in each and every year that the downturn is over and the economy is going to grow in the next year? Is this perhaps a positive psychology thing?

Or is it only IMF? I've tried to find other predictions, and for example, the World Bank seems to be counting with a less rosy 2.9%: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-bank-downgrades-global-eco...

smackay• 10 years ago

Seems to me from my naive viewpoint that efficiency also needs to be taken into account. If my disposable incomes is fixed but each year we get better at making all the things I need so they cost less then, yes, growth in GDP will be stagnant or even declining but every year I will be better off (more stuff) than the year before.

jessaustin• 10 years ago

Wat? Lower growth than expected by some organization to whom nobody looks for accurate growth forecasts? That's depressing?

npalli• 10 years ago

If you look at the underlying table [1], it looks like they will miss it again. Most importantly they keep forecasting China to grow at >6% in the short term. China is in a deep transition right now, 50% of their economy is in investment (building stuff mostly). This was fine in 2008-2011, but right now that has to stop, very quickly. They have run out of productive investments that make sense. Even if they grow at 0% they still need to find $6 Trillion of investment every year!, that's how lopsided their economy is. The transition to consumer and services will take time only because the hole from investment is so large ($6 Trillion/year). The fallout is that other economies that depend on Chinese investment will suffer lower growth as well. China and rest of world dependent on china make maybe 1/2 of the forecasted growth. I question how much will materialize.

[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/01/pdf/0...

VLM2• 10 years ago

"They have run out of productive investments that make sense."

This used to be the definition and justification of recessions. Liquidate recent bad investments so we can start over on a stronger more stable base. At least in the old days.

Now we do coverups and bailouts to delay and increase the inevitable. That's not going to end well.

physicality• 10 years ago

I love how every forecast is all like:

  > HEY KIDS! THIS TIME WE'RE REALLY GONNA BOUNCE RIGHT BACK! WHEEEE!

...and then it never does.

slantaclaus• 10 years ago

I've always been a cannibal strategy investor when it comes to my AMZN holdings

porkradish• 10 years ago

This "growth rate" measured in percent has always concerned me. It looks to be unsustainable. Interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

xlm17172• 10 years ago

That doesn't look depressing. That looks unreservedly optimistic.

chad_strategic• 10 years ago

Businessinsider = clickbait

This is the most depressing chart in the world

Related Stories