Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

When a Forecast Shouldn't be Charted
Silly chart of the day comes from Morgan Stanley, whose Jonathan Garner thinks that emerging-market infrastructure spending is likely to grow by about 12% per year over the next decade. That's an interesting forecast, but it's basically one number. Charts, by contrast, are great at displaying whole tables full of numbers, to help you see how things change over time. What happens when you try to stretch one number like 12% to the point at which it fills a whole chart? You get something like this:
Nothing is happening in this chart. The bars simply march up in lockstep, increasing at a steady pace, with all the different regions keeping exactly the same share of infrastructure spending as they have today. It's a way of taking an educated estimate - that 12% figure - and giving it some spurious graphical authority. That authority is then bolstered by that list of sources at the bottom, which includes the World Bank. (Which I'm sure was used just to find out present-day ratios, not for its forecasts.)
In general, it's OK to put forecasts in bar charts like this one, but only as the final bar or two of a long series of actual figures. If the chart had shown infrastructure spending from say 1997 to 2010, that would be one thing. It would have lots of actual data, and then a bit of forecasting at the end. But an entire chart which is nothing but forecasts, and only one forecast at that? Junk.






