Using a nominal dollars graph when real per capita–or even share of GDP–graph would be appropriate. And relying on a researcher at Cato.
Shame. Shame. Shame.
Tyler knows better.
Will ought to have learned better by now.
Deciding that your first priority is to play on Team Republican (or Team Democrat) rots your mind.
![\"\"](\"https://www.timworstall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/delong2.png\" "\\"delong2\\"")
Or, as we can see from here, in nominal dollars:
![\"\"](\"https://www.timworstall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/totalspend.png\" "\\"totalspend\\"")
Or in 2005$:
![\"\"](\"https://www.timworstall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/totalspendchained.png\" "\\"totalspendchained\\"")
Or as percentage of GDP:
![\"\"](\"https://www.timworstall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/totalspendgdp.png\" "\\"totalspendgdp\\"")
Or as %ge of GDP line?
![\"\"](\"https://www.timworstall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/totalspendgdpline.png\" "\\"totalspendgdpline\\"")
Yes, I think the good professor has a point. Looking at such matters as a percentage of GDP does tell us much more than using nominal dollars, doesn\’t it?
Blah.
There’s something funny – in a very cynical way – about a partisan hack like Brad DeLong wagging a finger at others and lecturing them about the dangers of partisan hackery. I’m surprised he found the time to do so… what with having to face in the direction of Princeton five times a day and say elaborate prays to Paul Krugman.
Twat.
“does tell us much more”: strictly, I think it tells us much different.