While on the subject of not-very-GOOD information graphics (see the previous blog entry below, from my fellow Empaxer Ehud Tal), here’s another example, this time from the New York Times.
The introductory text asks:
“Which party (since 1929) has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?”
And the accompanying charts demonstrate that:
“As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only…(while)…invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671…”
OK so when I first saw this I thought, Cool!!! Pretty arrows!!! However, upon further examination, it became clear to me that, while everything looks super-tasty–and many will doubtless enjoy it with a nice hot cup of smug–it doesn’t really cut the mustard. Now that I’m done with the food metaphors, I will explain why even though I’m no expert, this is no more than a feel-good thingy for people who like blue stuff:
1) Aside from the Depression, it doesn’t make any allowances for whacky things like the dot com boom or the current meltdown.
2) Also it just goes by who was in the White House, nothing to do with what was happening in Congress–or for that matter the Supreme Court.
3) And I could be wrong but isn’t it weird to not look at this chronologically? I mean, surely what one administration does would affect the next one? I don’t get it.
There’s probably a lot more stuff that could be written but I don’t know what it is, so I’ll summarize by saying that an “infographic” ought to present “info” that is meaningful. Otherwise, as my mother would say, it’s all fur coat and no knickers.