Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
12 comments
Brat O'Matic

@yuki2501 @futurebird

I mean, the stats themselves are OK, but dang, that dataviz. Whoever designed it was either incompetent or malicious.

Reminds me of the stuff you'd see on Fox News.

Dr. Jorge Caballero

@futurebird if trends continue, they'll catch up in the year ~3000 😱

If climate change hasn't sizzled or drowned us

JustAFrog

@futurebird I know plenty of people who simply wouldn't understand anything other than "highest line spends most".

A lot of misinformation is like that. The truth is one step further out, and that's just far enough that most won't reach it.

Biggles

@futurebird to make things more complicated, don't forget about Purchasing Power Parity..
There's an excellent excellent presentation by Perun over on Youtube (professional defence economics analyst)

Ignoring the 'omg teh reds' alarmism, the Chinese are getting a lot more bang for their buck.
youtu.be/mH5TlcMo_m4

CrazyMyra

@futurebird Similar game being played on climate change stats. The US and China are neck and neck for the dishonour of "world's biggest polluter", but you wouldn't know that from the graphs in Western media.

starling

@futurebird the scales are off by a factor of 2 as well. everything except the US should be squashed to 50% height

TripTilt /// tt

@futurebird the EU is so far off and didn't even fit on the list or would have needed a "middle axis'?

rugk

@_tt_ @futurebird it is about countries, so likely only a single EU country could be listed. Don't know how much all EU countries spending together would for into that.

Inga stands with Ukraine

@futurebird and even that one makes China seem larger (compared to US) than it actually is, because the lower half is stretched 2x compared to the upper half (with 50B per tick instead of 100B per tick).
Making it look as if China is over half of US now, and close to the lowest value of US on this graph, while it's actually one third of US (~270 vs ~800), and a bit over half of US lowest value (under 500 in 1998)

Go Up