Thursday, October 31, 2013

Components and Context


Yesterday's graph: components of debt, as a percent of total debt:

Graph #1: Components of Debt, relative to Total Debt
Nonfinancial other than Federal (blue) ... Federal Debt (green)
Financial Debt (red) ... Foreign Borrowings (orange)
Click the Graph for the FRED Source Page
Today, the same components of debt, as a percent of GDP:

Graph #2: Components of Debt, relative to GDP
Nonfinancial other than Federal (blue) ... Federal Debt (green)
Financial Debt (red) ... Foreign Borrowings (orange)
Click the Graph for the FRED Source Page
The only difference between the two graphs is the denominator. For Graph #1 the denominator is TCMDO debt. For Graph #2, the denominator is GDP. GDP grew more slowly than debt, so the lines go up more on the second graph.

The difference between the two graphs is substantial.


In a recent post, as an afterthought, I wrote: why they always show debt relative to GDP is beyond me.

Geerussell picked up on that, and responded:

I assume it's because looking at anything relative to GDP is convenient shorthand to get a sense of scale...

Jazzbumpa picked up on it, too, noting:

geerussell is right. It provides context. National [or any other kind of] debt right now is some big scary number, while the same debt in, say, 1921, would look like an insignificant number - without context.

Agreed. Agreed. But look at the two graphs above. Each graph has a "context". Each has a denominator to provide context. The denominators are different, that's all.

For comparing the components of debt, total debt is the better context.


// Related post: Federal Debt Held By Federal Reserve Banks

4 comments:

geerussell said...

"as an afterthought"

Skipping past the post and latching on to the afterthought... sometimes commenters are the kid on xmas morning who ignores the toy and plays with the box it came in :)

In the spirit of abandoning GDP and viewing components of TCMDO, I took my favorite chart that I stole from you and defaced and stripped GDP from it entirely looking only at TCMDO and components of TCMDO in relationship to each other. With the heavy black line to highlight the relationship of what we owe (red) vs what we own (green).

geerussell said...

So I put together my two favorite charts, the debt chart and the sectoral balances chart, and I put them together in an attempt to tell my favorite story.

The Arthurian said...

Okay, and when you say "we" (what we owe & what we own) you mean the MACROeconomic we, not a collection of individual microeconomic we-we's. I get it.

Come to think of it, I often do the same: focus on a minor piece of somebody's post or a throw-away line, and dwell on that bit of it.
Also, I cropped your remarks (yours and Jazz's) so I could focus on one small topic... I do tend to omit things I agree with, and focus on things that might make a more interesting discussion. (More interesting than 'yes, I agree with that'.)

Ain't FRED fun?!! FRED was down this morning around 5AM -- I couldn't get on, and I didn't know what to do with myself!

That tall black mountain on your graphs, 1996-2011, reminds me of the flat-topped mountain in the Close Encounters of the Third Kind movie.

The Arthurian said...

Oh, let me get back to you quickly. I responded to your first comment & when I posted my reply I saw your second comment. That is one WOWser of a graph you got there. I need time to absorb it. But I see already some time series that are new to me.

Thanks, geerussell!