Nothing says the dollar has only one way to go in the long run (hint: it's not up) like this oldie-but-goody graph of U.S. price levels from 1665 to 2013 (estimated) by Robert C. Sahr, Associate Professor of Political Science at Oregon State University:
(Hat tip to Reddit.)








I wonder why the graph used linear scale, not log scale.
Posted by: Man | August 09, 2009 at 09:54 PM
Man: It's a very deceptive graph. But it's Mr. Panzer's blog so he gets to choose the graphs.
Posted by: Rocky | August 10, 2009 at 02:12 PM
I don't see the value of using logarithmic scale. You can always find a transformation and a metric giving you a space in which the graph looks exactly how you want it to look.
I think it makes the point quite well - the growth is accelerating.
But I am curious, why would using logarithmic scale be more approbriate here?
Posted by: Alexandra | August 10, 2009 at 02:31 PM
how terrible that the dollar is going down!!! now tell me which era on the chart you would have preferred to live in...
Posted by: ds | August 11, 2009 at 03:57 AM
I agree with that in the long run the dollar is doomed, and also that the govt stimulus is a big waste of money that is not contributing to the long term benefit of the economy or this country. Unfortunately there is not much the average person can do to change the government policies, outside of trying to raise awareness of the problems and invest in those areas that should benefit from the government's actions. I actually came across a good article on this website that has a good discussion of these issues: http://www.goldalert.com/stories/Deflation-Fighting-Gold.php
Posted by: jturner | August 11, 2009 at 03:07 PM