4 ms·
Looking linear graph of an exponential process and seeing an apparent rapid increase at a certain point doesn't really prove anything. That's just what an expon
by aninhumer 9y ago
Looking linear graph of an exponential process and seeing an apparent rapid increase at a certain point doesn't really prove anything. That's just what an exponential graph looks like.
If I instead look at the log graph, it looks more like the value of currency was approximately stable before 1900, and then started to trend upwards some time after that. I'm not sure how to interpret that, but if you were intending to point to the end of the gold standard, this data doesn't really support that. There is a slight surge around 1970, but only relative to a general trend.
- magoghm 9y agoWhen I look at the average rate of inflation from 1900 10 1970, it is 2.26% per year: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1900+dollars+in+1970 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1900+dollars+in+19... And when I look at the average rate of inflation from 1970 to 2017, it is 4.01% per year: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1970+dollars+in+2017 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1970+dollars+in+20... Both of them are exponential growths, but with quite different rates.
- aninhumer 9y agoAnd for 1970 to 1980 it's 7.82% per year: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1970+dollars+in+1980 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000+1970+dollars+in+19... As I said, there was a surge around 1970, so yes, if you take a period that includes that surge, it will probably have a higher rate than one that does not.