> The graph there is not 0 based for its Y-axis Where did this 0 based graph fallacy originate? There is nothing magical about 0, and in many graphs it doesn't

> The graph there is not 0 based for its Y-axis Where did this 0 based graph fallacy originate? There is nothing magical about 0, and in many graphs it doesn't make sense to show at all. Do you criticize atmospheric CO2 plots because they don't start at 0 CO2 which hasn't been the case for billions of years? Do you think you should plot human body temperature reading with 0 in which the human body is more than frozen? Should BRK-A stock movements always be plotted from 0? The limits of a chart should be scaled to the meaningful realistic values, and it's okay to have the bottom and top of the chart be some epsilon smaller/lager than the highest magnitude observed extremes. This has the nice visual property of conveying "near the top or bottom means it's more extreme". Home ownership has never realistically been close to 0, showing zero to hide the fluctuations is not "more honest", it's less so. Most meaningful data cannot be visualized and understood correctly if you assume that all charts should have zero.